CRANIUM I

• 1. A i 2: mur-din-da — mur-din-na
• 1. A i 4: KAM₂ — KAM (s. MZl nos. 595 and 640)
• 2. A i 5: KAM₂ — KAM
• 5. A i 8: hi-qa-˹ti^?˺ — read without question mark; cf. the sign TI in A i 4
• 5. A i 9: ˹UD 3^?.KAM₂^?˺ — rather ˹UD 3˺.[KAM₍₂₎], since the head of the three vertical wedges is still recognisable on the photo provided by CDLI; cf. the duplicate BAM 4 obv. 6′, as well as the parallel passage in BAM 3 i 14
• 6. A i 11: A GEŠTIN.NA — A.GEŠTIN.NA
• 6. A i 12: LAL.MEŠ — LAL₂.MEŠ; the restoration is based on the parallel passage BAM 3 i 19, which has LAL₂.MEŠ instead of LAL.MEŠ
• 6. B i 8′: MUNU₅ A GEŠTIN.NA — MUN A.GEŠTIN.NA
• 6. B i 9′: ˹NAG˺-šu₂ […] —  ˹NAG˺-šu₂ ˹u₂˺-[za-ka-ma …]; after BAM 3 i 18
• 9. A i 16: ^šim˹BI˺.[ZI.DA] — ŠIM.˹BI˺.[ZI.DA], Akkadian šimbizidû
• 9. B i 16′: […] x […] — [… UR^?].˹MAH^?˺ […]
• 10. A i 18: UD 2+[1^?.KAM₂] — UD […]; there are no recognisable traces of a sign following UD on the photo provided by CDLI
• 11. A i 19: ˹ḪAD₂˺.[DU^? …] ˹GAZ˺ — ˹HAD₂.DU^?˺ ˹GAZ˺, or rather H[AD₂.D]U^? ˹GAZ˺
• 12. A i 21: KAM₂ — KAM
• 18′. A i 29: IM.˹SAHAR^?˺.[NA₄/BABBAR/GE₆^? …] x te-qe₂ — to be restored as  IM.˹SAHAR˺.[NA₄.KUR.RA … SU]D₂ te-qe₂ on the basis of the hitherto unidentified parallel passage „Jastrow“ obv. 7
• 19′. A i 30: kud pa — KUD PA x
• 21′. A i 33: x ˹KI.MIN^?˺ — ˹te–qe₂˺; the restoration is based on the hitherto unidentified parallel passage „Jastrow“ obv. 8
• 22′. A i 34: […] x KI.MIN — […] x ˹LA₂-ma KI.MIN˺; the traces of the signs after the break clearly point to such a reading (s. CDLI photo)
• 23′-24′. A i 35-39′ (3 lines missing) — at least four lines are missing from this passage; the restoration should rather follow Köcher’s hand-copy where the first legible line after the break is A i 40′; on the basis of the new join BAM 488+ the following readings could be suggested:

A i 35. […] ˹KI.MIN^?˺ (or, according to Panayotov JMC 27 p. 62, [… te-q]e₂)

A i 36. […] x

A i 37: […] x

A i 38: [… te^?]-˹qe₂^?˺

A i 39: […]

A i 40: […] SUD₂ ˹te-qe₂˺

the line count should be changed accordingly

• 33′. A i 49 (instead of 48): šur-šum-mi ŠEG₆.GA₂ — add KAŠ after šuršummu
• 36′. A i 52′: [x x x (x)] a/sa₅^? — [x x x (x) HAD₂].A

