Download The Gilgamesh Epic Emerges: Deciphering Cuneiform Brings

www.jbu.edu/academics/journal
History
7
The Gilgamesh Epic Emerges:
Deciphering Cuneiform Brings
Antiquity to Light
Emily Nuss
Social Studies Education
Pioneers in the field of archeology began to uncover ancient documents a century and a half ago that have come to reshape our perceptions
of humanity and history. Work was concentrated in the Near East, as regional histories struck a familiar cord with Christian Europe and
America. Adventurers and excavators competed to collect sensational statues and monuments to fill museums at home early on, but academics took up a quieter task while the work continued. The latter began to carefully decipher the ancient cuneiform scripts which were brought
to light by the energies of those excavating antiquities. Especially in Mesopotamia, thousands of clay tablets, mostly relating business transactions, but sometimes recording early myths, communicated volumes about the ancient Assyrians, Babylonians, Akkadians, Summerians,
Hittites, and Huranians—all forgotten peoples who once inhabited the now-arid region. The wealth of knowledge discovered through the
decipherment and translation of cuneiform received little recognition, however, until fragments of the Gilgamesh Epic, containing a parallel
to the biblical Flood account, came to light. This paper will describe how archeology in Mesopotamia was shaped by biblical observations
and how, upon such grounds, the Gilgamesh Epic came to achieve popularity. For it has become a connection point through which scholars,
students, and general audiences alike identify with a hero of old and, by identifying, extend their conceptions of human history.
No doubt our world hardly resembles the one that existed a century and a half ago. Technological innovations, global commerce, and the two world wars, among other developments, have each
served to reshape our perceptions of humanity and history. Less-recognized by many, however,
were the efforts made by pioneers in the field of archeology, especially in Mesopotamia. Through
exploration that turned to excavation, at first by curious diplomats and then by experts, numerous
antiquities were taken from the arid plains of Iraq to fill museums in London, Paris, Constantinople, Philadelphia, and Chicago. Biblical familiarity gave impulse to their work, along with the human
drive to discover. . Of all the wonders they uncovered, the most important became the cuneiform
8
tablets which have communicated more than thought possible about the ancient civilizations that inhabited the region.
Assyria flourished in the north, preceded by the kingdom
of the Akkadians, and Babylon prospered in the south upon
the achievements of their Sumerian forerunners. While the
majority of the surviving tablets contain business transactions,
extensive libraries found have supplied scholars with samples
of Mesopotamian literature. Of the stories deciphered and
translated, none have received the amount of attention that
the Gilgamesh Epic has attracted. It stands as a connection
point, whereby scholars, students, and general audiences alike
identify with a heroic individual who is distant, but shares our
human struggles. This paper will trace the early development
of archeology in Mesopotamia, as it pertains to the decipherment of cuneiform, after which I will delineate how news of
the Gilgamesh flood story was received and how it has come
to be recognized as a world masterpiece.
Early travelers to the Near East noted remarkable ruins in the wasteland of the Mesopotamian desert. One visitor
from Greece, a physician named Ctesias described the remains
he encountered in the fourth century BC.1 It possible that the
Greeks had additional knowledge of the ancient civilizations,
for the philosopher Aelian notes a character by the name of
Gilgamos in his writings during the second century.2 Another
Greek historian by the name of Berosus recorded a legend
that mimics a portion of the Gilgamesh Epic.3 In addition, the
Qur’an makes reference to the physical remains left behind
in the land between the rivers by a prehistoric people.4 But
neither the classical Greeks nor Muslim scholars worked to
uncover the apparent evidence recalling preexisting civilizations.
It was left to Europeans and Americans who were
familiar with biblical history to rediscover the ancient peoples
of the fertile crescent. Shovels, labor, and dirt are cheap, but
the chore of digging up the past is not undertaken without a
guiding purpose. The impulse to search was provided to curious Europeans through their familiarity with biblical names
and places.
