Ҿ˹˹ѧ
PDF
ePub

‘eat, devour'; see to l. 14. — (dimmer)DU-DU = be-lum elsewhere = Marduk (BR. 4917) KING, Tab. of Cr. Vol. I, p. LXVI. ušaddid, probable restoration.

L. 25/26 = REIS. p. 127, 27 = VATh 410, Obv. 11/12. VATh 5 410 reads E at the beginning, and mu-un-DUN? ŠAH?)-na at the

end where K. has mu-un-HUB-bi, also i-bu-ut for i-bu-te (or is te an error for ut?).

With this and the following line cf. Reis. p. 13, 14 ff. ana ki-i-nu ki-na-ku ana la ki-i-nu ul ki-na-ku ana šer-ra* šer-ra-ki

all = NI-GI-EN NI-GI-EN NU-GI-EN NU-GI-EN that is, To the true I am true, to the not true I am not true, to the

wicked I am wicked. And similar are Reis. p. 60, Rev. 184--21. Note also E-ZI-DA = 15 bîtu kînu, REIS. p. 65, Obv. 15; and bitâti kînâti p. 130, 38/39. -ikmur or ig-mur; cf. ümu(mu) id-lu i-gam-mar, Reis. p. 95, 19/20.

L. 27/28 = REIS. p. 127, 29 = VATh 410, Obv. 13/14. Fortunately lil is preserved on the end. I have restored as follows: RA

= ina (ana); MU-LU = amelê; before MU-LU there is room for 20 two signs, perhaps UD-DE = UD-mu. ud-di-also ú-di-tim,

1. 33/34, = KI. Also in IVR. 28, 4, 44b parall. šé'um, HWB 22a. Possibly = 'meal, corn.' MUSS-ARNOLT, Dictionary p. 24" gives udîtum 'blossom' or 'fruit of a reed.' Or is it a feminine form of udû ‘house

utensis (HWB 24a)? 25 L. 29/30 = VATh 410, Obv. 15/16. At the beginning read UD

mu instead of REISNER's two blotted signs; in 16b read i-na ku-și instead of REISNER's i-na-și. K. 2875 stops with 1. 30. For the finely written a see REIS. Vorw. XVI, f.

L. 29–32 are to be restored doubtless as REIS. p. 78, 33——36: 30 KU gal-gal-la sid-de ba-an-GAM

la-biš şu-ba-a-ti ra-bu-u-ti ina ku-și it-mi-it ZUG gal-gal-la ŠÀ [ ] ru ba-an-GAM

cf. IV R. 23, No. 1, Obv. Col. 2, 3 ff.; REIS. p. 75, 5. 6 şu-ba-a-ti

L. 31/32 (VATh 410, Obv. 17/18) = Reis. p. 127, 32. REISNER reads me-lil-ti. The sign can however quite as well be riš.

L. 33/34 = REIS. p. 127, 33. The first half is illegible; u-tammi-ih a conjectural restoration; cf. 1. 27/28. 40 L. 35/36 = REIS. p. 127, 34. Kúr-pi = PÚ-SAG. See REIS.

p. 131, 42'43: PÚ-SAG-DI-RI-RI-RAI ] = (belum matum) ana mu

* šerra for šêru, 720 V in HWB.

mâti). If ušabrê is from 7793 'Alourish, kúr-pi must be something evil. The root na 'to see is however just as possible.

L. 37/38. 3940 = REIS. p. 127, 35. 36. Cf. REIS. p. 8, 78-81 et al. In line 38 (24) REISNER has written AZAG instead of HA. 5

Notes on Fragment b. Among the REISNER texts VATh 231, Rev. (REIS. p. 156) is the most closely related to this list of šumê kardúti. A peculiarity of our text is the glosses which are given in finer writing beside the Sumerian. Whether these are all Semitic is questionable, e. g. line 17 has 10 twice E KI-SE-GA, whereas the Semitic would be bît kisikku. I have however put in the same type all that is finely written in this section.

Through this whole section run the alternating BA-HUL and DUR*-RA, and the explanation is apparently to be sought in the finely 15 written la-ku and nam-mi-du. HUL is found in a similar setting elsewhere in REIS. (e. g. p. 63, 5 ff.) but the translation is lacking. See also p. 25, 5 ff. HUL elsewhere = lapâtu, e. g. p. 61, 15:16; p. 62, 29/30; p. 93, Obv. 1 2. With l. 19 of our text may be compared REIS. p. 55, Rev. II (where HUL = bax); and REIS. p. 94, 17. Note 20 also REIS. p. 55, Obv. 15: BA-HUL-LA-TA, parallel with BA-GULLA-TA (i. e. abâtu). The idea of destruction will then lie in HUL, and if la-ku is Semitic it may be from eps. But I have no explanation for DUR-RA = nam-mi-du.

L. U/12. The corresponding lines Reis. p. 156 (No. 82, Rev.) 25 3. 4 are: [ ] KI GAL-la [[ ] DAMAL-GAL (dimmer)MU-UL-LÍLLA-gi.

