ii

49‘ A_{ii 1} GAZI[^sar] BIL₂–lu[1] ⌈GAZ⌉ ⌈SIM⌉ ⌈ina⌉ šur-šum-mi^! KAŠ SILA₁₁–aš ⌈SAR⌉-ab LAL-ma UD 3.KAM₂ NU DU₈

(ruling)

50‘ A_{ii 2f} NUMUN [^u2/giš][2]⌈EME⌉.UR.GI₇ SIG₇–su tu-ḫas₂-sa₃ A-šu₂ ana ^dugBUR.ZI SUR-at EN ḪAD₂.DU GAR-an / UD-⌈ma^?⌉ i-tab-lu ina I₃ SAḪAR.URUDU SUD₂ MAR

(ruling)

51‘ A_{ii 4ff} ⌈U₂⌉ ⌈BABBAR⌉ U₅ ARGAB^mušen I₃.UDU ^šimGIG ^šimGAM.MA NUMUN ^u2SI.SA₂ ka-munu ^gišŠINIG NUMUN ^u2IN.NU.UŠ / ⌈EME.UR⌉.GI₇[3] PA ^gišŠINIG MUN eme-sal-li₃ U₂.KUR.RA ^u2GAMUN.GE₆ ma-la ni-iš IGI.MIN-ka ŠU.TI / [(x)] ⌈ta⌉-pa-aṣ ina I₃ SUD₂ IGI.MIN-šu₂ ina NAGA.SI LUḪ-si EN IR₂ TAR-su te-qe₂ UD-ma LAL-šu₂ te-qe₂ EGIR-šu₂ / [DILIM₂.A].⌈BAR₂⌉ NU DU₈–šu₂[4] A ^gišŠE.NA₂.A ŠEG₆–šal ana ^dugGAN.SAR te-sip ina MUL₄ tuš-bat ina še-ri₃ SAG.DU-su[5] / ⌈ŠEŠ₂⌉ A ^gišŠE.NA₂.A ŠEG₆.GA₂^! ana SAG.DU-šu₂ tu-qar-ra-ar₂ SAG.DU-su kun-šam SIG₂.GA.RIG₂.AG.A KEŠ₂^?[6] / [x] x[7] I₃.GIŠ ana SAG.DU-šu₂ DUB ina E₂ ša₂ ta-ra-nam TUK-u₂ TUŠ-šu₂ UD 3.KAM₂ an-nam DU₃.DU₃–uš

(ruling)

52‘ A_{ii 10f} [DIŠ NA] ⌈UGU⌉–šu₂ KUM₂.KUM₂–im IM.BABBAR NAGA.SI IN.DAR[8] kib-rit^! GIR₃.PAD.DA NAGA.SI I₃.ḪUL u I₃.KU₆ / [DIŠ-niš^?] ⌈ḪI⌉.ḪI ina DE₃ ^gišKIŠI₁₆ SAG.DU-su tu-qat-tar

(ruling)

53’ A_{ii 12f} [DIŠ NA SAG.DU^?]–⌈su^?⌉ KUM₂ TUK-ma IGI.MIN-šu₂ i-bar-ru-ra MUD₂ u₂-kal-la 1/3 SILA₃ ZA₃.ḪI.LI GAZ SIM / ⌈ina⌉ ⌈A⌉ [GAZI]⌈^sar⌉ SILA₁₁–aš SAG.DU-su SAR-ab LAL-ma UD 3.KAM₂ NU DU₈

(ruling)

54’ A_{ii 14} ⌈1/3⌉ SILA₃ ⌈ZA₃.ḪI.LI⌉ ⌈1/3^?⌉ ⌈SILA₃^?⌉ ZI₃.KUM ina A.GEŠTIN.NA SILA₁₁–aš SAG.DU-su SAR-ab LAL-ma UD 3.KAM₂ NU DU₈

(ruling)