Leonard Cottrell, author of Quest for Sumer, explains
that during the twelfth century a few Christian Europeans
entered Mesopotamia, among whose memoirs “one consistent thread...of Old Testament prophecy” is visible. He adds,
“No matter for what purpose Christians visited Mesopotamia, whether it was diplomacy or commerce, they could not
Broaden Journal of Undergraduate Reseach
fail to be interested in the remains of cities such as Nineveh
or Babylon which, according to Scripture, were destroyed by
God’s wrath.”5 It would seem that to these travelers making
the biblical connections was imperative. To them, the obvious response was to ascribe biblical meaning to the ruins they
observed.
In the centuries that followed, additional travelers and
explorers traversed the region, albeit still in small numbers.
They too, as Abdullah Masry who has written about traditions of archaeology in Mesopotamia explains, “began to link
visible monuments, artifacts, and written records to regional
cultural traditions.”6 Virtually nothing was known outside the
biblical frame about the histories of this area at the time, and
even what the Scriptures contributed was minimal. Classical sources did reference Egypt, Assyria, and Babylon. Of
these, the legacy of the Egyptians had remained continuous
among the learned in Europe.7 But knowledge of the great
kingdoms of the Babylonians and the Assyrians was faint. The
other peoples of the ancient Near East who predated or lived
contemporaneously with the Assyrians and the Babylonians,
such as the Hittites, Huranians, Akkadians, and Sumerians, had
been entirely forgotten. Sumeriologist Samuel Kramer from
the University of Pennsylvania explains that, “there was no
clearly recognizable trace of Sumer or its people and language
in the entire Biblical, classical, and post-classical literature.”8
As a result, early travelers to Mesopotamia formed only basic
links between the antiquities they observed and the history of
the region according to that framework with which they were
familiar, opening vast potential for later archeological inquiry.
Late in the eighteenth century, preliminary work to
extract meaning from antiquities was pioneered by a Danish geographer, Carsten Niebuhr. He copied certain Persian
inscriptions and correctly concluded that the unusual symbols
formed an ancient script. His transcriptions were published in
Copenhagen between 1774 and 1778 along with an account
written in German of his journey. Scholarship being done
simultaneously on Old Persian in India aided the decipherment of Niebuhr’s documents. Notable among those working
was a German high school teacher named Georg Grotefend,
who recognized that the inscriptions Niebuhr had copied
likely began with an imperial address and was able to identify
the names of Darius Hystaspes and Xerxes, both names from
the Old Testament, within the curious cuneiform script. His
groundbreaking achievements were announced in 1802,
www.jbu.edu/academics/journal
but they gained little notice. For, as Edward Chiera explains,
“The work was necessarily slow because in those times communication was...difficult...and many months were wasted
by individual scholars on problems which had already been
solved by their colleagues working independently.”9 In this
way, Grotefend’s discovery was overlooked, as no word of his
achievements was passed from Germany to Britain. Despite
early interest shown by both European travelers and certain
academics on the home front, the potential abroad for verifying Old Testament episodes through archeology had yet to be
widely recognized.
British diplomat and scholar Henry Rawlinson drew
attention to the matter several decades later. He had gone to
the Near East under the auspices of the English Intelligence
Service in 1835. During this period, Mesopotamia was under
the jurisdiction of the Ottoman Empire, but formal relations
had been established between the Empire and Great Britain.
Contrell describes how “consular agents were appointed at
Mosul and Baghdad, usually young men of education who
occupied their leisure in exploration and occasionally a little
amateur excavation.”10 Rawlinson was just such an agent who
had learned some Persian during a former placement in India.
Upon arrival in Baghdad, he became interested in a certain
curiosity—the Behistun rock—on which a proclamation was
inscribed in three languages. It was erected high on a cliff face
along the ancient road east out of Babylon by King Darius
Hystaspes in the sixth century BC. Rawlinson recounts in a
personal narrative his feat of copying the symbols of the most
inaccessible Persian portion of the inscription by the assistance of a “wild Kurdish boy.”11 He describes the ordeal as an
adventure, including each danger and miracle. After making
further notations, the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society published a translation of the Persian portion in 1846 along with
copies of the cuneiform originals in Elamite and Akkadian.12
About the discovery Rawlinson claims, “[It] is almost of equal
value for the interpretation of the Assyrian inscriptions as was
the Greek translation of the Rosetta Stone for the intelligence
of the hieroglyphic texts of Egypt.”13 He realized the immense importance of his discovery, estimating that it would
certainly impact the early study of cuneiform. Unlike Grotefend, his efforts were recognized and others came to build on
his achievement.
