{"id":118,"date":"2018-12-03T19:37:38","date_gmt":"2018-12-03T18:37:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.fu-berlin.de\/rereadingbabmed\/?p=118"},"modified":"2018-12-21T18:46:57","modified_gmt":"2018-12-21T17:46:57","slug":"further-corrections-and-additions-to-cranium-updated-continuously","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.fu-berlin.de\/rereadingbabmed\/2018\/12\/03\/further-corrections-and-additions-to-cranium-updated-continuously\/","title":{"rendered":"Further corrections and additions to CRANIUM (updated continuously)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>CRANIUM I<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><span lang=\"EN-GB\">1. A i 2: <em>mur-din-da<\/em><strong>\u00a0<\/strong><\/span><span lang=\"EN-US\">\u2014\u00a0<\/span><em><span lang=\"EN-GB\">mur-din-na<\/span><\/em><\/li>\n<li>1. A i 4: KAM<sub>2<\/sub>\u00a0<span lang=\"EN-US\">\u2014 KAM (s. MZl nos. 595 and 640)<\/span><\/li>\n<li>2. A i 5: KAM<sub>2<\/sub>\u00a0<span lang=\"EN-US\">\u2014<\/span>\u00a0KAM<\/li>\n<li>5. A i 8: <em>hi-qa-<\/em>\u02f9<em>ti<\/em><sup>?<\/sup>\u02fa\u00a0<span lang=\"EN-US\">\u2014 read without question mark; cf. the sign TI in A i 4<\/span><\/li>\n<li>5. A i 9:\u00a0\u02f9UD 3<sup>?<\/sup>.KAM<sub>2<\/sub><sup>?<\/sup>\u02fa\u00a0<span lang=\"EN-US\">\u2014 rather\u00a0\u02f9UD 3\u02fa.[KAM<sub>(2)<\/sub>], since the head of the three vertical wedges is still recognisable on the photo provided by CDLI; cf. the duplicate BAM 4 obv. 6&#8242;, as well as the parallel passage in BAM 3 i 14<\/span><\/li>\n<li>6. A i 11: A GE\u0160TIN.NA\u00a0<span lang=\"EN-US\">\u2014 A.GE\u0160TIN.NA<\/span><\/li>\n<li>6. A i 12: LAL.ME\u0160\u00a0<span lang=\"EN-US\">\u2014 LAL<sub>2<\/sub>.ME\u0160;\u00a0<span lang=\"EN-GB\">the restoration is based on the parallel passage BAM 3 i 19, which has LAL<sub>2<\/sub>.ME\u0160 instead of LAL.ME\u0160<\/span><\/span><\/li>\n<li>6. B i 8&#8242;: MUNU<sub>5<\/sub> A GE\u0160TIN.NA\u00a0<span lang=\"EN-US\">\u2014 MUN A.GE\u0160TIN.NA<\/span><\/li>\n<li>6. B i 9&#8242;:\u00a0\u02f9NAG\u02fa-<em>\u0161u<\/em><sub>2<\/sub> [&#8230;]\u00a0<span lang=\"EN-US\">\u2014\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0\u02f9NAG\u02fa-<em>\u0161u<\/em><sub>2<\/sub>\u00a0\u02f9<em>u<\/em><sub>2<\/sub>\u02fa-[<em>za-ka-ma<\/em> &#8230;]; after BAM 3 i 18<\/li>\n<li>9. A i 16: <sup>\u0161im<\/sup>\u02f9BI\u02fa.[ZI.DA]\u00a0<span lang=\"EN-US\">\u2014 \u0160IM.<\/span>\u02f9BI\u02fa.[ZI.DA], Akkadian <em>\u0161imbizid\u00fb<\/em><\/li>\n<li>9. B i 16&#8242;: [&#8230;] x [&#8230;]\u00a0<span lang=\"EN-US\">\u2014 [&#8230; UR<sup>?<\/sup>].\u02f9MAH<sup>?<\/sup>\u02fa [&#8230;]<\/span><\/li>\n<li>10. A i 18: UD 2+[1<sup>?<\/sup>.KAM<sub>2<\/sub>]\u00a0<span lang=\"EN-US\">\u2014 UD [&#8230;]; there are no recognisable traces of a sign following UD on the photo provided by CDLI<\/span><\/li>\n<li>11. A i 19:\u00a0\u02f9\u1e2aAD<sub>2<\/sub>\u02fa.[DU<sup>?