batch.motif.mesopotamian-gilgamesh-old-babylonian-jastrow-clay-gutenberg-l4365-l4463
---
record_id: batch.motif.mesopotamian-gilgamesh-old-babylonian-jastrow-clay-gutenberg-l4365-l4463
source_text_path: texts/public-domain/mesopotamian/project-gutenberg/old-babylonian-gilgamesh-jastrow-clay.md
passage_locator:
label: COMMENTARY ON THE PENNSYLVANIA TABLET. / YALE TABLET. / TRANSLITERATION.
/ TRANSLATION.; lines 4365-4463
start: '4365'
end: '4463'
translation: An Old Babylonian Version of the Gilgamesh Epic
notes: Generated from OpenAI Batch run motif-extraction-2026-04-27-corpus; human
review required.
canonical_text:
quote: ''
summary: A technical philological commentary proposing corrected sign readings and
word divisions for multiple lines/columns of the tablet, repeatedly criticizing
Langdon’s readings and translations, noting physical damage (erasure/scratching)
on the tablet, citing parallels in the Assyrian version (Tablet IV) for restorations,
and discussing issues of missing-line estimates and colophon/edge statements (including
a note about “240 lines”).
language: English
quote_policy: summarized
literal_observations:
- id: obs:1
text: The commentator proposes numerous corrected readings (sign values, word separations,
and restorations) for specified lines and columns (e.g., Columns 4–6), often stating
what a sign “clearly” is or is “not certain.”
category: sequence
evidence_refs:
- ev:1
- id: obs:2
text: Langdon’s readings, notes, and translations are repeatedly criticized as incorrect;
the commentator claims many misreadings/mistransliterations and states that about
half of the preserved lines were mistranslated by Langdon.
category: speech
evidence_refs:
- ev:1
- ev:3
- id: obs:3
text: 'The tablet is described as physically damaged in places: one sign is said
to be written over an erasure, and the tablet is said to be scratched at a point
affecting legibility.'
category: attribute
evidence_refs:
- ev:2
- id: obs:4
text: Some conjectural restorations are explicitly based on parallels in the Assyrian
version of the epic (Tablet IV), with line references given.
category: relationship
evidence_refs:
- ev:4
- id: obs:5
text: The commentator states that Langdon’s indications of missing-line counts and
missing space within lines are misleading/inaccurate and criticizes the drawing
of lines implying completeness where the tablet is not complete.
category: speech
evidence_refs:
- ev:3
- id: obs:6
text: The commentator notes that Langdon omitted copying an edge statement interpreted
as “240 lines,” and also criticizes a mistranslation in the colophon regarding
the word rendered as “written.”
category: object
evidence_refs:
- ev:3
figures:
- id: fig:1
name_or_label: Dr. Langdon
description: A previous editor/translator whose readings, notes, and translations
are criticized and corrected throughout the commentary.
role_refs:
- role:1
evidence_refs:
- ev:1
- ev:3
- id: fig:2
name_or_label: Assyrian version (Tablet IV)
description: A parallel textual version cited for specific line parallels used to
support restorations of the Old Babylonian text.
role_refs:
- role:2
evidence_refs:
- ev:4
- id: fig:3
name_or_label: Pennsylvania/Yale tablet (the tablet under discussion)
description: The clay tablet text being edited; its columns/lines are discussed
and its surface is noted as having erasures/scratches affecting signs.
role_refs:
- role:3
evidence_refs:
- ev:1
- ev:2
- ev:3
roles:
- id: role:1
label: prior editor/translator being corrected
assigned_to:
- fig:1
basis: The passage repeatedly contrasts proposed readings with “Langdon’s” readings/notes
and labels many of them wrong/misleading.
evidence_refs:
- ev:1
- ev:3
- id: role:2
label: parallel-text witness for restoration
assigned_to:
- fig:2
basis: Restorations are said to be supplied “on the basis of the Assyrian version,”
with Tablet IV citations.
evidence_refs:
- ev:4
- id: role:3
label: manuscript/artifact under philological examination
assigned_to:
- fig:3
basis: The commentary discusses columns/lines and notes physical damage (erasure/scratching)
and edge/colophon statements of the tablet.
evidence_refs:
- ev:1
- ev:2
- ev:3
symbols:
- id: sym:1
label: clay tablet with columns/lines
literal_form: A tablet text organized in columns (e.g., Column 4–6) with numbered
lines and cuneiform signs subject to reading/restoration.
associated_figures:
- fig:3
taxonomy_refs: []
evidence_refs:
- ev:1
- id: sym:2
label: erasure and scratching on the tablet
literal_form: An erasure overwritten by a sign and a place where someone scratched
the tablet, affecting sign certainty.