At the same time, Frenchman Paul-Emile Botta had
begun excavations as Khorsabad, in 1842, and his friend
9
and competitor, Austin Henry Layard, was beginning to dig
at Nimrud and Nineveh, in 1845. The work of these men
resulted in quantities of bricks, tablets, and cylinders engraved
with the curious markings being shipped to Europe along with
more impressive sculptures. Both the British Museum and the
Louvre became storehouses for the ancient treasures. Since
monuments and reliefs drew more attention, neither Botta
nor Layard had serious regard for the inscriptions and their
workmen were prone to toss tablets aside.14 In fact, Layard
was even remembered for passing the writing off as decoration.15 But a few foresaw the tablets’ value. Rawlinson and his
assistant Hormuzd Rassam, working also at Nineveh, sent
26,000 tablets back to England between 1849 and 1854.16 Even
so, as Leo Dueul notes in Treasures of Time, “Most of these
were gathered negligently, since their discoverers were more
intrigued by winged bulls and other potential exhibits.”17
Meanwhile additional work to decifer the code had
begun in certain corners of Europe. Grotefend and Rawlinson were two pioneering scholars among several, including
Frenchman Jules Oppert and Irishman Edward Hincks.18 But
other academics disbelieved the credibility of their work. In
1857, the Royal Asiatic Society invited four leading Assyriologists, as they had come to be called, to each independently
decipher a certain text from the Tiglath Pileser cylinder at
the British Museum. To the society’s astonishment, each one
produced comparable renditions, proving their scholarship.19
Despite the success gained through this formal recognition, the task of steadily cataloging and translating the scores
of tablets had which had made their way to European museums remained daunting. A young, self-educated scholar who
admitted he was fated for the work appeared on the scene
when the time was ripe.20 George Smith was employed by the
curator of the British museum to aid in the process of repairing and deciphering tablets. He said about himself, “For some
years I did little or nothing, but in 1866, seeing the unsatisfactory state of our knowledge of those parts of Assyrian history
which bore upon the history of the Bible, I felt anxious to do
something toward settling a few of the questions involved.”21
From 1866 to 1872, Smith searched for clues in the
Babylonian texts that had been taken from Ashurbanipal’s
library in Nineveh, hoping to construct a framework for the
history of the region based upon textual evidence rather than
the biblical narrative. More often than not, however, his notable finds related to Old Testament episodes. But these
10
points of connection were minor compared to what he calls
“a far more interesting discovery” made in 1872.22 That year,
he happened upon a fragment that contained a Babylonian
parallel to the biblical flood, and on December 3, he read a paper to the Society of Biblical Archeology entitled The Chaldean
Account of the Deluge. From his title it is obvious that the Bible
was the accepted historical standard. Against it, this foreign
account—the first fragment of the Gilgamesh Epic discovered—gained instant recognition.
Both Alexander Heidel and N. K. Sandars, each experts on the Babylonian account, remark on the impact made
by Smith’s report. Heidel says the announcement “created
tremendous enthusiasm throughout Europe and gave a great
impetus to the study of cuneiform inscriptions in general.”23
Sandars likewise notes that “interest was immediate and
widespread.”24 The Daily Telegraph in London responded by
sponsoring Smith to go to Nineveh to search for additional
fragments. In turn, Smith agreed to supply the Telegraph with
news detailing what he found. Thus, at the demand of the
public, Smith set out for the field himself.
Smith joined those at Nineveh where Layard had
been digging and quickly found precisely what he was seeking: fifteen lines of missing text. Scholars now realize that the
lines Smith found were actually from the Atram-hasis legend,
another parallel poem, however Smith was unable to discern
this technicality at the time.25
The Telegraph promptly published Smith’s discovery,
but erroneously added the phrase “as the season is ending”
near the end of its article to imply that its interest in Smith’s
work was conditioned upon this singular find.26 Smith does
not conclude from the Telegraph’s notice that the public was entirely uninterested in the work as a whole, but he does take its
response as a personal knock.27 The British public was indeed
curious about the excavations being done abroad, but were
not fully supportive.
