iii

96‘ A_{iii 1} DIŠ ⌈KI^?⌉.[MIN[1] …] DE₃ ṣar-ba-te ina A GAZI^sar SILA₁₁–aš LAL

(ruling)

97‘ A_{iii 2} ⌈DIŠ^?⌉ [KI.MIN^? …] ⌈^šim⌉GUR₂.GUR₂ ina A GAZI^sar SILA₁₁–aš LAL

(ruling)

98’ A_{iii 3} [DIŠ KI.MIN^? … ZI₃].⌈KUM⌉ ḪI.ḪI ina A GAZI^sar SILA₁₁–aš LAL

(ruling)

99’ A_{iii 4} ⌈DIŠ^?⌉ [KI.MIN^? …] ⌈ZI₃.KUM⌉ ḪI.⌈HI^!⌉ ina A GAZI^sar SILA₁₁–aš LAL

(ruling)

100’ A_{iii 5} ⌈DIŠ^?⌉ [KI.MIN^? … ina A GAZI]⌈^sar⌉ SILA₁₁–aš LAL : DIŠ KI.MIN qi₂-lip še-el-le-be₂-nu ina^! A GAZI^sar SILA₁₁–aš LAL

(ruling)

101‘ A_{iii 6} ⌈DIŠ^?⌉ [KI.MIN^? … DE₃^?] ⌈ṣar⌉-ba-te ina A GAZI^sar SILA₁₁–aš LAL

(ruling)

102’ A_{iii 7} ⌈DIŠ^?⌉ [KI.MIN^? …] (blank) ina A GAZI^sar SILA₁₁–aš LAL

(ruling)

103’ A_{iii 8f}  ⌈DIŠ⌉ [NA UD.DA TAB-ma SIG₂] ⌈SAG⌉.DU-šu₂ i-šaḫ-ḫu-uḫ ZI SAG.KI TUK.TUK / 1^? ⌈GIN₂^?⌉ [U₅ ARGAB^mušen ina I₃.GIŠ SUD₂][2] ⌈SAG⌉.DU-su SAR-ab tu-kaṣ₃-ṣa[3] LAL-ma UD 3.KAM₂ NU DU₈

(ruling)

104’ A_{iii 10ff} ⌈DIŠ⌉ ⌈KI⌉.[MIN 10 GIN₂ ZI₃ (…) ^gišEREN 10^?] ⌈GIN₂⌉ ZI₃ ^gišŠUR.MIN₃ 10 GIN₂ ZI₃ ^gišMIN₃.DU 10 GIN₂ ZI₃ ^šimLI 10 GIN₂ ZI₃ ^šimGUR₂.GUR₂ / 10 GIN₂ ZI₃ ⌈GAZI⌉[^sar 10 GIN₂] ⌈ZI₃⌉ ⌈GU₂⌉.GAL 10 GIN₂ ZI₃ GU₂.TUR 10 GIN₂ BAR ZU₂.LUM.MA 10 GIN₂ ZA₃.ḪI.LI / 10 GIN₂ ⌈DIDA⌉ ⌈SIG₅⌉ 10 GIN₂ ZI₃ MUNU₅ DIŠ-niš ḪI.ḪI ina KAŠ SILA₁₁–aš GUR-ma ḪAD₂.A GAZ SIM / ⌈SAG⌉-ka u₂-kal ina ŠA₃ 1/3 SILA₃ TI-qe₂ ina A GAZI^sar SILA₁₁–aš SAR-ab LAL-ma KI.MIN

(ruling)

105’ A_{iii 14} [DIŠ] ⌈KI⌉.MIN ZA₃.ḪI.LI AR₃–ti₃ ^šimGUR₂.GUR₂ NAGA.SI DIŠ-niš SUD₂ ina KAŠ SILA₁₁–aš SAR-ab KI.MIN

(ruling)

106’ A_{iii 15} [DIŠ KI].⌈MIN⌉ ^šimGUR₂.GUR₂ ^šimLI ^šim.dNIN.URTA NUMUN ^u2AB₂.DUḪ KA A.AB.BA ^šimŠEŠ DIŠ-niš SUD₂ ina KAŠ SILA₁₁–aš SAR-⌈ab⌉ KI.MIN

(ruling)

107’ A_{iii 16} [DIŠ KI.MIN] ⌈^šim⌉GUR₂.GUR₂ ^šimLI ILLU ^šimBULUḪ ZU₂.LUM I₃.UDU ELLAG₂ UDU.NITA₂ DIŠ-niš SUD₂ ina KUŠ SUR-re SAR-ab KI.MIN

(ruling)

108’ A_{iii 17f} [DIŠ NA SAG].⌈DU⌉–su UD.DA TAB-ma u SU-šu₂ GU₇–šu₂ SAG.DU-su nu-pu-uḫ PA ^gišMEŠ.MA₂.GAN.NA / [ḪAD₂.DU GAZ] ⌈SIM⌉ ZI₃ GU₂.GAL ZI₃ GU₂.TUR ZI₃ ^šeIN.NU.ḪA[4] DIŠ-niš ina šur-šum-mi KAŠ SILA₁₁–aš SAR-ab KI.MIN

(ruling)

109’ A_{iii 19} [(DIŠ KI.MIN) DUḪ.ŠE].⌈GIŠ^?⌉.I₃ ḪAD₂.A-ti ^šimGUR₂.GUR₂ ^šimLI ZI₃.KUM ina šur-šum-mi KAŠ SILA₁₁–aš SAR-ab KI.MIN

(ruling)

110’ A_{iii 20} DIŠ KI.MIN [(x x)] ⌈^u2⌉HAR.ḪAR ^šimGUR₂.GUR₂ ^šimLI ZI₃.KUM ina KAŠ SILA₁₁-⌈aš⌉ ⌈SAR^!?–ab⌉[5] [x (x)]

(ruling)

