An Offer Perfectly Refused:

Gilgamesh Rejects Ishtar’s Offer of Partnership

Brice Pearce
Final Paper
Ancient Near East (HIST 995)
10/10/2006
 2

“Come here, Gilgamesh,” Ishtar said, “marry me,
and give me your luscious fruits, be my husband,
be my sweet man. I will give you abundance
beyond your dreams: […] When you enter my
temple and its cedar fragrance, high priests will
bow down and kiss your feet, kings and princes
will kneel before you, bringing you tribute from
east and west. And I will bless everything that
you own, […] These are the least of the gifts I
will shower upon you. Come here. Be my sweet
man.”
Gilgamesh said, “Your price is too high, such riches
are beyond my means. Tell me, how could I ever
repay you, even if I gave you jewels, perfumes,
rich robes? And what will happen to me when your
heart turns elsewhere and your lust burns out? […]
“Which of your husbands did you love forever?
Which could satisfy your endless desires? […]
Tammuz: you loved him when you were both
young, [...] You loved the shepherd, the master of
the flocks, […] You loved the gardener Ishullanu,
[…] then you changed…And why would my fate be
any different? If I too became your lover, you would
treat me as cruelly as you treated them.”
(The Epic of Gilgamesh, VI.7-33, 42-79.1)

Here we are presented with the Sumerian king Gilgamesh’s decision to reject the

marital advances of Ishtar, both the goddess of erotic love and patron deity of the city of

Uruk. Gilgamesh is the ruler of Uruk, and is purported to be “two-thirds [a] god,”2 so

why would he decide to reject these advances from a woman who is not only his city’s

most-honored deity but also the Sumerian cultural pinnacle of sexuality? I believe that

outside of this exchange, there are three major incidents within the epic that inform

Gilgamesh’s refusal to couple with Ishtar. Clues to the reasons that Gilgamesh may have

had for this spurning of Ishtar can be found from careful reading and analysis of these

three events that both precede and follow this rejection, all pertaining to the characters

and motivations of Gilgamesh and his bosom friend, Enkidu. By analyzing these literary

passages in the historical context of Near Eastern gender relations, one can reach a better

understanding of the problematic rejection cited above. The text seems to confirm that

Gilgamesh does not wish to couple with Ishtar because he feels that he already has

everything she is offering him, both physically and psychologically, in his relationship

with Enkidu.

1
Stephen Mitchell, Gilgamesh: A New English Version (NY: Free Press, 2004), VI.12-91, 130-5.
2
The Epic of Gilgamesh, trans. E. A. Speiser, in The Ancient Near East, Vol. 1, ed. James Pritchard
(Princeton University Press, 1958), 41.
 3

In order to discuss the characteristics of the interactions between these two men, it

will be necessary to consider several aspects of Mesopotamian culture. The ways in

which Near Eastern men chose to perform their sexuality and different cultural gender

roles must be discussed in order to better understand why the relationship of Gilgamesh

and Enkidu allows for this vehement refusal of the cooing words of the goddess.

Marriage and friendship must also consume part of the discourse, and a comparison of

the language used will draw parallels to the details of the bond between these two men.

Lastly, the vocabulary used in the different extant manuscripts of the Gilgamesh epic will

allow a deeper understanding of the interactions of these three integral characters in

Mesopotamian literature, as the parallels help to stress distinct concepts. Through the use

of these social and psycho-sexual criteria, focusing on several short sections of the epic

will allow a more complex view of the nature of the relationship between Gilgamesh and

Enkidu as it pertains to the rejection of Ishtar.

In order to narrow the focus of this study, three main events within the epic will

help to lead to a more refined picture of the relationship between the heroic king and his

companion. These events are: the wedding fight, in which Enkidu and Gilgamesh first

meet (II.v.9-vi.37); the blessing from Ninsun before the companions leave for the Cedar

Forest (Tablet III); the fight with the bull, immediately after Gilgamesh rejects Ishtar

(IV.114-185).3 In each of these brief literary scenes, there is a wealth of social and

cultural information, as well as character development and exposition. Issues of

sexuality, aggression, gender roles and expectations, and affection that appear across

3
The numbering of Tablets, Columns and Lines follows Speiser’s translation of both Old Babylonian and
Assyrian tablets.
 4

these three events allow them to serve as key examples of the bond between Gilgamesh

and Enkidu.

