No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 March 2011
The text K. 2612, cited by me in my Lexicon of Accadian Prayers as a duplicate of Ebeling, Quellen, i, 40 f., and K. 2373 and Sm. 690, has now been joined to Rm. 2, ii, 269, enabling a more accurate restoration to be made of several of the lines. The text shows several notable variant readings.
page 583 note 1 The catchline of VR. 50, 51 (which is perhaps a bît rimki tablet) is also the beginning of an incantation of this type = Šurpu ix, 1.
page 583 note 2 Cf. ASKT. No. 12, rev. 1 and 16. The bít rimki is mentioned also in Šurpu, v, 36–7.
page 584 note 1 Cf. BBR., No. 26, iii, 35–iv, 12.
page 584 note 2 Cf. BBR., No. 26, iv, 73, 74, 75, 78; v, 32, 33, 44, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 78 f., 81; vi, 23, 25, 50.
page 584 note 3 Cf. BBR., No. 26, v, 73–9. Line 73 is to be restored ana [ššî ṭipara ṣalmānēšunu aḳallḪ] = MaqlḪ, i, 135.
page 588 note 1 Restored from A, 1. 18; D, 1. 15.
page 588 note 2 D i-ziz-za-am-ma.
page 588 note 3 11. 3–5 are omitted in D.
page 588 note 4 The usual formula omits ina. A has . . . ittāti limnēti lā ṭâbā[ti].
page 588 note 5 The usual formula has mâti-iă. So A.
page 588 note 6 11. 5 and 6 form one line in A.
page 588 note 7 D -in.
page 588 note 8 D šu-tam-ṣa-am-ma.
page 588 note 9 So also A.
page 588 note 10 UŠ-an-ni. D ri-[ta]-da-[an]-ni.
page 588 note 11 D šú.
page 588 note 12 D mar-ṣa-ku.
page 589 note 13 D ilu man-ma.
page 589 note 14 D- ú
page 589 note 15 D Šu-nam-erima-ku.
page 589 note 16 D iṣbatan-ni-ma.
page 589 note 17 irtedan-[ni].
page 589 note 18 D sag-ḫúl-ḫa-za-ku.
page 589 note 19 D ša mu-ša u ur-ra.
page 589 note 20 D omits the line drawn across the tablet after 1. 10.
page 589 note 21 D lu.
page 589 note 22 E -iă.
page 589 note 23 DE lu.
page 589 note 24 D -šù.
page 589 note 25 D omits this line but adds to the preceding line u [sa-la-ti-ia]. E reads [el-l]a-ti-ia sa-la-ti-ia.
page 589 note 26 In D, 1. 15 occupies two lines. E omits 1. 15b.
page 589 note 27 D lā.
page 589 note 28 D -li.
page 589 note 29 D -bil.
page 589 note 30 DE transpose 11. 16, 17.
page 589 note 31 D -e. E . . . . . .u kip-pi-e.
page 589 note 32 D lu ma-mit ili u nîš ili. E omits this line.
page 589 note 33 DE lu ma-mit ṣêri u ú-ma-mi, lu [ma-] mit [tuppi(?)] u iṣu ú-il- [ti].
page 589 note 34 D šammê.
page 589 note 35 D i-na.
page 590 note 36 This line seems to have no parallel in Šurpu, Tablet III. 1. 127 is not parallel. But cf. perhaps K. 14719, 1. 5 = Šurpu, iii, 31a (King, Cat. Kouy. Coll. Suppl., No. 1270) ma-mit ta(?)-ḫi(?)- . . . . D reads [lu ma-mit ma-an]- ṣi-e u li-[li-si], [lu ma-mit] . . u a-ṣa- . .; cf. Šurpu, iii, 84.
page 590 note 37 Or -r[im]-; or -l[it]-.
page 590 note 38 D [lu ma-mit] ḳani [ina išikti] ina išikti- (GI-HI-A) ina išikti (ZUK) ḫa-ṣa-pu.
page 590 note 39 So probably restore, cf. note 38. In Deimel, Šum. Lexilcon, 522, 4, ZUK (= a-a) = išihtum ša iṣu suklum. iššikku = “marsh”, cf. Thompson, Reports, No. 207, rev. 3 f. (“the empty marshes will be full”). Cf. also IM-KALAG-GA = išikku, a kind of mud (Deimel, Šum. Lex., 399, 155b).
page 589 note 40 Not a new line in D. DE šâru bêram lis-si i-na zumri-ia. After this line E has a line drawn across the tablet.
page 590 note 41 B [iṣu] bi-nu.
page 590 note 42 šam DIL-BAT. BDE Šam IN-NU- UŠ. This begins a new line in B and perhaps in C.
page 590 note 43 Perhaps BC omitted this line.
page 590 note 44 DE lit-bu-uk.
page 590 note 45 B -tim. Restored from KAR. 267, rev. 21.
page 590 note 46 E -ṣu-ra.
page 590 note 47 A new line begins here in E.
