Since K. Simko worked a lot on this material (with A. Bacskay) I hope for comments and suggestions from this side. Since the CDLI-photo of Sm. 950, the only safe fragment of CRANIUM 4 (see preliminary transliteration), is partly hard to read and its copy in CT 23, pl. 50 differs to some degree better photos (or collations from the actual tablet) are in need.
Here some notes and ideas on the distribution of CRANIUM 4 and 5 as well as possible fragments for which I hope the aforementioned authors might have some more elaborate ideas and suggestions:
– according to Bácskay/Simko, JMC forthcoming BAM 494(?), 495(?), 497-499(?) might belong likewise to UGU 5; for UGU 5 and adī-section of the AMC cf. further BAM 33 (extract) and AO 11447 (extract, see Geller, JMC 10 (2007)); Sm 950 is unlikely to be a fragm. of BAM 494 due to the shape of the break at the respective position of col. i, although it is uncertain if BAM 494 (and similar texts) represents the continuation of UGU 4 or UGU 5
– the spacial distribution as well as the content of the fragments suggest: 1. (UGU 4?) a tablet on lesions and skin complaints on the head (beginning with Sm. 950 and maybe continuing with BAM 494 which notes again I3 gišEREN syllabically I3 giše-re-ni as in Sm. 950)[1] and 2. (UGU 5?) another tablet whose later columns draw attention to the hair and similar complaints[2] (BAM 498-499)
– but Sm. 950 does not fit the break of BAM 494 which would indicate, that at least two mss. of UGU 4 have been preserved
– further possible fragments: 70-7-8, 86 (AMT 52/5, rimûtu and šimmatu of the body, dupl. K. 16421, maybe also belonging to witchcraft or Ghost induced illnesses?), K. 2471 (DIŠ NA SAG.DU-[su …], maybe also guraštu/gurāru?, cf. DIŠ NA I3 la-ta-ki ŠEŠ2–ma SAG.DU-su gu-[…], so maybe BAM 494 col iv?), K. 10549 (SÍG SAG.DU BABBAR u x […]), K. 13505 + K. 16419 (DIŠ NA SAG.DU-su bar […][3]), BAM 34 (AO 7482, nA palaeography, according to Köcher maybe Niniveh, GIG PEŠ(.GIG) = kurāru)
[1] Other similar fragments without mentioning the head explicitly: 495 (ašû), 497 (ašû), 500 (ašû).
[2] Cf. the catchline to UGU 5 mentioning stinging pain in the middle of the head
[3] See maybe baršu “patchy“ (OB said of hair).
Dear All,
as far as preserved incipits and catch-lines are concerned, Sm 950 (CT 23 50) is indeed the only tablet that can be identified with certainty as a manuscript of CRANIUM 4. Even though we do not have any other tablets with preserved colophons indicating a connection to CRANIUM 4 or 5, K 6224+ (BAM 494) has always been considered to be a good candidate for CRANIUM 5. In a paper published last year (JMC 30 pp. 1ff.), A. Bácskay and myself also argued that BAM 494 is a manuscript of the Nineveh Therapeutic Series, representing, most probably, CRANIUM 5. For this view see recently Panayotov BAM 9 p. 96 and Steinert ib. p. 221 with some alternative suggestions.
Other tablets and fragments have also been considered, including the ones listed by E. Schmidtchen above: AO 7482 (BAM 34); K 54 (BAM 497) (+?) K 3642 (AMT 17/5); K 2416+ (BAM 499) (+?) Rm 254 (BAM 498); K 2471 (AMT 5/2); K 6206 (AMT 16/4); K 8346 (AMT 1/3); K 10549 (AMT 3/6); K 10624+ (BAM 500); K 11544 (AMT 6/1); K 13505+ (BAM 492); K 15216 (BAM 495); K 16421 (AMT 5/6); K 16449 (AMT 25/8); Rm 971 (BAM 511); 70-7-8, 86 (AMT 52/5).