<\/sup> &#8230;] \u02f9GAZ\u02fa\u00a0<span lang=\"EN-US\">\u2014\u00a0\u02f9HAD<sub>2<\/sub>.DU<sup>?<\/sup>\u02fa\u00a0\u02f9GAZ\u02fa, or rather H[AD<sub>2<\/sub>.D]U<sup>?<\/sup>\u00a0\u02f9GAZ\u02fa<\/span><\/li>\n<li>12. A i 21: KAM<sub>2<\/sub>\u00a0<span lang=\"EN-US\">\u2014 KAM<\/span><\/li>\n<li>18&#8242;. A i 29: IM.\u02f9SAHAR<sup>?<\/sup>\u02fa.[NA<sub>4<\/sub>\/BABBAR\/GE<sub>6<\/sub><sup>?<\/sup> &#8230;] x <em>te-qe<\/em><sub>2<\/sub>\u00a0<span lang=\"EN-US\">\u2014 to be restored as \u00a0IM.\u02f9SAHAR\u02fa.[NA<sub>4<\/sub>.KUR.RA &#8230; SU]D<sub>2<\/sub> <em>te-qe<\/em><sub>2<\/sub> on the basis of the hitherto unidentified parallel passage &#8222;Jastrow&#8220; obv. 7<\/span><\/li>\n<li>19&#8242;. A i 30: kud pa\u00a0<span lang=\"EN-US\">\u2014 KUD PA x<\/span><\/li>\n<li>21&#8242;. A i 33: x\u00a0\u02f9KI.MIN<sup>?<\/sup>\u02fa\u00a0<span lang=\"EN-US\">\u2014\u00a0\u02f9<em>te<\/em>&#8211;<em>qe<\/em><sub>2<\/sub>\u02fa; the restoration is based on the hitherto unidentified parallel passage &#8222;Jastrow&#8220; obv. 8<\/span><\/li>\n<li>22&#8242;. A i 34: [&#8230;] x KI.MIN\u00a0<span lang=\"EN-US\">\u2014<\/span>\u00a0[\u2026] x \u02f9LA<sub>2<\/sub>-ma KI.MIN\u02fa;\u00a0the traces of the signs after the break clearly point to such a reading (s. CDLI photo)<\/li>\n<li>23&#8242;-24&#8242;. A i 35-39&#8242; (3 lines missing)\u00a0<span lang=\"EN-US\">\u2014 at least four lines are missing from this passage; the restoration should rather follow K\u00f6cher&#8217;s hand-copy where the first legible line after the break is A i 40&#8242;; on the basis of the new join BAM 488+ the following readings could be suggested:<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>A i 35. [&#8230;]\u00a0\u02f9KI.MIN<sup>?<\/sup><span lang=\"EN-US\">\u02fa (or, according to Panayotov JMC 27 p. 62, [&#8230; <em>te-q<\/em>]<em>e<\/em><sub>2<\/sub>)<\/span><\/p>\n<p>A i 36. [&#8230;] x<\/p>\n<p>A i 37: [&#8230;] x<\/p>\n<p>A i 38: [&#8230; <em>te<\/em><sup>?<\/sup>]-\u02f9<em>qe<\/em><sub>2<\/sub><sup>?<\/sup><span lang=\"EN-US\">\u02fa<\/span><\/p>\n<p>A i 39: [&#8230;]<\/p>\n<p>A i 40: [&#8230;] SUD<sub>2<\/sub>\u00a0\u02f9<em>te-qe<\/em><sub>2<\/sub><span lang=\"EN-US\">\u02fa<\/span><\/p>\n<p>the line count should be changed accordingly<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>33&#8242;. A i 49 (instead of 48): <em>\u0161ur-\u0161um-mi<\/em> \u0160EG<sub>6<\/sub>.GA<sub>2<\/sub>\u00a0<span lang=\"EN-US\">\u2014 add KA\u0160 after <em>\u0161ur\u0161ummu<\/em><\/span><\/li>\n<li>36&#8242;. A i 52&#8242;: [x x x (x)] a\/sa<sub>5<\/sub><sup>?<\/sup>\u00a0<span lang=\"EN-US\">\u2014 [x x x (x) HAD<sub>2<\/sub>].A<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>49. A ii 1 with note 1: GAZI[<sup>sar<\/sup>] GIBIL DAB\u00a0<span lang=\"EN-US\">\u2014\u00a0<\/span>GAZI[<sup>sar<\/sup>] BIL<sub>2<\/sub>&#8211;<em>lu<\/em>, with\u00a0BIL<sub>2<\/sub>&#8211;<em>lu\u00a0<\/em>being used as a verb, rather than as a verbal adjective, in the sense &#8222;the <em>kas\u00fb<\/em>-plant you roast (= <em>taqall\u00fb<\/em>), crush and sieve&#8220;. Even though BIL is the correct rendering of the verb <em>qal\u00fb<\/em>, the writing\u00a0BIL<sub>2<\/sub>&#8211;<em>lu\u00a0<\/em>for\u00a0<em>taqall\u00fb<\/em> would not be as unusual as the otherwise unattested phrase\u00a0GAZI[<sup>sar<\/sup>] GIBIL DAB, meaning &#8222;take (&#8230;) fresh <em>kas\u00fb<\/em>-plant&#8220;. As Scurlock (Sourcebook, p. 336 n. 106) already noted, such a meaning should be conveyed by SIG<sub>7\u00a0<\/sub>and (\u0160U).TI.<\/li>\n<li>51. A ii 4: U<sub>2<\/sub> SI.SA<sub>2<\/sub>\u00a0<span lang=\"EN-US\">\u2014 <sup>u2<\/sup>SI.SA<sub>2<\/sub>, Akk. <em>\u0161urdun\u00fb<\/em><\/span><\/li>\n<li>51. A ii 8: SAG.DU-<em>su<\/em> SUD <sup>u2<\/sup>SIG<sub>2<\/sub>.GA.RIG<sub>2<\/sub>.AG.A<sup>sar<\/sup>\/SUD-<em>u<\/em><sub>2<\/sub> <sup>sig2<\/sup>GA.RIG<sub>2<\/sub>.AG.A SAR<sup>?<\/sup>\u00a0<span lang=\"EN-US\">\u2014 SAG.DU-<em>su kun-\u0161am<\/em> <sup>sig2<\/sup>GA.RIG<sub>2<\/sub>.AG.A KE\u0160DA, which should be something like &#8222;you bind his head with a band\/braid<sup>?<\/sup> (made of) combed wool&#8220;; cf. BAM 510 i 3&#8242;, although without\u00a0<sup>sig2<\/sup>GA.RIG<sub>2<\/sub>.AG.A\u00a0(also in CAD K pp. 542ff. and Attia JMC 25 p. 7 with the translation &#8222;tu fixes une terse de Laine&#8220;)<\/span><\/li>\n<li>54. A ii 14: \u02f9ZA<sub>3<\/sub>.HI\u02fa.[LI]\u00a0<span lang=\"EN-US\">\u2014\u00a0<\/span>\u02f9ZA<sub>3<\/sub>.HI.LI\u02fa; 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<\/li>\n<li>54. A ii 14: A GE\u0160TIN.NA\u00a0<span lang=\"EN-US\">\u2014 A.GE\u0160TIN.NA<\/span><\/li>\n<li>61. A ii 23: \u02f9<sup>{\u0161im}<\/sup>EN.DI<sup>?<\/sup>\u02fa\u00a0<span lang=\"EN-US\">\u2014\u00a0\u02f9IM.DI\u02fa; the posological remark 1\/3 SILA<sub>3<\/sub> 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\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li>61. A ii 23: \u02f91\/2<sup>?<\/sup>\u02fa \u02f9SILA<sub>3<\/sub>\u02fa \u02f9<em>ar<\/em><sub>2<\/sub><sup>?<\/sup>&#8211;<em>gan<\/em><sup>?<\/sup>\u02fa-<em>nu<\/em>\u00a0<span lang=\"EN-US\">\u2014\u00a0\u02f91\/2<sup>?<\/sup>\u02fa \u02f9SILA<sub>3<\/sub>\u02fa [<sup>gi\u0161<\/sup><em>ar<\/em><sup>?<\/sup>&#8211;<em>ga<\/em><sup>?<\/sup>&#8211;<em>a<\/em>]<em>n<\/em><sup>?<\/sup>&#8211;<em>nu<\/em>; I am not sure about the proposed reading\u00a0<\/span>\u02f9<em>ar<\/em><sub>2<\/sub><sup>?<\/sup>&#8211;<em>gan<\/em><sup>?<\/sup>\u02fa-<em>nu<\/em><span lang=\"EN-US\">, 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 (K\u00f6cher&#8217;s hand-copy has three); the reading could be something like \u02f91\/2<sup>?<\/sup>\u02fa \u02f9SILA<sub>3<\/sub>\u02fa [<sup>gi\u0161<\/sup><em>ar<\/em><sup>?<\/sup>&#8211;<em>ga<\/em><sup>?<\/sup>&#8211;<em>a<\/em>]<em>n<\/em><sup>?<\/sup>&#8211;<em>nu<\/em><\/span><\/li>\n<li>61. A ii 24: DIDA \u0160EG<sub>6<\/sub>.GA<sub>2<\/sub>\u00a0<span lang=\"EN-US\">\u02f9<em>\u1e6de-ne<\/em><sup>?<\/sup>&#8211;<em>ti<\/em><sup>?