This tablet contains meager remains of a text classified in the rubric as a mukallimtu-commentary. Only the citations from the base text are preserved, and not a single explanation (with the possible exception of r 5').
In spite of its damaged state, this tablet stood out in U.S. Koch's edition of the niṣirti bārûti texts as the only known example of a commentary on such texts. E. Frahm, following with caution Koch's analysis, states that "it seems [...] that at least a rudimentary commentary tradition had developed in ancient Mesopotamia around the niṣirti bārûti texts."
Koch's main argument for classifying this text as niṣirti bārûti commentary is her interpretation of the final rubric of the tablet, which she restores as annû mukallimtu ša du [kaskal dib uru u mimma dù-šú me-a gar-nu], "this is a mukallimtu-commentary on the tablet 'Going [on a campaign, seizing a city of doing anything else'"] (). The second part of Koch's restoration (beginning with du) is in fact attested in the rubric of a niṣirti bārûti text, as annûtu šīrū latkūtu amrūtu ša ana du kaskal dib uru (...): hence the purported identification. However, the modest remains of our commentary's rubric differ from the wording of the niṣirti bārûti text (there is no preposition before the alleged du). Moreover, Koch's restoration assumes that "ana du kaskal dib uru" is the title of that niṣirti bārûti text, for which there is no proof.
Upon collation of the tablet, the sign transliterated by Koch as du has proven to be partially broken: only the remains of two consecutive horizontals in the lower register and a parallel one in the upper register are preserved. This fits well the reading of the rubric adopted in CAD M/182, annû mukallimtu ša šumma (sc. šu[m-ma]) ... The conjuction šumma is indeed what would be expected after mukallimtu ša, introducing the incipit of the tablet commented upon. There is thus no proof that the base text of this commentary tablet is a niṣirti bārûti text.
Moreover, CAD cites the only other known instance of a rubric beginning annû mukallimtu ša, "this is the mukallimtu-commentary on...": it appears in the tablet LKU 133 r 6 (CCP 3.4.1.A.h), a commentary on Bārûtu 1 (Isru). Since Isru is indeed mentioned in the last line of our commentary (probably a catchline), It is assumed here somewhat haphazardly that our tablet is also a commentary on Isru.
The individual entries can be shown to parallel omens in various parts of Bārûtu. Thus Frahm cites parallels in the niṣirti bārûti text mentioned above. Moreover line o 16' also appears in a mukallimtu-commentary on Bārûtu 3 Manzāzu Rm.2,103 (CCP 3.4.3.A.a) iv 35. However the base text for the tablet cannot be identifed as yet.
Make a correction or suggestion
