An Old Babylonian Version of the Gilgamesh Epic | Page 4

tablet to be of the late Persian
period (i.e., between the sixth and third century B. C.), but his attention
having been called to this error of some 1500 years, he corrected it in
his introduction to his edition of the text, though he neglected to change
some of his notes in which he still refers to the text as "late." [24] In
addition to a copy of the text, accompanied by a good photograph, Dr.
Langdon furnished a transliteration and translation with some notes and

a brief introduction. The text is unfortunately badly copied, being full
of errors; and the translation is likewise very defective. A careful
collation with the original tablet was made with the assistance of Dr.
Edward Chiera, and as a consequence we are in a position to offer to
scholars a correct text. We beg to acknowledge our obligations to Dr.
Gordon, the Director of the Museum of the University of Pennsylvania,
for kindly placing the tablet at our disposal. Instead of republishing the
text, I content myself with giving a full list of corrections in the
appendix to this volume which will enable scholars to control our
readings, and which will, I believe, justify the translation in the
numerous passages in which it deviates from Dr. Langdon's rendering.
While credit should be given to Dr. Langdon for having made this
important tablet accessible, the interests of science demand that
attention be called to his failure to grasp the many important data
furnished by the tablet, which escaped him because of his erroneous
readings and faulty translations.
The tablet, consisting of six columns (three on the obverse and three on
the reverse), comprised, according to the colophon, 240 lines [25] and
formed the second tablet of the series. Of the total, 204 lines are
preserved in full or in part, and of the missing thirty-six quite a number
can be restored, so that we have a fairly complete tablet. The most
serious break occurs at the top of the reverse, where about eight lines
are missing. In consequence of this the connection between the end of
the obverse (where about five lines are missing) and the beginning of
the reverse is obscured, though not to the extent of our entirely losing
the thread of the narrative.
About the same time that the University of Pennsylvania Museum
purchased this second tablet of the Gilgamesh Series, Yale University
obtained a tablet from the same dealer, which turned out to be a
continuation of the University of Pennsylvania tablet. That the two
belong to the same edition of the Epic is shown by their agreement in
the dark brown color of the clay, in the writing as well as in the size of
the tablet, though the characters on the Yale tablet are somewhat
cramped and in consequence more difficult to read. Both tablets consist
of six columns, three on the obverse and three on the reverse. The

measurements of both are about the same, the Pennsylvania tablet
being estimated at about 7 inches high, as against 7 2/16 inches for the
Yale tablet, while the width of both is 6 1/2 inches. The Yale tablet is,
however, more closely written and therefore has a larger number of
lines than the Pennsylvania tablet. The colophon to the Yale tablet is
unfortunately missing, but from internal evidence it is quite certain that
the Yale tablet follows immediately upon the Pennsylvania tablet and,
therefore, may be set down as the third of the series. The obverse is
very badly preserved, so that only a general view of its contents can be
secured. The reverse contains serious gaps in the first and second
columns. The scribe evidently had a copy before him which he tried to
follow exactly, but finding that he could not get all of the copy before
him in the six columns, he continued the last column on the edge. In
this way we obtain for the sixth column 64 lines as against 45 for
column IV, and 47 for column V, and a total of 292 lines for the six
columns. Subtracting the 16 lines written on the edge leaves us 276
lines for our tablet as against 240 for its companion. The width of each
column being the same on both tablets, the difference of 36 lines is
made up by the closer writing.
Both tablets have peculiar knobs at the sides, the purpose of which is
evidently not to facilitate holding the tablet in one's hand while writing
or reading it, as Langdon assumed [26] (it would be quite impracticable
for this purpose), but simply to protect the tablet in its position on a
shelf, where it would naturally be placed on the edge, just as we
arrange books on a shelf. Finally be it noted that