etic sections in terms of orthographic and linguistic features. Minor variations in style
occur slightly more frequently in the laws than in the epilogue. The complete absence of
major stylistic changes and hermeneutic variations in the legal section of tablet e is per-
haps significant, however there remains too little of the actual laws preserved to allow
any substantial comment.
Gilgamesh XI
Gilgamesh XI shows a far greater proportion of minor variations in the sources, reflecting
differences in dialect, pronunciation, lexical preferences, and the sequence of words and
phrases. However, there is in general a smaller number of significant variations in style
and hermeneutic between the first millennium sources compared to some other textual
genres. Significant differences in hermeneutic that are preserved included some possible
exegetical changes, particularly in tablet J (a Neo-Assyrian text from Kuyunjik). Other
significant variations relate to cardinal numbers and limited expansions to the narrative.
Close agreement between the sources may to some extent be related to geographical dis-
tribution. For example, tablet C (a text excavated from Kuyunjik but probably not written
there) shows greater agreement with texts from outside Nineveh, such as tablet b (a Neo-
Assyrian text from Ashur) and tablet j (a Late Babylonian text from Babylon), than with
texts from Kuyunjik proper (tablets J and W). With this said, tablet C does show some
agreement with one text from Kuyunjik (tablet T, similar in format and script to tablet J),
so there is no absolute determination that can be made in this respect. Certain tablets os-