111’ A_{iii 21} DIŠ KI.MIN ⌈^u2LAL^?⌉ ⌈ḪAD₂.A^?⌉[6] {x}[7] ina A SED SILA₁₁–aš SAR-⌈ab⌉ [KI.MIN]

(ruling)

112’ A_{iii 22ff} DIŠ NA SAG.DU-su KUM₂–⌈ma⌉ ⌈SIG₂⌉ SAG.DU-šu₂ i-šaḫ-ḫu-uḫ ana KUM₂ SAG.DU-[šu₂ ZI-ḫi^?] / u SIG₂ DU-ta₅ GUB-zi[8] ⌈^u2?⌉[ak]-⌈tam⌉ ^u2ši-ma-ḫa U₂ BABBAR ⌈DIŠ-niš⌉ ⌈SUD₂⌉ ⌈ina⌉ ⌈A⌉ ⌈ḪI.ḪI⌉ ⌈SAG.DU-su⌉ ⌈te-sir⌉ / UD 2.KAM₂ ina SAG.DU-šu₂ i-mit-⌈ti₃^?⌉[9] x (x) x ⌈SAG⌉.DU-su ⌈LUḪ^!⌉-si NUMUN ^gišbi-ni ^u2kam₂-ka-da / ^u2NIG₂.GAN₂.GAN₂ ^u2NIG₂.GIDRU ŠIKA ⌈NUNUZ^?⌉ [GA.NU₁₁]⌈^mušen?⌉ DIŠ-niš SUD₂ ina I₃ ḪI.ḪI SAG.DU-su ŠEŠ₂–aš

(ruling)

113’ A_{iii 26f} EN₂ munšub₂ al-dub₂-⌈ba⌉ [(x)] munušub₂ al-kala-ga / munšub₂ al-keš₂^?-da-keš₂^?-⌈da⌉[10] [(x)] munšub₂ nig₂-gub-ba TU₆ EN₂

(ruling)

114’ A_{iii 28} KA.INIM.MA SIG₂ SAG.⌈DU⌉ [(x)] NIG₂.GUB.BA KEŠ₂^?.DA.KAM₂

(ruling)

115’ A_{iii 29ff} DU₃.DU₃.BI ^na4DU₈.ŠI.A ^na4GUG ^na4ZA.GIN₃ ⌈^na4⌉[NIR₂] ⌈^na4BABBAR.MIN₅^?⌉ ^na4IGI.KU₆ ^na4ŠUBA / ^na4ŠUBA A₂.ZI.DA ^na4ŠUBA A₂.GUB₃.⌈BU^?⌉ [^na4KUR-nu DAB] ⌈^na4⌉MUŠ.GIR₂ ^na4AŠ.GI₃.GI₃ ^na4UGU.AŠ.GI₃.GI₃ / 13 ni-bi an-nu-ti ina ^sig2ḪE₂.ME.DA E₃-⌈ak⌉ [ina SIG₂ (x x)] ⌈KEŠ₂^?⌉-ma SIG₂ DU-tu₂[11] ik-kal-la

(ruling)

116’ A_{iii 32f} EN₂ at-ta ba^!?-ra-an-gi zi-ba-⌈an⌉-[x x x (x)][12] ⌈zi⌉-im-ba-ra uz-mi-ia-aš / pa-at-ri un-da-kur-ra ḫe₂-⌈en^?-na^?⌉ ⌈ḫe₂⌉ [x] ⌈ša₂/i^?⌉ TU₆ EN₂

(ruling)

117’ A_{iii 34f} KID₃.KID₃.BI 7 ḫa-ru-be₂-e ša₂ IM.⌈SI.SA₂⌉ TI-qe₂ ina DE₃ ur-⌈ba-te⌉ ⌈tur-ar₂⌉ ina I₃ ḪI.ḪI EN₂ 7-šu₂ / ŠID-nu 3-šu₂ ŠEŠ₂–su 3-šu₂ ta-⌈ḫal-la^?–su⌉ e-nu-ma ta-ḫal-la-ṣu-šu₂ EN₂ 3-šu₂ ana ⌈UGU⌉ ⌈SAG⌉.DU-šu₂ ŠID-⌈nu⌉

(ruling)

118’ A_{iii 36f} EN₂ I.BI.GI I.BI.⌈GI^?⌉[13] [ḪE₂.EN.ZALAG₂^?].⌈GE⌉ SAG.KI ṣi SAG.KI ṣi ḪE₂.EN.ZALAG₂.GE SAG.KI iṣ^? SAG.KI iṣ^? / ḪE₂.EN.ZALAG₂.⌈GE⌉ [ŠE.ER.ZI^? ḪE₂.EN.ZALAG₂^?].⌈GE^?⌉[14] MA.AL.LAL I.DI MU.RA.AN.GUB ḪUL.BI ḪUL.ḪUL EN₂

(ruling)

119’ A_{iii 38f} KID₃.⌈KID₃⌉.[BI x x x (x)] x ⌈SAG⌉.DU IGIRA₂^mušen SAG.DU BURU₅.ḪABRUD.DA NITA₂ ^gišU₄.ḪI.IN ^gišGIŠIMMAR / x x [x x x x (x)] EN₂ 3-šu₂ ana ŠA₃ ŠID-nu EŠ.MEŠ-su-ma SIG₂ DU-tu₂ ik-kal-la lu ša₂ NITA₂ lu [ša₂ MUNUS?]

