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

Abstract

Abstract In 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. The term “mythical history”, used by Piotr Steinkeller is not adequate, if understood as a sort of philosophy of the past. Steinkellers 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 contexts as if they were part of one story. Old translations of two Sumerian words and their Akkadian equivalences and the neglect of context are instrumental for Steinkellers interpretation of the oppression of Uruk. A shift from divine kingship to secular kingship is taken as granted. But if we take a look at the artifacts 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 Innana/Ištar, got the sceptre 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 learning the lesson, becoming a great king. A king you may wish for the present time too.