55‘ A_{ii 15} 1/3 SILA₃ PA ^gišPEŠ₃ ina ⌈GA⌉ [SILA₁₁–aš (SAR-ab KI.MIN :)^?[9]] ⌈1/3^?⌉ SILA₃ ^u2ḪAB ina GA SILA₁₁–aš SAR-ab KI.MIN

(ruling)[10]

56‘ A_{ii 16} 1/3 SILA₃ ^u2u₅-[ra-nu^?[11] …] ina GA SILA₁₁–aš SAR-ab KI.MIN

(ruling)

57‘ A_{ii 17} 1/3 SILA₃ ^u2ṣa-da-⌈nu/na^?⌉ […] ⌈ina⌉ GA SILA₁₁–aš SAR-ab KI.MIN

(ruling)

58‘ A_{ii 18} ^u2sa-ma-⌈nam⌉ [… ina GA] ⌈SILA₁₁⌉-aš SAR-ab KI.MIN

(ruling)

59‘ A_{ii 19f} [DIŠ] ⌈NA⌉ UGU-šu₂ UD.DA TAB-[ma IGI.MIN-šu₂ i-bar-ru-ra … DUḪ] ⌈ŠEG₆.GA₂⌉ ^šimLI ^šimGUR₂.GUR₂[12] / ⌈^šim⌉BULUḪ saḫ-le₂-e DUḪ.⌈ŠE⌉.[GIŠ.I₃ (^u2si-ḫu) ina GA SILA₁₁–aš] SAR-ab KI.MIN

(ruling)

60‘ A_{ii 21f} [DIŠ NA] ⌈UGU⌉–šu₂ UD.DA TAB-⌈ma⌉ [IGI.MIN]-⌈šu₂⌉ [i]-⌈bar^?-ru⌉–ra u₃ MUD₂ DIRI-⌈a⌉ […] ⌈^u2⌉NU.LUḪ.HA / [x] x saḫ-le₂-e ^giš⌈MA₂^?.EREŠ₍₄₎^?.MA₂^?⌉.RA[13] DIŠ-niš GAZ SIM ina DIDA ⌈ḪI.ḪI⌉ ⌈SAR^?⌉-[ab[14] (x x)] ⌈LAL⌉-id

(ruling)

61‘ A_{ii 23ff} [1/3 SILA₃^? ZA₃].⌈ḪI^?.LI⌉ 1/3 SILA₃ ZI₃ ^giš⌈EREN⌉ 1/3 SILA₃ ^šim⌈LI⌉ ⌈1/3^?⌉ SILA₃ ⌈IM.DI⌉[15] 1/3 SILA₃ ^gišsi-ḫu ⌈1/2^?⌉ ⌈SILA₃^?⌉ [ar₂^?]-gan^?⌉-nu[16] / [x (x) x SILA₃ DUḪ].⌈ŠE^?⌉.GIŠ.I₃ ZI₃ ⌈GU₂^?⌉.GAL ⌈ZI₃^?⌉ ⌈MUNU₅⌉ DIDA ŠEG₆.GA₂ ⌈ṭe-ne₂^?–ti/ŠU.TI^?⌉[17] / […] x ⌈ŠU⌉.TI[18] ⌈ina⌉ A ⌈GAZI⌉^sar SILA₁₁–aš SAR-ab [KI].⌈MIN^?⌉[19]

(ruling)

62‘ A_{ii 26f} [DIŠ NA …][20] ⌈GIR₂.GIR₂(TAB₂.TAB₂^?)⌉–su SIG₂ SAG.DU-šu₂ GUB.GUB-za ^gišGUR₂.GUR₂ ⌈^giš?⌉[x (x)][21] / […] ⌈SUD₂⌉ ina ^uruduŠEN.TUR tu-ba-ḫar SAG.DU-su [x x][22]

(ruling)

63‘ A_{ii 28} […] ⌈aš₂/zum^?⌉ I₃.NUN.NA ina IZI/DE₃^?[23] ŠEG₆–šal [x (x x)]

(ruling)

64’ A_{ii 29} [x x x] ⌈GUR₂⌉.GUR₂[24] [x x (x x)] ⌈^šim⌉MUG ^šimŠEŠ KAŠ ṭi-ṭi I₃.NUN.NA ina DE₃ ŠEG₆ [x (x x)]

(ruling)

65‘ A_{ii 30f} ⌈1^?⌉ ⌈NINDA⌉ IM.BABBAR ⌈NAGA⌉.[SI (IN.GUN₃/DAR^?)[25]] ⌈kib⌉-rit ⌈GIR₃⌉.PAD.⌈DU⌉ LU₂.U₁₈.LU GIR₃.PAD.DU kib-x[26] [x x x (x)] / I₃.ḪUL I₃.KU₆ DIŠ-niš ⌈ḪI^?⌉.[ḪI (x)] ⌈ina⌉ DE₃ ^gišKIŠI₁₆ SAG.DU-su [tu-qat-tar^?]

(ruling)

66’ A_{ii 32ff} EN₂ sag-ki-ni sag-[ki ḫe₂-en-gi]-⌈gi⌉ i-NE-ni i-NE ḫe₂-⌈en⌉-[gi₄-gi₄^?] / mu-ru-ub-bi-⌈ni⌉ [mu-ru]-⌈ub⌉-bi ḫe₂-en-⌈gi₄^?⌉-[gi₄^?] / ḫe₂-en-da-a-na-⌈mul⌉-[la ḫe₂-en]-⌈da-a-na⌉-mul-la [(tu₆) en₂][27]

(ruling)

67’ A_{ii 35} KA.INIM.MA [x x x] x-šu₂ u₂-⌈zaq-qat⌉-[su][28]

(ruling)

68’ A_{ii 36} KID₃.KID₃.BI BAR MUŠ tur-⌈ar₂⌉ [x x x] x ŠID-nu UGU [x x x x]

(ruling)

69‘ A_{ii 37f} EN₂ me ku₃-ga ba-da-⌈ra^?⌉ [x x x x (x)] ⌈ra^?⌉-aḫ me ku₃-ga [x x x x] / me zi-zi me še-⌈ra⌉ ⌈še^?⌉ [x x x x (x)] ⌈tar/ḫa^?!⌉ gi₄-gi₄ [(tu₆) en₂][29]

(ruling)

70‘ A_{ii 39} EN₂ KA-šu GEN₇ KA la [x x x x (x)] ⌈GEN₇⌉ KA-šu NE x [(x)] x [x x]

(ruling)

71‘ A_{ii 40} […][30] x MURUB₄ ⌈UGU-šu₂^?⌉ ⌈ŠID⌉-[nu (x)]

(ruling)

72‘ A_{ii 41f} […] x x x ^u2KUR.[(RA/KUR^?)] / x [… SAR]-⌈ab^?⌉ ⌈LAL-ma⌉[31] UD 3.KAM₂ NU [DU₈]

(ruling)

73’ A_{ii 43} ⌈DIŠ⌉ ⌈KI⌉.[MIN … ina A GAZI]^sar SILA₁₁–aš LAL₂–su-ma [TI^?][32]

(ruling)

74’ A_{ii 44} DIŠ KI.MIN ⌈^u2⌉[…] x su-pa-lam ina KAŠ ta-la₃-⌈aš^?⌉ [x x]

(ruling)

75’ A_{ii 45} DIŠ KI.MIN saḫ-le₂-⌈e⌉ [… ni]-⌈kip^?⌉-ta₅ ZI₃ ŠE.SA.A DIŠ-niš ⌈GAZ⌉ SIM ina KAŠ x [x x]

(ruling)

76‘ A_{ii 46} DIŠ KI.MIN 1/3 SILA₃ ^u2/saḫ^?-[le₂-e …] ⌈SILA₁₁⌉-aš SAR-ab [x x][33]

