Talk:Epic of Gilgamesh/Archive 3

"Alewife"
At the beginning of the section "tablet 10" the word "alewife" is found. When I was reading, it was confusing whether this is a type of wife (like kept woman / concubine) or whether it is a typo. I found the meaning later and there is a page on Wikipedia called Alewife (trade). So please link the word to the page. Also, maybe in 2-3 words tell what alewife means. But surely please link it so that people do not misunderstand. I tried to do it myself but the page is locked.

Done. Thank you for noticing this. Dimadick (talk) 16:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2015
66.230.116.7 (talk) 00:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC) Dates

I have noticed that the time period of the dates are not correct. It is not BC & AD, it is now known as BCE and CE(Before Common Era and Common Era)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: per Wikipedia Manual of Style, both BC and BCE are acceptable. Cannolis (talk) 00:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Non-Translated version of the Epic of Gilgamesh?
Is there a version anywhere that is written in Babylonian or PIE and not English? Aaronfranke (talk) 18:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Tablet 5-New Fragment(s) found. Update necessary
As of last year 20 new lines of tablet 5 were discovered, which have important implications in the narrative, tone and perhaps moral of the poem, especially with respect to Humbaba. Thus I propose it be updated. See link. Bodha2 (talk) 07:46, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Several POV issues
One example: ''The main point seems to be that when Enlil granted eternal life it was a unique gift. As if to demonstrate this point, Utnapishtim challenges Gilgamesh to stay awake for six days and seven nights.''

Why Enlil granted eternal life is explained by his iconography alone (the horned cap Gods were wearing). He was seen as the crown of the Gods, rather than the Gods by themselves. He (Utnapishtim and his wife) was not the only who was granted eternal life, Enkidu who was created to get rid of Gilgamesh arrogance did return from the dead (that those were add-ons or not is irrelevant). Enkidu resurrection was possible mostly because he was kept ignorant of human society (remained humble) until he learned the basic constants by Shamhat. The story is similar to Tammuz journey to the underworld and return. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 23:08, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Could you cite that passage(s) in WP:NPOV that this violates? Thanks. Doug Weller  talk 11:46, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Doug,

I just gave an example above (it can't be NPOVed, because the whole article has to be reworked), and reason I provided that example was because the whole Gilgamesh Epic revolves around his failure to be granted eternal Kingship (not life). He was seeking social immortality (him as king). The only social immortality he could have won was the mask of the Gods (Enlil) not Gods by themselves. To explain it in a language everyone could understand. Suppose that someone creates a Wikipedia account with all the bureaucratic rights and decides that this account will live on forever. After his death, that mask (account) is given to someone else, then another. That was what Enlil was, the crown (when everyone vanished by the flood, the only survivor wear it, in short for him to wear the crown for all eternity he should be the only living person (provided that he become immortal himself) on Earth :) ). This concept is even present in some current religions. The Alawis trinity separate the mask (name) and its feeder as only mean to achieve immortality. Enkidu quest was the immortality of the wild untainted man (not the same as Gilgamesh quest). For that he had to journey in the underworld and get rid of his mortal social identity (easy for him, because for most of his life he was kept isolated). Enkidu the wild man is redeemed, accepting that he won’t wear the crown. Pieces of the story were recycled in Hercules labors, [in it] Prometeus and Chiron switched… Chiron got his name written in heaven… name-immortality allowing Hercules to continue on his quest.

Don’t you see where is the problem in accepting articles just because sources can be provided? You can write about anything and it doesn't need to be making sense. Let me add another rule on Wikipedia, not only sources should be added, an article should be understandable by the common Joe or Bob in human language, not machine :). The whole article appear just to be nonsense, when what the Epic is all about still stand to this day. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 00:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Just quoting from Campbell to not be accused of OR: The gods and goddesses then are to be understood as embodiments and custodians of the elixir of Imperishable Being but not themselves the Ultimate in its primary state. What the hero seeks through his intercourse with them is therefore not finally themselves, but their grace, i.e., the power of their sustaining substance. This miraculous energy-substance and this alone is the Imperishable; the names and forms of the deities who everywhere embody, dispense, and represent it come and go. This is the miraculous energy of the thunderbolts of Zeus, Yahweh, and the Supreme Buddha, the fertility of the rain of Viracocha, the virtue announced by the bell rung in the Mass at the consecration, and the light of the ultimate illumination of the saint and sage. Its guardians dare release it only to the duly proven. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 00:30, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I will go even further than that, see how the subject of the Epic transcend culture that it can be found even in songs. See this videoclip here (titled: Immortelle, means Immortal in French)... the patterns used (the naked woman waiting...) are found in several myths about the woman playing the role of the daughter of man (similar to Shamhat) on top of the [Babel] towel waiting. This was recycled in the movie Babel (film), where the inspector understands the nature of the problem (authority abuse (caused by arrogance and pride, Gilgamesh fatal weakness), father of all Sin, and why any social position can not remain indefinite), father hug the girl on that building without touching her. Just to show you that I am not only sourcing what I write with Academic sources; I am going one step further by showing that that version could be sourced by movies and music (not only publications), more closer to the general population than some obscure book that most don't know about. Moral of the story, only a father has the potential to not abuse his authority (whole religions were born from that) Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 00:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