(ruling)

120’ A_{iii 40} [EN₂^? …] ⌈šu^?⌉-gi lil šu-ge-e-ne/de₃ šu-gi

(ruling)

121‘ A_{iii 41} [KID₃.KID₃.BI 7^? ḫa-ru]–⌈be₂⌉-e ša₂ IM.SI.SA₂ TI ina DE₃ tur-ar₂ ina I₃ ^gišŠUR.MIN₃ MUD₂ ^gišEREN ḪI.ḪI EŠ.MEŠ-su-ma SI.SA₂–im[15]

(ruling)

122‘ A_{iii 42ff} [EN₂ (MU.UL.LU.U)][16] ⌈ḪUL⌉.A ša₂ GAL₂{x}-ma/NIG₂.GAL₂.LA^!(MA)[17] DINGIR{x} ṣi-ir-ta / [ma-ni-ir-ra-an]-ni[18] ḫa-ba-re-eš[19] ma-ni-ir-ra-an-ni ḫal-ḫal-la-ta la gu gim/DIM₂^?.MA TI.LA.ŠE₃ / [(x) du-ru^?]-⌈na⌉-aš^?[20] du-ru-na-aš ḫu-ri-na-aḫ mu-un-di(-)ḫu-na(-)ḫa(-)at-tu-uk TU₆ EN₂

(ruling)

123‘ A_{iii 45} [KA.INIM].⌈MA⌉ SIG₂ KEŠ₂.DA.KAM₂

(ruling)

124’ A_{iii 46f} (both lines seem to be purposefully erased)

(ruling)

125’ A_{iii 48} DIŠ NA SIG₂ TE.MEŠ-šu₂ ⌈ma-gal⌉ i-šaḫ-ḫu-uḫ NA BI DINGIR-šu₂ ^diš₈-tar₃-šu₂ KI-šu₂ ze-nu-u[21]

(ruling)

126’ A_{iii 49ff} KID₃.KID₃.BI ana IGI MUL maḫ-⌈re⌉-e KEŠDA KEŠ₂ ZU₂.LUM.MA ^zi3EŠA DUB-aq NINDA.I₃.DE₂.A LAL₃ I₃.⌈NUN.NA⌉ ⌈GAR⌉-an / ^uduSISKUR DU₃–uš ^uzuZAG ^uzu⌈ME⌉.[ZE₂] ⌈^uzu⌉KA.NE[22] tu-ṭaḫ-ḫa KAŠ BAL-qi₂ GIŠ.GAN₂^{?[23] giš}⌈MA₂.EREŠ^eš⌉.MA₂–le-e / U₅ ARGAB^{mušen u2}IGI-20 ⌈^u2?ŠE₁₀^?⌉[24] ⌈MA₂⌉.LAḪ₅ KI I₃ ⌈ḪI.ḪI⌉ ina ⌈IGI⌉ MUL GAR-an EN₂ an-ni-ta₅ 3-šu₂ ŠID-nu

(ruling)

127’ A_{iii 52ff} at-ta MUL mu-nam-mir x x x x ⌈ŠUR^?⌉ ina ⌈IGI^?⌉ qe₂-reb AN-e ḫa-iṭ UB.MEŠ / ana-ku NENNI A NENNI ina GE₆ an-ne₂-⌈e⌉ IGI-ka kam₂-sa-ku di-ni di-in EŠ.BAR-a-a KUD-us / U₂.ḪI.A ŠEŠ.MEŠ lip-si-⌈su^!⌉ lum-ni A₂.GU₂.ZI.GA u₄-ma[25] TE.MEŠ-šu₂ ta-kar

(ruling)

128’ A_{iii 55} DIŠ KI.MIN GIŠ.GAN₂^{?[26] giš}LU₂–a-nu ^u2⌈eli⌉-kul-la ^u2kur-ka-na-a ša₂ ⌈KUR⌉ ⌈^giš⌉[27] x x x x ⌈SIG₂^?⌉ ⌈^munušAŠ₂.GAR₃^?⌉ GIŠ₃.NU.ZU ina GU₂–šu₂ GAR-an

(ruling)

129’ A_{iii 56} 6 KA.INIM.⌈MA⌉ SIG₂ KEŠ₂.DA.KAM

(ruling)

130’ A_{iii 57ff} DIŠ NA UGU-šu₂ A ⌈u₂-kal⌉ ŠU.SI-ka GAL-ti a-šar A.MEŠ u₂-kal-lu TAG.TAG-at šum-ma ^uzuGIŠ-šu₂[28] / be₂-ʾ-⌈šat^?⌉ [A(.MEŠ ša₂)[29] gul]-⌈gul⌉-li-šu₂ it-tar-du BAD-ma gul-gul-la-šu₂ te-ser-rim[30] A ša gul-gul-li-šu₂ / ⌈tu⌉-[še-lam-ma^?[31] TUG₂^? SIG^? A^?] ⌈LUḪ⌉-si I₃.GIŠ SUD ana UGU GIG GAR-an KU.KU GIŠ.KIN₂ ZI₃ BAḪAR₂ SUD₂ ana UGU GIG / [MAR^?[32] UD x.KAM₂ LAL DU₈]-⌈ma⌉ TUG₂ SIG^!? A LUḪ-si I₃.GIŠ SUD ana UGU GIG GAR-an ^tug2na-al-ti-ip-ti[33] / [… UD] 2+x.KAM₂ LAL DU₈–ma TUG₂ SIG^!? A LUḪ-si I₃.GIŠ SUD ana UGU GIG GAR-an / [x x x (x)] ⌈ti^?⌉ GAZI^sar BIL₂^?–ti KI ZI₃ ŠE.SA.A ḪI.ḪI ana UGU GIG MAR UD 1.KAM₂ LAL DU₈–ma / [x x (x)] ⌈^šim⌉LI GAZ KI ZI₃.KUM ḪI.ḪI ina A GAZI^sar SILA₁₁–aš LAL IGI GIG tu–gal-lab EN TI.LA LAL₂ / x [(x)] x bad-ma[34] šum-ma ^uzuGIŠ-šu₂ la be₂-ʾ-šat ana li-mit SAG.DU-šu₂ KUM₂/DE₃ NA₄.MEŠ[35] GAR-an

(ruling)

