This small one-column tablet, Ass. 13955ao (VAT 8286, LKA 82), contains a commentary on selected lines from Udug-ḫul II, III and IV. Like other commentaries on Marduk’s Address to the Demons (CCP 2.2.1.A.a and CCP 2.2.1.A.b), it originates from the “house of the exorcists” in Assur. Only the tablet’s obverse is preserved. Of particular interest is its beginning, one of the few commentary entries that quote and explain both the Sumerian and the Akkadian version of a bilingual text (Udug-ḫul II 47):

nam-lú-u₁₉-lu un sag-gi₆-ga-ke₄

a-me-lu-tú ni-ši ṣal-mat qaq-qa-di an-nu-u na-mir šu-lu-šá!(IÁ)-a

nam-lú-u₁₉-lu un sag-gi₆-ga-ke₄ − “mankind, the people, the black-headed,” this is clear: (it is) each threefold.

Unfortunately, this entry, beyond the obvious point it makes about three words being used for “mankind” in both the Sumerian and the Akkadian versions of the line, remains more or less obscure.1 The following two sections of the commentary, divided from each other by horizontal rulings, quote only the Akkadian lines of the base text. Lines 3-7 duplicate JRL 1053 (CCP 2.2.1.A.b), lines 11-16, while lines 8-12 offer the Akkadian text of Udug-ḫul IV 1-5, but provide explanations only for the last two lines.

[Adapted from E. Frahm, Babylonian and Assyrian Text Commentaries. Origins of Interpretation. Ugarit-Verlag, 2011. Pp. 126-127]

• 1. One could speculate that the explanation refers to a difficult line (also alluded to in Assurbanipal’s L4 inscription, i 17’) of the so-called Examenstext A (Å. W. Sjöberg, “Der Examenstext A”, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie, vol. 64, pp. 137-176, 1975. P. 142:15), which mentions šulūšā in the context of a passage on how to translate from Sumerian into Akkadian. Manuscripts of Examenstext A were found in the “house of the exorcists.” Alternatively, the explanation could be a subtle allusion to Enūma eliš VI 155, where Marduk receives the name Namru as the third of his Asalluḫi names. “Marduk’s Address” and many other texts demonstrate that Asalluḫi was the name Marduk bore when he was worshipped as the patron of exorcism. Yet both these explanations seem rather far-fetched. Note that AHw and CAD do not quote the LKA 82 reference to šulūšā.