Throughout this essay, I will rely upon two different English representations of

the Epic of Gilgamesh. The first is an actual translation from the Old Babylonian

(Tablets I-III and X) and Akkadian texts by E. A. Speiser, a biblical scholar with the

University of Pennsylvania’s Oriental Studies department from the 1930’s until his death

in 1965. His translation focuses on the connections between biblical and other Ancient

Near Eastern texts, within a broader literary tradition. For a more mellifluous translation,

I accede to the 2004 English version by the poet, fiction writer and editor, Steven

Mitchell. While this is not a direct translation of the primary tablets, Mitchell strives to

present both the beauty and agency of the poetry; from his perspective, to provide “words

that [are] lithe and muscular enough to match the power of the story.”4 He is able to

achieve this by laboriously studying prior translations and editions, as well as researching

the current debate pertaining to issues of translation. Obviously, both presenters of the

epic have very different goals for their intended readers: Speiser desires to incite new

debate about ancient and biblical literary connections, while Mitchell wishes to make the

epic both accessible and powerful to a broad modern audience. While Mitchell’s

verbiage allows this reader’s perspective to be most evident, Speiser’s translation is

essential for comparative and argumentative purposes.

Turning to the text itself, we first must examine the importance of sexuality and

sexual expression within Near Eastern cultural and social life. When Gilgamesh first

learns of Enkidu’s existence, he tells the reporting hunter how to deal with Enkidu and

his protection of the wild animals – obviously a bad situation for a hunter/trapper.
4
Mitchell, 2.
 5

Through the following passage, the reader can compile a more defined picture of the role

that sexuality plays in Mesopotamian life:

The king (Gilgamesh) said, “Go to the temple of Ishtar,

ask them there for a woman named Shamat,
one of the priestesses who give their bodies
to any man, in honor of the goddess.
Take her into the wilderness. […]
The wild man will approach. Let her use her love-arts.
Nature will take it’s course, and then
the animals who knew him in the wilderness
will be bewildered, and will leave him forever.”5

That the sexual act is one that civilizes a man is easy to extract from this passage. Enkidu

is previously depicted as a man who helps the beasts of the forest out of the hunter’s

traps, and not as someone who has any relationship with human beings – physical or

otherwise. We can assume safely that he releases the snared animals due to the fact that

he has never associated with humans, and therefore must feel as though the animals with

which he lives are his kin group. But, why is Gilgamesh’s solution to Enkidu’s lack of

typical human activity to send a female love-priestess? Would this not be a problem for a

hunter or warrior, reclaiming his human rights over the animal kingdom?

From the text, we can tell what Gilgamesh thinks will happen. After Shamat

arrives, the animals will realize Enkidu’s humanity after the satisfaction of his inborn

sexual desire by another human being. Thus, Enkidu will consequently be forced to

recognize his own humanity, and begin to relate differently with the world. This

realization is important when considering the sexual lives of early civilizations, especially

noting that many cultures allowed for sexual intercourse between humans and animals

while nomadic. The Hittite civilization gave up this cultural practice during their

5
Gilgamesh I.iii.40-5, Mitchell, 76-7.
 6

assimilation within Anatolian culture in the early Second Millenium.6 This primacy of

human sexual relations within the Mesopotamian understanding of society and

civilization – Bottéro’s “[prerogative] of early civilized life”7 – allows the reader to view

the high value that intimate contact between humans held within the culture.

That sexuality is a way in which one may come to a deeper understanding of their

fellow man is demonstrated again, after Shamat and Enkidu’s prolonged copulation when

she describes the appearance of Gilgamesh to him:

You will stand before him and gaze with wonder,

you will see how handsome, how virile he is,
how his body pulses with erotic power. […]
Enkidu, put aside your aggression.8

This occurs shortly after Enkidu erupts angrily that Gilgamesh might be stronger than he

is. Shamat asks Enkidu to recognize Gilgamesh’s humanity, in spite of the flaws that

may or may not be a part of his character, in a very specific way. His physical

description as relayed in Mitchell’s version highlights the fact that sexuality is a major

part of this understanding when he uses the words “handsome”, “virile”, and describes

his body as “puls[ing] with erotic power.” Speiser translates the same passage:

Look thou at him, regard his face;

He is radiant with manhood, vigor he has.
With ripeness gorgeous is the whole of his body, […]
O Enkidu, renounce thy presumption.9