• 49. A ii 1 with note 1: GAZI[^sar] GIBIL DAB — GAZI[^sar] BIL₂–lu, with BIL₂–lu being used as a verb, rather than as a verbal adjective, in the sense „the kasû-plant you roast (= taqallû), crush and sieve“. Even though BIL is the correct rendering of the verb qalû, the writing BIL₂–lu for taqallû would not be as unusual as the otherwise unattested phrase GAZI[^sar] GIBIL DAB, meaning „take (…) fresh kasû-plant“. As Scurlock (Sourcebook, p. 336 n. 106) already noted, such a meaning should be conveyed by SIG₇ and (ŠU).TI.
• 51. A ii 4: U₂ SI.SA₂ — ^u2SI.SA₂, Akk. šurdunû
• 51. A ii 8: SAG.DU-su SUD ^u2SIG₂.GA.RIG₂.AG.A^sar/SUD-u₂ ^sig2GA.RIG₂.AG.A SAR^? — SAG.DU-su kun-šam ^sig2GA.RIG₂.AG.A KEŠDA, which should be something like „you bind his head with a band/braid^? (made of) combed wool“; cf. BAM 510 i 3′, although without ^sig2GA.RIG₂.AG.A (also in CAD K pp. 542ff. and Attia JMC 25 p. 7 with the translation „tu fixes une terse de Laine“)
• 54. A ii 14: ˹ZA₃.HI˺.[LI] — ˹ZA₃.HI.LI˺; there are some parts of the sign LI that can still be seen on the photo, including the head of the first lower horizontal wedge, parts of the Winkelhaken and the head of the two vertical wedges at the end
• 54. A ii 14: A GEŠTIN.NA — A.GEŠTIN.NA
• 61. A ii 23: ˹^{šim}EN.DI^?˺ — ˹IM.DI˺; the posological remark 1/3 SILA₃ is followed by what seems to be the remains of the sign IM; the plant name IM.DI is often written without the determinative, for which there is not enough room in the break 
• 61. A ii 23: ˹1/2^?˺ ˹SILA₃˺ ˹ar₂^?–gan^?˺-nu — ˹1/2^?˺ ˹SILA₃˺ [^gišar^?–ga^?–a]n^?–nu; I am not sure about the proposed reading ˹ar₂^?–gan^?˺-nu, because the photo of the tablet shows only the remains of a single horizontal wedge running in between the end of the break and the sign NU (Köcher’s hand-copy has three); the reading could be something like ˹1/2^?˺ ˹SILA₃˺ [^gišar^?–ga^?–a]n^?–nu
• 61. A ii 24: DIDA ŠEG₆.GA₂ ˹ṭe-ne^?–ti^?˺ — DIDA ŠEG₆.GA₂ ˹ŠU˺.TI; the reading ˹ṭe-ne^?–ti^?˺ hardly makes sense in this context, not to mention that there is not enough room for so many signs in the fragmentary passage; there is room only for one sign, which is most probably ŠU
• 63-64. A ii 28-29: why read ina IZI^? in the first line and ina DE₃ in the second? The same phraseology occurs in both lines.
• 66. A ii 32ff.: he₂-en-gi-gi — he₂-en-gi₄-gi₄; the reading should be based on the parallel passage in CRANIUM 3 155“-156“ (K 4023 = AMT 102/1 etc. iii 11′-12′ // Sm 967 = BAM 486 iii 1′-2′), which clearly has GI₄; see also another parallel passage in the Late Babylonian tablet from Kish OECT 11 71 rev. 1-2
• 80. A ii 50: the preposition ina should be in italics
• 89. A ii 63: I am not sure if the emendation <ina^?> is necessary here, pašāšu is a verb with double accusative after all
• 93. A ii 67: LAL-id — LAL
• 94. A ii 68: ˹^u2˺MA₂.EREŠ.MA₂.RA — ˹^u2˺MA₂.EREŠ₄.MA₂.RA
• note 27: „a parallel is again BAM 486 i‘ 9’f“ — BAM 486 i‘ 9’f. does not belong here; there are two parallels to this passage, namely BAM 489 rev. 9’ff. and CRANIUM 3 198“‘-199“‘ = BAM 493 rev. 5f.

• 96′. A iii 1: DIŠ [KI.MIN^?] — DIŠ K[I.MIN^?], although the traces at the beginning of the line look rather like the sign A. Does the prescription skip DIŠ KI.MIN and start by listing the first drug directly at the beginning (i.e., A […] „water of […]“ or IL[LU …] „resin of […]“)? Should this be the case, I wonder whether the first vertical wedge in the following lines stands for DIŠ or something else.
• 100′. A iii 5: ina A GAZI^sar — ina^! A GAZI^sar; on the photo I see two horizontal wedges preceding the sign A in A GAZI^sar.
• 108′. A iii 18′: DABIN IN.NU.HA — ZI₃ ^šeIN.NU.HA, since the previous two drugs are also flour.
• 112′, 113′ and 114′. A iii 23, 27 and 28, regarding the phrases SIG₂ DU-ta₅ GUB-zi, munšub₂ nig₂-gub-ba and SIG₂ SAG.DU NIG₂.GUB.BA: in its third column, CRANIUM 1 moves on to the hair whose loss is expressed in BAM 480 iii 23 with the phrase SIG₂ DU-ta₅. As the syllabic writing in the related passage BAM 497 ii 3’ // BAM 499 i 20’ demonstrates, this phrase is šārtu aliktu in Akkadian. Now, the question is how to understand the other verb GUB = uzuzzu that pops up three times in the lines BAM 480 iii 23, 27 and 28. The first time it is certainly an infinitive constructed with the preposition ana to describe the purpose of the procedure, which is to make the hair stop falling (lit. “in order to make the going hair stay”); a similar construction can be found in BAM 499 ii 10’, this time with the preposition adi: a-di SIG₂–ša₂ GUB-zu NU DU₈. Far more problematic are the other two attestations in BAM 480 iii 27 and 28, transliterated both by Worthington and Scurlock as nig₂-gub-ba / NIG₂.GUB.BA. As for interpretations, Worthington seems to suggest two contradicting translations of the verb GUB, the first one being “cause (the falling hair) to remain attached” (infinitive construction in BAM 480 iii 23), and the second “fallen (head-hair)” (nig₂-gub-ba / NIG₂.GUB.BA in BAM 480 iii 27 and 28). Scurlock’s translation, on the other hand, is consistent in the case of all three instances: “to make (the hair that is going) stand firm” (infinitive construction in BAM 480 iii 23), “(hair) which stands firm” (nig₂-gub-ba in BAM 480 iii 27) and “to make (the hair of the head) stand firm” (NIG₂.GUB.BA in BAM 480 iii 28). The problem that arises from such an understanding is that nig₂-gub-ba / NIG₂.GUB.BA is neither a verb nor a verbal adjective. If anything, it is a nominal form created by the combination of nig₂ and the subordinate construction gub-ba. This is hardly the case, however. The rendering of this difficult form should rather be munšub₂ nig₂ gub-ba “the hair which stands firm” in Sumerian context (Sumerian incantation in BAM 480 iii 27) and SIG₂ SAG.DU ša₂ GUB.BA KEŠ₂.DA.KAM₂ “(wording of the incantation to) bind the head-hair which stands firm” in Akkadian context (Akkadian rubric in BAM 480 iii 28). An interesting alternative to the latter description can be found in the parallel passage OECT 11 71 obv. 8’, which says SIG₂ SAG.DU ša₂ DU ŠU.DU₈.A.KA[M₂] “(wording of the incantations to) hold back the head-hair, which is falling out” (not NIG₂.GUB ŠU.DU₈.A.KAM₂ as suggested by Scurlock in Sourcebook p. 335 n. 96).
• 113′. A iii 26: al-dub₂.˹ba˺ — al-dub₂-˹ba˺
• 113′. A iii 26: munušub₂ — munšub₂
• 113′. A iii 27: al-mu₂/keš₂^?-da mu₂/keš₂^?-˹da˺ — al-keš₂-da-keš₂-˹da˺; this should be a single verb containing, most probably, a reduplicated stem, with the help of which the intensity or plurality of the action is expressed. From such an understanding of the verb it would follow that the incantations and the accompanying rubrics are in fact dealing with the “binding” of hair (al-keš₂-da-keš₂-da > al-kešda-kešda) and not with its “growing”, since in this latter case the reduplicated form should rather be al-mu₂-mu₂.
• 116′. A iii 32f. with note 9: Scurlock’s restoration is based on the parallel OECT 11 71 obv. 9′-10′.
• 118′. A iii 36f. with notes 10 and 11: again, Scurlock’s restoration is based on the parallel OECT 11 71 obv. 11′-13′. Here, too, the passage with the second I.BI is in a fragmentary condition, but the remains of the last sign might point to GI (s. especially CDLI photo). Note that the repetition I.BI GI I.BI ˹GI^?˺ would be consistent with what follows in the text.
• 122′. A iii 42ff. with notes 13 and 15: like before, Scurlock’s restoration is based on the parallel OECT 11 71 obv. 14′-16′, which is of great importance, because it helps us segment the incantation more precisely:
  1. MU.UL.LU: MU.UL.LU.U (Scurlock missed an additional Winkelhaken following the sign sequence MU.UL.LU)
  2. ha-ba-re-eš: the interpretation „noisily“ would make much sense if the word that follows were indeed hal-hal-la-ta „kettle-drum“. This does not seem to be the case, however (s. below). What contradicts the reading ha-ba-re-eš is the fact, furthermore, that OECT 11 71 divides the sign sequence in two consecutive lines, with „ha“ and probably „ba“ occurring at the end of l. 14′, while „re“ and „eš“ at the beginning of l. 15′.
  3. hal-hal-la-ta: note the Glossenkeil in OECT 11 71 obv. 15′, separating hal-hal from la-ta.
  4. [(x) du-ru^?]-˹na˺-aš^? du-ru-na-aš: the repetition does not seem possible, since the parallel passage in OECT 11 71 obv. 16′ contains the remains of what appears to be signs like MA U BA and probably NA right before the sign sequence du-ru-na-aš. Based on the Oxford text, an alternative rendering of the passage might be something like [x x ma u-ba-n]a-aš du-ru-na-aš.
• 126′. A iii 50: UZU ZAG UZU ˹ME˺.[ZE₂] ˹UZU˺ KA.NE — ^uzuZAG (imittu) ^uzu˹ME˺.[HE₂] (himṣu) ˹^uzu˺KA.NE (šumû); these three types of meat occur consistently together in the type of rituals presented by CRANIUM 1; see for instance the respective places in Maul Zukunftsbewältigung pp. 130 l. 12, 133 l. 79, 294 ll. 12f. etc.
• 126′. A iii 50 with note 19: ^gišŠITA^? — GIŠ.GAN₂; one should look at the parallels AMT 91/1 rev. 5 // AMT 92/4 rev. 10′, where the sign is written with two (AMT 92/4 rev. 10′), as well as with three vertical wedges (AMT 91/1 rev. 5). Based on this attestation, I would not exclude the possibility that sometimes GAN₂ contains only two verticals. As Worthington (JMC 5 p. 28) suggested, GIŠ.GAN₂ might be an abbreviated form for kiškanû. For ^gišŠITA see Borger MZl p. 327, where it is noted that this form is not attested in monolingual Akkadian texts. 
• 126′. A iii 50: ^giš˹MA₂.EREŠ^eš˺.MA₂-le-e — ^giš˹MA₂.EREŠ₄˺^eš.MA₂–le-e
• 126′. A iii 51: ^u2IGI-20 ˹^u2?ŠE₁₀^?˺ ˹MA₂˺.LAH₅ — ^u2IGI-20 ˹^u2˺[IGI^?–lim^?] ˹ŠE₁₀˺ ˹MA₂˺.LAH₅; as far as I know, “sailor’s dung” is written with the determinative U₂ only in plant lists. Therefore, I would not exclude the possibility of IGI-lim occurring in between ^u2IGI-20 and “sailor’s dung”, even though at first glance the break does not seem big enough to accommodate so many signs.
• 127′. A iii 52: mu-nam-nir — mu-nam-mir
• 128′. A iii 55: ^gišŠITA — GIŠ.GAN₂; s. remarks on 126′ A iii 50 with note 19.
• 128′. A iii 55: ^u2kur-ka-na-a ˹DIŠ^!?–niš^!?˺ — ^u2kur-ka-na-a ša₂ ˹KUR ^giš˺x
• 130′. A iii 58: gu-gul-la-šu₂ — gul-gul-la-šu₂
• 130′. A iii 59: ˹tu˺-[še-lam-ma^?] — ˹tu˺-[bal^?]; I would restore the passage in preference for Scurlock’s suggestion, because I am not sure if there is enough room in the break for so many signs.
• 130.’ A iii 60: [GAR-an^?] — [MAR]; the drugs are usually not “put on”, but applied in different ways. The verb MAR would be fitting in this context, since the prescription presents this verb once more in l. 62 as part of the very same construction ana UGU GIG MAR.