Although cited in secondary literature already in 1925,1 this is the first published text edition of this commentary. The tablet, which is from Hellenistic Uruk, contains, in varying states of preservation, the first thirty-eight lines of a commentary on one of the higher-numbered chapters of Enūma Anu Enlil. The number by which the chapter was known at Uruk is uncertain,2 but at Assur it was Chapter 48 (according to the Assur catalogue of EAE) and at Nineveh it was Chapter 55 (?).3 Most of the text on the reverse is completely abraded, but it is clear that after several lines it was divided by a double ruling, and again after a further nine lines by a second double ruling. A rubric comes next, most of which is broken away, before the manuscript concludes with a colophon.

Although the commentary begins by citing an omen in its entirety (i.e., protasis and apodosis), it usually cites only an omen’s protasis, be it in whole or in part. The protases in question progress from those featuring the Yoke Constellation (ll. 1-11), the Kidney Star (ll. 12-15), the Habaṣīrānu Star (ll. 18-20, 22-23), the šu.pa Constellation (ll. 21-22), the Scorpion Constellation (ll. 24-31?), and the Nanny-Goat Constellation (ll. 37-38). With respect to the Yoke Constellation (written mulšudun and mulšu.pa), the commentary equates it with the planets Mercury (l. 3), Mars (l. 11) and especially Jupiter (ll. 8, 9, 10 and 11). The Kidney Star is equated with the planet Mercury (l. 12) and the Gula Star (l. 14). The Habaṣīrānu Star is also equated with the planet Mercury (ll. 18. 19, 20, 21 and probably 22), as are both the Yoke Constellation (written mulšu.pa, l. 22) and the Scorpion Constellation (l. 26). Also worthy of note is the chain of three equations used to connect Emutbal, a geographical name that was anachronistic by the Hellenistic period, with the planet Mars (l. 11).

In addition to equating the celestial bodies in the omens with planets – equations whose rationale is not always clear – the commentary occasionally performs etymological analysis, most notably when it uses the notarikon technique to explain the logographic writing of the Habaṣīrānu Star, mulen.te.na.bar.hum (ll. 22-23). Synonyms are the other hermeneutic technique in use. Thus logograms are sometimes explained by recourse to an Akkadian equivalent: [è] (?) = napāhu (l. 2), ti = […] (l. 5), si = amāri (l. 29), and the old-fashioned word a-pí-il is explained by means of the contemporary ár-ku (l. 19).

Aside from cola, the commentary uses one rarely attested technical term, umma, “thus”. U. Gabbay suggests on the basis of the few appearances of umma in other commentaries that it is used to introduce paraphrases of the base text.4 Unfortunately, in this text it appears both times in broken contexts (ll. 30 and 35).

Though badly damaged, the colophon tells us that the tablet was written by Ina-qibīt-Anu “for his education” before he deposited it in the Bīt-Rēš temple. The particular blessing on the upper edge of the tablet – “At the word of Anu and Antu, may it be a success!” – is often found on tablets from Uruk that were produced in pedagogical contexts. The name of the tablet’s owner is badly damaged, but the traces are consistent with the name Anu-aḫu-ušabši. This reading finds additional support in the fact that Anu-ahu-ušabši / Kidin-Anu // Ekur-zakir and his son Ina-qibīt-Anu were the respective owner and copyist of another commentary on a high tablet number of Enūma Anu Enlil, CCP 3.1.52.K.

The ḫepi-gloss, literally “it is broken”, in l. 7 indicates that Ina-qibīt-Anu was using either a damaged manuscript of the base text or an earlier (damaged) manuscript of the same commentary. This commentary may well, therefore, have been composed before the Hellenistic period. The quality of an earlier manuscript may be to blame for the corruption of kur to lú in l. 6 and for the possible corruption of the constellation name en.te.na.maš.hum (= Centaurus) to en.me.ez.hum in l. 22.

Finally, it remains to point out that the commentary’s opening line, when read in conjunction with the (also partially preserved) citation of the same line in a commentary from Nineveh, CCP 3.1.55.B (o 1 and r 9'), allows the incipit of the base text to be securely identified for the first time as šumma mulnīru ina āṣīšu šaqûma ītanmar (“If the Yoke Constellation, when it rises, is (literally: was) high and visible”).5

The tablet VAT 7830 is published here with the kind permission of the Vorderasiatisches Museum.

• 1. B. Meissner, Studien zur assyrischen Lexikographie. Pfeiffer, 1925. P. 24.
• 2. The numbering of EAE’s higher-numbered Chapters at Uruk is unclear because the EAE Uruk catalogue only spans (Uruk) Chapters 1-26.
• 3. Assur Chapter 47 is currently thought to correspond to Nineveh Chapters 53 and 54, and Assur 49 to Nineveh 55: see J. C. Fincke, “Der Assur-Katalog der Serie enūma anu enlil (EAE)”, Orientalia Nova Series, vol. 70, pp. 19-39, 2001. Pp. 28-29.
• 4. U. Gabbay, The Exegetical Terminology of Akkadian Commentaries. Brill, 2016. Pp. 195-197.
• 5. Until now, only the last word of the incipit was certain: see J. C. Fincke, “Der Assur-Katalog der Serie enūma anu enlil (EAE)”, Orientalia Nova Series, vol. 70, pp. 19-39, 2001. P. 24 and Pp. 28-29.