<\/sup>\u02fa\u00a0\u2014\u00a0<\/span>DIDA \u0160EG<sub>6<\/sub>.GA<sub>2<\/sub>\u00a0<span lang=\"EN-US\">\u02f9\u0160U\u02fa.TI; the reading \u02f9<em>\u1e6de-ne<\/em><sup>?<\/sup>&#8211;<em>ti<\/em><sup>?<\/sup>\u02fa 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 \u0160U<\/span><\/li>\n<li>63-64. A ii 28-29: why read <em>ina<\/em> IZI<sup>?<\/sup> in the first line and <em>ina<\/em> DE<sub>3<\/sub> in the second? The same phraseology occurs in both lines.<\/li>\n<li>66. A ii 32ff.: he<sub>2<\/sub>-en-gi-gi\u00a0<span lang=\"EN-US\">\u2014 he<sub>2<\/sub>-en-gi<sub>4<\/sub>-gi<sub>4<\/sub>; the reading should be based on the parallel passage in CRANIUM 3 155&#8220;-156&#8220; (K 4023 = AMT 102\/1 etc. iii 11&#8242;-12&#8242; \/\/ Sm 967 = BAM 486 iii 1&#8242;-2&#8242;), which clearly has GI<sub>4<\/sub>; see also another parallel passage in the Late Babylonian tablet from Kish OECT 11 71 rev. 1-2<\/span><\/li>\n<li>80. A ii 50: the preposition <em>ina<\/em> should be in italics<\/li>\n<li>89. A ii 63: I am not sure if the emendation\u00a0<span lang=\"EN-US\">&lt;<i>ina<\/i><sup>?<\/sup>&gt; is necessary here,\u00a0<em>pa\u0161\u0101\u0161u<\/em>\u00a0is a verb with double accusative after all<\/span><\/li>\n<li>93. A ii 67: LAL-<em>id<\/em>\u00a0<span lang=\"EN-US\">\u2014 LAL<\/span><\/li>\n<li>94. A ii 68: \u02f9<sup>u2<\/sup>\u02faMA<sub>2<\/sub>.ERE\u0160.MA<sub>2<\/sub>.RA <span lang=\"EN-US\">\u2014<\/span>\u00a0\u02f9<sup>u2<\/sup>\u02faMA<sub>2<\/sub>.ERE\u0160<sub>4<\/sub>.MA<sub>2<\/sub>.RA<\/li>\n<li>note 27: &#8222;a parallel is again BAM 486 i&#8216; 9&#8217;f&#8220;\u00a0<span lang=\"EN-US\">\u2014 BAM 486 i&#8216; 9&#8217;f. does not belong here; there are two parallels to this passage, namely BAM 489 rev. 9&#8217;ff. and CRANIUM 3 198&#8220;&#8216;-199&#8220;&#8216; = BAM 493 rev. 5f.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>96&#8242;. A iii 1: DI\u0160 [KI.MIN<sup>?<\/sup>]\u00a0<span lang=\"EN-US\">\u2014 DI\u0160 K[I.MIN<sup>?<\/sup>], although the traces at the beginning of the line look rather like the sign A. Does the prescription skip DI\u0160 KI.MIN and start by listing the first drug directly at the beginning (i.e., A [&#8230;] &#8222;water of [&#8230;]&#8220; or IL[LU &#8230;] &#8222;resin of [&#8230;]&#8220;)? Should this be the case, I wonder whether the first vertical wedge in the following lines stands for DI\u0160 or something else.<\/span><\/li>\n<li>100&#8242;. A iii 5: <em>ina<\/em> A GAZI<sup>sar<\/sup>\u00a0<span lang=\"EN-US\">\u2014 <em>ina<\/em><sup>!<\/sup> A GAZI<sup>sar<\/sup>; on the photo I see two horizontal wedges preceding the sign A in A GAZI<sup>sar<\/sup>.<\/span><\/li>\n<li>108&#8242;. A iii 18&#8242;: DABIN IN.NU.HA\u00a0<span lang=\"EN-US\">\u2014 ZI<sub>3<\/sub> <sup>\u0161e<\/sup>IN.NU.HA, since the previous two drugs are also flour.