In America, Smith’s announcement was published
in newspapers in Trenton, San Francisco, New Hampshire,
Baltimore, and Chicago. The Trenton State Gazette printed a
headline stating that the Bible story had been confirmed by
“Chaldaic sources.”28 The content of the article was transfered
from what had been published by the London Telegraph
earlier in the week. Two identical copies were put out by the
San Fransisco Bulletin29 and the New-Hampshire Patriot30 within
the next two weeks. By early January, The Sun31 from Baltimore
Broaden Journal of Undergraduate Reseach
and Pomeroy’s Democrate32 from Chicago also followed the story.
Pomeroy’s Democrate included only a brief summary note, but
The Sun discussed the episode at length.
Further attention was given to the discovery later
in 1973 after Smith had found the additional fragment at
Nineveh. The Sioux City Journal relayed a piece from New York
in May that overviewed “foreign” news. Smith’s discovery at
the kings’ library was included, and in fact, the entire column
bore the title: “Discovery of Interesting Relics at Nineveh,” although a dozen other news items were listed above and below
this one.33 Also in May, the Little Rock Daily Republican34 and
the Trenton State Gazette35 noted the news from London. The
paper in Trenton included this phrase in its announcement: “A
discovery frought with deepest interest to the human race is
reported to have been made in the excavations in Assyria.”36
Evidently, the value of Smith’s discovery for humanity at large
was already recognized. These papers immediately followed
the Telegraph’s release on May 21.37
In October, more news from Smith came from
London. The Little Rock Daily Republican38 and the San Fransisco
Bulletin39 published it under the headline “Assyrian Discovery.” This extended article reported that Smith brought more
than four hundred tablets back from the Near East, in which
the “history, politics, astronomy, mythology, geography, and
language of ancient Assyria” were disclosed. But to avoid
boring its readers, Smith chooses to focus on “a text that has
attracted most attention—that, namely, which belongs to the
deluge series.” He notes how this same text had impressed
both students and scholars during the previous year when he
had made his initial announcment, and then summarizes the
content of the fifteen new lines had uncovered. Curiously
enough, after providing the summary, Smith closes by saying,
“I need not dwell upon the interest of placing this account
side by side with that contained in the Book of Genesis.” In
this phrase, he intimates that he is privy to more knowledge
about the legend, while admitting that it is easier to report that
which will be popularly understood.
European and American sentiments regarding George
Smith’s discovery—and in fact the entire emerging field of
Assyriology—would have been characteristically different,
perhaps even non-existent, had Europe not expressed cultural
familiarity with the biblical narrative. Contrell explains, “It is
difficult for our modern, secularized civilisation [sic] to appreciate the excitement that was aroused in Europe by the news...
www.jbu.edu/academics/journal
that the fabulous cities of the Old Testament, Nineveh and
Babylon, could still be identified and excavated. Our Victorian
forefathers lived far closer to the Bible than most of us do
today.”40 When news came from Mesopotamia, the obvious
popular connection was biblical. For until the mid-nineteenth
century, it had been the source of ancient history. Mogens
Trolle Larsen, author of Conquest of Assyria: Excavations in
an Antique Land, points out that, “What gave Mesopotamian
discoveries their particular interest was the feeling that the
archeologists were hunting for the very beginning of human
history, as perceived in light of the sacred writings.”41
Moreover, beyond uncovering of the ancient historical past, discoveries made in Mesopotamia were simply
interesting. The news articles published in America during
the latter half of the nineteenth century and the beginning of
the twentieth century use the adjective interesting repeatedly.
An article published by the Trenton State Gazette in September of 1873 which describes the hassles of transporting the
antiquities Smith had gathered while abroad back to England
provides several examples.42 At least three times the article
uses the descriptor. First there is the phrase: “To light upon so
precious a page of antique record, so absorbingly interesting
at once to the naturalist and the Biblical student, was indubitably lucky.” Then also: “A brick inscription...will be of interest
to chronologists,” and, “objects of high interest were actually
unearthed and packed away on the morning of his departure.”
