The Epic of Gilgamish A Fragment of the Gilgamish Legend in Old-Babylonian Cuneiform

Reader C

Not put to this reader.

Reader A none, low confidence

Nothing can honestly be restored here.

The tablet surface at lines 61-62 is badly flaked and abraded, leaving only disjointed sign traces. Neither Jastrow and Clay (1920) nor George (2003) venture a continuous restoration.

Reader C none, n/a confidence

Nothing can honestly be restored here.

The lacuna falls inside a single word, "at-[ ]-di". This is confirmed by gap 2792-003, whose surviving pre-gap text carries the same stretch continuously as "u at-[ ]-di" — the hyphens on both sides show the break is word-internal, not between words. That rules out the otherwise attractive reading "u at-[ta]" (2 m.sg. pronoun), which the surrounding second-person address to Enkidu (lu-ur-di-ka, ti-bi, ra-ma-an-ka) would have supported. What remains is a lexeme of the shape at-x-di. "at-[ta]-di" (attadi, nadu 1 c.s.) is the commonest Akkadian word of that shape, but a 1 c.s. preterite does not suit the hortatory speech of the woman to Enkidu, and Langdon records no width for the break, so more than one sign may be lost. Nothing forces a reading. Note also that the three overlapping excerpts 2792-002/003/004 quote one continuous stretch of Langdon's transliteration with the "hole" placed at a different one of his empty brackets each time; the overlap therefore confirms the flanking text but supplies nothing for any of the holes.

Reader B none, high confidence

Nothing can honestly be restored here.

The remaining signs at-[ ]-di [ -] ma ta- are too broken for a checkable word; George leaves the middle of the line unrestored.

Reader C none, n/a confidence

Nothing can honestly be restored here.

The gap stands between "ma ta-" and "ra-ma-an-ka". Grammar constrains it without determining it: "ta-" is the prefix of a 2 m.sg. prefixed verb, and "ramanka" (accusative "yourself") must be its object or an adjunct to it, so the missing material is "[you] ... yourself". The imperatives that follow directly ("al-ka ti-ba i-[na] ga-ag-ga-ri", "come, arise from the ground") place the clause inside the woman's hortatory speech. But no single verb is required: several 2 m.sg. forms govern ramanu idiomatically, and Langdon gives no estimate of the width. The overlapping excerpt 2792-002 shows the same passage with this bracket left empty there too, so the parallel confirms the break rather than filling it.

Reader B none, high confidence

Nothing can honestly be restored here.

Editor: "About two lines broken away" before Col. III. No duplicate OB line covers the lost couplet between the fold-scene and Enkidu sucking the animals' milk.

Reader C

Not put to this reader.

Reader C

Not put to this reader.

Reader B none, high confidence

Nothing can honestly be restored here.

Editor: "About five lines broken away" on the reverse. Jastrow-Clay already said the description of Enkidu's likeness to Gilgamesh in this stretch is too mutilated to permit of any certain restoration.

Reader C none, n/a confidence

Nothing can honestly be restored here.

The words on either side of the hole join without residue: "u sa-am-ka-at" + "ar-ki-su i-ru-ub-ma" reads as continuous Akkadian, "and the harlot behind him; he entered". Because the syntax is already complete across the break, the lost material is not demanded by the grammar — it is most likely the tail of the preceding, heavily damaged line ("i-il-la-ak- ..........") rather than anything needed between "samkat" and "arkisu". Where the surviving text does not require a supplement, and no width is recorded, there is no honest basis for supplying one.

Reader B none, high confidence

Nothing can honestly be restored here.

Isolated signs na-an(?)... ina muši inni-[ ]id do not yield a complete parallel line; the Ishhara-bed episode in SB I/II is adjacent in sense but not a line-for-line duplicate.

Reader C none, n/a confidence

Nothing can honestly be restored here.

The break falls inside "iluGilgamish id-[ ]na-an(?)", and Langdon's own query mark on "na-an" shows he was uncertain of the signs he could see, let alone those he could not. The overlapping excerpt 2792-009 quotes the same stretch and leaves the identical bracket empty, so it confirms the break without filling it. Candidates of the shape id-x-na-an are not constrained by the context, and the preceding clause ("a-na ilatIs-ha-ra ma-ia-lum na-[di]-i-ma", "for Ishhara the bed is laid") is already syntactically complete. I note in passing, as evidence that the surrounding text is legible and the hole genuinely isolated, that the separate bracket a few words later, "in-ni-[ -]id", is securely an N-stem of emēdu (innemmid); but that lacuna is not the one asked about and its solution does not reach this one.

Reader B none, high confidence

Nothing can honestly be restored here.

Same damaged stretch as 2792-008, only cut after itta-. No second manuscript supplies the missing signs.

Reader C none, n/a confidence

Nothing can honestly be restored here.

The break follows "it-ta-", a verbal prefix chain (perfect or Gtn, 3 sg.), and precedes "i-na zuki ip-ta-ra-[ku]" ("in the street they barred"). A prefix without its root does not determine a lexeme, and the clause after the break is independently complete, so the grammar imposes no requirement on what stood in the hole. The overlapping excerpt 2792-008 quotes the same stretch with this bracket empty as well.

Reader C

Not put to this reader.