<\/span><\/li>\n<li>112&#8242;, 113&#8242; and 114&#8242;. A iii 23, 27 and 28,\u00a0<span lang=\"EN-US\">regarding the phrases SIG<sub>2\u00a0<\/sub>DU-<i>ta<\/i><sub>5\u00a0<\/sub>GUB-<i>zi<\/i>, mun\u0161ub<sub>2\u00a0<\/sub>nig<sub>2<\/sub>-gub-ba and SIG<sub>2\u00a0<\/sub>SAG.DU NIG<sub>2<\/sub>.GUB.BA: <\/span><span lang=\"EN-GB\">in its third column, CRANIUM 1 moves on to the hair whose loss is expressed in BAM 480 iii 23 with the phrase SIG<sub>2\u00a0<\/sub>DU-<i>ta<\/i><sub>5<\/sub>. As the syllabic writing in the related passage BAM 497 ii 3\u2019 \/\/ BAM 499 i 20\u2019 demonstrates, this phrase is <i>\u0161\u0101rtu aliktu\u00a0<\/i>in Akkadian. Now, the question is how to understand the other verb GUB = <i>uzuzzu\u00a0<\/i>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 <i>ana\u00a0<\/i>to describe the purpose of the procedure, which is to make the hair stop falling (lit. \u201cin order to make the going hair stay\u201d); a similar construction can be found in BAM 499 ii 10\u2019, this time with the preposition <i>adi<\/i>:\u00a0<\/span><i>a-di\u00a0<\/i>SIG<sub>2<\/sub>&#8211;<i>\u0161a<\/i><sub>2\u00a0<\/sub>GUB-<i>zu\u00a0<\/i>NU DU<sub>8<\/sub><span lang=\"EN-GB\">. Far more problematic are the other two attestations in BAM 480 iii 27 and 28, transliterated both by Worthington and Scurlock as nig<sub>2<\/sub>-gub-ba \/ NIG<sub>2<\/sub>.GUB.BA. As for interpretations, Worthington seems to suggest two contradicting translations of the verb GUB, the first one being \u201ccause (the falling hair) to remain attached\u201d (infinitive construction in BAM 480 iii 23), and the second \u201cfallen (head-hair)\u201d (nig<sub>2<\/sub>-gub-ba \/ NIG<sub>2<\/sub>.GUB.BA in BAM 480 iii 27 and 28). Scurlock\u2019s translation, on the other hand, is consistent in the case of all three instances: \u201cto make (the hair that is going) stand firm\u201d (infinitive construction in BAM 480 iii 23), \u201c(hair) which stands firm\u201d (nig<sub>2<\/sub>-gub-ba in BAM 480 iii 27) and \u201cto make (the hair of the head) stand firm\u201d (NIG<sub>2<\/sub>.GUB.BA in BAM 480 iii 28). The problem that arises from such an understanding is that nig<sub>2<\/sub>-gub-ba \/ NIG<sub>2<\/sub>.GUB.BA is neither a verb nor a verbal adjective. If anything, it is a nominal form created by the combination of nig<sub>2\u00a0<\/sub>and the subordinate construction gub-ba. This is hardly the case, however. The rendering of this difficult form should rather be mun\u0161ub<sub>2<\/sub> nig<sub>2<\/sub> gub-ba \u201cthe hair which stands firm\u201d in Sumerian context (Sumerian incantation in BAM 480 iii 27) and SIG<sub>2\u00a0<\/sub>SAG.DU <i>\u0161a<\/i><sub>2\u00a0<\/sub>GUB.BA KE\u0160<sub>2<\/sub>.DA.KAM<sub>2\u00a0<\/sub>\u201c(wording of the incantation to) bind the head-hair which stands firm\u201d 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\u2019, which says SIG<sub>2\u00a0<\/sub>SAG.DU <i>\u0161a<\/i><sub>2\u00a0<\/sub>DU \u0160U.DU<sub>8<\/sub>.A.KA[M<sub>2<\/sub>] \u201c(wording of the incantations to) hold back the head-hair, which is falling out\u201d (not NIG<sub>2<\/sub>.GUB \u0160U.DU<sub>8<\/sub>.A.KAM<sub>2\u00a0<\/sub>as suggested by Scurlock in Sourcebook p. 335 n. 96).