Classics and the Western Canon discussion

Tablet III
Gilgamesh insists on the journey to Humbaba. Uruk’s elders resign themselves to his departure. They wish him a safe journey and tell Enkidu to protect him and lead the way to Humbaba. Gilgamesh and Enkidu go to Ninsun to seek her blessing and guidance. Ninsun is concerned for her son. She bathes (seven times!), puts on her finest robes, and goes up to the roof to ask Shamash to protect him. She blames Shamash for giving Gilgamesh a restless heart. She asks that Aya, Shamash’s bride, remind him to protect Gilgamesh. She wants Shamash to unleash his storms when Gilgamesh faces Humbaba. She adopts Enkidu as her son, thereby assuring him he will have family to mourn and bury him. The people assemble and wish them well as they set off on their journey to the unknown.

Tablet IV
Gilgamesh and Enkidu walk hundreds of miles. Each night, they set up camp, dig a well, and fill their flasks with water. Gilgamesh climbs to the top of the mountain and prays for a dream omen. Enkidu guards the doorway while Gilgamesh lies in a circle of sacred flour. He has a series of what appear to be nightmares but which Enkidu interprets as signs of their success. He assures him they will kill Humbaba; Shamash will come to their aid; Lugulbanda will protect Gilgamesh and offer him water to drink.

Ninsun attributes Gilgamesh’s desire to go to Humbaba because of his “restless heart.” But she seems to blame Shamash for this:

Why, Shamash, did you burden my son with so restless a heart?
Now you have touched him, and so he will walk
The far road to the home of Humbaba

Which is it? Is Gilgamesh in control of his decisions or is he a puppet in the hands of the god Shamash? Or is this an example of a mother making excuses for her son’s erratic behavior?


Ninsun calls Humbaba “brutal” and “evil.” But do we have evidence that Humbaba is any of these things? Since he hasn’t threatened Uruk and is minding his own business by guarding the cedar forest as Enlil told him to do, what makes him evil?


Gilgamesh is determined to go after Humbaba, ignoring the advice of Enkidu and the elders. We don’t know how much time elapses between the bonding of Gilgamesh and Enkidu and Gilgamesh’s decision to go after Humbaba. Has he matured in the interim? Or is he exhibiting the same restless energy he had before but is now channeling it outward instead of against the citizens of Uruk?

Tamara wrote: "Ninsun calls Humbaba “brutal” and “evil.” But do we have evidence that Humbaba is any of these things?"

There appears to be some conflict between the gods. Shamas and Enlil both favor Gilgamesh. Enlil made Gilgamesh King. Emlil also made Humbaba, but in my Davis translation we are informed by Gilgamesh and his mother that Shamash calls Humbaba evil and hates him.

Shamash, the glorious Sun God, has favored him [Gilgamesh]; And Anu, the Sky God, and Enlil. . .

. . .and now you are above All other men, and Enlil has made you king! . .

. . .Enlil made Humbaba a terror to men To keep the cedars safe in the forest.
Beckman, Gary; Lombardo, Stanley. Gilgamesh . Hackett Publishing Company, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

Gilgamesh tells his mother:

Pray for me that I may reach the Forest of Cedars and slay Humbaba the Fierce, and extirpate from the land the Evil that Shamash the Sun God hates.

And Ninsun prays:

Shamash, I entreat you to watch over my son from the day he sets forth unto the Forest of Cedars and slays Humbaba the Fierce and extirpates from the land the Evil that you hate.
Davis, Gerald J.. Gilgamesh: The New Translation. Insignia Publishing. Kindle Edition.

Now from a human perspective Enlil made Humbaba a terror to men seems justification enough to call Humbaba evil. The question is, why does Shamash call Humbaba evil and hate him?

David wrote: "Now from a human perspective Enlil made Humbaba a terror to men seems justification enough to call Humbaba evil..."

Enlil made him monstrous intentionally to scare away humans from penetrating into the Cedar Forest and cutting down its trees. But that doesn't make him evil, does it? He has been commissioned by one of the gods to perform a task: protect the Cedar Forest. And he's doing it. He is not prancing around Uruk terrorizing anyone. So, why is he evil? It seems to me the only evil we're seeing so far is from the ones who are determined to engage in an unprovoked attack.