L. 13. The sign after DIMMER I do not know. It is found also REIS. p. 156, 5.

L. 15. Cf. REIS. p. 156, 7 [ ] UD-NUN-KI-A-gi; also l. 10: [ ] 30 DAMAL-UD-NUN-KI bu-ra(?)**-gi; cf. also V R. 23, Rev. 27. The small signs are probably šú-ma ú-sa-ab, which last may be a proper name.

L. 17. REIS. 156, II reads: [ ] KI-SE-GA-gi; cf. HWB 343a.
L. 18. REIS. p. 156, 12 reads: [] ZI-DA (dimmer)SU-KÚR-RU 35

duk in parallel columns. BRÜNNOW identifies them. (List, No. 223). In our text however (dimmer)SU-KUR-RU must be a goddess, on account of the Semitic mârat.

* Note the different form for Kl' and DUR in this tablet, ** Perhaps Semitic.

L. 19. Reis. 156, 13 reads [ ] ni-si-bu-na, but bu should be in. SE-IB = lipittu. The ideogram occurs frequently, but the translation seldom, e. g. REIS. p. 95 b, 37/38: ŠE-IB = lipittašu.

L. 20, perhaps = REIS. 156, 14. 5 L. 22. REISNER P. 156, 16 reads: [ ] GIG-IB(?) HA-AN; or better, GAŠAN-AN. – MU-GIG-IB = ištaritu Br. 1319; REIS. p. 98, 3/4, et al. GAŠAN-AN-NA is often translated (il)Ištar, e. g. REIS. p. 99, 41/42. For the whole line cf. Reis. p. 99, 62/63; also REIS.

p. 193, 128 129; p. 104, 29 ff.; p. 105, 4 ff. 10 L. 23. NA - ÁM perhaps = šimtu; uru-na-šu = ana ališa probably.

L. 25 (giš)AKKIL, Sb I, Rev. Col. IV, 5; cf. HWB 55 b. For this Babylonian form see REIS. p. 15, II.

L. 26. Cf. REIS. p. 132, 45. 15 Reverse, l. 2/3. The beginning is probably to be restored:

DAMAL EJ-LUM = (um)-mu kabtum or (ud-de E]-LUM = (UD)mu kabtum.

L. 4/5. ša ú-hal-lik-an [ ] = IN-GİL-LI-AMI! The same ideogram = šahluştu Reis. p. 7, 16/17 et al. See VIROLLEAUD, 20 Prem. Suppl. No. 1391.

L. 718. VATh 410 Rev. begins. In the latter stands: im-huru-ma. In both texts the Sumerian personal suffixes are not strictly observed.

L. 9/10. VATh 34 reads: a-mi-li im-hu-ru-ma. 25 L. 11/12. On the margin and under ka is gu written small.

VATh 1.5 reads: KA-IN-DA(?)-MA() GU (sic!) KA-NI-KUR-RA-A-AN. Note the form i-ša--si in both texts; also in Reis. p. 39, 29; and probably ASKT 127, 44 reads a-ša-(+)-si. ša-na-at permans.

from Addi is changed. The idea is: comes to nought, is of no avail; 30 cf. KING, Tab. of Cr. Vol. I, p. 88, 1. 9.

L. 13. On the margin stands the sign U = 10. VATh 7 reads GÚ-NE-URU-EN-NI-MU &c.

L. 14/15. VATh 8 9 reads URU-A GE-IN-MU= ina ali-ia am-ti-ia.

L. 16/17. VATh 1011 reads: LI*-DI-A-NI, ar-da-tum. -- samarša 35 'her cry' (HWB 257 b, top). The parallel nissassu makes the mean

ing ‘singing' impossible; cf. also Reis. p. 110, 3132 and tasmertu (HWB 258a). For ardatu and edlu together see Reis. p. 8, 56 ff., also Reis. p. 95, 29 ff. et al.

L. 18/19. VATh 12 13 reads GURUS-bi (i. e. edilšu), ina ER 40 (i. e. ali). idlum = GURUS-MU; a better rendering would be id

lia 'my man, i. e. Ištar's, while VATh has ‘his man,' i. e. Bel's.

* Reis, reads SAR doubtfully.

The sign is not clear.

L. 2021. From here on the beginnings of the lines are lacking in K. 2004. – In VATh 14 read GA instead of BI (REISNER) on the end. — VATh l. 15 begins ar-da-tum. ardati = KI-EL-MU, the suffix not being translated. — With lines 20—23 cf. IVR. 27, 8–11 b. maštaku = He not DAMAL (IV R. 27, 86). So also REISNER 5 p. 97, 67/68; p. 93, 3/4, et al. - tasla, from abo, either ‘pray, abo II, or 'trust,' so III.

L. 22/23 = VATh 1. 16/17. VATh 17 reads id-lu bîti e-mi-ti-šu ana ša-di-i ir-ta [ ), not a-di-i (REISNER); emutu = BAYYY K. 2004; BAYYYYYY VATh 410; BETER IVR. 27, 10/11b.