More often than any other adjective, and often without a parallel term, the word interest is used to describe the discoveries.
It suggests fascination and curiosity. Excavators in Mesopotamia were surely uncovering items of great intrigue, made
so because they were foreign, ancient, other-worldly, and yet
somehow close through biblical familiarity.
Even so, the word interest also directly reflects that
emotional response to curios collected while touring abroad
that is immediately intense, but short-lived. The antiquities
gathered were meant for display, and as such, were interesting.
Descriptions from this September article say as much. The
article tells how the antiquities sent by Smith were boxed, then
transported on the backs of mules across the desert, at one
point nearly being lost down a stream, before being delivered
to Alexandria. There, the boxes passed by customs officials
and were sent on to London.43 These details are interesting
because they are sensational. Just as Rawlinson described his
own adventure with the Behistun rock, so this article provides
11
details for popular enjoyment.
Distinct from the technical and obscure progress
being made by the Assyriologists who became admittedly
secluded, the story of discovering the Babylonian deluge was
a piece that could be popularly understood.44 For this reason
it received the most attention, as an article published in San
Francisco in 1875 explains, “This latter part of the story...is
to us the most interesting portion of the narrative, because
the author has here woven into his text the account of the
deluge.”45
The discovery of a parallel story of the biblical flood
was so well propagated that, by 1898, it could be claimed that
“every Biblical scholar knows that the Hebrew account of the
deluge found in Genesis has been paralleled by two Babylonian accounts, one that of Berosus, a Babylonian historian...
and the other...found on Assyrian tablets by George Smith.”46
During the thirty years since the original announcement,
former understandings of creation and human origin were
weakened by the new knowledge gained from cuneiform
documents. Robert Biggs, translator of one recent version
of the Gilgamesh Epic, explains that Victorian England was
“rocked” by the publication of parallel accounts.47 Not only
did the Mesopotamian discoveries make the news for sake
of intrigue, but they attracted attention because they raise
questions about cultural fundamentals. For if the Babylonian
account had preceded the Old Testament version, then biblical
authority is diminished.
Also in 1898, a corresponding article from Grand
Rapids noted that Bible scholars had taken two positions
regarding the parallel accounts. Some maintained that the
biblical flood story was written by Moses, but others now believed that Moses had obtained the story from older sources.48
Elwood Worcester, whose lectures on this topic were associated with an Episcopal Church in Philadelphia, published a
text titled The Book of Genesis in the light of Modern Knowledge. He
would have sympathized with the second group. His argument
is not meant for “pious readers ‘who believe every word of
the Bible from cover to cover,’” but for those who are “eager
only to ascertain its truth.”49 In response to changing scholarly
understandings, Worcester expanded his interpretations of the
Old Testament.
The debate continues, however, despite the accommodations made by thinkers like Worcester and the fact that it
would seem that both accounts must share a common
12
source, whether historical or mythical. Another article titled
“Creation and the Deluge” from ten years earlier, this one
published in Baltimore, explains that between the two accounts “resemblances...are so numerous and striking that one
cannot but feel that both have at least a common origin.”50
Here, the author bases his conclusion on a hunch. In contrast,
Heidel, who has been recognized for some of the best thinking on the issue,51 admits that he does not know whether the
Old Testament originates from Babylonian sources.52 Chiera
likewise describes the ambiguity, saying, “It is very unusual if
after a talk on Babylonian literature someone in the audience
does not ask this question: ‘Do the cuneiform texts prove or
disprove the Bible? As one can easily surmise, it is impossible
to answer that question with ‘yes’ or ‘no’.”53
Regardless, knowledge of Babylonian and Assyrian
literature provides cultural context for understanding the Old
Testament. Ancient Hebrew has been made more understandable through linguistic studies in Babylonian, Assyrian,
Akkadian, Sumerian, and the other Near Eastern languages.