The article is not "nonsense." I do not mean to be rude in saying this, but I can think of no subtler way to put it, so I am going to be quite frank: what you just wrote is the real nonsense. What you are claiming about Enlil being a "mask" that is passed down and worn by one man after another is not scholarship; it is just outright fiction. I do not know where you are getting it from, but it is certainly not from any respectable work of Near Eastern scholarship. Movies, songs, and YouTube videos are not reliable sources by any measure. Joseph Campbell is popular with the general public, but his books are generally disregarded by serious scholars of the ancient world. Wikipedia is supposed to reflect the views of mainstream scholarship and what you are proposing is anything but that. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Katolophyromai,


 * Did you read this from Enlil own page on Wikipedia? I am not even interpreting anything, I’m taking it as-is, without process or manipulation and without any attempt to deceive anyone. That it was the mask or crown does not invalidate that it was called a God. I am simply claiming that a crown means a crown. Don’t you agree? That Enlil was associated with the mask not only is direct observation that a cap is a cap… but is presented in the story (at least what came to us) and what was produced out of it; Gilgamesh comes with Enlil mask … but pay attention to whole story nearby… Rector, Optimate 1 and 2 etc… the context … the way the character of Enlil is presented even elsewhere makes it obvious. Why am I even justifying myself I don’t know. One modern example: Trump is the President, what gives him his power is his title of President (cap…, name) since this cap is immortal (outlive the president), we could call it a God sure, but this does not invalidate that it is just a crown. Objects in the past were given personality (Sun God etc.), does not change that they were objects. Joseph Campbell quote is simply stating this, something every 5 years old can observe, not some obscure claim found in some unknown super-hyper credible book by a hyper credible notable scholar of middle eastern pantheonology. I gave Alawi example, but even in Christianity's Father (King and ruler, name), … what can I provide more (than what a child can witness).


 * What I have been providing is not only sourced in academic literature but is confirmed in movies, music etc. that was the point of using them. I can even add the Lord of the Ring. :) My point was that it is not sufficient that something can be sourced, since I can come up with countless ways to write the article and source it. If someone relies on common principles, we should have no problem finding that in art and entertainment those subjects are dealt with.


 * The criticism about this article, is that most human (not machine that is) beings give little about the number of tablets or all this mumbo jumbo descriptives about all those kings etc… what they want to know most is what is the moral of the story, its meaning etc… Pennsylvania tablet, Yale Tablet, etc… those are secondary. If you’ve spent hours on this article, I apologize that you were offended, but I am just giving you the point of view of someone who is more interested about the story than all those descriptive infos. That’s all. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 04:30, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I actually wrote the entire article Enlil, including the "Iconography" section you are referring to. (If you do not believe me, check the edit history.) In artwork, Enlil was represented by a horned cap, but that does not in any way indicate that he was really a "mask" that was handed down from generation to generation like what you are proposing; that idea is entirely your invention and it sounds frankly much more similar to The Mask of Zorro than anything from actual Mesopotamian mythology. If you have academic sources to support your argument, then cite them; do not just say you have them and then not tell us what they are. As far as I can tell, what you are saying here sounds like a synthesis of various hypotheses you have read in non-academic writing, spliced with random tidbits of popular culture trivia and mixed in with a liberal helping of your own imagination. You may think that these connections you are coming up with are "obvious," but they are not; they are clearly original research (and not particularly convincing research at that).
 * You claim that "ordinary human beings" do not care about the number of tablets or any of that "mumbo jumbo." It is not "mumbo-jumbo." It is vital encyclopedic content that needs to be included. As to the "moral" of the story, that can vary depending on who is interpreting it. The article could benefit from an "Interpretations" section, but the section would have to deal with scholarly interpretations, not your hypothetical Campbellian connections to The Lord of the Rings. --Katolophyromai (talk) 11:44, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I think I have identified a possible source of some of the confusion here. I use the image at right in the article Enlil to give an example of what the horned crown symbol looked like. I think you may have thought that the king shown on the seal is supposed to be the incarnation of Enlil or something like that, but that was not my intention in using that image. I was simply trying to show what the crown symbol looked like. The fact that a person is shown wearing it is simply a result of the fact that I had difficulties finding an image of the crown on Wikimedia Commons that showed the crown by itself without anyone wearing it. The crown in the image is showing that the king is vested with authority to rule from Enlil, not that he is Enlil himself. Enlil was envisioned as a typical Near Eastern anthropomorphic god, but was not shown in this anthropomorphic guise in artwork because he was deemed too holy. As it says in the article, "Enlil himself was regarded as so glorious that even the other gods could not look upon him." --Katolophyromai (talk) 12:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Katolophyromai,