Speiser is less sure of how to display this relationship, but still provides terms that focus

upon the sexual aspect of Gilgamesh, through the terms “manhood”, “vigor” and

“ripeness gorgeous”. Shamat is not only able to civilize Enkidu, but also show him the

6
William E. Dunstan, “Chapter VIII: The Hittites of Anatolia and Their Neighbors,” The Ancient Near
East (Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth, 1998), 163.
7
Jean Bottéro, “The Epic of Gilgamesh,” in Everyday Life in Ancient Mesopotamia, trans. Antonia Nevill
(Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001), 237.
8
Gilgamesh I.v.15-20, Mitchell, 82. The emphasis is mine.
9
Ibid., trans. Speiser, 45.
 7

importance of this sexual understanding and relationship upon the larger context of

hierarchical social relations. He is asked to allay his anger with Gilgamesh, and instead

focus upon the same kinds of characteristics that have led him away from the animal

world and into the human realm.

Turning to the main focus of this analysis, when Enkidu finally meets Gilgamesh

in Uruk, it is at a wedding feast. We have already seen that Gilgamesh is renowned for

his powerful sexual appeal – “huge, handsome radiant, perfect”10 – and it is also stated

that he is infamous also for asserting his sexual rights as king of the city: Gilgamesh

“takes the son from his father and crushes him, takes the girl from her mother and uses

her, the warrior’s daughter, the young man’s bride, he uses her, no one dares to oppose

him.”11 In this passage, the author is demonstrating the power that Gilgamesh holds over

all the citizens of Uruk, especially those whom he desires to conquer, either physically or

sexually.

When Enkidu realizes this abuse of humans exists, due to his newly discovered

humanity, he becomes enraged that it is Gilgamesh “who mates first with the lawful

wife” and it is “the bridegroom [who] follows,”12 so he vows to go into Uruk and relieve

the people from this oppression. Enkidu interacts with the crowd in Uruk’s marketplace,

and then proceeds to the house of the bridegroom where:

the bride was ready for Gilgamesh

as though for a god, she was waiting in her bed
to open to him, in honor of Ishtar,
to forget her husband and open to the king.
When Gilgamesh reached the marriage house,
Enkidu was there. He stood like a boulder,
blocking the door…13

10
Gilgamesh I.ii.3-7, Mitchell, 72.
11
Ibid., I.ii.12-7, Mitchell, 72.
12
Ibid., II.iv.34-6, Mitchell, 87.
13
Ibid., II.v.28-36, Mitchell, 89.
 8

Enkidu seems to take the place of the bridegroom here by standing in opposition to

Gilgamesh, however the bridegroom is still present and did not request this intervention.

Essentially, Enkidu should be viewed here as serving a dual purpose: both to challenge

the social hierarchy of Uruk by opposing its leader, as well as performing the same

protective role that he demonstrated in his previous forest life – not necessarily as a

bridegroom, but rather with the jealousy of someone who knows what it means to love

another human being physically.

It is not only through his strength that he is able to oppose Gilgamesh, but also his

ignorance of the social realities of this culture. It is most interesting, however, that this

placement of Enkidu in the approximate role of a jealous paramour is foreshadowed

earlier in the work. He is described as “handsome as a bridegroom” after he has bathed

and been oiled, during the dinner scene with Shamat.14 Speiser translates the same

passage as “He is like a groom!”15 Since Gilgamesh has come here to claim his first

rights, and Enkidu has placed himself in the protector role of the new husband, a fight

must ensue.

During this fight between the two powerful men, they careen across the town,

grappling and wrestling, and shaking the walls of the buildings they pass. Eventually, we

find that “Gilgamesh threw the wild man and with his right knee pinned him to the

ground. His anger left him.”16 Speiser tells us only that “As Gilgamesh bent the knee –

His foot on the ground – His fury abated.”17 We can see here that Enkidu, while

supremely stronger than any other male in the town, is still not able to overcome

14
Ibid., II.iii.27, Mitchell, 86.
15
Ibid., trans. Speiser, 48.
16
Ibid., II.iv.24-6, Mitchell, 89.
17
Ibid., II.iv.24-6, trans. Speiser, 50.
 9

Gilgamesh. However, it must be decided what the end of the fight means: is Enkidu made

subordinate to Gilgamesh by this incident, or does their relationship still enjoy an aspect

of parity?