Translations for words and expressions used infrequently
in the Hebrew Old Testament have been clarified through
contextual support derived from the abundant Mesopotamian
texts.54
The deluge account comes from the larger Gilgamesh
Epic. Not until 1913 did this title for the epic appear in
newsprint.55 Initially, the hero from whom the epic receives its
name had been called Nimrod or Izdubar, and his comrade,
now known by Enkidu, was called Heabani.56 The new names
have become more accurate due to advances in linguistic skills.
In 1930, the first compilation of all the disparate
tablets was published by R. Campbell Thompson in England
under the title The Epic of Gilgamesh.57 He drew heavily from
the twelve-tablet Standard Version discovered in Ashurbanipal’s library, from which came the original eleventh tablet
deciphered by Smith. The tablets from Nineveh were written
in Assyrian, but are believed to have been originally copied
from Babylonian. The content recorded on them, which corresponded to a twelve-month annual calendar, was diverse,
having been amassed from a variety of earlier poems and
legends.58 As this major compilation was among the first of
the texts discovered and deciphered, it has formed the core of
the epic amid a myriad of analogous versions.
Andrew George, who has translated the most recent
scholarly edition of the Gilgamesh Epic, organizes the text in
Broaden Journal of Undergraduate Reseach
five categories. He lists them under the headings of the Standard Version, Babylonian Texts of the Early Second Millennium BC, Babylonian Texts of the Late Second Millennium
BC from Sites In Babylonian, Babylonian Texts of the Late
Second Millennium BC from Sites Outside Babylonian, and
Sumerian Poems.59 His groupings recognize the most significant tablets which have contributed to the most current translation now available to English readers. The Standard Version
comes from seventy-three separate manuscripts, thirty-five
from Nineveh, thirty from Babylonia, and eight from three
other regional locations.60 George explains that he includes the
variety of sources because “no adult reader is well served” by
glossing over the gaps.61
On the other hand, Maureen Gallery Kovacs who
published a version of Gilgamesh in 1989, communicates in
her introduction that almost all the gaps can now be filled.
She says, “In many instances...the missing words, lines, or
even passages can be restored on the basis of parallels from
another part of the tablet, another tablet of the same version,
or even another version, because verbatim repetition is a hallmark of Mesopotamian literature.”62 While she does carefully
construct her translation, she endeavors to produce a version
that connects the few remaining gaps.
A less technical rendition was completed by Andrew
Jackson with the help of Robert Biggs in 1992. Since then, it
has been revised, and a new edition was printed in 1997. In
the preface of the first edition, the publisher, Ladislaus Bolchazy, notes that he saw fit to release a version that is accessible to all readers. He also explains that since first encountering Gilgamesh in 1967, he has taught the epic at every pertinent
opportunity, as it is the very first literary work of its kind.63
Compared to the introductions found in these later
translations of Gilgamesh, the introductory material given by
Sandars, in 1972, focuses more on the events that led to the
discovery of the epic, rather than on the particulars demanded
by of current compilations. She sketches the back story of the
Mesopotamian excavations and speaks about the characters
portrayed in the epic, but does not discuss the various source
tablets in detail.64 Kovacs notes during the late 1980s that
much progress had been made on the technical translation
during the past twenty years.65 Since Sandars published her
version nearly twenty years before Kovacs, it stands to reason
that hers would have preceded the more recent push to complete very accurate original translations.
www.jbu.edu/academics/journal
Kovacs also observes that although Gilgamesh has
much to offer the casual reader, it has usually been popular
solely within academic circles.66 For this reason, among others,
Gilgamesh is included in the curriculum of most core undergraduate literature courses. Jennifer Pastoor and Jonathan
Himes, both professors at John Brown University, teach the
epic in courses on world literature. The university does not
require Gilgamesh to be taught, but it provides a natural starting
place.67 The text is accessible to students, with the ability “to
strike a chord in readers today,” as it “obviously did...in readers
in ancient Mesopotamia.”68 Pastoor observes that students
tend to like the story, and Himes explains that themes of
adventure and mystery found in the epic give it certain appeal.
