CCP 6.1.41 - Aa VIII/3 (pirsu 41)

Catalogue information
Yale Babylonian Collection
NBC 7832
Nippur(Nippur)
CDLI:
P293337
Publication
Copy:
JCS 4 pp. 73-74
Editions:

: 506-507 no. 20.3.1.1

Commentary
LexicalAa

ṣâtu 7c

Base text:
Aa VIII/3 (pirsu 41)
Tablet information
Babylonian
Fragment
Columns:
1
Lines:
37
Size:
7,4 × 5,2 × 2,6 cm
Achaemenid (5th cent - 331 BCE) (Uruk, Anu-ikṣur / Nippur / Babylon)
Colophon
Taqīš-Gula nêšakku-priest [of Enlil] s. Enlil-bēlšunu d. Enlil-UŠ-[Igigi]
Bibliography

: 61

: 506-507 no. 20.3.1.1

: 56 fn. 108

: 54, 248, 303-04

: 75 (9), 125 (23), 143 (27, 29–30), 160 (27–28), 75, 77 (11–12)

: 73-74

: 49 no. 120

: 535b

: 261

Record
Jiménez, 04/2014 (ATF Transliteration)
Jiménez, 04/2014 (Translation)
Jiménez, 04/2014 (Collation)
Jiménez, 04/2014 (Introduction)
Jiménez, 04/2014 (Lemmatization)
Gabbay, 03/2015 (Reading suggestion (l. 30))
Jiménez, 08/2016 (Commentary markup)
By Enrique Jiménez |
How to cite
Jiménez, E., 2014, “Commentary on Aa VIII/3 (pirsu 41) (CCP 6.1.41),” Cuneiform Commentaries Project (E. Frahm, E. Jiménez, M. Frazer, and K. Wagensonner), 2013–2023; accessed March 30, 2023, at https://ccp.yale.edu/P293337. DOI: 10079/fqz61fg
© Cuneiform Commentaries Project (Citation Guidelines)
Introduction

The commentaries to Aa are among the most sophisticated in the cuneiform tradition. A brief introduction to them has been written by Civil1 and Frahm.2

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--[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).3 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.

Edition

(Base textCommentaryQuotations from other texts)

ccpo

JCS 04, 073f

1The restoration of immeru at the end is based on Ea I 193: si-i LU immerum. If the MU from kisimmu was also glossed, the gloss would have been written over the now lost right edge of the tablet.

2The sign after the aleph cannot be T[U] (pace MSL 14 p. 506), nor TA, TE, TI, TÚ. The reading I is possible, but there are other possibilities.

3The restoration at the end is based on Aa III/2 145 (MSL 14 p. 330) ṣarāpu ša lalê, "to be loud, said of exhuberance."

4The final sign is clearly UM, but the restoration is tentative. The sign before UM is ZU, as copied by Goetze, and not SU, as read in MSL 14 p. 506.

5The reading of the third word as upqu, as in MSL 14 p. 506, is ill-suited in the present context.

6The sign after šá is perhaps an archaizing form of qar.

7The sign ÍL is written in an archaizing fashion.

8Pace Dunham RA 80 (1986) p. 56 fn. 108, the last preserved sign is clearly DA.

9Goetze's copy of the last sign is accurate. The sign ŠIM, as read in MSL 14 p. 507 (ri[g?-mu]), is unlikely. The restoration adopted here is very tentative.

10The first phrase of the third column is taken here provisionally to mean "ingot of gold" (On lišānu + Metal Name as "ingot" see CAD L 215a). Cf. CCP 3.7.2.C (ṣâtu-commentary on Alamdimmû) r 2: EME šá ṣi-pa-ru. According to U. Gabbay, it could also be interpreted as “language of crawling,” taking lišānu ša as a technical term (for which there are parallels). The last preserved sign is not U, as copied by Goetze and read in MSL 14 p. 507, but rather a ŠE-looking sign.

11The sign after DAG is probably not a colon.

12The meaning of BIR-MEŠ is unknown: see Civil MSL 14 (1979) p. 147-148.

13Taqīš-Gula's title has been restored after YBC 11380. The last preserved sign is clearly LÚ.

14The end has been restored after PTS 1.

Photos by Enrique Jiménez