page 590 note 48 C me-lám-šá-ma. D mi-lam-ma-ša-ma.
page 590 note 49 Or -kas-.
page 590 note 50 Or -ki. B . . . BI-SU-KI! C. . . -KI! DE . . . [S]U-KI
page 590 note 51 E -ni.
page 590 note 52 KI.
page 590 note 53 D . . . -ú. E li-te-nu-ú.
page 590 note 54 DE add a line . . . lim-ḫu-ru-nin-ni. D adds after this TÙ;-ÉN
page 591 note 55 So also C. B has [inim]-inim-ma IN-NU-UŠ (= maštakal)-[kam]. D has [inim-inim-ma nam]-erim búr-ru-da-kám. E . . . [izakka-a]r (?).
page 591 note 56 From rev. 14 onwards D diverges from the Nineveh texts; see note 63 below.
page 591 note 57 BAD probably = pitû, cf. D libbi-Šá-ḪAL-ḪAL where ḪAL probably = pitû. Cf. Deimel, Šum. Lex. 69, 54, and 2, 4.
page 591 note 58 Not a new line in B . C runs together II. 15, 16 in to one line.
page 591 note 59 A. B A-meš
page 591 note 60 B begins a new line here.
page 591 note 61 So also B !
page 591 note 62 = bît rimki, Tablet VI, 1. 1 (= OECT. vi, 52, 2). But PBS. i, 1, No. 15, rev. 2, quotes instead in this place the prayer beginning [én] d. Babbar an-šag-ta-è which in the Nineveh recension of bît rimki = Tablet V, 1. 1, being the opening line on the obverse of our variant C (i.e. Sm. 690, obv. 1 = OECT. vi, 50, 1). The differences between the Nineveh and the Southern recensions are noted and discussed in Kunstmann, , LSS., NF. ii, 76 ffGoogle Scholar.
page 591 note 3 The ceremony in D is as follows:—
obv. 20. [ḳiḳiṭṭa-šu ṣalam ma-mit teppu]-uš libbi-šá-ḪAL-ḪAL
21. . . . . GI-[GAB(?)] . . . . limmalû(1) amēlu marṣu i-na pān ilu Šamaš
22. [kanpatupur]sīta i-na ḳāti-šu inššî-ma
23. [ina paṭar iṣu b]i(?)-ni (?) libba-šá i-pat-taḫ III-šù mê
24. [u šikara pî-šù imis-s] i (?) muḫḫi-šá ú-raḳ
25. [kiâm iḳ]abbî [šu (?)]-ṣi ta-di-ra-ti-ia
26. [lu-ba (?)]-di-ia u ta-ni-ḫi-ia ana muḫḫi-ki ú-raḳ.
page 592 note 1 Probably supply: “I am afraid, distressed, and oast into gloom”; cf. the full formula in JRAS. 1929, 5, 39–42.
page 592 note 2 Var. “Cause (me) to find”.
page 592 note 3 Practically = “restore me to health”.
page 592 note 4 = “the disease,” viewed as a curse (1. 9) and as a demon (1. 10).
page 592 note 5 Var. “Or the curse of a god or of an oath by a god”.
page 592 note 6 Some thorny plant.
page 592 note 7 Var. “Or the curse of field or beast, or the curse of tablet or contract.”
page 592 note 8 Or perhaps “rump”.
page 593 note 1 Or “a sacrificial offering” (tarîmtu). Scarcely “offspring” (talîttu). Var. “Or the curse of tambourine (?) or kettledrum . . . . .”
page 593 note 2 Literally “A double-hour's journey”. Or, perhaps, “3,600 doublehours' journeys.” Cf. Ebeling, , Tod und Leben, p. 142, note bGoogle Scholar.
page 593 note 3 Literally “turn backward its breast”.
page 593 note 4 Very doubtful.
page 593 note 5 Literally “with”.
page 593 note 6 Var. adds “may . . . . receive me. Incantation. Spell”.
pagae 593 note 7 Var. “It is an incantation for the mandrake (?)(plant)”.
page 593 note 8 i.e. an image representing the general idea of “curse” or violated tabu, probably in female form.
page 593 note 9 Very doubtful. We should expect “its heart” (libbi-šá) to be construed with the following line.
page 593 note 10 Or perhaps “hollow (it) out”.
page 594 note 1 i.e. the king.
page 594 note 2 i.e. the image.
page 594 note 3 Presumably the wall of the bît rimki. No wall is mentioned in BBR. No. 26. The ceremony on D reads as follows: “(This is) its ritual. Thou shalt make an image of the ‘Curse’. Its heart thou shalt open up (?). . . Let. . . be filled with . . . . The sick man shall lift up a puraītu- vessel in his hand before Shamash” (or “before the sun”), “and with a sword of tamarisk wood he shall pierce its heart. Thrice (with ?) water and beer he shall wash his mouth, upon it he shall spit. Thus shall he speak: ‘Remove my gloom, my disease and my weariness. Upon thee I spit.’”