 * I know you have contributed to Enlil article, it was the point of my comment. Did you read this link I have provided? or the reference to the sleepless mountain bull? The context under which Engidu falls asleep (while Gilgamesh brings the mask), Engidu: But no: if Gilgamesh is struck dead by her god, it’s for me to inherit his statecraft.


 * I can give entire sections from Kingship and the Gods (can you have more notable book?), see whole chapter titled: The King’s Potency: The KA. (book is available here ). If you will go on to claim that it wasn’t the same for Mesopotamia, see here and compare that to the Enlil article intro and how it begins, Lord Storm (isn’t this literal translation? And I’m not the author, don’t you agree? lord storm, lord Power!) That Gods representation was defined by the meaning of their names is widespread in most major religions (isn’t this common knowledge in the field?). All those Biblical names meaning dictionaries even in Rabbinic and Christian theology?


 * The Bull of Heaven in Gilgamesh, Mithras slaying of the Bull, the Bull in Hercules labors, the calf in Moses story etc. (all the same) The corns are on the animals head, where else can they be? I’m not even interpreting anything, I’m simply calling a crown a crown! What form of what you call synthesis does it take to call a crown a crown?


 * It’s there in all major religions, see the philosophy behind the concept of Trinity, in Synesius writings for example. You’ll call that primary source, OK then, Oxford Readings in Philosophical Theology: Volume 1. Trinity, Incarnation, and Atonement (tell me how many sources do you want?). See the whole doctrine of trinity wasn’t even explicitly mentioned in the Bible, it appeared later to make sense with a human representation of immortality. The crown is a crown, does not die, the heart is basic human emotions everyone possess (does not rely on one person), and true knowledge can be passed on from one person to the next. The identity you create from the three can not die. What Gilgamesh was seeking was to keep any form of immortal Kingship in one person (himself). In mythology the Islamic figure Al-Khidr succeeded, dig up to see why. He was not seeking what Gilgamesh wanted. Jung's Red Book: Salome, Elijah and the snake... all Salome could do is to tell everyone I love you (and she's even blind :))---the heart, Elijah the wise man---wisdom and the snake (power)---crown... in the story, they lived for all eternity.


 * You don’t want other references but academic, having provided some above, I will now show that what I write does not solely stand on some hyper serious publications. Check card decks here, particularly Spanish and Italian version. The Heart is replaced by a cup (Not only the grail story, Hebe who was the holder of the Cup feeding the Gods was given to Hercules when he succeeded to become immortal), there is no book (unless it’s the Bible or Quran) which is as widespread as a playing card deck, don’t you agree? Card decks will remain longer updated than any academic source. This pattern is found in the movie Pirate of the Caribbean Fountain of Youth, which recycle the same common themes. Or Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. The sacrifice for keeping on his social identity and power, was that he had to remain in the cave (being left alone).


 * The accusation of Synthesis is interesting though, who gets to decide what gets in the article and what does not? Do you have a disclosed reason why some sources are used and not the other hundreds other? Currently the article miss the boat, to be read by some nerds.


