STT 1, 056[via caspo]

1Restorations follow Van Buylaere 2010 unless stated otherwise.

2I follow Van Buylaere 2010 in reading EN₂ at the head of the line. Gurney's copy suggests the sign is UR. Although we might expect Ea's name at the head of this repeated line (see line 1), UR is incompatible with any spelling of it. And, there is no divine determinative preceeding the sign. Thus, the line is not the first member of a repeated couplet in the Sumerian hymnic style, at the head of which we'd expect the deity's name to appear. This area of the obverse is badly abraded. After an examination of the tablet and photographs of the tablet, I believe the sign could very well be a faded EN₂ or, perhaps better, a misformed EN₂ (as there is no horizontal crossing the right-most vertical, as expected with EN₂).

3It is tempting to suggest the two signs before E₂-šu₂ are ABZU (ZU-AB = Apsû), Ea's watery domain. But, such a reading is hard to square with the traces on the tablet.

4My restoration of the last half of the line is speculative and therefore quite provisional. The tablet is badly broken here. And, there may not be room for the restoration of [GEŠTU].

5I follow Van Buylaere 2010 in restoring the missing TI.

6Gurney's copy shows one too many wedges for the KUL. Collated. See also Gurney 1967: 195.

7Van Buylaere 2010 reads ⸢ḫa⸣-[di]-⸢iš-ši⸣ in the middle of the line. Although possible, I think the wedge taken as the tail of a ŠI is too low relative to the following SAG to be the final horizontal of a ŠI. It may be better simply to read IŠ. The traces Gurney shows in his copy (but not visible to me in my photographs) between the ḪA and proposed IŠ are congruent with a DI.

8The reading essentially follows Van Buylaere 2010, except she reads the preposition as [ina] and she suggests the Anunnaki are to be restored as the subject of the verb. She and Gurney do not indicate a broken sign at the head of the line, which my photographs suggest is present. It may be a DINGIR. The final sign, if KA, has extra wedges.

9The restoration of UKKIN is speculative and requires another look at the tablet.

10The restoration of the deity's name is my own suggestion, which requires collation. There may not be enough room for two signs at the head of the line.

11The reading is conjectural. The DIŠ intersects the last horizontal of the MEŠ, which makes me wonder if it is a mistake. The reading at-ta!-ma, if correct, would parallel the previous line. Van Buylaere 2010 reads the line as it is written: [EŠ].BAR DINGIR-MEŠ ana ⸢AD⸣ ŠA₃ x [...], "The decision of the gods for the father ... [...]." I am not sure what to do with "for the father" here or with what I presume to be the beginning of libbu (ŠA₃), "heart." We require a duplicate to clarify the line properly.

12This line is probably not a catchline but some kind of scribal note or reflection (see also rev. 9). Van Buylaere 2010 reads the beginning of the line as ⸢EN₂ MAN⸣ ne₂-me-qi₂, "Incantation: King of wisdom." The first sign is almost entirely broken. And we do not expect an EN₂ superscript here before the ruling, indicating a catchline. However, the tablet is odd for a couple of reasons (see the weird reptition in lines 1-4 above and note that both texts on the tablet only preserve the hymnic introductions to what are presumed to be incantation-prayers). So the reading-restoration of the first sign seems plausible to me, especially if we consider it part of a scribal note rather than a superscript to a catchline. The second sign could be MAN, BAD, or even a smudged MAT. I tentatively go with the second and assume the scribe left out the EL, as "lord of wisdom" is a well-known epithet of Ea. ("King of wisdom" is also an epithet, but it is always, to my knoweldge, written with the LUGAL sign.) The last two signs in the line are broken. It is not clear if the scribe continued to write into the margin and onto the reverse of the tablet because there is a chip missing out of the tablet right after what is read as TE. The last word of the last line on the reverse (rev. 9) supports the idea that at least one sign is missing here. The same line supports the reading and restoration of the last two words in this line, though the restoration of the last sign is speculative, based only on traces at the end of rev. 9.

13The first sign in the line, partially visible in Gurney's copy, is essentially gone now. The RU and the GAL may now be obscured by glue on the tablet. The bottom tails of three verticals, part of the KAL, are visible on the tablet, though not in the copy.

14This witness inverts the order of this line and the next, as compared to the other witnesses to Sin 1. Also, this is the only witness to Sin 1 that shows any part of the final word in this line. Although we expect the phrase "the pure heavens," this is difficult epigraphically.

15The sign before the break at the end is collated in Mayer 1976: 491. He suggests restoring ḫimiṭka, "your burning/heat," in his edition of the present line, though this tablet does not support that reading (as he recognizes).

16The restorations at the head and the end of the line follow Mayer 1976: 492. The beginning may have contained some name for Sin. The other witnesses attest "Anu of heaven," but as Mayer notes, there is not enough room for these five signs on the tablet. He suggests we simply restore DINGIR.

17The BU is not in Gurney's copy but my photographs may indicate a hint of it.

18The restoration is my conjecture, but there may not be enough room in the break.

19Gurney's copy does not show at the end of this line the head of a horizontal (low on the line).

20Mayer suggests the last sign might be rather ŠIR (1976: 493).

21The colophon is scratched into the clay in large signs.

22Van Buylaere 2010 reads [...] x x ⸢UN⸣ GAT.