This issue can perhaps be best viewed as a bonding incident, especially

considering the strong friendship that develops between the two characters in the lines

that follow. In his analysis of other male-male literary relationships, Paul Hardman

would agree, with his assessment that “[t]he Gilgamesh epic serves…as the model for

homoaffectionalism in the ancient world”.18 His term refers does not refer explicitly to

sexual expression, rather it provides a broad definition of the complexities of masculine

bonding and association. This makes a great deal of sense, especially since the word

used to describe the relationship of the two men after this encounter is the Semetic term

ra’u’/ru’u, which describes a friend “to whom one is emotionally bound.”19

This is also confirmed later, when the goddess Ninsun, Gilgamesh’s mother,

blesses the heroes as they set out for the Cedar Forest:

After she had prayed, the goddess Ninsun…

summoned Enkidu. “Dear child,” she said,
“you were not born from my womb, but now
I adopt you as my son.” […]
Enkidu listened. Tears filled his eyes.
He and Gilgamesh clasped hands like brothers.20

Here, both relative equality and the deep nature of their relationship is shown, but it is

contrasted mightily with the actions of Gilgamesh once he has decided to go after the

monster Humbaba.

18
Paul D. Hardman, Homoaffectionalism: Male Bonding from Gilgamesh to the Present (San Francisco:
GLB Publishers, 1993), 2.
19
Silvestro Fiore, Voices From the Clay (Norman: University of Okalahoma, 1965), 82. Cited in Hardman,
2.
20
Gilgamesh Tablet III, Mitchell, 101-2.
 10

Every time that Enkidu expresses his concern for Gilgamesh and tries to sway

him from this perilous course, Gilgamesh rejects his advice and that of the city’s elders.

It is obvious that Enkidu does not want Gilgamesh to go, or to go with him, but

eventually the reader can see his mind change: “Enkidu listened gravely. He stood silent

for a long time. At last he nodded. Gilgamesh took his hand.”21 From this very last line,

one can see that Gilgamesh and Enkidu do not have a relationship based on parity – it is

more similar to a vassal relation between kings, where one is subordinate but still

powerful. Enkidu will follow Gilgamesh, and is only strengthened by this blessing from

Ninsun, as the elders themselves tell Gilgamesh to “Let Enkidu go ahead as you

walk…he will guard you at every stage of the journey.”22 Their relationship does not

change greatly, and the bond is demonstrated as being as close as one can be: his divine

mother has adopted his companion, and her consent makes the relationship the next

closest thing to blood.

In light of this revelation, it is important to note the connection here to

Mesopotamian marriage contracts. The consent of parents is important for the conclusion

of such a close union, and there is some economic transfer as well:

Her bride-price of ten shekels of silver, (which) Ibbatum [her father] has received, having kissed
her, he bound (the money) up in the sissiktu of his daughter, Sabitum; it was (thus) returned to
Warad-kubi.23

If the “jeweled amulet”24 that Ninsun places around the neck of Enkidu at the conclusion

of her blessing can be seen as this same form of “bride-price,” then a very different

relationship has developed between Gilgamesh and Enkidu. Bottéro is again helpful to

21
Ibid., Mitchell, 97.
22
Ibid., Mitchell, 103.
23
“Documents from the Practice of Law, Text B, (8) Marriage Contract,” trans. J. J. Finkelstein, in The
Ancient Near East, Vol. 2, ed. James Pritchard (Princeton University Press, 1975), 75.
24
Gilgamesh, Tablet III, Mitchell, 101.
 11

contextualize the less-than-evident meaning here, telling us that marriage in the Akkadian

language required a terhatu (“bride-price”) and that the bride was removed from her own

family and shûrubu (“introduced”) into her new family.25 This certainly seems to be

what is going on in Ninsun’s acceptance of, and admonishment to, Enkidu (“May he be a

brother for Gilgamesh”26) at the start of their journey.

The goddess is adamant that Enkidu is not of her flesh, but that she accepts him

and expects him to provide protection and courage for Gilgamesh. This is corellative

with the Mesopotamian idea that the husband (mutu) held ultimate power over his wife: if

Enkidu is equal to Gilgamesh, there would be no expectation; Ninsun adorns him and

places him in a subordinate role, highlighting the similarities to marriage between the

heroic pair.

