Little can be said of this fragment, of which not a single equation is preserved. E. Reiner argues convincingly that it could be a commentary on a medical text, since "lizards" (o 5 ṣurārû), diseases such as sāḫu (o 6) or humṭu, "fever" (o 9) and materia medica such as emesallu-salt (o 7) are mentioned.1 The occurrence of mul.bir (o 3) in a late medical commentary from Uruk (SpTU 1 54 11' = CCP 4.2.J) makes the classification proposed by Reiner even more likely. On the other hand, the mention of Sippar in o 2 and of the "deputy" (šanê) of Enlil in o 3 are intriguing and as yet unaccountable.

This fragment was acquired by the Metropolitan Museum of Art on the same day as CCP 4.2.W, and they are likely to come from the same place. As Frahm2 has shown, its badly damaged colophon is likely to have contained the same names as CCP 4.2.W. If so, the tablet could be dated to around the end of the second century BC.

• 1. E. Reiner, “No. 70: Medical Commentary and No. 71: Commentary on Enuma Anu Enlil”, in Cuneiform texts in The Metropolitan Museum of Art, I. Spar and Lambert, W. G. , Eds. Metropolitan Museum, 2005, pp. 284-287. Pp. 284-285
• 2. E. Frahm, Babylonian and Assyrian Text Commentaries. Origins of Interpretation. Ugarit-Verlag, 2011. P. 240 fn. 1124