David wrote: "The question is, why does Shamash call Humbaba evil and hate him?

That's a good question. I think the answer to that is still to be determined. Keep in mind it is Gilgamesh and Ninsun who claim Shamash hates Humbaba. So far, we only have their word for it. Unless I missed it, Shamash hasn't said he hates Humbaba. Maybe Shamash does hate him, or maybe this is Gilgamesh and Ninsun putting words in his mouth to influence him to help Gilgamesh.

Tamara wrote: "But that doesn't make him evil, does it? . .Keep in mind it is Gilgamesh and Ninsun who claim Shamash hates Humbaba. So far, we only have their word for it"

I am going to go with what I know about the Greco-Roman gods and guess that the Mesopotamian gods were often not all on the same page.

I see what you are saying about it being Gilgamesh and Ninsun making the claim that Shamash hates Humbaba; clearly making it hearsay. While we have no reason to disbelieve Gilgamesh and his mother, we have not read of any testimony to this fact directly from Shamash, but I can speculate from the glossary provided:

Enlil: Son of Anu; responsible for the Great Flood
Shamash: Sun god; god of justice; patron of travelers and dream interpreters

In creating Humbaba to guard the forest, symbolically representing nature's resistance to civilization, Enlil seems to want to keep humans in their place, even if he did make Gilgamesh a king. Shamash, symbolically representing the sun and justice, on the other hand would seem to naturally oppose Enlil's intentions by wanting to shine his light and illuminate the dark places in nature that Enlil is keeping unattainable. This would also justify painting Humbaba as evil, even though he simply appears to just be doing his job. Nature as an evil thing to be feared and conquered, or tamed, domesticated, and civilized, as Enkidu has been, is likely a theme here.

David wrote: "Shamash, symbolically representing the sun and justice, on the other hand would seem to naturally oppose Enlil's intentions by wanting to shine his light and illuminate the dark places in nature that Enlil is keeping unattainable...."

That's an interesting reading and I can see how you get there. I think you're right that the Mesopotamian gods were not all on the same page and this may boil down to a conflict between the gods. But I think we have to wait and see what actually happens when they get to the Cedar Forest, encounter Humbaba, and the aftermath of that encounter before we can figure out which god is on whose side and why.

In my book there is a note saying that in the old Sumarian poem Gilgamesh decided to chase Humbaba because he wanted the glory of that, he wanted to do something that would make sure that his name would be remembered in the future, that there would be inscriptions telling about this glorious act he performed. But then in the Akkadian version Shamash appears as the reason for Gilgamesh to destroy Humbaba as Shamash "did not like this evil thing walking on Earth". Personally I think that the older version seems more coherent with Gilgamesh character.

Monica wrote: "But then in the Akkadian version Shamash appears as the reason for Gilgamesh to destroy Humbaba as Shamash "did not like this evil thing walking on Earth"...."

Monica, does the Akkadian version actually have Shamash say he "did not like this evil thing walking on earth?" Or is it something someone else (Ninsun? Gilgamesh? Enkidu?) attributed to him?

Where, when does it matter whether what is a hierarchy (of gods/goddesses, of power, of ...) versus a network? Are there Greco-Roman assumptions re relationships that color our readings of the story?

Lily wrote: "Where, when does it matter whether what is a hierarchy (of gods/goddesses, of power, of ...) versus a network? Are there Greco-Roman assumptions re relationships that color our readings of the story?"

This is a great question, and I only mentioned the Greco-Roman gods as a starting point since I’m less familiar with the Mesopotamian ones. I think you’re absolutely right that distinguishing between hierarchy and network may not even be relevant. Each god has their own symbolic makeup complete with motivations and goals, sometimes working against an established hierarchy, other times leveraging their connections in a more networked fashion. The result in either case is a pantheon full of gods acting rather independently, sometimes at odds, sometimes in alignment, but never truly following a rigid structure."

In this case, Enlil appoints Humbaba as the forest guardian, yet Shamash is being invoked to help remove him, suggesting competing divine interests rather than a clear chain of command.  Which leaves us with a question: Is Gilgamesh about challenging divine authority, or is it more about navigating a cosmic beureaucracy of conflicting divine interests?

