The Sultantepe Tablets (continued) VI. A Letter of Gilgamesh

O. R. Gurney

doi:10.2307/3642349

The Sultantepe Tablets (continued) VI. A Letter of Gilgamesh

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 June 2015

O. R. Gurney

Article contents

Extract
References

Get access

Rights & Permissions

Extract

The text here chosen for translation can hardly be compared as literature with that presented in the preceding volume of this journal; it is, however, in some ways even more remarkable. It is a fictitious letter, purporting to be addressed by none other than Gilgamesh, the famous hero of the epic and legendary king of Uruk (Erech), to the king of another city, the name of which is only partly legible and appears to be hitherto unknown. Gilgamesh, who introduces himself as king of Ur, requests his correspondent to go to a certain mountain (or country) and send him various animals, precious stones, metals and other commodities, in quantities which are completely fantastic and absurd. They are apparently to be floated down the river to Babylon. The text concludes with threats of dire retribution if he should fail to comply with this request.

No less than three copies of this strange document have been found at Sultantepe: no trace of it has been discovered at any other site. It contains a number of specifically Assyrian grammatical forms; and its inappropriate use of the phrase “from the horizon to the zenith” to indicate the extent of a king's dominions (l. 4) is paralleled only in the annals of the Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser III (745–727 B.C.).

Type: Research Article
Information: Anatolian Studies , Volume 7 , December 1957 , pp. 127 - 136

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3642349 [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: Copyright © The British Institute at Ankara 1957

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

^{page 127 note 1} It is possible that this is a scribe's mistake, due to confusion of ideograms, and that Uruk should, in fact, be read throughout the text.

^{page 127 note 2} Referred to henceforward as STT.

^{page 128 note 1} Other possible readings are Be-, Kúr-, Bar- or Na-.

^{page 128 note 2} The “ša” is a misreading.

^{page 128 note 3} The lower head extends further to the right than the upper one and may be, in fact, a horizontal, cf. l. 23.

^{page 128 note 4} B: -tú. C: -tε.

^{page 128 note 5} Or ^kurE.SAG?

^{page 128 note 6} Word omitted in C.

^{page 128 note 7} B: šak-nu.

^{page 128 note 8} B: -u.

^{page 128 note 9} Text (B only): RI.

^{page 129 note 1} Literally “son”.

^{page 129 note 2} A part of the city Erech.

^{page 129 note 3} Or perhaps “to the country (or mountain) Erish”.

^{page 129 note 4} i.e. zebras? The word may mean piebald, skewbald, dappled or striped.

^{page 129 note 5} Literally “fill”. Text perhaps corrupt.

^{page 130 note 1} lu-⌜kin⌝: C B perhaps lu-k[in.

^{page 130 note 2} bašû-u: B A : omits -u.

^{page 130 note 3} So C; B: lu-ban-sal[( = nin ?).

^{page 130 note 4} The traces of this sign were inadvertently left in pencil in the copy. They appeared as follows:

^{page 130 note 5} Text (A only): MURUB !

^{page 130 note 6} u: A. B, C: ù.

^{page 130 note 7} Text: DINGIR. MEŠ-a-a.

^{page 130 note 8} Reading subject to collation. Perhaps šum ₄.

^{page 130 note 9} The photograph appears to show a vertical which has since broken away.

^{page 130 note 10} So A. B: up-sa-as-su.

^{page 130 note 11} So A. B: tal-tu-nȧ[m-ma-ru?].

^{page 130 note 12} So A. B perhaps [šu-ú-na-]a-[t]e-šú.

^{page 130 note 13} Either UNU or SIMUG may be intended.

^{page 131 note 1} Literally “on (them)”.

^{page 131 note 2} Literally “on it”.

^{page 131 note 3} Text: my gods (apparently corrupt).

^{page 132 note 1} The old photograph shows traces of the central head.

^{page 132 note 2} If l. 43 is a run-over from l. 42, as it appears to be, the sign ú which stands at the beginning of a line in C must belong to l. 42.

^{page 132 note 3} Text apparently a.

^{page 132 note 4} So A. C perhaps ar-ḫa-[niš].

^{page 132 note 5} So C. A perhaps ⌜KA⌝ ( = amat).

^{page 132 note 6} The “MUŠ” appears to be a misreading.

^{page 132 note 7} cf. STT. nos. 84, 92; KAR. 203 iv 30Google Scholar, etc.

Article contents

The Sultantepe Tablets (continued) VI. A Letter of Gilgamesh

Extract

Access options

References

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests