1Compare the reports by Akkullanu (SAA 8 112: r. 1–6) and Nabû-iqīša of Borsippa (SAA 8 298: 1–6), where the protasis is linked to the configuration of a lunar halo, not necessarily the Chariot constellation (Auriga) (Rochberg 2004: 169–170); on constellations’ feet, see CAD Š/2 301b sub šēpu.
2Quotation of ACh Ištar 28: 20 (K 2894+), which is cited and interpreted in the report SAA 8 76: 1–4; cf. K 2346+ r. 16′ (Reiner 1998: 246).
3The equation harūbu = šamaššammū can also be found in the astrological commentary CCP 3.1.47 o 21′ [EJ].
4The laconic context in which the west wind blows should be associated with Nabû’s role in the akītu festival in Babylon, but the events on the 6th of Nisannu are poorly known. In the Offering Bread hemerology I/6 is associated with offerings to Nabû and Tašmētu (Livingstone 2013: 109) [MTR]. Nabû arrived to the Red Gate quay (kār bābi sāmi) from Borsippa in the evening of the 5th, and on the 6th of Nisan he went to Esangil (see George BiOr 53 (1996) pp. 380-381). The gist may be the “red” color of the quay. If so, “after Nabû (docks) at the quay, the west wind blows” [EJ].
5Quotation of TCL 6 9: 20 and dupls. (Šumma ālu) prompted by the previous entry’s reference to I/6; see note on line 14 below.
6Quotation from MUL.APIN 2 iii 52 (Hunger and Pingree 1989: 116). Restored following K 6116+ obv. 6′; VAT 9423 omits the entry in K 6116+ obv. 4′–5′.
7Compare MUL.APIN 2 i 32–33 (Hunger and Pingree 1989: 79) and MUL.APIN 1 iii 3 (Hunger and Pingree 1989: 44). Restored following K 6116+ obv. 7′.
8The astrological compendium LKU 44: 12 associates the constellation Scorpion with Ḫursagkalama (Weidner 1920: 119–120).
9In one text the ḫašḫūr api, “marsh apple(?),” surrounds Venus ([giš]ḪAŠḪUR gišGI NÍGIN-ma, Rm 2, 402 r. 6′, see Reiner 1998: 152; cf. K 12733 obv. 5′, see Reiner 1998: 97), and in another it may be associated with Venus being surrounded by a “green ‘drawing’” (⸢GIŠ⸣.ḪUR SIG₇ NIGIN-ma ia-ad-dar-ma, VAT 10218 iii 13′–14′, see Reiner 1998: 48).
10Restored following K 6116+ obv. 9′.
11Compare MUL.APIN 2 iii 44 (Hunger and Pingree 1989: 115). Restored following K 6116+ obv. 10′.
12Possible reference to MUL.APIN 2 i 61 (Hunger and Pingree 1989: 85).
13Restored following K 6116+ obv. 11′. The related Šumma ālu traditions are garbled (TCL 6 9: r. 21 // CT 40 40+: r. 14–15, see the note on line 5 above): according to TCL 6 9 a ṣirḫu-phenomenon of Venus is a good sign, while for CT 40 40+ it is not; the latter view is aligned with the EAE tradition found in VAT 10218 iii 67′–68′ (Reiner 1998: 52) as well as in the commentary ACh Ištar 5: 1–4 (K 35, see Reiner 1998: 100; CCP 3.1.58.A.b).
14Restored following K 6116+ obv. 12′–13′. A report from the Babylonian astrologer Zakir quotes both entries but reverses their order (SAA 8 301: r. 4–7). The interpretation found in VAT 9434 may draw on EAE 8 (ACh 2 Suppl. 1a, K 2267+ iv 21 // Sm 1262+ obv. 4′). In contrast the sun is interpreted as Saturn following the final entry in the first tablet of the commentary series Šumma Sîn ina tāmartīšu (ACh Sin 3: 140–141, K 2171+ r. 15′–16′ and dupls., CCP 3.2.1.A.e; this interpretation is cited in the letter SAA 10 113: 3–5 as well as in various astrological reports, e.g., SAA 8 40: 2′–8′).