Himes also chooses to use Gilgamesh because it is the first of
its kind, and as such, offers a neat contrast for later classical
epics. It also contributes nicely to a multicultural sampling of
texts from around the world.
Pastoor and Himes, along with the authors of recent
translations, note that Gilgamesh is fascinating,69 interesting,70
spell-binding,71 and even humorous.72 They value qualities
such as these articulated by Kovacs: “human relationships and
feelings—loneliness, friendship, love, loss, revenge, regret, and
the fear of the oblivion of death.”73 The last of her stated
emotions is especially significant. Himes commented on how
the hero Gilgamesh first tries to cheat death and then attempts
to gain eternal life. Unlike the Hebrews, who assumed life with
God was a present reality, the Mesopotamians expressed a
longing for the eternal. Despite the obvious parallels between
portions of the Gilgamesh Epic and Genesis, their messages
differ considerably. Pastoor explains how “Genesis, with its
radically different assumptions about the nature of God and
humankind, is nothing less than a polemic against Mesopotamian assumptions.”
These philosophical distinctions do not in any way
undervalue Gilgamesh. Himes personally appreciates how the
“remarkable friendship” shared between Gilgamesh and Enkidu shows that brotherly comradery and intimacy was admired
in earliest times, explaining that significant life lessons can be
learned from it and other episodes within the epic. Beyond
its content, Pastoor noted that academics are now especially
indebted to the pioneers like George Smith who was “one
of the...brilliant and fearless and unorthodox persons...who
created and essentially invented and made possible the study
of literature and history at today’s universities.” In its present
13
form, the Gilgamesh Epic represents an entire era of linguistic
and historical inquiry that has served to reshaped our world.
We now know how the early Mesopotamian peoples
ordered their lives. We know about their cosmology and political structures, as well as their economic practices and burial
customs. Our understandings of human origins have become
more complex, while the biblical narrative can now be studied
within the context of its historical surroundings. Through
the more and less sophisticated searching for those curious
clay tablets, knowledge was gained and questions were raised
to significantly enrich the Christian faith and humanity as a
whole.
EndNotes
1 Henry Rawlinson, “Climbing After Cuneiform,” in The Treasures of Time: Firsthand Accounts by
Famous Archeologists of Their Work in the Near East,
ed. Leo Duel (New York: The World Publishing Company, 1961), 128.
2 Robert D. Biggs, The Epic of Gilgamesh (Wal
conda, IL: Bolchazy-Carducci Publishers), xxxv.
3 San Francisco Bulletin (CA), December 19,
1872.
4 Edward Chiera, They Wrote on Clay: The
Babylonian Tablets Speak Today, ed. George G. Cameron
(Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1938), 41-42.
5 Leonard Cottrell, The Quest for Sumer (New
York: Putnam’s Sons, 1965), 21.
6 Abdullah H. Masry, “Traditions of Archeological Research in the Near East,” World Archeology
13, no. 2 (October 1981): 222, http://www.jstor.org/
stable/124439 (accessed November 19, 2010).
14
7 Samuel Noah Kramer, Sumerian Mythhology
(Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1972), 2.
8 Ibid.
9 Chiera, 47.
10 Cottrell, 26.
11 Rawlinson, 130.
12 Kramer, 3.
13 Rawlinson, 131.
14 Chiera, 43.
15 Leo Deuel, ed. Treasures of Time: Firsthand Accounts by Famous Archeologists of Their Work in the Near
East (New York: The World Publishing Company, 1961),
132.
16 Dueul, 132.
17 Ibid.
18 Kramer, 4-5.
19 Dueul, 127.
20 George Smith, “To Nineveh for the Daily
Telegraph,” in The Treasures of Time: Firsthand Accounts
by Famous Archeologists of Their Work in the Near East,
ed. Leo Duel (New York: The World Publishing Company,
1961), 135.
21 Ibid.
22 Smith 137.
23 Alexander Heidel, The Gilgamesh Epic and Old
Testament Parallels (Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press, 1946), 2.
24 N. K. Sandars, “Introduction,” in The Epic of
Gilgamesh (New York: Viking Penguin Inc., 1972), 10.
