– for AMT 43/6 see also Thompson 1929: 58

– concerning the fragment AMT 48/2 (K. 8469, see AMD 8/1, text 7.10 ms. S) which might be considered as a possible fragment of col. ii or iii of EPIGASTRIUM 1: in comparison to other two column witnesses of the bulṭu-compendia the length of the lines seems to be too short which might hint on whether a three column recension (as it is witnessed for some therapeutic ušburruda-collection in Ninive, comparable to K. 249+) or simply a differing format due to less content – this makes the identification of this fragment as witness for EPIGASTRIUM 1 rather doubtful

– for another possible but not yet securely attributable fragment cf. AMT 39/8 (Bu. 1889-4-26, 60) see transliteration below

A = 1881-7-27, 57 (AMT 43/6)

i

1. A_{i 1f} [DIŠ NA] ⌈SAG⌉ ŠA₃–šu₂ na-ši MURUB₄.MEŠ-šu₂ mi-na–⌈tu-šu₂⌉ GU₇.MEŠ-šu₂ NA ⌈BI⌉ [x x (x x)]^[1] / [^u2]⌈IGI^?⌉-lim ^u2IGI-20 SUD₂ ina^! GEŠTIN.SUR NU pa-tan NAG ina A ^gišŠE.NU ⌈u₂^?⌉ x [(x x)]

(ruling)

2. A_{i 3ff} [DIŠ NA] ⌈SAG⌉ ŠA₃–šu₂ DAB.DAB-su ⌈SAG⌉ ŠA₃–šu₂ MU₂.MU₂(.)⌈ME(Š)/ana^?⌉ ⌈GE₆/GIG^?⌉ ⌈ga/BUR₂^!?⌉^[2] ⌈aš/ina^?⌉ [x x (x)] / [x x] ⌈ra/sar^?⌉ GAZI^sar MUN SUD₂ ina A SIG₃–aṣ ana DUR₂-⌈šu₂⌉ [i-tab/DUB]-⌈bak^?⌉ x [x x (x)] / [x x x (x)] x ^u2ur₂-nu-⌈u^?⌉ ⌈^u2⌉ḪAR.ḪAR ⌈^u2ti⌉-ia₂-⌈tu₂⌉ ⌈^u2⌉nu-⌈ḫur^?⌉-[tu₂^? (x x)] / [x x (x x)] x ^šimGUR₂.⌈GUR₂⌉ ⌈^gišLI^?⌉ GI.DU₁₀ ^giš⌈TASKARIN^?⌉ x (x) u ⌈mal-ma-liš⌉ i-ša₂-qal x^[3] [x (x)] / [x x x (x)] ⌈ka/ud^?⌉^[4] 2-šu₂ ḪAL^?[5] ina mi-iḫ-ri^[6] ⌈AGARIN₅⌉ ana DUR₂–šu₂ ⌈DUB⌉-ak-⌈ma^?⌉ [x x] / [x x x (x)] x ma ina GEŠTIN.SUR.RA DUB-ak KI.MIN ina UD-⌈šu-ma^!?⌉^[7] ina GA ⌈KU₇⌉.[KU₇ NAG (x)] / [x x x (x)] x u₂-tab-ba-kam₂ ina u₄-me-šu-ma I₃.GIŠ BARA₂.GA x [x (x)] / [x x x x (x x)] x u2 ina UD.NA₂.AM₃^[8] [x x (x)]

(ruling)

3. A_{i 11ff} [ana x x x] x šu-ṣi₂-i U₂.KUR.RA GAZI⌈^sar⌉ [x x x (x x)] / [x x x x x (x)] x ^u2LAL GI.DU₁₀.GA SUḪUŠ x [x x x x (x x)] / […] x […]

iv

colophon: (BAK 329)^[9]

A_{iv 1‘} ⌈ina⌉ tup-⌈pa^!⌉-a-⌈ni⌉ [aš₂-ṭur as-niq IGI.KAR₂–ma]

A_{iv 2‘} ⌈a⌉-na ta-mar-ti ⌈ši⌉–[ta-as-si-ia qe₂-reb E₂.GAL-ia u₂-kin]

AMT 39/8 (Bu. 1889-4-26, 60) – ascription to EPIGASTRIUM 1 possible but not fully certain

1’ l. 1’f [x x x (x)] x ⌈ša₂^?⌉ x […] / [x x x (x)] ina I₃.GIŠ ḪI.ḪI ⌈SIG₂^?⌉ […]

(ruling)

2’ 3’f [x x (x)] x ṣu šap-ṣu mu ni^[10] saḫ-⌈le₂-e⌉ […] / [x (x)] x tur tara-bak ina KUŠ EDIN SUR-⌈ri^?⌉ […]

(ruling)

3’ 5’f [DIŠ NA] ⌈SAG⌉ ŠA₃–šu₂ GU₇–šu₂ na-aš₂-mu-šu DUGUD x […] / [x x (x)] ⌈MEŠ^?⌉ x [x (x)] x [(x)] x x […]^[11]

[1] AMD 8/1, 128 restores ⌈ka⌉-[šip (…)] which is hardly visible on the tablet since the break begins at the end of BI.

[2] BabMed Corpus AMT 43/6 restores MU₂.MU₂ x [ru-p]ul₂–t[i(?) TUKU.MEŠ(?) …], most likely referring to STT 102:7ff (DIŠ NA SAG ŠÀ-šú ru-púl-⌈ta⌉ ⌈TUK.MEŠ⌉-ši(irtanaššī) SAG ŠÀ-šú / ú-⌈ṣar⌉-rap-šú NINDA(akala) u A(mâ) LÁ(muṭṭu) UZU.MEŠ-šú ⌈tab-ku^!?⌉ ⌈NA⌉ BI / UŠ₁₁.ZU(kišpī) GU₇(šūkul)) and similar entries. This restoration is, due to the damaged condition of the passage, highly uncertain since no parallel is attested so far.

[3] Maybe EN?

[4] BabMed Corpus AMT 43/6 has […] 1 2-šu2 ḫal but the traces after the break suggest at least two small horizontal wedges before DIŠ, directly touching it at its middle and so suggesting a sign like UD or a sign similar to KA.

[5] The interpretation as ḪAL for zâzu or similar (meaning “to divide; to get a share”) is based on context but not fully convincing.

[6] „Equivalent“ or „in equal number“.

[7] Very uncertain compared to the sign forms in the next line.

[8] (ūmu) bubbulu “new years day“.

[9] According to layout and rim of the break the fragment K. 7239 + K. 15821 might join ms. A and restore most of the colophon but the join has yet to be tested.

[10] Maybe identificatory MU.NE₂(šumšu) “is its name” which is usually used within entries concerning with skin complaints as well as ailments of the sinews and muscles (see FEET and SKIN).

[11] Since MEŠ is not frequently used within therapeutic prescriptions the second line of this entry might likewise have been part of the symptom description.