tively fixed within the textual traditions reflected by these fragments, the textual details
themselves were yet open to interpretation, abbreviation or conflation, and even contra-
diction, by the scribes that reproduced these texts.
MUL.APIN
Certain copies of MUL.APIN show significant agreement where overlaps are preserved.
For example, tablet A (a third century Neo-Babylonian tablet “written and checked” ac-
cording to its colophon) is in complete agreement with tablet Y (a Neo-Babylonian tablet
from Kuyunjik), and is also in full agreement with tablet GG (from the Southwest Palace
at Kuyunjik). Similarly tablet C (a Neo-Babylonian tablet from southern Iraq) agrees
fully with tablet X (a Neo-Babylonian tablet of uncertain provenience) in the places that
these tablets overlap.
While these examples show that significant agreement between copies is indeed possible
between geographically and temporally distant sources within this series, it is not a com-
mon feature. For example, in many of the other sources we find that there is a high likeli-
hood that cardinal numbers will vary, due to either textual corruption or adjustment ac-
cording to observed reality. Sometimes the sequence of the taxonomy varies, as is the
case with tablet T (from a temple context in either Babylon or Borsippa) which appears to
be in error against tablets A, O (a Neo-Assyrian tablet from Kuyunjik) and AA (from a
private library in Ashur).