Die Unterdrückung von Uruk: Einwände gegen die Deutung als „mythical history“

AbstractIn this article the thesis is defended that the mythical tales about Gilgameš and other heroes of the past, are not concerned with telling or evaluating history, but that figures and perhaps events known from the tradition are only used in these tales. The term “mythical history”, used by Piotr Steinkeller is not adequate, if understood as a sort of philosophy of the past. Steinkeller’s example, the oppression of Uruk by Gilgameš, is investigated in detail. Steinkeller has chosen scenes from different stories of the Sumerian Gilgameš-Cycle neglecting their original context as if they were part of one story. Older translations of two Sumerian words and their Akkadian equivalences and the neglect of context are instrumental for Steinkeller’s interpretation of the oppression of Uruk. He proposes that a shift from divine kingship to secular kingship be taken for granted. But if we look at the evidence, a more divine rule before ca. 2900 BC seems neither impossible nor sure. But we know for sure that a religious legitimation of kingship remained in place. Later Sumerian and Akkadian kings were still the beloved ones of Inanna/ Ištar, received the scepter from Enlil and so on. It is very likely that the oppression of Uruk shows how a king should not behave towards his people and Gilgameš is required to learn this lesson in order to become a great king. A king you may wish for the present time too.