On top of that, we still have to consider a very likely possibility that we are dealing entirely with Gilgamesh’s reckless ambition for personal glory which disregards the gods altogether, except perhaps when he needs help from one of them.

Another "six and seven" sighting at the end of Tablet IV:

“Hasten at once. Go forward and assail Humbaba. Let him not enter into the depths of the Forest of Cedars. Let him not wrap himself in the seven enchanted cloaks which afford him protection. He has donned one, but he has shed the other six. Now is he vulnerable. Propitious now is the moment to assault him.”

Davis, Gerald J.. Gilgamesh: The New Translation

David wrote: "Another "six and seven" sighting at the end of Tablet IV:“Hasten at once. Go forward and assail Humbaba. Let him not enter into the depths of the Forest of Cedars. Let him not wrap himself in the s..."

Our tablets must be numbered differently. My translation doesn't have Shamash say that until after they enter the Cedar Forest which doesn't happen until Tablet V. I guess different translations begin and end tablets in different places.

Tamara wrote: "Our tablets must be numbered differently."

I agree. Since I picked up the Lombardo translation I've noticed the tablets don't all start or end the same.

Davis ends Tablet IV after Shamash tells Gilgamesh and Enkidu about the cloaks with:

Gilgamesh heard these words of Shamash and his heart was emboldened. Gilgamesh charged forward like unto a raging wild bull. He roared out the bellow of a raging wild bull. Onward did Gilgamesh and Enkidu venture unto the Forest of Cedars.
Davis, Gerald J.. Gilgamesh: The New Translation

The Lombardo translation takes tablet IV even further after Shamash's advice:

Then Humbaba bellowed, one long bellow,
[200] A terrifying roar.
The keeper of the Cedar Forest bellowed,
Humbaba thundering like the Storm God himself. . .

[there is a brief discussion about how afraid Enkidu is and Gilgamesh tells him to relax and stay focused]

. . .Forget about death and just go after life!
Whoever’s out front watches out for both
And leads his comrade to safety. Men like that make a name that lives on.”
When they arrived at the distant forest’s edge, [220
They stopped talking and came to a halt.
Beckman, Gary; Lombardo, Stanley. Gilgamesh

The Davis' ending makes Gilgamesh seem more confident and divinely supported, while Lombardo’s ending is more of a cliffhanger tablet ending with a roar from Humbaba highlighting the pair's struggle with fear.

The Helle, Mitchell, and Dalley translations end Tablet IV with Gilgamesh and Enkidu standing just outside the Cedar Forest.

The tablets are not consistently divided. There are so many variations that translators begin and end a tablet depending on which tablet they are looking at, so there will be some overlapping. I don't think it's a problem either way because we will all get to the same place eventually.

Tamara wrote: "Monica, does the Akkadian version actually have Shamash say he "did not like this evil thing walking on earth?" Or is it something someone else (Ninsun? Gilgamesh? Enkidu?) attributed to him?"

Tamara, unfortunately in Tablet 2 (when Gilgamesh decides to chase Humbaba) this part is damaged and fulfilled with many "---". Therefore it is not possible in this specific moment of the story to determine whether Shamash told it to Gilgamesh or not. Later in Tablet 3 others mention that Shamash said that or Shamash felt that way.

No worries. Thanks for the clarification, Monica.

Although it's apparent the tablets are not consistently divided, and beginnings and endings may vary depending on the translation. I'd like to point out something I think is pretty neat in the translation I'm using.

Tablet III in the Helle translation has an interesting symmetry. It begins with the elders giving advice to Gilgamesh and ends with them giving him the same advice, word for word. I think the repetition here gives it a sense of closure, an ending of the tablet that takes us back to its beginning in a circular narrative, as if it were a sort of self-contained episode.

It will be interesting to see if a similar pattern occurs in the remaining tablets.

Tamara wrote: "and ends with them giving him the same advice, word for word."

Tamara, that is an interesting point about the symmetry in Tablet III in your translation, it does give it a kind of circular, self-contained feel. In the Davis translation, the wording is neither identical nor at the end, but what stood out to me was the irony of Gilgamesh instructing the elders to maintain order while he himself is known for being reckless.