Based on some indirect evidence, such as the nature of the connection between fragments (i.e. parallels vs. duplicates) or the content of the text presented by the fragments (i.e. discussed diseases), it seems possible to make some preliminary conclusions as to what should have constituted CRANIUM 4 and 5:
i) Sm 950 (CT 23 50) is a safe manuscript of CRANIUM 4. K 6224+ (BAM 494) might also represent CRANIUM 4 for the following reasons: (1.) They are both dealing with skin diseases of the head, while the incipit of CRANIUM 5 suggests a change in topic between CRANIUM 4 and 5: stinging pain in the middle of the head. (2.) The beginning of Sm 950 (CT 23 50) is the very beginning of the first column of CRANIUM 4, and it discusses „sweet“ simmu. The first remaining part of K 6224+ (BAM 494), on the other hand, starts out somewhere in the middle of the first column with prescriptions against „sweet“ kalmātu. Thus, it is not entirely impossible that K 6224+ (BAM 494) is the continuation of Sm 950 (CT 23 50) and that the first column of CRANIUM 4 treats the „sweet“ kinds of skin diseases.
I checked Sm 950 (CT 23 50) and K 6224+ (BAM 494) against each other in person. Physically it is impossible that they belonged to the same tablet. Sm 950 (CT 23 50) is bulkier than K 6224+ (BAM 494), and the spacing of the script is also very dissimilar on these two tablets. If both of them are CRANIUM 4, then they must represent two separate manuscripts.
ii) For K 11544 (AMT 6/1) and Rm 971 (BAM 511) see Köcher BAM 5 pp. xxixf., Köcher BAM 6 p. xi, Bácskay – Simkó JMC 30 pp. 53ff. and Steinert BAM 9 p. 221: these two fragments have been identified as two non-physical joins to K 6224+ (BAM 494). Köcher placed K 11544 (AMT 6/1) before the fragments representing the first column of K 6224+ (BAM 494). This does not seem possible, however, because according to our reconstruction this part of the column should be occupied by the text from Sm 950 (CT 23 50). I tried to place K 11544 (AMT 6/1) in the gap at the beginning of the third column of K 6224+ (BAM 494). The reason for doing so was that K 11544 (AMT 6/1) and the first half of the third column of K 6224+ (BAM 494) seem to deal with the same disease called gurištu. Unfortunately, I could not find any physical contact between the two. Alternatively, K 11544 (AMT 6/1) could follow the fragments representing the first column of K 6224+ (BAM 494), where several different diseases (ekketu, rišûtu, sāmānu and girgiššu) are discussed together.
Rm 971 (BAM 511) presents an incantation against girgiššu, which is the disease discussed in the first column of K 6224+ (BAM 494). Thus, this fragment could be a non-physical join to this part of the tablet.
iii) K 16449 (AMT 25/8) and AO 7482 (BAM 34) duplicate K 6224+ (BAM 494) ii 53-57 and iii 75’’-iv 10, respectively. Hence the possibility that they represent at least one but possibly two further manuscripts of CRANIUM 4.
iv) K 6206 (AMT 16/4), K 10624+ (BAM 500) and K 15216 (BAM 495) have also been identified as possible duplicates of K 6224+ (BAM 494). See Köcher BAM 5 p. xxxii, Panayotov BAM 9 p. 96 and Steinert ib. p. 221.
In JMC 30 p. 2f. A. Bácskay and myself studied K 6206 (AMT 16/4) in detail and came to the conclusion that this fragment is a very close parallel to K 6224+ (BAM 494). It cannot be considered a duplicate for two reasons. First, it presents a sequence of prescriptions and incantations known from K 6224+ (BAM 494) ii 40-44 and 47-53, while skipping the prescription in K 6224+ (BAM 494) ii 45-46. Second, the dividing lines are placed somewhat differently on the two tablets.
K 10624+ (BAM 500) also omits some dividing lines. The main problem with this tablet is, however, that it contains the prescriptions against ašû in its left-hand column, which should be either its first or fourth column, but certainly not the second column where K 6224+ (BAM 494) has these very same prescriptions. Even though serialised manuscripts with different alignment or spatial distribution are known, the deviation is usually not more than 5-10 lines (s. e.g. the CRANIUM 3 or the EYES 1 mss.). Here we have almost a column-long deviation, which is too much of a difference for K 10624+ (BAM 500) being a duplicate of K 6224+ (BAM 494). In my opinion, K 10624+ (BAM 500) is a separate collection of ašû-related material, sharing passages with K 6224+ (BAM 494).
