While the two texts Gilgamesh and Popol Vuh have many similarities, themes characters ect. I personally would not call the two texts similar. In my opinion for two texts to be similar they must poses similar general themes that apply to the entire text, not small themes that only apply to portions of the text. In other words I believe that two texts can have similar events, yet have completely different meanings.
Popol Vuh and Gilgamesh actually had more similarities than dissimilarities, but it is the significance of those similarities, not the quantity, that really counts. The fact that small details come up in both texts does not overshadow the fact that these two texts have different meanings. In this essay I will discus the similarities and dissimilarities of both these texts with no bias towards the dissimilarities, allowing the facts to speak for themselves.
The similarities between Popol Vuh and Gilgamesh are numerous to say the least. The first and most important similarity in my mind is the cultural importance of the two texts. Each text can be used extensively for the study of its respected culture. Popol Vuh is, in essence, a religious history, or for lack of a better word "bible" for the ancient Mayan civilization, by studying it we can learn more about their beliefs, which in turn, allows us to better, understand their culture. For example, Popol Vuh states that humans were made from corn; from this we can infer that the Mayan people used corn as their main food source. Popol Vuh also alludes to the belief that animals were in a since, the gods first attempt at creating man, from this information we can infer that the Mayan people had great respect for the animals, especially monkeys who were thought to be almost perfect and survived the great flood.
When a culture is as heavily based on religion as the ancient Mayans were, studying their religion turns out to be the best way to learn about their culture, their traditions, their rituals, their social structure and their knowledge of science. This is all hinted at in religion. Rituals and traditions are usually based on religion, especially in heavily religious cultures, therefore religious readings are a good way to learn about them. Social structure can also be learned about through religious texts, Popol Vuh for example mentions famous kings as well as the gods, reading about these kings lets us know what their government was like. Science, while not mentioned in religious documents can be inferred by what is not left up to faith. For example, in Popol Vuh the Mayans believe that the sun is a god traveling across the sky, from this we can infer that the Mayans did not study astronomy very closely.
Gilgamesh on the other, hand is not a religious document of any kind rather it is a Mesopotamian myth that involves religious figures. Despite that, much can be learned from it about Mesopotamian culture, because it too describes the gods, kings and people of ancient Mesopotamia, and while it is in no way any type of "bible" it does give a fair amount of background regarding their religion.
Another similarity the two texts have is the way in which they depict the gods. Both Popol Vuh and Gilgamesh show the gods as having more human or having human tendencies. For example in Popol Vuh the gods fail in their first few attempt to create man and humans defeated the lords of the underworld, this shows us that the Mayans did not believe their gods to be perfect like those of western religions. Gilgamesh went one step further by actually bringing the gods down to earth to interact directly with the humans. Gilgamesh himself was also half god half human, this showing how the Mesopotamians also believed their gods to be very human.
Another similarity the two texts have is one of the stories featured in the texts. Both Popol Vuh and Gilgamesh had a story about a great battle against evil forces and a quest for life. In Popol Vuh the twins battle the Lords of the underworld for control of the sun, which is represented by the ball with which their game is played. It is my opinion that the ball also represents life since the Mayans were so dependent on agriculture the sun was a life force for them. In Gilgamesh, Gilgamesh and Enkidu battle the evil monster, when Enkidu is killed in battle Gilgamesh makes it his life's work to find the secret to eternal life.
Both of these texts also have parts to them that are strikingly similar to the Bible. For example, both texts have a scene in which the gods become enraged with man and flood the earth to wash away the sinners. Popol Vuh also has a scene where prophets climb to the top of a mountain to receive the word of god, much like Moses in the Bible.
Now there are fewer differences between Popol Vuh and Gilgamesh than there were similarities but I believe these differences to be greater. The first and most relevant difference in my mind is that the two texts have almost completely different purposes. Popol Vuh was intended to be a complete religious history of the Mayan civilization, a Mayan bible if you will; it was intended to pass down Mayan beliefs and traditions for future generations. Gilgamesh on the other hand simply recounts one story that only involves aspects of Mesopotamian religion. Gilgamesh was merely intended to pass one story down to future generations for the purpose of entertainment. In my opinion two books cannot be called similar if their intentions are not the same, it would be like calling religious fiction similar to the Bible.
Another difference that is very important is the time of the translation. Seeing as how the majority of historians are present minded, the time of a texts translation could make an incredible difference in the outcome of the text. Gilgamesh was translated long before Popol Vuh and has been translated many times in many ways, because of this the times and cultures of various translations leave a large imprint on the overall message of the book. Popol Vuh was first translated by the Spanish when they first colonized Mexico, then more recently by American historians early this century. The translation of these texts is incredibly important in creating a "personality" for the text, and because of the incredible differences in the translations of these texts their "personalities" are completely different.
In closing I would like to point out that while there are many similarities between these texts, most of them are either in small details, like stories they have in common, or how our society views them as a way of studying ancient cultures. The differences however are in the actual styles, content, and intentions of the texts. It is my opinion that these texts are very different and should not be compared.