Gary Beckman 2003

In this paper, G. Beckman discusses the circulation and the knowledge of Gilgamesh’s saga within the Hittite Empire: for sure, on a literary perspective, it is well known that some tablets found in the Hittite capital recorded two Akkadian versions of his tales, later translated also in Hittite and Hurrian. However, “;there is no evidence that the hero of Uruk was familiar to the Hittite in the streets. No representations of Gilgamesh are to be found in the corpus of the Hittite art, nor are there allusions to him or his exploits in texts outside of the literary products just mentioned”; (p. 37).

The conclusion that the author seems to follow is therefore that “;the Gilgamesh tradition was imported to &#7722attu&#353a solely for use in scribal instruction, although it cannot be absolutely excluded that the Hittite-language text was read aloud at court for the entertainment of the king and his associates”; (pp. 37-38).

Despite this incipit, Beckman continues in analysing the importance that the texts referring to the hero found in the Hittite capital had in the transmission of the saga and in its elaboration outside Mesopotamia. After sketching out the history and the development of the Gilgamesh’s tales (from the Early Dynastic II period until the last discoveries of related texts at Nimrud and Assur) the author presents a key question: “;When […] was something approximating the standard, or ‘canonical’, form of the narrative achieved?”; (p. 41).

The following pages are devoted to a in-depth analysis of the Hittite documentation related to Gilgamesh, starting from well-known notions and adding recent new discoveries, comparing some motifs or elements of the Anatolian versions with other texts found elsewhere.