131’ A_{iii 65ff} EN₂ ⌈ur-ba⌉-tu₄ ur-ba-tu₄ ur-ba-tu₄ sa-am-tu₄ ZI-am-ma ur-pa-ta SA₅ ik-tum₃ IM.ŠEG₃ SA₅ / ZI-⌈ma⌉ KI-ta₅ SA₅–tu₄ ir-ḫu A.ZI.GA SA₅ ZI-ma ID₂ SA₅–tu₄ im-la ^lu2ENGUR SA₅ / ^giš⌈MAR⌉ SA₅ ^gišDUSU SA₅ IL₂–ši-⌈ma⌉ A.MEŠ SA₅.MEŠ li-is-kir ^gišIG-ma SA₅ ^gišSAG.KUL-mi SA₅ / ⌈KA₂⌉-šu₂-nu it^!–tu man-nu-um-ma ša₂ i-pe-et-ta-ku-nu-ši[36] i-ri-iš ma-ra i-ri-iš ma-ra TU₆ EN₂[37]

(ruling)

[1] Simko argues that the first sign might better fit A or a compound with A like ILLU, skipping the introductory KI.MIN, done so in ms. A col. i.

[2] For the reconstruction cf. the parallels given in Worthington (2005), 11 (BAM 3 ii 28, BAM 9:24 and Jastrow obv 9).

[3] Worthington (2005), 11 as well as Scurlock (2014), 424 read mistakenly tu-kaṣ–ṣa instead of the correct tu-kaṣ₃(GAZ)-ṣa.

[4] Suggestion Simko noting that the surrounding ingredients are all flour. Although, I would not exclude DABIN IN.NU.ḪA entirely since DABIN is also a kind of rough flour. Since the logographic spelling is more often supplemented by the determinative ŠE we prefer ZI₃ ^šeIN.NU.ḪA.

[5] Worthington (2005), 12 as well as Scurlock (2014), 425 read SILA₁₁–aš ⌈SAR-ab⌉ but the traces suggest rather ⌈ina KUŠ⌉ x x (cf. A iii 16 for comparison). However, the following sign traces are problematic since they do not look like the then expected SUR-re.

[6] Contra Worthington (2005), 12 and Scurlock (2014), 425 this passage is actually damaged which has not been noted by both authors.

[7] Worthington (2005), 12 restores ⌈ḪAD₂.A.MEŠ⌉ whereas Scurlock (2014), 425 wants to read ⌈SUD₂⌉.

[8] Commentary K. Simko: (…) [R]egarding 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).

[9] Worthington (2005), 12 following a suggestion of Stol (cf. ibid. 27). The sign form is problematic since it differs for example from DIM used in A i 6 concerning the last two horizontal wedges. The whole sign looks rather like a slightly damaged neo-Assyrian UB or a similar sign.

[10] Most likely Scurlock (2014) might be right in reading SAR as KEŠDA/KEŠ₃ “to bind” and not like Worthington (2005) as MU₂ “to (let) grow” considering the ritualistic treatment in the following instruction as well as the last phrase of this instruction “… and the falling out hair will be withhold” which underlines the focus of the treatment regarding falling out hair that should be prevented from doing so. Following Simko’s suggestion, this has to be seen as a single verb with reduplicated stem for intensity or plurality of action (the reduplicated form of MU₂ would be al-mu₂-mu₂).

[11] For the syllabic reading SIG₂ a-lik-tu₂ “falling out hair (will be withhold)” cf. AMT 3/2:19. Scurlock’s reading SIG₂ DU-ta₅ is probably wrong since ikkallā is a N-stem (passive) of kalû “to hold back” so the subject should be most likely the hair.

[12] Scurlock (2014), 315 restores the whole incantation: at-ta ba-ra-an-gi zi-ba-an-[(gi : ba-te-gi-ra)] zi-im-ba-ra uz-mi-ia-aš / pa-at-ri un-da-kur-ra ḫe₂-e[n-n]a ḫ[(e₂-min na-pa-ri)-š]a₂ following the partly parallel OECT 11 71 obv. 9‘-10‘.

[13] Scurlock (2014), 315 restores I.BI.G[I(M …)] but the traces look different from either GI or GIM. Simko suggests to stay with Scurlocks reading but I am still hesitant since there seems to be a Winkelhaken-like wedge directly at the beginning of the damaged sign that is following ⌈BI⌉.

[14] For the restoration see Scurlock (2014), 315 following the partly parallel OECT 11 71 obv 11‘-13‘. The generally presumed parallel AMT 76/6:4’-11’ is highly uncertain as such.

[15] The reading SI.SA₂–šar₅ (for ass. eššar = bab. eššir; or maybe išār^?) in Worthington (2005), 12 instead of SI.SA₂–im (= išallim) is unnecessary.

[16] For the restoration see Scurlock (2014), 315 following the partly parallel OECT 11 71 obv 14‘-16‘. (Remarks following K. Simko:) 1. The last U (in OECT 11, 71) has been left out by Scurlock. 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. (Continuation E. Schmidtchen): Albeit the observations of Simko are transparent I would be cautious following OECT 11, 71 to close. Cf. for this the parallels of OECT 11, 71 to UGU 3 which show some noticeable textual corruptions (especially the incantations OECT 11, 71 obv 17’-35’ = UGU 3 ii-iii).

[17] Suggestion by U. Steinert.

[18] For the restoration see Scurlock (2014), 315 following the partly parallel OECT 11 71 obv 14‘-16‘.

[19] If ḫalḫallatu hast o be taken seriously as “kettle-drum” ḫabāreš “with much noise; noisily” might be a good qualification for phenomena in connection with the drum.

[20] Worthington as well as Scurlock read WI/PI but the last horizontal wedge is slightly separated which suggests rather the reading na-aš (cf. the same two signs later). The here preferred restoration follows a suggestion of U. Steinert.

[21] Sounds rather like a diagnostic or physiognomic omen (cf. the apodosis which is not exceptional but unusual for a diagnostic omen) then a symptom description.

[22] Note Simko: ^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.

[23] Worthington (2005), 13 (cf. the corrections in Worthington (2007), 43) reads ^gišGAN₂ but the sign shows clearly two vertical small wedges in the middle instead of three which would be needed in the case of GAN₂. Otherwise, the reading ^gišŠITA is unsatisfactory as well. Simko remarks concerning this problem: 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.

[24] Simko argues that ŠE₁₀ MA₂.LAḪ₅ is seldom written with determinative U₂ (usually in plant-lists only) and want therefore restore ⌈^u2⌉[IGI-lim] within the break. Next to the problem of space, which is indeed not much for three signs, the order imḫur-ešrā imḫur-līm is rather uncommon and usually written in reverse order.

[25] Following the interpretation of Scurlock (2014), 316. Worthington (2005), 13 interprets the ambiguous form as BABBAR-ma “(When) the morning is bright …”.

[26] Cf. the commentary for UGU 1:126’.

[27] Steinert suggests ⌈DIŠ^!?–niš^!?⌉, although the traces look like ⌈GAR^?–nu^?⌉ for which Simko’s reading ša₂ ⌈KUR⌉ ⌈^giš⌉ (…) is preferred here.

[28] For ^uzuGIŠ as abbreviated form of GEŠTU(G) see the comment in Worthington (2005), 29 entry 190.

[29] Reconstruction Scurlock (2014), 441.

[30] Worthington (2005), 13 reads te-ser LAGAB A “… rub his skull; r[emove] all the fluid of his skull …”. However, the reading te-ser-rim “you incise” (usually sarāmu, cf. CAD S, 172 following Labat’s reading) in Scurlock (2014), 441 seems to fit better the context showing a form of trepanation. Despites this, the critique of Worthington regarding this interpretation is still valid (see Worthington (2005), 30).

[31] The correct reconstruction is uncertain. For tu-še-lam-ma “(you) remove (all the fluids of his skull)” cf. CAD S. 172 as well as Worthington (2005), 13 and the comment on p. 29f (preferred by Steinert). For tu-bal “you dry up (the fluids of his skull)” see Scurlock (2014), 441 (preferred by Simko). I think there is enough space for CAD’s reconstruction (5 to 6 short signs) but without a parallel nothing can be said with hundred percent certainties.

[32] Suggestion Simko. The parallel construction with GAR-an seems to be concerned with the application of oil with a cloth only, whereat other materia medica are applied in A iii 62 with MAR.

[33] The case ending for genitive suggests that TUG₂ should not necessarily be considered as a determinative.

[34] Worthington (2005), 13 and Scurlock (2014), 441 restore the beginning of the line ⌈tu-lap⌉-pat-ma but especially the traces before BAD are far from clear to be interpreted as KAL (= lap).

[35] Worthington (2005), 21 and Scurlock (2014), 442 interpret the end of the line as whether hot stones or hot coals which have to be arranged around the head. Consider the very odd word order since one would expect NA₄.MEŠ KUM₂ “hot stones”. According to grammar it might be possible to read “(If …) arrange embers and (the respective healing-) stones around his head”.

[36] Erroneously transcribed as ip-pe-et-ta-ku-nu-ši in Scurlock (2014), 442.

[37] Cf. for urbatu-incantations e.g. Collins (1999), 277ff; Foster (2005), 992 (suggested by U. Steinert).

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).

CRANIUM 1

A = BAM 480 = K. 2354 + K. 2412 + K. 2463 + K. 2491 + K. 3237 + K. 6447 + K. 7086 + K. 8356 + K. 8800 + K. 8842 + K. 9828 + K. 11868 + K. 13398 + K. 13399 + Sm. 637 + Sm. 1156 (+ K. 10428 (BAM 488) + K. 16451 (AMT 3/4), see Panayotov, Fragments (2016) (+) K. 13417 (following Scurlock, Sourcebook (2014), 335 note 87, cf. also the contradictory view in Panayotov, Addenda (2016))

B = BAM 4 = Div 158 (maybe Assur)[1]

i

1. A_{i 1ff} DIŠ NA UGU-šu₂ KUM₂ u₂-kal SA ZI SAG.KI TUK-ma IGI.MIN-šu₂ i-ṣappar(BAR₃)/i-par₃^?[1] / IGI.MIN-šu₂ bir-ra-ta₅ i-pi-ta₅ i-ši-ta₅ mur-din-na qu₃-qa-na[2] a-ša₂-a / u₃ ER₃ ŠUB.ŠUB-a 1/3 SILA₃ ZA₃.ḪI.LI bu-ṭu-ta₅ ina ^na4UR₅ AR₃–en SIM / SAG-ka u₂-kal ina ŠA₃ 1/3 TI-qe₂ ina A GAZI^sar SILA₁₁–aš SAR-ab LAL-ma UD 3.KAM NU DU₈

B_{i 1‘} […] ⸢TI-qe₂⸣ […]

(ruling)

2. A_{i 5} 1/3 SILA₃ saḫ-le₂-e 1/3 SILA₃ ZI₃ ŠE.SA.A ina A GAZI^sar SILA₁₁–aš SAR-ab LAL-ma UD 3.KAM NU DU₈

B_{i 2‘} [… ŠE.SA].A ina A GAZI⌈^sar⸣ […]

(ruling)

3. A_{i 6} saḫ-le₂-e AR₃–ti₃ ^šimGUR₂.GUR₂ NAGA.SI ina KAŠ SILA₁₁–aš KI.⌈MIN⌉

B_{i 3‘} [… AR₃]-⸢ti₃⸣ ^šimGUR₂.GUR₂ ⸢NAGA⸣.[SI …]

(ruling)

4. A_{i 7} ^šimŠEŠ MUN eme-sal-li₃ mal₂-ma-liš ḪI.ḪI ina I₃.NUN SUD₂ IGI.⌈MIN-šu₂⌉ ⌈te⌉-[qe₂ …][3]

B_{i 4‘} [… MUN] ⌈eme⌉-sal-lim mal₂–ma-liš ḪI.ḪI ⸢ina⸣ […]

(ruling)

5. A_{i 8f} 1/3 SILA₃ ZA₃.ḪI.LI 1/3 SILA₃ ŠIKA IM.ŠU.RIN.NA 10 GIN₂ ḫi-qa-⌈ti⌉[4] [x x x (x)] / ina A GAZI^sar SILA₁₁–aš SAR-ab LAL-ma ⌈UD 3^?.KAM₍₂₎^?⌉ [NU DU₈^?]

