CCP 7.2.u6 - Uncertain

Catalogue information
British Museum
83-1-18,722
NinevehNineveh (Kuyunjik)
CDLI: 
P237394
Commentary
MiscellaneaUnknown

Broken

Base text: 
Uncertain
Tablet information
Babylonian
Fragment
Columns: 
1 (or >)
Lines: 
11
Size: 
2,85 × 3,49 × 2,4 cm
7th cent (Assurbanipal libraries and other Assyrian cities)
Bibliography

Frahm, 2011E. Frahm, Babylonian and Assyrian Text Commentaries. Origins of Interpretation. Ugarit-Verlag, 2011.: 261

Gabbay, 2016U. Gabbay, The Exegetical Terminology of Akkadian Commentaries. Brill, 2016.
[On line r 4]
: 75

Record
Jiménez, 05/2015 (Transliteration)
Jiménez, 05/2015 (Translation)
Jiménez, 05/2015 (Introduction)
Jiménez, 08/2016 (Commentary markup)
By Enrique Jiménez | Make a correction or suggestion
How to cite
Jiménez, E., 2015, “Commentary on Uncertain (CCP 7.2.u6),” Cuneiform Commentaries Project (E. Frahm, E. Jiménez, M. Frazer, and K. Wagensonner), 2013–2024; accessed July 24, 2024, at https://ccp.yale.edu/P237394. DOI: 10079/stqjqfc
© Cuneiform Commentaries Project (Citation Guidelines)
Introduction

This small fragment was classified as a commentary in J. C. Fincke’s electronic catalog of the Babylonian tablets in the Kuyunjik collection. The obverse of the fragment is badly damaged, but several commentarial equations can be read on the reverse. The three best preserved ones (rev 1, 3-4) contain a series of consecutive explanations for one and the same explanandum. At least in one case (r 4) the alternative explanation is introduced by means of the technical term šanîš, “alternatively.”

The three commentary fragments 83-1-18,722 (CCP 7.2.u6), 83-1-18,725 (CCP 7.2.u7), and 83-1-18,727 (CCP 7.2.u8) belong to the “Kuyunjik collection” and are written in a similar Babylonian script. They may well be part of the same tablet, which was in all likelihood not found in Kuyunjik, but in some Babylonian city. They probably date to the second half of the first millennium BCE. Although in the case of the present commentary it is difficult to ascertain the nature of its base text, comparison with the other two fragments suggests that it may have been a divinatory, magical, or medical text.

Edition

Powered by Oracc
(Base textCommentaryQuotations from other texts)

ccpo

1883-01-18, 0722 unpublished unassigned ?[via ccpo]

Obverse
o 1'o 1'

[...] x [...]

...

o 2'2'

[...] x x ḫu-du? x x [...]

...

o 3'3'

[...] x dMAŠ a-ḫa [x] x x [...]

...

o 4'4'

[...] x x x x [...]

...

o 5'5'

[...]-ti-ka ana x x x [...]

...

Reverse
r 1r 1

[...] x-piš É : ŠÀ : -reb : ŠÀ : lib-bi [...]

[...] ... house. šà means "center", šà means "hea[rt" ...]

r 22

[...]-ri-in-nu : e-bi-ḫu [...]

[...] means ...; ebīḫu means [...]

r 33

[... KAR : e]-ṭe-ru : KAR : e-ke-mu [...]

[... kar] means "to take away", kar means "to deprive" [...].

r 44

[... :] e-se-pi : šá-niš es-pa : x x [...]1

[... "collected" (espa (?)) derived from] "to colect," alternatively espa can mean [...].

1The signs after šanîš could be read as gišPA.

Photos by Enrique Jiménez

Courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum