This tablet preserves three columns of a tabular commentary on several tablets of Enūma Anu Enlil. The entries are divided in groups of two or more lines, and the groups usually end with a sort of short rubric which provides the incipit of the tablet to which the entries above it belong. This rubric is introduced simply by ina libbi + incipit, "from (the tablet) ..." The incipits are only occasionally identifiable with incipits from Enūma Anu Enlil: thus e.g. line v' 8 is identical with the incipit of EAE 40, while v' 17 contains the incipit of EAE 42. A remarkable feature of the tablet, first noticed by E. Gehlken, is that the entries in this commentary do not seem to be arranged in the same order of the tablets to which they belong: thus v' 9-12 contains entries from EAE 47, while v' 13-17 comments words from EAE 42 or 43.
Remains of three columns are preserved. The first column from the right contains rubrics that refer to solar phenomena: they probably belong to the Šamaš section of EAE (EAE 23-36). The middle column refers rather to meteorological phenomena, thus making it likely that it comments on the Adad section of EAE (EAE 37-49). The third column from the right is almost completely lost, but the best preserved part of it, the verb izīqa, "it blows" (said of the wind), suggests that it also contained glosses on meteorological omens. It is possible that the fragment originally contained comments on all the tablets of EAE, but this remains uncertain. In any case the order of the columns further suggests that the fragment belongs to the reverse of a tablet, even if its surface is rather flat.
Most entries in this tablet cannot be related with certainty to their base text. Moreover, most of the incipits quoted in the rubrics are equally unknown. This is especially surprising in view of the fact that the incipits of the Šamaš and Adad sections of EAE are relatively well known: one wonders therefore if the rubrics could in fact quote not the incipit of the tablets, but other omens from the beginning or end of the commented subsections.
Surprisingly enough for a Kuyunjik tabular commentary, the exegesis seems not to be predominantly philological, but rather of a speculative nature. Although philological glosses can be found (e.g. v' 24 lītu = būrtu, "'cow' means 'calf'"), they are exceptions. Most of the well preserved glosses offer alternative interpretations of signs, sometimes with equations otherwise unattested and probably created ad hoc: thus e.g. v' 13-15 equals the sign bad with zunnu, "rain;" nesû, "to be far away;" and bašû, "to exist." These three equations are either extremely rare or altogether unattested, and their value for the accurate, philological interpretation of the base text must have been rather limited. The exegete thus goes beyond the strictly philological commentary for reasons that the fragmentary nature of the text prevents us from knowing.
The tablet is in all likelihood part of the same tablet as Sm.1038 (CCP 3.1.u90), although a direct joins does not seem possible. Another similar commentary tablet is K.4593 (CCP 3.1.14.B), which, however, is probably not part of the same tablet according to J.F. Fincke (privatim).
Make a correction or suggestion
