STT 1, 057 + STT 2, 263[via caspo]

1Restorations in obv. 31-35, unless otherwise noted, come from the duplicates (see Farber 1989: 116, 118).

2For the restoration at the end of the line, see the parallel in STT 58, rev. 7. The subject of the last verb, the exorcist, is implied by obv. 39 below.

3Restorations of obv. 36-42 (= Sin 14) come from duplicates, unless otherwise noted. I assume šuma zakāru here has something to do with verbal authority, possibly related to creating things, establishing their fate, elevating someone to a higher rank, or making a person's reputation.

4Two other duplicates attest {lu₂}MAŠ.MAŠ, suggesting its restoration here (or its equivalence), though the available space would make such a restoration rather tight.

5For the restoration of bennu in the line, see the comments in Farber 1989: 120 and Hätinen 2021: 482.

6Note that INA and SU are the same two signs that encode "leather (bag)" (ina KUŠ), a ritual implement that is prescribed numerous times in the instructions in the lines on this tablet just prior to this incantation-prayer. My photographs indicate a hint of a vertical wedge and a Winkelhaken at the far right edge of the break at the end of the line, suggesting perhaps a NIQ. We expect sanāqu here in the series of verbs that starts here in this line and finishes in the next. The traces do not support a logographic writing of the verb, DIM₄.

7On the problematic final verb, see the comments in Farber 1989: 121 and Hätinen 2021: 482. As the latter notes, we expect a form of kašādu in the series of verbs that started in the previous line and finishes here. As a very tentative suggestion as to how we might arrive at that reading, perhaps we can take the I as an unusual phonetic complement (as in the first verb in this line) and the ḪI as a mistaken KUR. (I see only three Winkelhaken in my photographs, though they are arranged more like ḪI than KUR.) We would then have to posit some completion of the verb in the break, which likely would have at least included the pronominal suffix. (The duplicate, STT 58, rev. 18, complicates this idea, since it reads i-x#-zu-šu₂, suggesting a verb not derived from kašādu.) Whatever the precise reading, we expect a verb in the same semantic domain as the three previous ones.

8Farber restores the end of the line as follows: me!(A)-[eli ta]-šap!-[pi₂], but this is not supported by the duplicate in STT 58, rev. 19. I leave matters open for now.

9The duplicates and context suggest the restoration at the end of the line, though the available room makes it quite tight, even if we leave off the demonstrative pronoun, attested in the duplicates.

10The present reading is my attempt to make sense of ina KAL SU (and ina LI x in STT 58, rev. 24), which does not make sense here. See Farber 1989: 123 for other suggestions.

11As Farber notes (1989: 123), GAB stands here for GUB₃, as the duplicate suggests (which reads 15).

12Farber restores the end of the line with ina G[U₂-šu₂ GAR] (1989: 122), but there is room in the gap for more than two signs. Moreover, there is no rule line between rev. 4 and 5 (as his edition indicates) on the copy or on the tablet. As there are further ingredients listed on the next line, placing the leather bag on the patient's neck at this point could be premature. Rather, we might expect more ingredients in this line or more ritual instructions. Finally, the traces on the tablet are not congruent with GU₂.

13Farber restores ina KUŠ at the end of this line (1989: 122), which Sm.708 supports, but there is room for several more signs. Thus, my restoration. Sm.708 provides several parallels to the ritual ingredients here, including PEŠ₂.SILA₃.GAZ (compare Sm.708, obv. 2ˊ). It seems the scribe started GUB₃ before switching to complete PEŠ₂. My translation provides several words to make the entire prescription cohere. I assume "human testicle from the right side" is a secret name for an ingredient and not to be taken literally.

14The restoration is Farbers (1989: 122), though there is room for a few more signs. UŠ, which is typically the logogram for išaru, "penis," seems unlikely here; the sign likely stands instead for UŠ₂ = dāmu, "blood" (so Farber 1989: 124).

15I am treating {u₂}{d}MAŠ as a writing of nikiptu, which is typically written logographically with either {šim}{d}MAŠ or {giš}{d}MAŠ, as is the case in obv. 27 of the present tablet. Is U₂ (= šam) an internal aural scribal mistake for ŠIM? Perhaps better: The many other plant names in context contributed to the alleged mistake, wherein the scribe saw and wrote GIŠ but continued on to form U₂.

16Stol takes bi-ni-tu₂ as a disease (a kind of bennu?) (1993: 132).

17The orthography of elkulla, {u₂}el-ku-lul-a, is unusual. Typically, it is spelled {u₂}el-kul-la or {u₂}eli-kul-la. At the end of the line: Instead of x# ina IGI GURUŠ, should we read {u₂#}IGI-lim {u₂} x# x#?

18Restorations in Sin 3 are based on duplicates.

19As Mayer notes (1976: 497, n.43(d)), the reading of the final verb goes back to a suggestion by von Soden.

20Hätinen suggests reading tu-⸢uš⸣?-ṭa-ba, "you make happy," for the first verb (2021: 466, 470). I am following the suggestion of CAD M/1, 255 and T, 319. In any case, the sign after TU looks to be garbled and perhaps partially erased. The scribe seems to have messed it up, half-heartedly attempted to correct it, and then simply moved on. The sign after it was copied as a DA, but my photographs suggest an imperfectly formed IT is a reasonable reading.

21The line's last sign is no longer on the tablet; compare the copy in STT 57.

22The two other Sultantepe MSS of this prayer read a negated form of alāku followed by pānu at the head of the line. The present tablet is very badly broken, showing mere traces of heads of signs at the beginning of the line. The given reading is very tentative, though a reasonable reconstruction (see also Hätinen 2021: 471). The last sign might also be read -eš, as does Hätinen, r[e]-⸢eš⸣ (2021: 467).

23There is an erasure before the first verb. Mayer harmonizes the various witnesses to the first half of this line and reads the last word in the phrase, which is kinūnu, "brazier," in some witnesses (from Sultantepe) and ganūnu, "storeroom," in others (from Nineveh and Ashur), as a reference to the supplicant's family (1976: 502; see further Hätinen 2021: 472). The two words may be interchangeable and/or they may both be a metonymy for the family. In any case, I translate the phrase literally.

24[. . . {u₂}ZA₃.ḪI.L]I?

25CAD M/2, 14 seems to suggest reading me-(e)-eli ša₂ ta-aš₂-pu-u, "the poultice which you wrapped," for the first few words. What they read as ME may in fact be MEŠ.

26Should we read {d#}GIŠ.BAR = Girra?

27Unknown scribal student. See https://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/cams/akno/assyrianscholars/a15undateablescribesofhuzirina/index.html.