 * The problem is that having heavily contributed to this article, your position about it is similar to a mother or father position about their kid vs another persons child. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 16:30, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * First of all, I would like to clarify that is nearly impossible for me to tell what you are even trying to say at this point because you just seem to be babbling in incoherent sentence fragments. Most of what you are saying sounds like it has absolutely nothing to do with the Epic of Gilgamesh; you keep stubbornly insisting on incorporating random and irrelevant tidbits of pop culture trivia into your argument, even though I have repeatedly told you that modern popular culture is irrelevant. The only reliable sources you have cited here are Kingship and the Gods and Ancient Mesopotamian Mythology, neither of which claim anything even remotely resembling what I think you are trying to claim. The very first "reference" you cite is a fiction, modern play loosely based on the Epic of Gilgamesh; it does not qualify as a reliable source. The Holy Trinity, Al-Khidr, Salome, modern playing cards, Pirates of the Caribbean, and Indiana Jones have nothing at all to do with Gilgamesh and I have no idea why you are talking about them. Carl Jung is equally as problematic as a source as Joseph Campbell; Jung was not a scholar of ancient Mesopotamia and he died in 1961, over half a century ago at a time when many important ancient Sumerian texts were still untranslated. Finally, I would like to point out that, while I have significantly contributed to other articles on ancient Mesopotamia (including the article Enlil, which we have already discussed), my actual contributions to this particular article are relatively minor and insubstantial. (Check the edit history; I have edited it several times, but mostly only to revert vandalism, correct typos, and make minor additions.) This discussion has gotten so wildly off-topic that I doubt I will respond to any future comments here, unless you start saying something coherent. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:07, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Katolophyromai, thank you for the reply, see the reason why I post in talkpages, is because unlike main articles, it is stable in time. This means that in few years from now when new sources will be added and who knows new format the article will be taking... history will confirm that this current version wasn't accurate. If it was, articles wouldn't change. The same way as your or other editors reputation wouldn't mean much. What you think users will be doing when they assess the credibility of the material they are reading. Because they will hell realise one day that if authors are changed, they will change. The only version they will be accepting as accurate, is what they understand in their everyday languages, of things which they can confirm in their everyday life, by just watching a movie or witnessing their own current political system. If those authors identity was hidden or you had no user page to begin with, on what basis credibility will be assessed. I think, by this I made my point... you can accuse me, or throwing anything to answer what I write, all of those are temporary, like the main pages of articles. Glad you took the time to read what I had to write. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 19:19, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I see you love mythology, so I'll answer you with myths. Weren't the Giants (famous and nobles) in Greek mythology created by Uranus blood, using his mothers womb to replicate himself entirely (just another recounting of Narssist story)? How did it end? The Giants couldn't achieve in becoming God... for the reason outlined in King Nimrod (also a Giant) attempt to construct a tower to rule on everyone. Why didn't it work? Giants visibility (call it pride or arrogance) was their fatal weakness. Why am I stating this? In the Quran account about Abraham [Surah] titled The Cow, the reference to the King was translated in Islamic literature as Nimrod (Giant, the mask of Kingship). For you to invalidate that the central story of the Epic revolves around that, you have to deal with all what is recounted in all major religions of all ages (not only in Mesopotamia, but around the world), symbols, paintings. It'll take just more than some recent authors who will be replaced in few decades to do that (since Giants don't live indefinitely, moral of Gilgamesh story). Uranus Genitals alone, one would believe created the prettiest Goddess (as Narcissist would believe from his reflection), but for those who know, she wasn't the prettiest Goddess in Greek mythology, it was Kale (mythology), that's because she was kept invisible protecting her from the arrow (Armenian legends have it) that killed Nimrod. The same way as the Epic was the the ascension of Gilgamesh companion, not he. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 19:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think I am starting to see what you are doing here. You are not actually talking about the Epic of Gilgamesh itself at all; you are drawing cross-cultural comparisons talking about other works containing similar themes to those found in the Epic of Gilgamesh. It is interesting trivia, but I do not think it belongs in an encyclopedia article about the Epic of Gilgamesh, especially since you have still failed to provide reliable sources that make these comparisons. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Epic of Gilgamesh influence on other legends is colossal, more so than number of tablets or name of Kings. But anyway, I think I made my point. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 19:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * As I have stated above, this is actually one of the major Mesopotamia-related articles that I have contributed very little to. I have had intentions to revise it for a long time, but I have not had time to do so because I have been too busy elsewhere. When I do ultimately get around to revising this article, I will definitely make sure to include a section about the Epic of Gilgamesh's impact on later literature, but the section will based on scholarly assessments of its influence, not my own speculations. For instance, it will mention that the scene with Polyphemus in the Odyssey is generally thought to be related to the scene with Humbaba in the Epic of Gilgamesh. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:16, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Great flood data from river sediment
The Euphrates river contains a 10ft layer layer of settlement which is approximately 1600 BC. This corroborates the great flood. And places Gilgamesh after that flood. Utnapishtim also is recorded as the participant in the flood epic.

However biblical texts also list a Chronology from Noah to Jesus. These have been scaled (according to the calendar of the day, three festival year or lunar ‘years”). The chronology now agrees with tree ring data from queens college and others. The flood appears certain to have resulted from the ereuption of the [santorini volcano] in early 1630 BC.

Thus we can now question the text date. Sediment carbon dating is dependent on water percolation through the soil. So they all appear different ages. But there is only one large layer among many small ones.