(ruling)

77‘ A_{ii 47} DIŠ KI.MIN 1/2 SILA₃ […] ⌈SILA₁₁⌉-aš SAR-ab [x x]

(ruling)

78‘ A_{ii 48} DIŠ KI.MIN 1/3 ⌈SILA₃⌉ […] ⌈GAZ⌉ SIM ina A GAZI⌈^sar⌉ ⌈SILA₁₁⌉-aš SAR-ab [x x]

(ruling)

79‘ A_{ii 49} DIŠ KI.MIN ⌈^šim?⌉ […] ina A GAZI⌈^sar⌉ ⌈SILA₁₁–aš⌉ [LAL^?]

(ruling)

80’ A_{ii 50} DIŠ KI.MIN […] ina KAŠ SILA₁₁–aš SAR-ab [LAL^?]

(ruling)

81’ A_{ii 51} x (x) […] ⌈ina⌉ A GAZI^sar SILA₁₁–aš SAR-ab ⌈LAL₂^?⌉ [(x)]

(ruling)

82’ A_{ii 52ff} […] x ina A GAZI^sar SILA₁₁–aš SAR-ab [x x] / […] ina A GAZI^sar SILA₁₁–aš SAR-ab [x x] / […] ina šur-šum-mi KAŠ SILA₁₁–aš SAR-ab [x x]

(ruling)

83‘ A_{ii 55f} […] x u₂ kur[34] ina A GAZI^sar LUḪ-si 1/3 SILA₃ ^gišMAŠ.⌈ḪUŠ⌉ / ⌈1/x^?⌉ [SILA₃^? …] ⌈GAZ^?⌉ SIM ina A GAZI^sar SILA₁₁–aš SAG.DU-su u GABA-su ⌈LAL⌉-[id^?][35]

(ruling)

84’ A_{ii 57} DIŠ ⌈KI⌉.[MIN …] ⌈ZI₃⌉.KUM ḪI.ḪI ina A GAZI^sar SILA₁₁–aš ⌈LAL-id^?⌉

(ruling)

85’ A_{ii 58} DIŠ ⌈KI⌉.[MIN …] ⌈ZI₃⌉.KUM ina A GAZI^sar ta-la₃-aš SAR-ab LAL-ma UD 3.KAM₂ NU DU₈

(ruling)

86‘ A_{ii 59} DIŠ ⌈KI⌉.[MIN … ^gišḪA].⌈LU⌉.UB₂ 2 SILA₃-TA.AM₃ ḪI.ḪI ina A GAZI^sar u KAŠ SILA₁₁–aš KI.MIN

(ruling)

87‘ A_{ii 60} DIŠ ⌈KI⌉.[MIN x x] ⌈^u2?⌉su-pa-lu ina I₃ sir₂-di u A GAZI^sar SILA₁₁–aš KI.MIN

(ruling)

88‘ A_{ii 61} DIŠ ⌈NA⌉ [SAG.DU^?]–su KUM₂.KUM₂–im SAR-ab ZI₃ ZIZ₂.AN.NA ina A GAZI^sar SILA₁₁–aš UD 15.KAM₂[36] _{: ud 5.kam2} LAL₂

(ruling)

89‘ A_{ii 62f} DIŠ ⌈KI⌉.[MIN IM^?].⌈GU₂⌉ UD.DA SA₂.SA₂[37] ⌈GAZ⌉ SIM ina A GAZI^sar SILA₁₁–aš UD 3.KAM₂ LAL₂ / ⌈DIŠ^?⌉ [ina^? qer]-⌈bit^?⌉[38] ana SAG.DU-šu_{2[:?] ⌈murub4⌉ sag.du-šu2} u₂-ba-⌈na^?⌉-tu uṣ-ṣa^?[39] rib-ki ina A GAZI^sar SILA₁₁–aš I₃ EŠ.MEŠ LAL

(ruling)

90‘ A_{ii 64} [ana KUM₂^?] ⌈SAG⌉.DU šu-ut-bi-i ŠIKA ⌈IM⌉.ŠU.RIN.NA ZI₃.KUM ina A GAZI^sar SILA₁₁–aš SAG.DU-su LAL

(ruling)

91‘ A_{ii 65} [DIŠ KI.MIN^? (x) saḫ-le₂]-e bu-ṭu-ta₅ ZI₃ ŠE.SA.⌈A⌉ ⌈ina⌉ ⌈A⌉ ⌈GAZI⌉^sar SILA₁₁–aš LAL : DIŠ KI.MIN saḫ-le₂-e ^šimLI ina A GAZI^sar SILA₁₁–aš LAL

(ruling)

92’ A_{ii 66} ⌈DIŠ^?⌉ [x x] x ḪAD₂.DU GAZ SIM ina A GAZI^sar SILA₁₁–aš LAL

(ruling)

93‘ A_{ii 67} ⌈DIŠ^?⌉ [KI.MIN^? DE₃ ṣar]-⌈ba⌉-te ina A GAZI^sar SILA₁₁–aš LAL : DIŠ ⌈KI.MIN⌉ [^u2?ḫal]-tap-pa-nam GURUN ^gišMAŠ.ḪUŠ ina A GAZI^sar SILA₁₁–aš LAL

(ruling)

94‘ A_{ii 68} [DIŠ KI.MIN^{? u2}GEŠTIN].⌈KA₅^?⌉.A ḪAD₂.A SUD₂ ina A GAZI^sar SILA₁₁–aš LAL [: DIŠ KI.MIN] ⌈^u2⌉MA₂.EREŠ₄.MA₂.RA ina A GAZI^sar SILA₁₁–aš LAL

(ruling)

95‘ A_{ii 69} [DIŠ KI.MIN^? x (x)] x (blank) ^u2ZA.⌈BA⌉.[LAM] (blank) ina A GAZI^sar SILA₁₁–aš LAL

(ruling)

[1] Contra Scurlock (2014), 310 which reads BIL₂–lu “roasted kasû“ whose correct reading should be qalûtu since kasû is considered a pluraletantum. K. Simko suggests the interpretation as a verbal form “you roast kasû-plant” which is possible since qalû (taqallū) is considered to be a u/u-verb (but i/i esp. in later times).

[2] Cf. the length of the U₂ sign in A ii 4. It is likewise possible that, like in A ii 5, no determinative preceded EME.UR.GI₇.

[3] Against Worthington (2005), 9 as well as Scurlock (2014), 310 there is not enough space for either U₂ or GIŠ.

[4] A. Bacskay suggests the reading [TUG₂].⌈BARA₂⌉ NU DU₈–šu₂ “do not untie him [from (this) b]andage“. Contra  [ina] ⌈BARA₂⌉ (Worthington) or [DILIM₂.A].⌈BAR₂⌉ (as interpreted here, following the corrections of Worthington (2007), 43). Bacskay interprets TUG₂.BARA₂ as an unconventional writing of TUG₂.BAR.SI = paršīqu (as bandage see CAD P p. 205 sub paršīqu A meaning c) 3’). Similar writing form can be found in Neo- or Late Babylonian therapeutic texts BM 78963 line 46.

[5] Consider the interesting graphical similarity to the phrase mu-kil SAG GUB-su “you(?) set up a by-stander for him“ which otherwise might be a coincidence.

[6] Worthington (2005), 9 interprets this passage as „bandage of carded wool“ (^ú.sígga.ríg.ag.a kešda) whereas Scurlock (2014), 310, acknowledging the determinative U₂, translates “’carded-wool’-plant”, interpreting the last sign of the line not as KEŠDA but as the plant-determinative SAR. An alternative interpretation, following the comment of U. Steinert, might be “(after) having sprinkled the head, you burn carded wool”. Simko suggests the reading kun-šam instead of SUD-u₂ referring to a kind of band or braid (cf. BAM 510 i 3′ as well as without SIG₂.GA.RIG₂.AG.A CAD K pp. 542ff. and Attia, JMC 25 p. 7).

[7] Comparing to the other instances of SILA₃ the traces look considerably different which makes the reconstruction of [(ina) x q]a/SI]LA₃ in Worthington (2005), 9 and Scurlock (2014), 310 very unlikely.

[8] Cf. the note to this line in Bácskay 2018 p. 64-65.

[9] For the reconstruction see Worthington (2005), 9 and Scurlock (2014), 311. It is tempting to reconstruct both parts of this line as analogous entries. On the other hand, it is curious since one line usually bears one entry, separated by a ruling.

[10] Ruling left out by Worthington (2005), 9.

[11] Cf. the different restorations in Worthington (2005), 9 (rest. ^u2u₅-[ra-nu …]) and Scurlock (2013), 311 (rest. ^u2U₅.[ARGAB^mušen …]). It is right that U₅ ARGAB^mušen has been mentioned several times in this ms. but every time without U₂ determinative, which is conspicuous here and might be seen in favour of Worthington’s reconstruction.

[12] Both parallels (BAM 3 i 20 and AMT 5/3 i 8’) read differently ^šimGAM.MA.

[13] It is hard to decide whether to read EREŠ(NIN), suggested by Worthington (2005), 10, or EREŠ(APIN).

[14] This reconstruction, following Worthington (2005), 10, is, measured on the traces, very uncertain but probable due to the surrounding expressions combining shaving and bandaging of the head.

[15] Often written ^šimMAN.DU(= suādu) as well, cf. also the parallel B i 23 which reads ^šimMAN/MIN₃.DU. See for different interpretations of this fragmentary passage Worthington (2005), 10 (x […] PA^?) and Scurlock (2014), 311 ([^šemMAN.D]U!).

[16] Worthington (2007), 43 restores sì[la ár^?–ga]n-nu. The parallel B i 23 reads ^u2ba-ri-rat which might have found place at the beginning of the next line. The sign-forms of the presumed preceding unit is far from clear.

[17] Cf. Worthington (2005), 10 ([xx š]u.ti) and Scurlock (2014), 311 ([… te-n]e-ti). In fact, there is hardly more space before the possible TI-sign than one or two signs. Cf. also Panayotov, Fragments (2016) pdf-page 14 or 15. The passage might likewise be read ⌈AR₃⌉-ti (for ṭe-ne₂-ti in parallel B). Simko suggests staying with Worthington and assumes likewise ⌈ŠU⌉.TI.

[18] See the parallel B i 24f (KU munu₅ x(ṭe^?)-ne₂-ti SAG-ka u₂-kal ina ša₃ 2 sila₃ ti min / […]x šu.ti …).

[19] The restoration [LAL]-⌈id⌉ (see A ii 22) is likewise possible.

[20] Scurlock (2014), 311 restores [DIŠ NA UD.DA TAB-ma UGU-šu₂] ⌈GIR₂.GIR₂⌉-su SIG₂ SAG.DU-šu₂ GUB.GUB-za but without mentioning a parallel.

[21] Scurlock (2014), 311 restores ⌈^giš⌉[LI] but again without mentioning a parallel.

[22] It is much likely to restore LAL-id or a similar expression, respectively KI.MIN.

[23] Cf. Panayotov, Fragments (2016), 63, which interprets the sign NE as “charcoal” (DE₃/pēmtu). see ibid. n. 8. IZI suggested by Steinert, DE₃ by Simko.

[24] Beginning of the fragm. BAM 488.

[25] Cf. for the possible restoration in Panayotov, Fragments (2016), 63 n. 9 following the course of A ii 10. In my view it is uncertain, if one should restore IN.DAR “splintered horn” (Worthington and Scurlock) or IN.GUN₃ “multi-coloured horn” (Panayotov).