25 Andrew George, The Epic of Gilgamesh (London: Penguin Group, 1999), xxx.
26 Smith 143.
27 Ibid.
28 Trenton State Gazette (NJ), December 10, 1872.
29 San Fransisco Bulletin (CA), December 19, 1872
30 New-Hampshire Patriot (NH), December 25,
1872.
31 The Sun (MA), January 2, 1973.
32 Pomeroy’s Democrat (IL), January 11, 1973.
33 Sioux City Journal (IA), May 21, 1873.
34 Little Rock Daily Republican (AR), May 22, 1873.
35 Trenton State Gazette (NJ), May 22, 1873.
36 Trenton State Gazette (NJ), May 22, 1873.
37 Dueul, 142.
Broaden Journal of Undergraduate Reseach
38 Little Rock Daily Republican (AR), October 10,
1873.
39 San Francisco Bulletin (CA), October 15, 1873.
40 Cottrell, 222.
41 Mogens Trolle Larsen, The Conquest of Assyria:
Excavations in an Antique Land, 1840-1860 (London: Routledge, 1996), xii.
42 Trenton State Gazette (NJ), September 16, 1873.
43 Trenton State Gazette (NJ), September 16, 1873.
44 Chiera, vi.
45 San Fransisco Bulletin (CA), February 4, 1875.
46 Minneapolis Journal (MN), February 2, 1898.
47 Biggs, xxxvi.
48 Grand Rapids Herald (MI), February 5, 1898.
Idaho Statesman (ID), October 20, 1910.
The Sun (MD), January 30, 1889.
49 Idaho Statesman (ID), October 20, 1910.
50 The Sun (MD), January 30, 1889.
51 Biggs, xxxvii.
52 Heidel, 268.
53 Chiera, 118.
54 Ibid., 132-134.
55 Fort-Worth Star Telegram (TX), August 24, 1913.
56 San Francisco Bulletin (CA), February 4, 1875.
57 Maureen Gallery Kovacs, The Epic of Gil
gamesh (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1989), xiii.
58 Minneapolis Journal (MN), February 2, 1898.
59 George, vvi.
60 Ibid., xxviii.
61 Ibid., xxviii.
62 Kovacs, xiv.
63 Biggs ix.
64 Sandars, 7-58.
65 Kovacs, xvii.
66 Ibid., xvii.
67 Jonthan Himes, interview by author, John Brown
University, December 10, 2010.
68 Jennifer Pastoor, email interview by author, December 9, 2010.
69 Biggs, ix.
70 Pastoor.
71 George, xiv.
72 Himes.
73 Kovacs, xvii.
www.jbu.edu/academics/journal
15
Shaping the Idea:
A Comparative Discussion Of
Roman Slavery and Slavery in
the American South
Ryan Stephens
History Major
The ancient institution of slavery changed whenever it was employed by new civilizations. Whenever societies became more or less dependent on its implementation, forced labor proportionally changed. Two examples of slavery are compared in the report: Roman slavery and
slavery in the American South. Both societies initially placed a ‘non-crucial’ emphasis on the institution. However, both cultures also received
an unexpectedly large influx of slaves; as the slave population rose, the value and treatment of slaves declined. My comparison focuses on
that shift in slave treatment as a measure of the variability of the institution.
The institution of slavery existed within some of the earliest human civilizations, and was arguably one of the most important elements involved in forming human thought and opinion. Robert Fogle wrote, “Slavery is not only one of the most ancient, but also one of the most long-lived
forms of economic and social organization.”1 Slavery forced cultures to collide and intermingle,
without slave labor many monuments or technological innovations might never have been realized.
Despite its age and importance, slavery was not a single, unchanging system; rather, it morphed to
fit the situation that implemented it. Time, economics, and other forces that drove slavery caused it
to fluctuate in importance and change in its cruelty. David Turley, a prominent twenty-first century
scholar on the subject explained that religions like Christianity, Islam, and Judaism have, at different
times, justified attaining slaves. He used the divides in time and culture of those examples to base
his idea that, “This glimpse of the variety and malleability of slavery indicates one of the difficulties