The commentaries to Aa are among the most sophisticated in the cuneiform tradition. A brief introduction to them has been written by Civil and Frahm.
The present tablet is furnished with a colophon that classifies the tablet as a ṣâtu-commentary on the 41st pirsu-section of Aa (= Ea VIII/3) The colophon also provides the catchline of the 42nd pirsu (Ea VIII/4). Most importantly, it states that the tablet once belonged to a certain Taqīš-Gula, nêšakku-priest [of Enlil] son of Enlil-bēlšunu and descendant of Enlil-uš-[Igigi]. Such a name is attested in two other colophons, namely YBC 11380 and PTS 1 (JAOS 65 223ff). The latter is dated to the fifth year of Artaxerxes, i.e., 460 or 400 BC, and written in Nippur, so the present tablet should also date to the Achaemenid period and its origin is in all likelihood Nippur too. It would then represent the only known commentary on Aa from ancient Nippur (but cf. also CCP 4.2.C).
This small tablet (7,4 x 5,2 cm) is written in an elegant Neo-Babylonian script. Some of the signs are archaizing in form, e.g. l. 22 íl, l. 35 zag and l. 39 en (the latter two belong to the colophon). The text is divided into three columns, of which the first contains a phonetic gloss with the pronunciation of the sign in the second column, while the third column contains an Akkadian rendering of one of the meanings of the sign in question. What distinguishes this commentary (and all commentaries on Aa) from Ea is that the Akkadian word is furnished with several additional Akkadian words which explore the semantic range of the concept. This is, to a certain extent, also the scope of the Aa recension, but, as opposed to it, the commentaries usually go further down the heremeneutical path by including, for instance, cases of notariqon (ll. 3-4), expansions inspired in other lexical lists (ll. 10-12, cf. Diri II 245-249), alternative explanations introduced by šanîš, or justifications introduced by aššum.
The decipherment of the commentary is hampered by the fact that no manuscript of Aa is known for this section. Moreover, ll. 18-34 are difficult to place, because the corresponding section in Ea is broken (the possible place of these lines within Ea is discussed by Civil). It seems, however, that this commentary includes comments on almost all known entries of Ea, thus reinforcing the impression that it represents a further development along the lines of the Aa recension.
Make a correction or suggestion