B_{i 5’f}  [… ZA₃.HI].LI 1/3 SILA₃ ŠIKA IM.ŠU.RIN.NA 10 ⸢GIN₂⸣ […] / [… GAZI]⸢^sar⸣ SILA₁₁–aš LAL-ma UD 3.⸢KAM₂⸣ […]

(ruling)

6. A_{i 10ff} EGIR na-aṣ-ma-da-ti an-na-ti 10 GIN₂ ZA₃.ḪI.LI ša₂ KA ⌈ur-ṣi^?⌉ [ša₂ ḫul-qa/qu^? (ana ŠA₃) NU ŠUB(-u₂)] / MUN A.GEŠTIN.NA NU TAG.TAG ina NINDA is-sip₃–ma[5] GU₇ 5 ⌈GIN₂^?⌉ [ZA₃.ḪI.LI (AR₃^?–ti₃^?)] / ina KAŠ.SAG SIG₃–aṣ-ma NAG-šu₂ [u₂-za-ka-ma[6] i-par-ra LAL₍₂₎.MEŠ saḫ-le₂-e ša₂ IGI.MIN (…)][7]

B_{i 7’ff} [EGIR na]-aṣ-ma-da-te an-na-ti 10 GIN₂ ZA₃.HI.LI ša₂ ⸢KA⸣ […] / [ša₂ ḫul]-qu ana ŠA₃ NU ŠUB-u₂ MUN A.GEŠTIN.NA ⸢NU⸣ […] / [x x] ⸢GU₇^?⸣ 5 GIN₂ ZA₃.HI.LI ARA₃–ti₃ ina KAŠ SIG₃–aṣ-ma ⸢NAG⸣-šu₂ ⌈u₂^?⌉-[…]

(ruling)

7. A_{i 13} UD 1.KAM₂ AN.ZAḪ ⌈SUD₂⌉ […]

B_{i 10’} […] ⸢AN.ZAH⸣ SUD₂ […]

(ruling)

8. A_{i 14f} 10 GIN₂ GURUN ^gišMAŠ.ḪUŠ […] x 1/3 SILA₃ […][8] / GAZ SIM ina A ⌈GAZI⌉[^sar SILA₁₁–aš^?] ⌈SAR-ab⌉ LAL-ma UD 3.[KAM₂ NU DU₈^?]

B_{i 14’f} […] ⸢ZA⸣.BA.⸢LAM⸣ 1/3 SILA₃ ^u2[…] / [… LAL]-ma UD ⸢3⸣.[KAM₂ …]

(ruling)

9. A_{i 16} ŠIM.⌈BI⌉.[ZI.DA …] ina I₃.UDU UR.MAḪ SUD₂ […]

B_{i 16‘} […] x[9] […]

(ruling)

10. A_{i 17f} x x […] x ^u2ZA.BA.LAM 1/3 SILA₃ […] / GAZ ⌈SIM⌉ […] ⌈SILA₁₁⌉-aš SAR-ab LAL-ma UD [3^?.KAM₂ NU DU₈^?]

(ruling)

11. A_{i 19} 10 GIN₂ ZI₃ ⌈DUḪ.ŠE.GIŠ.I₃⌉ ⌈ḪAD₂⌉.[DU^? (…)][10] ⌈GAZ⌉ SIM ina A ⌈GAZI^?⌉[^sar …]

(ruling)

12. A_{i 20ff} 10 GIN₂ ZI₃ DUḪ.ŠE.GIŠ.I₃ ḪAD₂.⌈DU⌉ […] / UD 1.KAM GABA-su LAL SAG.DU-⌈su^?⌉ […] / ana SAG.DU-šu₂ DUB-aq ina ⌈E₂/saḫ^?⌉ […]

(ruling)

13. A_{i 23} 1 GIN₂ U₅ ARGAB^mušen 1/2 ⌈GIN₂⌉ […]

(ruling)

14. A_{i 24} 1/3 SILA₃ NUMUN BABBAR.ḪI^sar 1/3 SILA₃ NUMUN LU.[UB₂^sar? …]

(ruling)

15. A_{i 25} ⌈1/3⌉ SILA₃ ZI₃.KUM ⌈10^?⌉ ⌈GIN₂⌉ ⌈PA⌉ ⌈^giš?⌉[11] […]

(ruling)

16. A_{i 26} [x] ⌈ŠE^?⌉ ⌈u₂^?⌉ […] / […]

(ruling?)[12]

(1 line missing)

(ruling?)

