31

Appendix 31

These unknown factors, crucial as they are, resist successfully every decoding for the time being. Šu-ut abnē, “those of stone,” represent “an expression which recurs and has not been explained” (S. Langdon, Semitic Mythology [1931], pp. 213f., 405). Alexander Heidel (The Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testament Parallels [1963], p. 74, n. 157) remarks: “The Hittite Version has ’two images of stone.’ These images may perhaps have been idols of an apotropaic character enabling Urshanabi to cross the waters of death.” Speiser (“Akkadian Myths and Epics,” ANET, p. 91, n. 173) makes it “apparently stone figures of unusual properties . . . "

According to Speiser (Assyrian version, Tabl. 10, col. 3, 37f., ANET, p. 92; cf. Heidel, p. 76) Urshanabi states: “Thy hands, Gilgamesh, have hindered (the crossing): Thou hast broken the Stone Things . . . " which can hardly be correct, since they do cross, after all.

F. M. Th. de Liagre Böhl, in his translation of GE, seems to have boldly claimed that the “stone objects” were “part of the fence of Siduri’s yard,” to which I. M. Diakonoff (Review article on the GE translations of F. M. Th. Bohl and P. L. Matous, *Bibliotheca *Orientalis 18 [1961], p. 65) remarked: “The sūt abnē cannot have any connection with Siduri’s yard (indeed, no such yard is mentioned).”

Luckenbill (AJSL 38 [1922], pp. 96-102) seems to have voted for anchors (see Gilgamesh et sa légende, ed. by P. Garelli [1958], p. 17, item 146). Orally, three years ago, Florence Day proposed “load stones.” For further keen propositions, see A. Salonen, Die Wasserfahrzeuge in Babylonien (1939), pp. 13d.

Some new light falls upon these objects through a Neo-Babylonian fragment published by D. J. Wiseman (Gilgamesh et sa légende, pp. 128-30), but the author himself states that the new reading (u šu-ut NA4.MES) “appears at present to help little towards the understanding of this much discussed term. The restoration of parts of ll.35-41, now possible, shows that the end of this column describes the manner in which Gilgamesh met Ur-shanabi and obtained the boat and its equipment for his journey over the ‘waters of death.’

When Gilgamesh heard this,
he took up the axe in his hand,
drew the dagger from the belt,
crept along and went down . . .
Like a lance he fell among them . . .
within the forest he sat down and . . .
Ur-shanabi saw the flashing of the dagger,
heard the axe and . . .
Then he smote his head . . . Gilgamesh
seized the wings . . . its breast and the šutabnē . . . the boat . . .”

More annoying still, these stone-things are not the only vexing items to be found in the neighborhood of Urshanabi. Heidel simply drops them, and renders line 29 of the Assyrian version (Tabl. 10, col. 2, p. 74): “With him are the stone images (?), in the woods he picks . . . " and accordingly he deals with column 3, 38f.: only the stone-things are mentioned. Speiser (ANET, p. 91) continues after the “Stone-Things”: “In the woods he picks [‘urnu’-snakes].” And column 3 he renders: “Thou hast broken the Stone Things, hast picked (the ‘urnu’ -snakes). The Stone Things are broken, the ‘urnu’ is not (in the woods).” In note 174 Speiser refers to Landsberger (*Die Fauna des Alten *Mesopotamien [1934], p. 63), who “points out that the urnu snake has long been supposed to be a favorite with sailors. At all events, whatever the meaning of the term may be in the present connection, its properties seem to be on a par with those of the “Stone Things.”

Now, let us first express our disapproval of Urshanabi’s lack of “fairness,” just in case this translation might be correct: Siduri states it as well known that “Urshanabi, with whom are the stone-things, picks urnu-snakes” in the woods, and here he accuses Gilgamesh of having done so, taking it, evidently, for an improper thing to do! In the second line, B. Landsberger (Fauna, p. 63; cf. pp. 45f., 52, 60) identified tentatively the “urnu-snake” (maybe also “the yellow (green) snake,” muš. sig7. sig7) with the waran, and considers, since even today warans are eaten, that the urnu were collected in order to serve as roast meat for the sailors. He thinks it possible that in later times “urnu” was meant as “land-crocodile.” If urnus belonged to the usual travel provisions, why should the picking of these animals be an impediment for the crossing of the waters of death? Although one should not criticize others, least of all scholars of the rank of Landsberger, if one has no positive propositions to offer, reading through this learned work, it becomes less and less comprehensible how he could misapprehend these animals, particularly the snakes, for a veritable terrestrial fauna, these seven-headed, one-eyed, unicorned creatures belonging to Anu, Nergal, Ningishzida, etc.