Thus Gilgamesh seems to be tabloid propaganda. Whereas the Noah account appears to precisely note the facts as they were found. But The gilgamesh date appears 400 years before. It sounds like a few decades after the flood. This would place it at about 1600 BC.

This paper accountingbthe biblical chronology is here.

Please note pirates prevent Wikipedia from seeing the author because they want to evade the law and damage the website owner. You are hacked and or corrupted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.231.253 (talk) 16:07, 2 August 2018‎ (UTC)


 * Whatever may have happened in 1630 BC no doubt the Gilgamesh Epic was already written and well known across the Mideast long before then, and chronology would place Gilgamesh or Bilgamesh as a real king around 2400 BC. 71.246.152.152 (talk) 17:42, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The Epic of Gilgamesh as we know it is believed to have been written during the Middle Babylonian Period (c. 1600 BC — c.  1155 BC), probably closer to the end of that period than the beginning. It almost certainly would not have been written yet at the time of the flood described above. On the other hand, everything  is spouting is complete nonsense. For one thing, there is an older version of the flood story written in Sumerian that is unconnected with the Gilgamesh epic and which is believed to date prior to the end of the Third Dynasty of Ur in around 2004 BC. Clearly, then, there were already flood stories long before the flood in 1600 BC. Furthermore, there is nothing to link the flood in 1600 BC to any supposed "Great Flood"; it was just a particularly devastating local flood and that is all we have evidence for. It is also important to note that the Flood story in the Book of Genesis was written long after the Epic of Gilgamesh. The current text of Flood story comes from three different sources, the earliest of which, the Elohistic Source, was probably written in the northern Kingdom of Israel in the late 700s BC. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:53, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the nice response. 72.94.231.253: also please note that we cannot use self-published primary sources (only reliable sources) that the article should summarize.  This talk page is also not a forum to discuss the topic but for the discussion of specific improvements to the article.  Thanks, — Paleo  Neonate  – 20:32, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * User:Katolophyromai - Gilgamesh, as you probably know was mentioned throughout the Neo-Sumerian era especially in Shulgi literature, and the earliest Sumerian tablets of Gilgamesh aren't that late when the Sumerian period was mainly over 71.246.152.152 (talk) 20:52, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between texts that mention Gilgamesh and the actual Epic of Gilgamesh. There are five Sumerian poems about Gilgamesh, but each of these poems narrates only one specific adventure and is completely independent from all the others; the poems do not form an epic. These independent Sumerian poems about Gilgamesh were later used as source material for the Epic of Gilgamesh, which was originally written in Akkadian in the Middle Babylonian Period. In other words, the Epic of Gilgamesh relies on earlier Sumerian poems written before 1600 BC, but the epic itself dates from the late second millennium. I did not mention the Sumerian poems about Gilgamesh because they are not really relevant to our discussion, since none of those Sumerian poems contain the Flood narrative. I know all this because I happen to have written the Wikipedia article about Gilgamesh. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:05, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You are also much more authoritarian in your pronouncements than the serious scholars, who tend to use much more cautious language about unknown quantities, but I do detect a sort of rigidly militant insistence on your favorite sources coloring your personal views about mysteries like the origin of Scripture. 71.246.152.152 (talk) 21:16, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * To avoid letting editors cherry-pick their primary sources, we commonly use secondary sources and tertiary sources like other encyclopedias. If you can demonstrate that these contradict the article, please point it out.  Thanks, — Paleo  Neonate  – 21:23, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "mysteries like the origin of Scripture" Not real mysteries. The Book of Genesis has been dated to the 6th century BCE, and it was likely written within the Achaemenid Empire. Dimadick (talk) 13:03, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The Book of Genesis was probably written by at least three different authors writing at different dates. A substantial portion of it was probably written by Judahite priests during the Babylonian Exile in the sixth century BC, but, yes, many parts of it were probably also composed during the Achaemenid Period. --Katolophyromai (talk) 15:31, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Already mentioned and sourced in the main article. Dimadick (talk) 15:33, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You have zero tolerance for any source or anyone dissenting from that. It is a pseudo-consensus clearly effected by emotions, hardly scientific method. 71.246.152.152 (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hardly: please read again my above post about tertiary sources. If you find that they contradict this article, that is important for Wikipedia.  If not, the article already reflects scholarship as it should.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 18:23, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

This whole discussion has gotten hopelessly off-topic. We have stopped talking about the Epic of Gilgamesh, which is the subject of this article, and now we are debating the origins of the Book of Genesis, which is not directly relevant to the Epic of Gilgamesh. Unless someone wants to propose actual changes to the article, this discussion is over as far as I am concerned. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:39, 3 August 2018 (UTC)