17’ A_{i 28} […] ⌈SILA₁₁⌉-aš ⌈KI.MIN⌉

(ruling)

18’ A_{i 29} IM.⌈SAḪAR^?⌉.[NA₄.KUR.RA^?[13] …] ⌈SUD₂⌉ te-qe₂

(ruling)

19’ A_{i 30f} 1/3 SILA₃ PA ^giš⌈PEŠ₃^?⌉ [(ša/ša₂ ina ^itiBARA₂.ZAG.GAR kud pa x) …] ⌈ina⌉ A GAZI^sar SILA₁₁–aš / GUR-ma ḪAD₂.A ⌈GAZ^?⌉ [… SAG(.DU)-su SAR]-⌈ab⌉ LAL-ma KI.MIN[14]

(ruling)

20‘ A_{i 32} 1/3 SILA₃ ^u2ḪAB 1/3 SILA₃ ⌈NUMUN^?⌉ [^u2KI-^dIŠKUR^? … SAG(.DU)-su SAR-ab LAL]-⌈ma⌉ KI.MIN

(ruling)

21‘ A_{i 33} NAGA.⌈SI⌉ […] x ⌈KI.MIN^?⌉[15]

(ruling)

22’ A_{i 34} ⌈1/3^?⌉ […] ⌈LAL^?–ma⌉[16] KI.MIN

(ruling)

23’ A_{i 35} […] x ⌈KI.MIN⌉[17]

(appr. 4 lines are missing)

24’ A_{i 40’} […] SUD₂ ⌈te-qe₂^?⌉ [(x)]

(ruling)

25’ A_{i 41’} […] SAR-ab LAL-ma {x} ⌈KI⌉.[MIN]

(ruling)

26’ A_{i 42‘} [… ḪAD₂].A GAZ SIM ina A GAZI^!sar SILA₁₁–aš SAR-ab LAL-ma ⌈KI⌉.[MIN]

(ruling)

27’ A_{i 43’} [… ina A GAZI^sar SILA₁₁–aš ina I₃.UDU[18] GIR₃.PAD].DA GID₂.DA SUD₂ MAR

(ruling)

28’ A_{i 44‘} […] a ki[19] MAŠ.DA₃ SUD₂ te-qe₂

(ruling)

29‘ A_{i 45‘} […] x[20] ⌈SAR-ab⌉ LAL-ma UD 3.KAM₂ NU DU₈

(ruling)

30‘ A_{i 46‘} […] x ⌈LUḪ^?⌉ [x (x)] ⌈SAR⌉-ab LAL-ma KI.MIN

(ruling)

31‘ A_{i 47‘} […] x (blank) ⌈LAL₃⌉ KUR-i šu-ḫat KU₃.SI₂₂ SUD₂ MAR

(ruling)

32‘ A_{i 48‘} […] ⌈še^?⌉ ina A GAZI^sar SILA₁₁–aš ⌈SAR⌉-ab LAL-ma UD 3.KAM₂ NU DU₈

(ruling)

33‘ A_{i 49‘} […] x ⌈ina⌉ šur-šum-mi KAŠ ŠEG₆.GA₂ SILA₁₁-⌈aš⌉ SAR-ab LAL-ma UD 3.KAM₂ NU DU₈

(ruling)

34’ A_{i 50‘} [x x (x x)] x du-muq-ši-na ta-tab-bal ⌈ina⌉ LAL₃ SUD₂ te-qe₂

(ruling)

35‘ A_{i 51‘} [x (x) du-muq-ši^?]-⌈na^?⌉ GAZ SIM ina A GAZI^sar SILA₁₁–aš SAR-⌈ab⌉ LAL-ma UD 3.KAM₂ NU DU₈

(ruling)

36‘ A_{i 52‘} [x x (x) ḪAD₂^?].A[21] GAZ SIM ina A GAZI^sar SILA₁₁–aš SAR-⌈ab⌉ LAL-ma UD 3.KAM₂ NU DU₈

(ruling)

37‘ A_{i 53‘} ⌈U₅⌉ [ARGAB]⌈^mušen⌉ ina LAL₃ ⌈SUD₂⌉ ⌈te⌉-qe₂

(ruling)

38‘ A_{i 54‘} 1/3 SILA₃ PA ^giš⌈MA₂⌉.[EREŠ₄^?i]^š.MA₂.RA[22] GAZ SIM ina A GAZI^sar [SILA₁₁–aš] ⌈SAR⌉-ab ⌈LAL⌉-[ma] UD 3.KAM₂ NU DU₈

(ruling)

39‘ A_{i 55‘} IM.BABBAR ba-aš-la ina ⌈I₃⌉ sir₂-di SILA₁₁–aš SAR-ab ⌈LAL⌉-ma KI.MIN

(ruling)

40‘ A_{i 56‘} ⌈ŠIKA^?⌉ I₃.GU.LA ša kib-šam TUK-u₂ ina I₃ SAḪAR.[URUDU (x)] SUD₂ te-qe₂

(ruling)

41‘ A_{i 57’} ^u2ZA.BA.LAM saḫ-le₂-e ⌈GAZ⌉ ⌈SIM⌉ ina šur-šum-mi KAŠ.⌈SAG⌉ [SILA₁₁–aš] ⌈SAR⌉-ab LAL-ma UD 3.KAM₂ NU DU₈

(ruling)

42’ A_{i 58’} ^u2ḫal-tap-pa-nam ^gišMAŠ.ḪUŠ ⌈GAZ⌉ ⌈SIM⌉ ina šur-šum-mi KAŠ ⌈KUM₂/ŠEG₆^?⌉[23] [(x)] SILA₁₁–aš SAR-ab LAL-ma UD 3.KAM₂ NU DU₈

(ruling)

43‘ A_{i 59‘} ^šimLI ^šimGUR₂.GUR₂ ^šimBULUḪ ZA₃.ḪI.⌈LI⌉ ⌈NAGA⌉.SI ⌈SUD₂^?⌉ ⌈LUḪ^?⌉-si ina GA SILA₁₁–aš SAR-ab LAL-ma UD 3.KAM₂ NU DU₈

(ruling)

44‘ A_{i 60‘} SAḪAR.URUDU ⌈ina^?⌉ ⌈LAL₃⌉ SUD₂ te-qe₂

(ruling)

