Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
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