10 L. 24/25 = VATh 410, Rev. 18:19. In both these the beginning of the lines is lacking, but is doubtless to be restored according to 29615, Rev. 2 ff. (Cuneiform Tablets in the Brit. Museum, Vol. XV, Pl. 7-9). - DAMAL-HE (the sign must be DAMAL) = ummu alittu REIS. p. 131, 58/59; 27, 2627 et al. -- lu-ur-ra-ki, 15 prec. 1st pers. from 778; cf. AL' 108, 105: pi-iš = rapâšu and Sb 161

but the sign is broken and can be just as well mar. For this idea cf. REIS. p. 96, 8/9: man-nu i-mur-ki = who has seen thee (Ištar)? Also REIS. p. 95, 23/24: ul in-nam-mar (PAD). Similar are Reis. p. 150 20 (top): ki-rib-ša la a-te-e (PAD?) = its interior is not seen (i. c. the word's; cf. p. 32, 15) and Reis. p. 15, 22/23; p. 50, 30/31; 54, Rev. 45 et al.

L. 26 = VATh 1. 20, see under 1. 27.

L. 27 = VATh 21:22. In Reis. read ķu for mu. ša ina nap- 25 hari šaķû appears to be a gloss; there is no Sumerian equivalent. The beginning of VATh is unfortunately illegible. REISNER reads: en(?)-ša (?)-si-tu. Only tu is sure. It would be very remarkable if this phrase E-NE-EM &c., which occurs so frequently, had any other translation than amâtu (Gula or Bel). Neither K nor VATh has the zo Sumerian postposition or genitive particle; 29615 on the contrary has. REIS. p. 10, 153/154 reads e-ne-em (dimmer) MU-UL-LİL-LA (without postposition) = ina a-ma-ti &c. It is very unfortunate that this passage is broken, as it would probably throw some light on the relation of Ištar to the word of Gula and Mullil. I have translated 35 as though it were ina amât &c.

L. 28 = VATh 1. 23 = 29615, Rev. 5.
L. 29 = VATh 1. 24 = 29615, Rev. 6.

L. 30/31 = VATh 1. 25/26 = 29615, Rev. 7. – In K. 2004, 31 ru is written over an erasure. K. 2004 ends at this line. On its lower 40 margin is: ] hi i a-an, that is probably: 'excerpt one'; cf. Reis. L'orw. p. XI. -- še-te-'u-u, I, 2, from 780. -- Ù = labaru (BR. 9464) and enšu (BR. 9463).

L. 32/33 = 29615, Rev. 8. šú-nu = E-NE)-NE; har-bi = E-RI-A (generally A-RI-A, HWB 288b); KI is probably placed after this as in names of places, and NE-EN is the plural.

L. 34/35 (VATh 29/30). The second sign in 1. 34 is very dull, 5 but cannot be HE (cf. 1. 24/25). It may however be MUH; cf. Reis.

p. 122, Rev. 34: DAMAL MUH-NA = ummu alittu. The last sign of 35 may be ni. For the same idea cf. REIS. p. 98, 29/30. Ištar speaks: ša ia-ši(?) na-an-na-ri ul-si-is-sa-an-ni also IVR. 5, Col. I,

60–63. – The Semitic translation is not above suspicion. Cf. REIS. 10 p. 110, 31/32:

US-KU-E SAR-ZU-BI LA-BA-DU LI-ZU DUB-DI SARI
ka-lu-u mu-di-e șir-hi-kazi-im-me-ri-kaša șir-hi mu-di-e ša

șir-hi-šu, and also REIS. p. 106, 47 48: E-NE-EM-ZU = sinništu mu-di-a-at

where elsewhere has it this meaning?) and (dimmer)E-A is not translated. A better translation would be ummu alittum mûdât șirha ša (il)E-A ina niši izziscini. Or is (il)E-A, the god of wisdom, here

= mûdât, and SAR-RA-GAL = sirha? 20 L. 36/37 (VATh 31/32). L. 37 is probably (il) Gu-la &c. um

mi-ša = DAMAL-NI ‘her mother. Why the third person?

[blocks in formation]

[ ]ril

] eš ma ti a [ ]
e ta- kull kar- (și] ki-bi ba- ni- ti
5 lim-ni-e-ti e ta- me da- me- - ta ti-iz-kar

ša2 a-kil þar-și șa-bu-ú li- mut- ti
i-na 3 ri-ba-a-ti-ša (il) Šamaš ú-ka-'a-ú ris- su
e tu- ma 4. as- și pi- i- ka ú- sur šap-ti- ka

5-nim-me-e kab-ta-ti-ka e- di- e tak- bi
IO sur-riš 6 ta-ta-mu- ú ta- ra?- - ši ar-ka-niš

u 8 i-na sa-nak at-me-e tu-ša-an-na-ah te-en-ka
u 9-mi-šam-ma ilu- ka kit-

rab
ni- ku- ú 10 ki- bi pi- i si- mat ķut- rin- ni

a-na ili- ka lib-ŠI-GÁN-ra-a11 lu-ú ti- ;- ši
15 an- nu- um- ma si- mat ilu- ú- ti

su- up- pu- ú 10 su- ul- lu- ú 10 u la-ban ap-pi

« ͹˹Թõ
 »