What remains of this multi-columned commentary (one large fragment joined to two smaller ones) is remarkable for commenting on many Tablets of Enūma Anu Enlil. In its current state it clearly comments on seven Tablets (EAE 5, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22 and 23(24)) – i.e., on both lunar and solar omens – and originally it probably commented on many more. The preserved text is divided into eleven sections by single horizontal rulings, which in some cases are followed by the incipit of the specific EAE Tablet. Thus, section 3 identifies itself as relating to EAE Tablet 17, section 4 identifies itself as relating to EAE 18, section 5 identifies itself as relating to EAE 19, section 6, EAE 20, and section 10, EAE 23(24). The incipits of two sections are puzzling: section 7 (col. 2, 28-35) ends with the incipit, “If the Yoke of the S[ea] grows dark”, which does not correspond to the first line of the expected base text EAE 21, and the incipit of Section 9 (col. 3, 2-11), seems to be otherwise unattested. Furthermore, sections 1, 2 and 8 – which can be identified as commentaries on Tablets 5, 6 and 22 because of their contents – do not end with incipits.
On the obverse, the two columns of text are subdivided, and the reverse perhaps originally contained a further two columns. Although the subdivided columns mean that the obverse, at least, is tabular in format, the text often overruns the tabular division (e.g., i 3' and 8'). The commentary also makes abundant use of cola, both to equate the base text with the following explanation and to distinguish between the end of one entry and the beginning of another.
The commentary’s main goal seems to be to explain logograms in the base texts. In the section on EAE 18, the commentary updates the old-fashioned logograms ra.gaba and gìr.sè.ga by equating them with terms more common in the first millennium (see ad col. 2 6-8). The section on EAE 22 (col. 2 36-42) explains several logographic writings from Elamite scholarly tradition, namely iššebu (= 3, 20) for “king”, kur for tebû, éš for ana and dáb for ṣabātu. Also noteworthy is the equation of gi with gin, which seems to be based on the principle of lexical transitivity, i.e., A=C, B=C ∴ A=C (see below ad col. 1 4'), and of gur with izbu, which probably draws on the homophonous potential of the cuneiform signs gur and lagab (see below ad. col. 2 41).
The text contains three scribal errors: i 19' (la for šu), ii 9 (murub₄ for dé) and ii 39 (ki for šè).
Make a correction or suggestion