Whereupon did Gilgamesh instruct the Elders of Uruk concerning the affairs of the City, saying, “During the time of our journey unto the Forest of Cedars to slay Humbaba the Fierce, in order to extirpate from the land the Evil that Shamash hates, and until the time of our return unto high-wall’d Uruk, let not the youths gather in the street to form an assemblage, for much discord and unrest will they cause. Judge fairly the grievances and petitions of the weak and poor, and let not the strong and wealthy gain unjust advantage. Meanwhile we shall undertake to fulfill our Destiny and in Humbaba’s breast impale our weapons.

Davis, Gerald J.. Gilgamesh: The New Translation

David wrote: "but what stood out to me was the irony of Gilgamesh instructing the elders to maintain order while he himself is known for being reckless..."

I agree. It is riddled with irony. It's almost laughable to have him say this, especially the part about not letting the strong take advantage of the weak when he was guilty of doing exactly that before Enkidu came along. It reminds me of an expression I used to hear when I was a child growing up in England, "Hark at the kettle calling the pot black!"

on the whole I came away with the feeling that Gilgamesh showed a lot of arrogance and bravado in his wanting to pursue Humbaba. I will make a a lasting name for myself. I will stamp my fame on men's minds forever. And in my mind, a warrior ethos of death before dishonor in his efforts to convince Enkidu that this quest is the right thing to do. Yet ironically it is Enkidu that spins Gilgamesh's nightmares into dreams of success versus omens of defeat and possibly death. Why does he do that when he did not think that seeking out and killing Humbaba was a good thing, as he was doing the bidding of Enlil in protecting the forest? He could have used those dreams to dissuade Gilgamesh from going forward with his plan.

I noticed the sevens scattered in these two tablets as well as has been noted by others starting with Gilgamesh bolted the seven gates of the great-walled Uruk Ninsun's ritual washing, and lastly my reading has the two at the edge of the forest but could hear the roaring of Humbaba which strikes fear into the both of them. They hear Shamash's voice who urges them to attack now before he enters the depth of the forest, before he can hide there and wrap himself in his seven auras with their paralyzing glare He is wearing just one now.

Chris wrote: "Why does he do that when he did not think that seeking out and killing Humbaba was a good thing, as he was doing the bidding of Enlil in protecting the forest? He could have used those dreams to dissuade Gilgamesh from going forward with his plan..."

That's a good point. Perhaps he realizes there is no dissuading Gilgamesh once he has made up his mind. Enkidu tries to dissuade him as do the elders and Ninsun. But their cautionary words fall on deaf ears. Gilgamesh tells his mother, "My mind is made up."

Also, Gilgamesh has his dreams while they're in the wilderness and on their way to the Cedar Forest. The ship has sailed and its too late to turn back.

Speaking of Gilgamesh’s dreams, I found the sequence they followed interesting: digging a well; pouring water into their flasks; Gilgamesh climbing to the top of the mountain; the offering of sacred flour to its peak; requesting a dream; lying in a circle of sacred flour.

Since they are in the wilderness and out of the precincts of the city that offers protection, I’m thinking this must be some sort of ritual performed to keep away the monsters and demons haunting the open countryside. The circle of sacred flour where Gilgamesh lies may serve the same function as the walls of Uruk: it protects those within the confines of the circle/city walls and prevents those outside it from entering. And because the circle of sacred flour is designated as sacred space, it may also serve to protect the sanctity of Gilgamesh’s dreams.

I was struck by the fact that Ninsun and the elders want Enkidu to lead the way to the Cedar Forest because he knows the way through the wilderness:

They say: ‘Go first and you help an ally,
Know the road and you save a friend.’
So let Enkidu go first.

As we saw earlier, Shamhat leads Enkidu while they’re in the wilderness. She assumes a subordinate position (walks behind Enkidu) when they reach Uruk. And when Gilgamesh wants his dreams interpreted, he goes to his mother, a female.

Enkidu in the wilderness shows Gilgamesh the way just as Shamhat showed him. And Enkidu in the wilderness shows Gilgamesh the meaning of his dreams just as Ninsun did. Enkidu is able to do that because he was once closely associated with nature.

The child of the wilderness was the right man to ask.
Enkidu showed him the meaning of his dream.