associated_figures:
- fig:3
taxonomy_refs: []
evidence_refs:
- ev:2
- id: sym:3
label: edge statement and colophon (including “240 lines”)
literal_form: An edge notation interpreted as “240 lines” and a colophon term discussed
for correct translation.
associated_figures:
- fig:3
- fig:1
taxonomy_refs: []
evidence_refs:
- ev:3
- id: sym:4
label: lexical gloss “Mi = salmu (‘image’)”
literal_form: A note identifying a sign/value as “Mi = salmu,” glossed as “image.”
associated_figures: []
taxonomy_refs: []
evidence_refs:
- ev:1
scenes:
- id: scene:1
label: Philological emendation and critique of prior edition
summary: The commentator lists corrected readings and restorations for multiple
lines/columns, notes tablet damage affecting signs, cites the Assyrian version
as a basis for some restorations, and argues that Langdon’s line counts, copies,
and translations contain numerous errors (including omission of an edge statement
and mistakes in the colophon).
figure_refs:
- fig:1
- fig:2
- fig:3
symbol_refs:
- sym:1
- sym:2
- sym:3
- sym:4
evidence_refs:
- ev:1
- ev:2
- ev:3
- ev:4
candidate_motifs: []
comparison_claims:
- id: claim:1
claim: Specific restorations/readings in this Old Babylonian tablet passage are
aligned with (and partly reconstructed from) parallel lines in the Assyrian version
of the epic (Tablet IV), implying a close textual correspondence at those points.
claim_level: linguistic_similarity
target: Assyrian version of the Gilgamesh epic, Tablet IV (line references cited
in the commentary)
evidence_refs:
- ev:4
counter_evidence_refs: []
confidence: medium
limitations: This is a philological cross-version alignment rather than a mythic-motif
comparison; the passage offers no narrative content here to evaluate thematic
similarity beyond textual parallelism.
evidence:
- id: ev:1
type: summary
locator: 4365-4463
quote_or_summary: Technical commentary proposing many corrected readings (sign values,
divisions, and restorations) across several columns/lines; includes notes such
as identifying signs, separating words, and a lexical gloss (“Mi = salmu, ‘image’”),
while repeatedly disputing Langdon’s readings/notes.
source_text_path: texts/public-domain/mesopotamian/project-gutenberg/old-babylonian-gilgamesh-jastrow-clay.md
rights_note: Public domain source; summary provided.
- id: ev:2
type: summary
locator: 4365-4463
quote_or_summary: 'Mentions physical damage/uncertainty on the tablet: a sign apparently
written over an erasure and a place where someone scratched the tablet, affecting
legibility of signs.'
source_text_path: texts/public-domain/mesopotamian/project-gutenberg/old-babylonian-gilgamesh-jastrow-clay.md
rights_note: Public domain source; summary provided.
- id: ev:3
type: summary
locator: 4365-4463
quote_or_summary: Criticizes Langdon’s handling of missing lines and space indications
as misleading/inaccurate; notes Langdon omitted copying an edge statement interpreted
as “240 lines,” and criticizes a colophon mistranslation; claims extensive misreadings/mistransliterations
and many mistranslations.
source_text_path: texts/public-domain/mesopotamian/project-gutenberg/old-babylonian-gilgamesh-jastrow-clay.md
rights_note: Public domain source; summary provided.
- id: ev:4
type: summary
locator: 4365-4463
quote_or_summary: States that certain restored readings are supplied on the basis
of the Assyrian version (Tablet IV), giving specific tablet/line references as
parallels for restorations.
source_text_path: texts/public-domain/mesopotamian/project-gutenberg/old-babylonian-gilgamesh-jastrow-clay.md
rights_note: Public domain source; summary provided.
confidence:
extraction: high
motif_candidates: high
comparison_claims: medium
notes: The passage is mainly editorial/philological commentary with minimal mythic/narrative
content; thus no motif candidates are asserted. A limited cross-version textual
comparison is explicitly present via cited Assyrian parallels.
reviewer_status:
status: needs_review
reviewer: ''
reviewed_at: ''
notes: Machine-generated draft from OpenAI Batch; not human-reviewed.
extracted_by: openai_batch:gpt-5.2
extracted_at: '2026-04-27'
notes: |-
No narrative scenes or mythic motifs are directly present; the content concerns textual criticism, sign readings, and manuscript condition.
batch_run_id=motif-extraction-2026-04-27-corpus
custom_id=motif_extract:mesopotamian-gilgamesh-old-babylonian-jastrow-clay-gutenberg__l4365-l4463
passage_sha256=a45423d279ad3d5ec488fa868eb6b8b03615291fa0c37f77aa0ce9fe6c29dadf