<\/span><\/li>\n<li>113&#8242;. A iii 26: al-dub<sub>2<\/sub>.\u02f9ba\u02fa\u00a0<span lang=\"EN-US\">\u2014 al-dub<sub>2<\/sub>-\u02f9ba\u02fa<\/span><\/li>\n<li>113&#8242;. A iii 26: munu\u0161ub<sub>2<\/sub>\u00a0<span lang=\"EN-US\">\u2014 mun\u0161ub<sub>2<\/sub><\/span><\/li>\n<li>113&#8242;. A iii 27: al-mu<sub>2<\/sub>\/ke\u0161<sub>2<\/sub><sup>?<\/sup>-da mu<sub>2<\/sub>\/ke\u0161<sub>2<\/sub><sup>?<\/sup>-\u02f9da\u02fa\u00a0<span lang=\"EN-US\">\u2014 al-ke\u0161<sub>2<\/sub>-da-ke\u0161<sub>2<\/sub>-\u02f9da\u02fa;\u00a0this 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 \u201cbinding\u201d of hair (al-ke\u0161<sub>2<\/sub>-da-ke\u0161<sub>2<\/sub>-da &gt; al-ke\u0161da-ke\u0161da) and not with its \u201cgrowing\u201d, since in this latter case the reduplicated form should rather be al-mu<sub>2<\/sub>-mu<sub>2<\/sub>.<\/span><\/li>\n<li>116&#8242;. A iii 32f. with note 9: Scurlock&#8217;s restoration is based on the parallel OECT 11 71 obv. 9&#8242;-10&#8242;.<\/li>\n<li>118&#8242;. A iii 36f. with notes 10 and 11: again, Scurlock&#8217;s restoration is based on the parallel OECT 11 71 obv. 11&#8242;-13&#8242;. 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 \u02f9GI<sup>?<\/sup>\u02fa would be consistent with what follows in the text.<\/li>\n<li>122&#8242;. A iii 42ff. with notes 13 and 15: like before, Scurlock&#8217;s restoration is based on the parallel OECT 11 71 obv. 14&#8242;-16&#8242;, which is of great importance, because it helps us segment the incantation more precisely:\n<ol>\n<li>MU.UL.LU: MU.UL.LU.U (Scurlock missed an additional Winkelhaken following the sign sequence MU.UL.LU)<\/li>\n<li><em>ha-ba-re-e\u0161<\/em>: the interpretation &#8222;noisily&#8220; would make much sense if the word that follows were indeed <em>hal-hal-la-ta<\/em> &#8222;kettle-drum&#8220;. This does not seem to be the case, however (s. below). What contradicts the reading <em>ha-ba-re-e\u0161<\/em> is the fact, furthermore, that OECT 11 71 divides the sign sequence in two consecutive lines, with &#8222;ha&#8220; and probably &#8222;ba&#8220; occurring at the end of l. 14&#8242;, while &#8222;re&#8220; and &#8222;e\u0161&#8220; at the beginning of l. 15&#8242;.<\/li>\n<li><em>hal-hal-la-ta<\/em>: note the Glossenkeil in OECT 11 71 obv. 15&#8242;, separating hal-hal from la-ta.<\/li>\n<li>[(x) du-ru<sup>?<\/sup>]-\u02f9na\u02fa-a\u0161<sup>?<\/sup> du-ru-na-a\u0161: the repetition does not seem possible, since the parallel passage in OECT 11 71 obv. 16&#8242; contains the remains of what appears to be signs like MA U BA and probably NA right before the sign sequence du-ru-na-a\u0161. Based on the Oxford text, an alternative rendering of the passage might be something like [x x ma u-ba-n]a-a\u0161 du-ru-na-a\u0161.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n<li>126&#8242;. A iii 50: UZU ZAG UZU \u02f9ME\u02fa.[ZE<sub>2<\/sub>] \u02f9UZU\u02fa KA.NE\u00a0<span lang=\"EN-US\">\u2014\u00a0<sup>uzu<\/sup>ZAG (<em>imittu<\/em>) <sup>uzu<\/sup>\u02f9ME\u02fa.