45‘ A_{i 61‘} ⌈1/3⌉ SILA₃ ZA₃.⌈ḪI⌉.LI 1/3 SILA₃ ⌈DIDA⌉ [x x x x x (x)] SILA₁₁–aš SAR-ab LAL-ma UD 3.KAM₂ NU DU₈

(ruling)

46‘ A_{i 62‘} 1/3 SILA₃ ZA₃.ḪI.⌈LI⌉ […] ⌈SILA₁₁⌉-aš SAR-ab LAL-ma UD 3.KAM₂ NU DU₈

(ruling)

47‘ A_{i 63‘} KUG.GAN AN.⌈ZAḪ⌉ […] ⌈SUD₂⌉ MAR

(ruling)

48‘ A_{i 64‘} 1/3 SILA₃ ZI₃ ⌈GU₂⌉.[TUR/GAL^? … (ina … SILA₁₁–aš) SAR-ab LAL]-⌈ma⌉ UD 3.KAM₂ NU DU₈

(ruling)

[1] For the unusual reading i-ṣappar(BÀR) “he flutters (with his eyes)” (or “his eyes flutter”) see Epilepsy (1993), 94). Consider likewise the possible form i-par₃ connected with the verb pâru “to seek/watch out” describing probably the unrest of the patient’s eyes. However, in the CAD the verb is not attested within medical contexts, which makes this interpretation uncertain as well. The reading qa instead of  SILA₃ in Scurlock (2014) is unnecessary.

[2] Worthington (2005), 7 reads mistakenly qu instead of qu₃.

[3] Cf. for the restoration see Worthington (2005), 7. But due to the fragmentary state MAR.MEŠ₂–ma (Ms. B) cannot be excluded.

[4] The reading follows Scurlock (2014), 307 contra Worthington (2005), 7 reading ḫi-qa-t[e …].

[5] Cf. the parallel BAM 3 i 16 (… NU šul-pu-tu₂ 5 GIN₂ saḫ-le₂-e ina NINDA IMGAGA₂ KUM₂ TAB-ma …), which tentatively suggests the reading of eṣēpu “to double” (see Worthington (2005), 7 but with a different translation on p. 16) instead of the contextually fitting esēpu “to gather” preferred by Scurlock (2014), 319.

[6] Against Worthington (2005), 7, see Scurlock (2014), 307.

[7] Restoration following BAM 3 i 19.

[8] The positioning of the join follows Scurlock, Sourcebook (2014), 335 note 87 which places the fragment three lines below in comparison to the placing of Köcher’s BAM copy. Panayotov, Addenda (2016), 66f. rejects the connection of the fragment K. 13417 and BAM 480. But the argument is not that convincing since the respective ruling, of which Panayotov claims it is not visible, should be within the break. Even if the fragment cannot be assigned with certainty, it can likewise not be excluded on that basis.

[9] Simko suggests the reading ⌈UR.MAḪ⌉ which is possible but hardly to decide for these illegible traces.

[10] Simko suggests to read: … ḪAD₂.⌈DU⌉ ⌈GAZ⌉ SIM although the direct contact or joinability of this fragment is still debated.

[11] See the different interpretations in Worthington (2005), 8 (⌊bar z⌋[ú.lum.(ma) …]) and Scurlock (2014), 308 (⌈BAR⌉ ^GI[^Š?NU?.ÚR?.MA? …]). The horizontal wedge is too high to interpret the traces as MAŠ/BAR-sign. Furthermore, the CDLI-photo of BAM 480 shows the beginning of a second horizontal wedge underneath the first which likewise suggests the reading PA “twig” or “leaf”.

[12] See the possible traces of a ruling in Panayotov, Fragments (2016) pdf-page 14.

[13] See for the possible reading of SAḪAR also Panayotov, Fragments (2016) pdf-page 14. The restoration follows the suggestion of K. Simko.

[14] Contra Scurlock (2014), 308 with help of the new join in Panayotov, Fragments (2016), pdf-page 10.

[15] It is uncertain to restore ⌈te–qe₂⌉ following Jastrow obv 8 (suggestion Simko) since the whole section refers back to the very formulation te–qe₂ via KI.MIN which fits in my view the traces better.

[16] Suggestion K. Simko.

[17] According to Panayotov, Addenda (2017), 62 one should read [… te]-⌈qe₂⌉ which is otherwise much uncertain since just one vertical wedge of the end of the sign is left that might either belongs to MIN (KI.MIN) or KI (te–qe₂).

[18] Cf. Ms. M in Worthington (2005), 8.

[19] Worthington (2005), 8 […] a u^! ŠE₁₀ and differently Scurlock (2014), 309 [… sa]-a-qi₂ “thigh(?)” or transferred (so Scurlock) “picked up meat”.

[20] The reconstructions [… SIL]A₁₁-⌈aš⌉ in Worthington (2005), 8 as well as [… (ina A GAZI^sar SILA₁₁–aš ina ŠURUN GU₄ ŠEG₆–šal) ina … SIL]A₁₁–aš in Scurlock (2014), 309 are at least questionable, especially the latter one, since the photo shows only one vertical wedge before SAR.

[21] Suggestion K. Simko. Problematic is the small horizontal wedge straight through the A-sign which suggest a rather different previous sign than UD.

[22] See for this peculiar form also Stadhouders, Mirišmarû (2018), 121f.

[23] Contra Worthington (2005), 9 and Scurlock (2014), 309 the tablets (see CDLI-photo) shows remnants of a sign with two horizontals at the beginning which speaks against the proposed reading KAŠ.⌈KURUN.NA⌉ etc. KAŠ.SAG is likewise not possible as well as an expression like šuršummi DIDA(?), cf. the line above. One might think of KAŠ KUM₂/ŠEG₆ “hot/heated(?) beer” (see CAD Š/3, 365 šuršummu sub a) or equal expression. Cf. likewise UGU 1:33’ (ina šuršummi KAŠ ŠEG₆.GA₂).