As such, Enkidu assumes the role usually performed by the female. Therefore, does it make sense to argue the wilderness, raw nature, chaos, and the dream realm is the domain of the feminine; and the city, civilization, order, and the conscious level is the domain of the masculine?

Can we take it one step further and argue Shamhat acts as the intermediary by facilitating Enkidu’s transformation from one state to another? Similarly, doesn’t Ninsun act as the intermediary by interpreting Gilgamesh’s dreams, i.e. interpreting his dreams so what appears to be incomprehensible on one level is made comprehensible on another? Both Shamhat and Ninsun are agents of transformation.

Does that make Enkidu an agent of transformation? Is he going to be the agent that triggers a transformation in Gilgamesh?

Tamara wrote: "As such, Enkidu assumes the role usually performed by the female. Therefore, does it make sense to argue the wilderness, raw nature, chaos, and the dream realm is the domain of the feminine; and the city, civilization, order, and the conscious level is the domain of the masculine?
"
Interesting. There’s a clear pattern of guidance coming from the feminine, whether it’s Shamhat civilizing Enkidu, Ninsun interpreting dreams, or now Enkidu leading Gilgamesh through the wilderness like Shamhat once led him.

What’s really fascinating is how we previously discussed that in some translations Enkidu is referred to as Gilgamesh’s wife. That framing makes even more sense when we consider what you pointed out, that Enkidu takes on the guiding, nurturing role that is often assigned to the feminine.

So if we follow your idea that the wilderness and dreams belong to the feminine while civilization and order belong to the masculine, then Enkidu exists at the crossroads of both. He embodies nature but also bridges it with human society, just as Shamhat did for him.

Do you think the epic is reinforcing this division between feminine (nature/dreams) and masculine (civilization/order), or is it breaking down those distinctions by making Enkidu, a wild man, acting as bridge representing both?

David wrote: "What’s really fascinating is how we previously discussed that in some translations Enkidu is referred to as Gilgamesh’s wife..."

Great catch! I had completely forgotten when Ninsun interpreted Gilgamesh's dream in which she foretold of the coming of Enkidu, she said he would love Enkidu "like a wife."

David wrote: "Do you think the epic is reinforcing this division between feminine (nature/dreams) and masculine (civilization/order), or is it breaking down those distinctions by making Enkidu, a wild man, acting as bridge representing both?"

I am still struggling to work this out. To me, it seems to be all about maintaining a balance between the feminine (wilderness) and masculine (city).

I see the feminine (nature/dreams) and masculine (civilization/order) as two separate entities with a clear line separating the two—just as the wall separates Uruk from the wilderness outside. I don’t see Enkidu as bridging those entities but as crossing the boundary of one to get to the other.

As a wild man, he retains the qualities associated with the feminine. But when he crosses the boundary and enters the city, he assimilates the qualities associated with the masculine. He walks ahead of Shamhat in Uruk (male hegemony) and in order to earn Gilgamesh’s respect and be his companion, he has to speak the language Gilgamesh understands—the language of aggression and violence. He and Gilgamesh thrash about breaking doors and shaking walls until they’ve had enough and decide to embrace.

I see Enkidu as now combining both feminine and masculine qualities (wilderness and city) within his personhood. But here’s the problem. Enkidu was created to mollify Gilgamesh’s restless spirit and aggressive tendencies. To put it another way, the gods wanted to moderate Gilgamesh’s excessive masculinist qualities by sending him a partner who embodied the qualities associated with the feminine. The hope was he would act as a balancing influence on Gilgamesh. The trouble is it hasn’t worked. Gilgamesh has the same restless spirit with the same excesses, the same aggressive tendencies, only now those tendencies are being channeled outward. He is still out of balance.

Enkidu has so far failed to do what he was created to do. Why? We can see he has retained the feminine qualities associated with the wilderness because he guides Gilgamesh and interprets his dreams. We can see he has assimilated the masculine qualities associated with the city. So why hasn’t he succeeded in moderating Gilgamesh’s tendencies?

Here’s what I’m wondering: has Enkidu been unable to moderate Gilgamesh, i.e. has he failed to rein in his excesses because he, himself, is now askew? Yes, he has both feminine and masculine qualities, but are they in harmony or is one dominating the other? Is Enkidu now out of balance? Instead of acting as a moderating influence, is he adding fuel to the fire?