[HE<sub>2<\/sub>] (<em>him\u1e63u<\/em>)\u00a0\u02f9<sup>uzu<\/sup>\u02faKA.NE (<em>\u0161um\u00fb<\/em>); 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 Zukunftsbew\u00e4ltigung pp. 130 l. 12, 133 l. 79, 294 ll. 12f. etc.<\/span><\/li>\n<li>126&#8242;. A iii 50 with note 19: <sup>gi\u0161<\/sup>\u0160ITA<sup>?<\/sup>\u00a0<span lang=\"EN-US\">\u2014 GI\u0160.GAN<sub>2<\/sub>; one should look at the parallels AMT 91\/1 rev. 5 \/\/ AMT 92\/4 rev. 10&#8242;, where the sign is written with two (AMT 92\/4 rev. 10&#8242;), as well as with three vertical wedges (AMT 91\/1 rev. 5). Based on this attestation, I would not exclude the possibility that sometimes GAN<sub>2<\/sub> contains only two verticals. As Worthington (JMC 5 p. 28) suggested, GI\u0160.GAN<sub>2<\/sub> might be an abbreviated form for <em>ki\u0161kan\u00fb<\/em>. For <sup>gi\u0161<\/sup>\u0160ITA see Borger MZl p. 327, where it is noted that this form is not attested in monolingual Akkadian texts.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li>126&#8242;. A iii 50: <sup>gi\u0161<\/sup>\u02f9MA<sub>2<\/sub>.ERE\u0160<sup>e\u0161<\/sup>\u02fa.MA<sub>2<\/sub>-le-e\u00a0<span lang=\"EN-US\">\u2014 <sup>gi\u0161<\/sup>\u02f9MA<sub>2<\/sub>.ERE\u0160<sub>4<\/sub>\u02fa<em><sup>e\u0161<\/sup><\/em>.MA<sub>2<\/sub>&#8211;<em>le-e<\/em><\/span><\/li>\n<li>126&#8242;. A iii 51: <sup>u2<\/sup>IGI-20 \u02f9<sup>u2?<\/sup>\u0160E<sub>10<\/sub><sup>?<\/sup>\u02fa \u02f9MA<sub>2<\/sub>\u02fa.LAH<sub>5<\/sub> \u2014 <sup>u2<\/sup>IGI-20\u00a0\u02f9<sup>u2<\/sup>\u02fa[IGI<sup>?<\/sup>&#8211;<em>lim<\/em><sup>?<\/sup>] \u02f9\u0160E<sub>10<\/sub>\u02fa \u02f9MA<sub>2<\/sub>\u02fa.LAH<sub>5<\/sub>; <span lang=\"EN-US\">as far as I know, \u201csailor\u2019s dung\u201d is written with the determinative U<sub>2\u00a0<\/sub>only in plant lists. Therefore, I would not exclude the possibility of IGI-<i>lim\u00a0<\/i>occurring in between <sup>u2<\/sup>IGI-20 and \u201csailor\u2019s dung\u201d, even though at first glance the break does not seem big enough to accommodate so many signs.<\/span><\/li>\n<li>127&#8242;. A iii 52: <em>mu-nam-nir<\/em>\u00a0<span lang=\"EN-US\">\u2014 <em>mu-nam-mir<\/em><\/span><\/li>\n<li>128&#8242;. A iii 55: <sup>gi\u0161<\/sup>\u0160ITA\u00a0<span lang=\"EN-US\">\u2014 GI\u0160.GAN<sub>2<\/sub>; s. remarks on 126&#8242; A iii 50 with note 19.<\/span><\/li>\n<li>128&#8242;. A iii 55: <sup>u2<\/sup><em>kur-ka-na-a<\/em> \u02f9DI\u0160<sup>!?<\/sup>&#8211;<em>ni\u0161<\/em><sup>!?<\/sup>\u02fa\u00a0<span lang=\"EN-US\">\u2014 <sup>u2<\/sup><em>kur-ka-na-a \u0161a<\/em><sub>2<\/sub>\u00a0\u02f9KUR <sup>gi\u0161<\/sup>\u02fax<\/span><\/li>\n<li>130&#8242;. A iii 58: <em>gu-gul-la-\u0161u<\/em><sub>2<\/sub>\u00a0<span lang=\"EN-US\">\u2014 <em>gul-gul-la-\u0161u<\/em><sub>2<\/sub><\/span><\/li>\n<li>130&#8242;. A iii 59:\u00a0<span lang=\"EN-US\">\u02f9<i>tu<\/i>\u02fa-[<i>\u0161e-lam-ma<\/i><sup>?<\/sup>] <\/span><span lang=\"EN-US\">\u2014 <\/span><span lang=\"EN-US\">\u02f9<i>tu<\/i>\u02fa-[<i>bal<\/i><sup>?