The Akkadian Epic of Gilgamesh is the most widely known work of ancient Mesopotamian literature today, for many reasons. To those interested in literary history, one of Gilgamesh's most attractive features is its wealth of extant sources, which begin in the late third or early second millennium bc and to some extent permit reconstruction of the textual history that lies behind the fullest and best-known form of the poem, the so-called Standard Babylonian version generally represented on the manuscripts of the first millennium bc. Furthermore, the temporal depth of the tradition is complemented by geographical breadth: for Gilgamesh spread beyond the Sumerian and Akkadian languages of the Mesopotamian heartland, as shown, among other evidence, by the translations and adaptations of Gilgamesh in the Hurrian and Hittite languages that are attested, along with Akkadian versions, in the Hittite capital Hattusa in central Anatolia in the second half of the second millennium bc. While the Gilgamesh-texts from Hattusa are for the most part well known, readers previously had to compile the sources from a diverse range of publications: Gary Beckman's new book now collects the Akkadian, Hurrian, and Hittite material, as well as various unplaced fragments and, in an appendix, the Akkadian and Hittite versions of the Akkadian flood-epic Atrahasis, also from Hattusa. Beckman offers not just a far more convenient means to access the texts, but also a new and up-to-date edition and translation, based on examination of the tablets in the museums of Istanbul and Ankara. Note that two further fragments of the Hittite version of Gilgamesh in a private collection have recently been described by C. Mora and M. Giorgieri (“Alcuni passi del poema di Gilgamesh in due tavolette ittite inedite”, Istituto Lombardo – Accademia di Scienze e Lettere – Rendiconti di Lettere 150, 2016, 171–208); a full edition is in preparation.
The significance of the Hittite evidence is plain to see. On the textual history of Gilgamesh in general, note for instance §16 of Hittite version CTH 341.III.1: here, the description of Huwawa's cedar forest contains the fragmentary phrase “… like a musician they keep striking …”, which, as Beckman comments (p. 42), can now be recognized as the precursor to a recently discovered, more elaborate episode of the first-millennium Akkadian version, according to which Huwawa enjoyed musical entertainment provided by the animals of the forest. As Beckman notes, the Hittite version further seems to offer at least two episodes (Gilgamesh's visit to the Sea, and his encounter with the Moon-god, pp. 9–10) that are as yet otherwise unattested. The specifically Hittite interpretation of Gilgamesh is discussed in Beckman's Introduction (pp. 1–14), where he notes the changes that occurred in the Hittite version: most notably, greater prominence was accorded to the Sun- and Storm-gods (both of whom were central to the Hittite pantheon) and to geographical locations that were closer to the Hittite sphere of interest.
Beckman's generally brief exegesis of the sources offers starting points for several questions that could be explored in greater depth. On the Hittite side, the Introduction does little to situate the Hittite adaptation of Gilgamesh in the context of other Hittite adaptations of Sumero-Akkadian texts, such as rituals, religious poetry, or lexical lists, which have been the subject of much recent research. On the relationship between the Hittite Gilgamesh and the Sumero-Akkadian evidence, Beckman's treatment does not mention some recently published sources: A.R. George, “The civilizing of Ea-Enkidu: an unusual tablet of the Babylonian Gilgameš Epic”, Revue d'assyriologie 101, 2008, 59–80; E. Jiménez, “New fragments of Gilgameš and other literary texts from Kuyunjik”, Iraq 76, 2014, 99–121; A.R. George, “Enkidu and the harlot: another fragment of Old Babylonian Gilgameš”, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 108, 2018, 10–21; note also a forthcoming publication by the same author in Revue d'assyriologie 113, 2019. The first of these new Akkadian sources (known as MB Priv1) is directly relevant for comparison with CTH 341.I.1 (pp. 15–18 in Beckman).
Further, while it seems certain that the written sources of Mesopotamian Gilgamesh used by scribes at Hattusa were Akkadian (p. 10), the Sumerian Gilgamesh poems nevertheless need to be considered as part of the wider literary-historical picture. While Beckman notes that the Hittite version CTH 341.III.1 opens with a prologue of the “Let me sing” type (a reading confirmed by one of the new fragments identified by Mora and Giorgieri), which differs from the known Akkadian prologues, it is worth signalling the almost identical incipit of one of the Sumerian poems, “The young man of battle, the young man of battle, let me sing his song” (Gilgamesh and the Bull of Heaven, 1). Similarly, the dialogue between Gilgamesh and Enkidu before their battle with Huwawa in the Sumerian poem Gilgamesh and Huwawa A (GH A) seems to offer points of comparison, at least, with the fragmentary obverse of the Hurrian Huwawa-poem CTH 341.II.2 (pp. 26–7) as described in the Corpus der hurritischen Sprachdenkmäler I/6, p. 16. Apart from the explicit references to Gilgamesh and Enkidu, and the recurring speech introduction formula alu = m=ai = n kad = i=a, the presence of “oil” (ḫašari, obv. 2’) brings to mind the oiling at GH A, 85–7; the phrase involving a repetition of šukk-, “one” (obv. 12’–13’) could be compared to SB V 72 (ištēn ištēnma) and MB Ug2 b 1’ (cf. a briefer Sumerian formulation at GH A, 107–8); šidurri (obv. 4’) might refer not to the barmaid, but to a “young woman” (as seen e.g. by V. Haas, “Siduri – Naḫmezuli”, Studi micenei ed egeo-anatolici 45, 2003, 129–30), reminiscent perhaps of the brides offered to Huwawa at GH A, 136–44; and I wonder, finally, whether the recurring statement šen = iffe paḫ=ed = o, “you will kill my brother” (obv. 5’, 22’, 27’–28’), which puzzled Haas, might be interpreted in light of the Sumero-Akkadian evidence for an earlier life shared by Enkidu and Huwawa (see D.O. Edzard, “Gilgameš und Huwawa A”, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 80, 1990, 165–203, at 181, and F.N.H. Al-Rawi and A.R. George, “Back to the cedar forest: the beginning and end of Tablet V of the Standard Babylonian Epic of Gilgameš”, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 66, 2014, 69–90, at 74). Note in any case that the online Catalog der Texte der Hethiter mentions a recent join, identified by M. Dijkstra (6/10/2018), with Bo 9717 = KUB 52.111 = ChS I/8 no. 178 (not included by Beckman), which helps to restore the reverse of the fragment.