I’m not sure this makes any sense. As I said, I’m still struggling to work this out.

Susanna wrote: "But I thought women were supposed to civilize men?"

To be fair, I have been making comparisons to Tarzan for a while now because of the themes of civilization and wilderness as well as the morality that goes with each, and the question compels me to respond with Tarzan of the Apes as a counter example:

Among the party is French naval officer Paul D'Arnot. While Tarzan is rescuing D'Arnot from the natives, a rescue ship recovers the castaways. D'Arnot teaches Tarzan to speak French and offers to take Tarzan to the land of white men where he might connect with Jane again. On their journey, D'Arnot teaches him how to behave among white men. In the ensuing months, Tarzan eventually learns to speak English, as well.
Wikipedia

Of course Jane seems to have forced morality to the forefront:

Ultimately, Tarzan travels to find Jane in Wisconsin, USA where he rescues her from a fire. Tarzan learns the bitter news that she has become engaged to William Clayton. Meanwhile, clues from his parents' cabin have enabled D'Arnot to prove Tarzan's true identity as John Clayton II, the Earl of Greystoke. Instead of reclaiming his inheritance from William, Tarzan chooses rather to conceal and renounce his heritage for the sake of Jane's happiness.
Wikepedia

You have to find out what happens nex in Tablet 2: The Return of Tarzan

When Ninsun prays to Shamash to protect her son on his little adventure to Humbaba, she says,

“May Aya, your bride, not fear to remind you
When Gilgamesh and Enkidu face off with Humbaba,
Unleash, Shamash, your mighty storms against him.

I got stuck on the word “fear.” Ninsun repeats it. I’m curious as to why she thinks Aya might be afraid when speaking to Shamash. It sounds ominous to me, as if Aya has to choose her words carefully when talking to him. Any suggestions as to why she might be afraid?

Susanna wrote: "Very edifying. 😂"

I aim to be educational. 😉 But seriously, the whole 'who civilizes whom' question is actually a great one. I just thought a story about a wild man learning civilization from others was relevant. But if you have a better example, I’d love to hear it!"

If you don't really find Tarzan a thought provoking example for contrasting and comparing, here are a few more. Of course as a survey of possibilities, they differ from Gilgamesh by varying degrees, but serve to illustrate the flexibility of the theme in question.

1. Mowgli (The Jungle Book)
Raised by wolves, but Bagheera (the panther) and Baloo (the bear) teach him about survival, rules, and the dangers of the jungle. Bagheera also acts as a stern father figure, guiding him toward human civilization.

2. Perceval (Arthurian Legend)
Starts as a naïve, wild youth shielded from the dangers and corrupting influences of knighthood by his mother but is inevitably trained in chivalry and knightly virtues by a male mentor.

3. King Arthur is educated/civilized by Merlin

4. Romulus and Remus (Roman Myth)
Raised by a she-wolf, but later taught how to rule and found Rome by human mentors. Their transition from wild to city-builders mirrors the Gilgamesh theme of civilization vs. nature.

5. Beowulf (Beowulf)
Though he is not civilized in the traditional sense, Queen Wealhtheow represents the stabilizing power of women in society. Beowulf’s ultimate lack of a wife or domestic tie leaves him isolated, and he dies without an heir—suggesting that heroism without civilization leads to doom.

6. Paul Atreides (Dune)
He has many mentors, but starts as a noble-born prince who must embrace the instructions of his Fremen wife in order to survive the desert and integrate into Fremen society. Lady Jessica, his mother, guides his spiritual and political growth, making her a civilizing force even though she is a trained Bene Gesserit manipulator.

Susanna wrote: "Do women need civilizing, or are they innately civilized?"

My own status compels me to say women are innately civilized.

Examples of women who need civilizing are not well represented in literature and takes on air of subjection when it is. The Taming of the Shrew and Pygmalion (My Fair Lady), some versions of Hippolyta and Theseus (A Midsummer Night’s Dream), suggest that subjugate is a more accurate depiction than civilize.

David wrote: "Susanna wrote: "Do women need civilizing, or are they innately civilized?"