While a sibling relationship would also not imply parity between the two men

throughout their adventures, this is how the two translations describe the relationship:

Mitchell
They embraced and kissed. They held hands like brothers.
They walked side by side. They became true friends.27

Speiser
Then Enkidu and Gilgamesh joined in
sacred friendship and sealed their solemn
bond with noble kiss.
Enkidu and Gilgamesh often sat then together,
visited Ninsun's shrine, conversed of many plans and fashioned a future together.28

We can see that both modern presentations struggle with description of the exact role

being performed between these two men. Very close brothers, biological or adopted,

would probably act this way today, as well as many historical contexts. Mitchell employs

paucity for a seemingly straightforward approach. However, Speiser’s rendering of

25
Jean Bottéro, “Women’s Rights,” in Everyday Life in Ancient Mesopotamia, 236-7.
26
Gilgamesh, Tablet III, Mitchell, 102.
27
Ibid., 90.
28
Ibid., Tablet III.i-ii, trans. Speiser. < http://www.piney.com/Gil03.html> (6 Oct 2006)
 12

“sacred friendship” and “solemn bond” again points to the importance of the divine

sanction of Shamat’s actions. Not only was her coupling with Enkidu an erotic event that

enabled him to recognize his own humanity, but it was also a religiously sanctioned act.

Whether this connotes a relationship of a sexual nature or not, there is not enough textual

evidence to make a decision. However, the importance for our purposes lies in the fact

that Gilgamesh has reached a place where his well-being and satisfaction are dependant

upon another, and that he has chosen this person – who has divine sanction – as an

important part of his life.

The strong relationship of the two is again seen most interestingly in the events

that take place while they defend Uruk from the destruction of the bull. After Gilgamesh

rejects Ishtar’s proposal, she convinces her father, Anu, to send down a great bull which

will ravage the city of the great king. In order to lessen the sufferings of his citizens,

Gilgamesh and Enkidu battle the bull and defeat it. Two important factors come to light

while investigating this part of the epic: Gilgamesh is unable to overcome the bull on his

own, and Enkidu later takes part in some blatant effrontery to Ishtar.

Turning first to the battle, after some setbacks for both great men, they jointly

defeat the bull as follows:

Gilgamesh rushed in and shouted, “Dear friend,

keep fighting, together we are sure to win.”
Enkidu circled behind the bull,
Seized it by the tail and set his foot
on its haunch, then Gilgamesh skillfully,
like a butcher, strode up and thrust his knife
between its shoulders and the base of its horns.29

Here, the cooperation of the two men is made plain. Without each other, they could not

defeat the bull and save the town and populace. This also reaffirms that their destinies

29
Ibid., Tablet IV.129-56, Mitchell, 137-8.
 13

are now tied together, and tells the reader that the bond between these two men is both

powerful and single-minded. While this episode is fairly straightforward and easy to

interpret, another event takes place shortly after that further complicates the relationship

between not only Gilgamesh and Enkidu, but also how both men relate with the goddess

Ishtar.

When Ishtar “writh[es] in grief and wail[s]” from the wall of Uruk to her father

about the fate of “[Gilgamesh’s] own punishment”30 – the slain Bull of Heaven – Enkidu

reacts with blatant disdain for the goddess’ feelings or motivations:

When Enkidu heard these words, he laughed,

he reached down, ripped off one of the Bull’s
thighs, and flung it in Ishtar’s face.31

What sense does it make for Enkidu to insult a goddess whose machinations he has just

recently foiled? Is it simply that he is still brazen enough to insult a goddess? Even if

that is so, what would inspire a man to such a great degree of impropriety? Does it

symbolize what Gilgamesh and Enkidu share together – strength, deep care and

commitment – triumphing over jealousy and desire? The act infuriates Ishtar, who

threatens to return the gesture by “rip[ping Enkidu] apart and drap[ing] the Bull’s guts

over [his] arms!” Her priestesses (“those who offer themselves to all men in her honor”)

then sacrifice the thigh on an alter and “beg[in] a solemn lament.”32 This again highlights

the complexity of the relationship between these two heroic and legendary men,

especially regarding the goddess Ishtar.

