Figure - Average Variation Of All Sources
Concluding Remarks on the Cuneiform Sources
EAE63
Tablets of EAE63 can show major variations between sources, even if those sources have
similarities in terms of format and geographical provenience. For example, tablet A+M is
close to tablet C in respect to its format, with each sharing similar dimensions and mar-
ginal rulings. Both tablets were ostensibly excavated from the collections at Kuyunjik in
Nineveh. A+M is written in Neo-Babylonian script and, while C is written in a Neo-
Assyrian script, its colophon indicates that it is a copy of a Babylonian original.
Yet, despite these similarities, A+M and C differ from each other significantly at V23,
where the same protasis is followed by contradictory apodoses. Tablets D (a Neo-
Assyrian copy also from Nineveh) and F+H+J (a sixth century B.C.E. Late Babylonian
EAE 63
MUL.APIN
LH
Gilgamesh XI
Mīs Pî
Qumran
Non-Qumran
% HV % SV % OV(l) % OV %Pll