<\/sup><\/span><span lang=\"EN-US\">];\u00a0<\/span><span lang=\"EN-US\">I would restore the passage in preference for Scurlock\u2019s suggestion, because I am not sure if there is enough room in the break for so many signs.<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span lang=\"EN-US\">130.\u2019 A iii 60: [GAR-<i>an<\/i><sup>?<\/sup>] <\/span><span lang=\"EN-US\">\u2014 [MAR]; the drugs are usually not \u201cput on\u201d, 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 <i>ana\u00a0<\/i>UGU GIG MAR.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>CRANIUM I 1. A i 2: mur-din-da\u00a0\u2014\u00a0mur-din-na 1. A i 4: KAM2\u00a0\u2014 KAM (s. MZl nos. 595 and 640) 2. A i 5: KAM2\u00a0\u2014\u00a0KAM 5. A i 8: hi-qa-\u02f9ti?\u02fa\u00a0\u2014 read without question mark; cf. the sign TI in A i 4 5. A i 9:\u00a0\u02f9UD 3?.KAM2?\u02fa\u00a0\u2014 rather\u00a0\u02f9UD 3\u02fa.[KAM(2)], since the head of the three vertical &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/blogs.fu-berlin.de\/rereadingbabmed\/2018\/12\/03\/further-corrections-and-additions-to-cranium-updated-continuously\/\" class=\"more-link\"><span class=\"screen-reader-text\">\u201eFurther corrections and additions to CRANIUM (updated continuously)\u201c<\/span> weiterlesen<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3604,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[9],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-118","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-allgemein"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.fu-berlin.de\/rereadingbabmed\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/118","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.fu-berlin.de\/rereadingbabmed\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.fu-berlin.de\/rereadingbabmed\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.fu-berlin.de\/rereadingbabmed\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3604"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.fu-berlin.de\/rereadingbabmed\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=118"}],"version-history":[{"count":21,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.fu-berlin.de\/rereadingbabmed\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/118\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":170,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.fu-berlin.de\/rereadingbabmed\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/118\/revisions\/170"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.fu-berlin.de\/rereadingbabmed\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=118"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.fu-berlin.de\/rereadingbabmed\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=118"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.fu-berlin.de\/rereadingbabmed\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=118"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}