Why would the priestesses lament the thigh itself? Perhaps it is because, as

Gilgamesh highlighted in his account of her prior relationships, Ishtar is the goddess of

30
Ibid., 138.
31
Ibid.
32
Ibid., 139.
 14

“’free’ love” and consequently also fails to achieve the ideal “’specific destiny’” for

“women[:] to have a single husband in order to give him children,” as Bottéro interprets

when discussing the Sumerian social view of the goddesses “officiants.”33 She is not able

to attract Gilgamesh as a husband; of this much we are sure. Gilgamesh has told us that

he is acutely aware of her past promises and failings, which are also highlighted in the

Sumerian hymns about Inanna (Ishtar) and Dumuzi. The two initially quarrel, but then

develop a powerful love, as strong as it is sensual. Their relationship is evident from the

line “[Ishtar] spread the bridal sheet across the bed.”34 But eventually Ishtar leads a

demonic galla to “Dumuzi, the husband of [Ishtar],”35 and proceeds to seal his fate:

Inanna fastened on Dumuzi the eye of death.

She spoke against him the word of wrath.
She uttered against him the cry of guilt:
“Take him! Take Dumuzi away!”36

Her own rejection is recalled with Gilgamesh’s action, this is certain. Does Enkidu

possess this knowledge? There is no way within the text to tell if he does, but it is certain

that the “warriors” are confident that the celebratory nature of the chariot ride through

town after killing the Bull of Heaven leaves Ishtar with no one “in the streets…to avenge

her.”37

This literary juxtaposition, which would have been common knowledge to any

Sumerian (and perhaps Babylonians and Akkadians?), serves to set the relationship of

Gilgamesh and Enkidu as a direct reversal of Ishtar’s relations with Dumuzi. The ability

to stand by each other through adversity is seen to win out over a great obstacle. When

33
Bottéro, “Love and Sex in Babylon,” trans. Nevill, 95.
34
Diane Wolkstein and Samuel Noah Kramer, “The Courtship of Inanna and Dumuzi,” Inanna: Queen
of Heaven and Earth (New York: Harper and Row, 1983), 42.
35
Ibid., “The Descent of Inanna,” 71.
36
Ibid.
37
Gilgamesh Tablet IV, Mitchell, 140.
 15

Ishtar gives Dumuzi over to the galla, it is in lieu of her son, Lulal.38 She quickly hands

over Dumuzi in his place, and ends up facing rejection again by another man that she

desires.

Gilgamesh has overcome his own selfishness and usurious sexual lust through his

relationship with Enkidu – whether it is physical or not – when he rejects Ishtar.

Gilgamesh has also had the successes of teamwork displayed to him during the battle

against the bull; why would he wish to break up a known successful pairing for one

destined for great anguish? The adoptive relationship that Ninsun displays to Enkidu is

another factor as well: their attachment is sanctioned and protected by the divine. The

strong bond that Gilgamesh has with Enkidu is a reality that he recognizes; the

relationship with Ishtar is not just an ‘unknown,’ but rather is fated to be fraught with

misery, if we can believe Gilgamesh and other Sumerian stories. Consequently, at this

point of the story (end of Tablet V), with Enkidu still alive, Gilgamesh is completely

satisfied with both the emotional and physical pairing of he and Enkidu. He probably

even believes that it will last forever. In light of this reading, one is led to ponder

whether or not Gilgamesh would have responded in the same way, if Ishtar had proposed

their union to him after Enkidu’s death.

38
Wolkstein and Kramer, “Descent,” 70-1.
 16

Works Cited

Bottéro, Jean. Everyday Life in Ancient Mesopotamia. Translated by Antonia Nevill.

Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001.

“Documents from the Practice of Law, Text B, (8) Marriage Contract.” Translated by J. J.
Finkelstein. The Ancient Near East, Vol. 2. Edited by James Pritchard.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1975.

Dunstan, William E. “Chapter VIII: The Hittites of Anatolia and Their Neighbors.” The
Ancient Near East. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth, 1998.

The Epic of Gilgamesh. Translated by E. A. Speiser.

The Ancient Near East, Vol. 1. Edited by James Pritchard. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press, 1958.
<http://www.piney.com/Gil03.html> Viewed 6 Oct 2006.

Hardman, Paul D. Homoaffectionalism: Male Bonding from Gilgamesh to the Present.

San Francisco, CA: GLB Publishers, 1993.

Mitchell, Stephen. Gilgamesh: A New English Version. New York: Free Press, 2004.

Wolkstein, Diane and Samuel Noah Kramer. Inanna: Queen of Heaven and Earth. New
York: Harper and Row, 1983.