difficult terms may be substituted with more common ones. See, for example, H55, H114
(in agreement with tablet C), and possibly H123.
One lexical interchange in tablet B seems to reflect the wording of another ancient ver-
sion contemporary with LH, namely AO10237 (see H82). A similar phenomenon is also
reflected in tablet D (see H65). A variant of particular interest is the interchange of appel-
lations that occurs in H64, where all three sources (LH, B and D) have different titles for
the same deity (see note ).
In the law section lexical interchanges potentially occur in tablet J, though this may be
otherwise explained (H136, H138, H142 and H169 – see the comments in note ). Tablet P
does attest a clear lexical interchange (H206, and see H197, though the latter is not prop-
erly synonymous). The interchange of lexemes is also reflected in the epilogue in tablet e
(see H245).
In addition to these variations, minor stylistic differences that frequently occur involve
the addition or omission of certain forms relative to LH, such as conjunctions, the enclitic
particle “-ma,” relative particles and pronouns.
Stylistic Variants (Type 2)
The most significant stylistic difference between the sources is found in the opening lines
of the prologue. Here tablet B appears to diverge significantly from the text of LH in its
description of the foundations of the kingship, and in particular the kingship of Hammu-