My own status compels me to say women are innately civilized.

Examples of women who need civilizing are not well repres..."

How about Medea? She needed civilizing, but I guess it didn't take.

I really enjoyed Tablet IV; it was full of symbols: the magic circle, the well, the mountain, the dream, etc.

I was a bit puzzled about the location of the Cedar Forest. I read a German translation some years ago and, if I remember correctly, the forest was not located in Lebanon, but somewhere in Iran.

According to Wikipedia, "Lebanon" is mentioned directly in Gilgamesh—at least in the Babylonian version: "the name of Mount Lebanon originates from the Phoenician root lbn (𐤋𐤁𐤍) meaning 'white', apparently from its snow-capped peaks."

If I finally got this right, in earlier Sumerian versions of the epic, Gilgamesh is said to have traveled east to the Zagros Mountains of Iran (ancient Elam) to reach the Cedar Forest. However, later Babylonian versions place the Cedar Forest to the west, in Lebanon.

Any idea why the Babylonians changed the location of the sacred forest?

I think Lebanon fits better. Lebanon is famous for its cedar forests—they even have a cedar on their flag. The distance from Uruk to Lebanon is also around 900 miles, which is consistent with the distance covered in the 4th Tablet.

Emil wrote: "Any idea why the Babylonians changed the location of the sacred forest?

The short answer to your question is I have no idea.

I know there has been some discussion among scholars about the actual location of the Cedar Forest. Like you, Lebanon makes sense to me because of its Cedars. But the thing is I'm not sure we should take geography, distances, time, or size too literally in the poem.

It takes them a couple of days to get from Uruk to the Cedar Forest. Is it possible to walk 900 miles in a few days? Also, they sail down the river from the Cedar Forest to Uruk in just a couple of lines. It takes them much longer to get to their destination than it does to get back. How did they make it back so quickly? That suggests the journey to a location and what happens when they get there is more significant than the journey back.

Some of what we're reading simply isn't logical (Humbaba, the Bull of Heaven, etc), but we don't question its "truth" because we accept it within the framework of the poem. I think the same principle applies to time, distances, size, and geography. I don't think any of them should be taken literally. I suspect a lot of it is hyperbole.

The Cedar Forest is relevant to the poem, but where it is actually situated in the map may not be. And why the Babylonians changed the location may have something to do with their knowledge of geography at the time. But I've not read any research explaining the change in location, so I'm just speculating.

I was also asking why Shamath hates Humbaba and some searches suggest it is because it is an oppositional relationship. Shamath, as god of the sun, sees everything, everywhere and that makes him a god of light and justice. Humbaba guards a dark forest and represents darkness, nature, and disorder.

There was also a reference somewhere that the forest may be a place where some gods like to hang out. Maybe Enlil made Humbaba a guardian to maintain their privacy and keep Shamath's prying eyes away.

For both tablets III and IV, I appreciated the sacrifices, entreaties to gods, and ceremony.

- Ninsun sacrifices an auroch and then baths seven times.
- Enkidu's adoption felt ceremonial
- Every day, digging the well and pouring fresh water every night as a ritual to keep away the demons and ghosts of the area
- Every day, going to the top of the mountain and offering sacred flour to its peak (local gods?)
- Every night, building a shelter and a circle of wild barley flour for the dream god. Do we think they carried bags of flour with them from Uruk or did they grind their own each day as a part of the ritual? I tend to think we are to understand it was a daily task.
- And then, the interpretation of the dreams

Their ability to travel 300 miles a day makes reinforces their large size and superhuman nature. Gilgamesh's anxieties expressed through the dreams and their daily rituals in the wilderness makes them relatable. How often do we fall back on tribal knowledge, routines, and the support of friends to deal with the unknowns or stresses of challenging tasks?

Michael wrote: "There was also a reference somewhere that the forest may be a place where some gods like to hang out. Maybe Enlil made Humbaba a guardian to maintain their privacy and keep Shamath's prying eyes away...."

There is certainly tension between Shamash and Enlil. As you noted, Shamash is the sun god. Enlil is the god of wind and storms. So maybe the tension is due to that. But there is also tension between Enlil and the other gods as you'll see when you get further into the poem.