K 15216 (BAM 495) cannot be a duplicate of K 6224+ (BAM 494), because the prescriptions occur in different order: K 15216 (BAM 495) ii’ 1’-6’ // K 6224+ (BAM 494) ii 37-40; K 15216 (BAM 495) ii’ 7’-9’ // K 6224+ (BAM 494) ii 29; K 15216 (BAM 495) ii’ 10’-11’ // K 6224+ (BAM 494) ii 30.
v) The remaining fragments are more difficult to place:
– although K 54 (BAM 497) contains three prescriptions that are also known from K 6224+ (BAM 494), it is surely no duplicate. Together with its possible non-physical join K 3642 (AMT 17/5), this fragment deals with different skin diseases, ašû and hair loss.
– another possible non-physical join is K 2416+ (BAM 499) (+?) Rm 254 (BAM 498) with prescriptions against ašû, hair loss, grey hair and thick hair. In addition, the fourth column of Rm 254 (BAM 498) is a parallel to K 6224+ (BAM 494) ii 16-22.
– the small fragment K 2471 (AMT 5/2) seems to contain prescriptions against guraštu. See already E. Schmidtchen above, although with the rectification that this medical condition is treated in the third (not the fourth) column of K 6224+ (BAM 494). The alternative reading gurāru is less probable, since the corresponding medical condition is written consistently as kurāru in BAM 494.
– K 8346 (AMT 1/3) contains prescriptions against ašû and different hair-related problems. Some of these prescriptions are also known from K 54 (BAM 497) and K 6224+ (BAM 494).
– the fragment K 10549 (AMT 3/6) is very similar to K 2416+ (BAM 499) (+?) Rm 254 (BAM 498), and it deals with grey hair.
– K 13505+ (BAM 492) could be anything head-related, not only CRANIUM 4 or 5.
– I do not think that K 16421 (AMT 5/6) and 70-7-8, 86 (AMT 52/5) have anything to do with CRANIUM. To my knowledge, they deal with unrelated medical problems like šimmatu.
The relation of these fragments to one another and to CRANIUM 4 or 5 should be investigated properly. On the basis of their content, they might either represent some hitherto unknown part of CRANIUM 4, or they could also belong to CRANIUM 5. Note, for instance, that the last known prescription from the beginning of the fourth column of K 6224+ (BAM 494), one of the alleged CRANIUM 4 manuscripts, deals with hair loss (gurrudu). Prescriptions against similar hair-related problems are presented by the fragments listed above, some of which could thus be the continuation in this column.
In conclusion, it seems possible to divide the material into the following four categories:
1) manuscripts of CRANIUM 4
A. Sm 950 (CT 23 50): beginning of first column with prescriptions against “sweet” simmu.
B(?). K 6224+ (BAM 494): continuation of first column with prescriptions against lice, “sweet” lice, ekketu, rišûtu, sāmānu and girgiššu; most of the second and third columns with prescriptions against ašû, guraštu and kurāru; beginning of the fourth column with prescriptions against kurāru and hair loss.
B1(?). K 11544 (AMT 6/1): possible non-physical join to the first or third column of K 6224+ (BAM 494), with prescriptions against gurištu.
B2(?). Rm 971 (BAM 511): possible non-physical join to the first column of K 6224+ (BAM 494), with an incantation against girgiššu.
C(?). K 16449 (AMT 25/8): from the second half of the second column with prescriptions against ašû.
D(?). AO 7482 (BAM 34): from end of the third column with prescriptions against kurāru and hair loss.
2) parallels to CRANIUM 4 from other collections of prescriptions
K 6206 (AMT 16/4): very close parallel to the second column
K 10624+ (BAM 500): close parallel to the second column
K 15216 (BAM 495): parallel to the second column
3) fragments that can be associated with CRANIUM 4 or 5 on the basis of their content
K 54 (BAM 497) (+?) K 3642 (AMT 17/5)
K 2416+ (BAM 499) (+?) Rm 254 (BAM 498)
K 2471 (AMT 5/2)
K 8346 (AMT 1/3)
K 10549 (AMT 3/6)
4) uncertain or unrelated
K 13505+ (BAM 492)
K 16421 (AMT 5/6)
70-7-8, 86 (AMT 52/5)
Finally, it should be noted that the allocation of manuscripts to CRANIUM 4 and 5 is still a work in progress. Any comments and suggestions are welcome.