[26] See Panayotov, Fragments (2016), 63 restoring kib-r[it …]. The reading AN[ŠE …] in Scurlock (2014), 312 is unlikely due to the tow vertical wedges right before the break (ANŠE should have only one long vertical wedge at this position).

[27] See Panayotov, Fragments (2016), 64 (parallels for this incantation are AMT 104 iii 11’f and BAM 486 ii 1’f (CRANIUM 3); OECT 11 71 rev. 1-2).

[28] The rubric refers back to the symptom description in A ii 26. Since there seems to be not enough space for the restoration of Scurlock (2014), 311 ([DIŠ NA UD.DA TAB-ma UGU-šu₂] ⌈GIR₂.GIR₂⌉-su) it is very uncertain if ḫimiṭ ṣēti occurred before the stinging pain of the cranium. A proposed reconstruction by U. Steinert [KA.INIM.MA] ⌈UGU⌉- šu₂ u₂-⌈zaq-qat⌉-[su].

[29] See Panayotov, Fragments (2016), 65 (a parallel is again BAM 486 i’ 9’f).

[30] It is uncertain if (as it is proposed in Panayotov, Fragments (2016), 65 n. 16) a similar rubric like in BAM 489 rev 13’ should be restored, which counts at least 4(?) incantations against a specific not preserved ailment.

[31] Contra Worthington (2005), 10 and Scurlock (2014), 312 the damaged LAL-sign before –ma is visible as well as traces of presumably –ab.

[32] The restoration following Scurlock (2014), 312 is very uncertain since no parallel is known and the few traces give no hint on the correct reading of the last sign.

[33] Scurlock (2014), 312f  restores at the end of the entries 76-84 respectively [LAL] which is quite possible (cf. A ii 49).

[34] Cf. the restoration in Scurlock (2014), 313 ([… IR-šu t]u-šam-maṭ “[If …], you wipe off [his sweat], …”) referring to CAD Š/1, 309 sub 1d’, which otherwise has no parallel in medical contexts supplementing it.

[35] It is uncertain whether the tablet received some damage at the respective passage but the sign LAL-i[d] given by Worthington (2005) as well as Scurlock (2014) is sincerely not visible since the break is situated in the last half of LAL. See likewise the damaged end of the next line which hasn’t been marked as such by both authors.

[36] Contra Worthington (2005), 10 the variant should most probably belong to l. 61. I find it more plausible since variants are often similar in certain aspects, e.g. variations due to different originals, here the sole mentioning of the number 5 might go back to an incorporated ms. that left out the Winkelhaken for 10 (together 15 like in the main text).

[37] Cf. the differing parallel BAM 12 l. 28 (IM.GU₂ ša₂ ina UD.DA di-kat₃) which reads rather like a gloss.

[38] Worthington (2005), 10 restores contextually fitting [… qer^?–b]it^? SAG.DU-šu₂ and Scurlock (2014), 313 [… ši-b]it SAG.DU-šu₂. Since, as Worthington pointed out, qerbītu and qablu are most often synonymous in use, I would prefer this interpretation over the ones given by Scurlock.

[39] Both interpretations (see Worthington (2005), 26f as well as Scurlock (2014), 324and 336) have problems. The emendation of u₂-ba-⌈qa/na^?⌉ to u₂-na!-maš by Scurlock is odd (the last sign does sincerely not look like MAŠ), not only because of the then unusually following object. Worthington’s interpretation of the possible ubānu as “protuberance” (here better read as u₂-ba-⌈na⌉ instead of Worthington’s u₂-ba-⌈an⌉) is likewise conjectural based on its broader meaning within extispicy which otherwise at least keep with the standard position of object and verb within Akkadian grammar. The somplest solution according to the signs and grammar might be the reading ubānātu uṣṣâ “finger(-shaped protrusions) come out” (suggestion by U. Steinert).