A few quick thoughts:
1. Specifically dealing with this subject, see Jaynes p. 253 and the other references to Gilgamesh in the index.
2. I don't think the dating stated in your post is accurate ("end of the third millennium BCE"). There are different versions dating to different time periods, probably all which have been subject to later editing, and the dating is not without controversy. One must first verify which version is being translated. The "standard version" dates to the time period Jaynes describes as transitional (1200 B.C.) and likely includes edits and additions that reflect a more modern mentality.
Quoted from
http://www.ancient.eu.com/article/191/:
The standard version was discovered by Austen Henry Layard in the library of Ashurbanipal in Nineveh in 1849. It was written in standard Babylonian, a dialect of Akkadian that was only used for literary purposes. This version was compiled by Sin-liqe-unninni sometime between 1300 and 1000 BC out of older legends.
This quote summarizes the difficulty scholars have in accurately dating the descriptions found in the text (emphasis mine):
"Since The Epic of Gilgamesh
existed in oral form long before it was written down, there has been much debate over whether the extant tale is more early Sumerian or later Babylonian in cultural influence. The best preserved version of the story comes from the Babylonian writer Shin-Leqi-Unninni (wrote 1300-1000 BCE) who
translated, edited, and may have embellished upon, the original story. Regarding this, the Sumerian scholar Samuel Noah Kramer writes:
Of the various episodes comprising The Epic of Gilgamesh, several go back to Sumerian prototypes actually involving the hero Gilgamesh. Even in those episodes which lack Sumerian counterparts, most of the individual motifs reflect Sumerian mythic and epic sources. In no case, however, did the Babylonian poets slavishly copy the Sumerian material. They so modified its content and molded its form, in accordance with their own temper and heritage, that only the bare nucleus of the Sumerian original remains recognizable. As for the plot structure of the epic as a whole - the forceful and fateful episodic drama of the restless, adventurous hero and his inevitable disillusionment - it is definitely a Babylonian, rather than a Sumerian, development and achievement. (History Begins at Sumer, 270)."
3. There are also many references to gods, and gods interacting with people. For example, "Did you call me, or why did I wake? Did you touch me, or why am I terrified? Did not some god pass by, for my limbs are numb with fear?†repeated a number of times in Tablet IV. Note that Bottero in
Religion in Ancient Mesopotamia writes "The word 'god' here might in fact imply 'ghost'." However there is no basis for this interpretation whatsoever. This is an example of the presentist fallacy - overlaying a modern interpretation on ancient texts. Because historians don't know what to make of examples of bicameralism, they generally ignore or misinterpret them.
4. In discussing ancient texts in general there seems to be a lot of confusion as to what constitutes bicameralism. One should imagine their daily life, subtract the introspection, and add voices from gods in its place. We have many modern day case studies of this (see for example, R.T. Hulbert, "A Schizophrenic Woman Who Heard Voices of the Gods"), although in most cases the individuals also learned consciousness. What one should be looking for in ancient texts are accurate translations that clearly describe introspection in the way that you see texts do in the beginning of the subjective conscious period (what we see in the writings of Solon, for example). Phrases such as "my heart is heavy" are vague, may have been later additions, and should be compared to other translations. They translations often differ widely, and this is especially true when it comes to psychological language.
5. Readers new to Jaynes often have to urge to run out and try to locate an early text with some element of consciousness, thereby refuting the theory. This is a somewhat simplistic approach, both because it ignores the complexities involved in studying ancient texts, and the fact that it only addresses one aspect of Jaynes's theory (the timing of the transition from bicamerality to consciousness). More accurate (non-modernized) translations of ancient texts will undoubtedly help refine our understanding of the timeline for the transition to consciousness in various cultures. Perhaps the transition -- or aspects of the transition... consciousness should be viewed as a package of features -- took place somewhat earlier in Mesopotamia. There are interesting differences in bicameralism in Mesopotamia and Egypt, for example. It is likely that the different features of consciousness arose at different times rather than all at once (perhaps over several generations), and the timing was undoubtedly different in different cultures. Jaynes frequently stated that he was outlining a broad transition and that much more research was needed to further refine and elucidate these issues. Rather than looking at any one text in isolation, I suggest people view Gilgamesh in the wider context of Mesopotamian texts, as well as the larger, multidisciplinary
pattern of evidence.
In Mesopotamia, there are many descriptions of bicameralism. Some examples:
“The Mesopotamian is constantly admonished: “Pay heed to the word of thy mother as to the word of thy god.†– Jacobsen,
The Intellectual Adventures of Ancient Man
“A man must truly proclaim the greatness of his god; A young man must wholeheartedly obey the command of his god.†– Sumerian Texts of Varied Contents, Vol. 1
“Mesopotamians frequently wrote letters to their gods.†– Jacobsen,
The Intellectual Adventures of Ancient Man
“What came out of the mouths of the gods was ‘sublime’ (sÃru), ‘powerful’ (gasru), ‘imposing’ (kabtu), and, above all,‘impossible to modify and even less suppress’ (sa la inennu, la uttakkaru).†; “The gods expressed their will through their ‘words’ (amatu) and their ‘commandments’ (qibÃtu).†– Jean Bottéro,
Religion in Ancient Mesopotamia
“The ensi would go to the temple at night, sacrifice, pray, and lie down to sleep. In dreams the god might then appear to him and give him his orders.†; “[Only the gods] were truly citizens in the political sense.â€; “The basic estate, the main temple with all its lands, was owned and run by the city god, who himself gave all important orders.â€; “The ensi [manager of the god’s estate] … was expected to consult the god and carry out any specific orders which the god might wish to give.†– Jacobsen,
The Intellectual Adventures of Ancient Man
“A man’s personal god was always ready to bring his dependent … before the great god … he would watch over him and keep him from evil influences.â€
“But if, by reason of sin, the believer ceased to be ‘the son of his god’, then the latter would turn his face from him and … one of the demons would enter into the place left empty by the god.†– Georges Contenau,
Everyday Life in Babylon and Assyria
Wars were all started at the gods’ command. “The preamble to the account of a campaign always contains the statement that it was undertaken at the command of the god [Ashur].†– Georges Contenau,
Everyday Life in Babylon and Assyria
Jacobsen describes what can be viewed as the breakdown of bicameralism: “All omens and signs became confused, the gods gave no clear answers to man’s questions, no orders were transmitted, sinister portents appeared, and with fear and foreboding man awaited the catastrophe.†– Jacobsen,
The Intellectual Adventures of Ancient Man
The reliance on and strict obedience to the commands of the gods, along with bicameral or visitation dreams, would be unnecessary if a culture had the same subjective consciousness we have today.
5. For more on the issue of the complexities involved in translating ancient texts, please see Jame Cohn's
The Minds of the Bible as well as his lecture "
Consciousness in the Bible" from the 2013 Julian Jaynes Conference on Consciousness and Bicameral Studies (audio CD coming soon). Rabbi Cohn is one of the few scholars currently doing accurate translations of ancient texts from a Jaynesian perspective.