BIN 2, 72

       General: The text shows some late-OB signs. Note the lack of mimation in ll. 6, 13, 15 and the dative pronoun -ki (not -kim) in l. 14. Another indication for a relatively late date might be the sign /lab/ in l. 2, and the possible hint in ll. 1–2 to the three paths of the sky (see below).

         1: The creation of Lamaštu – referred to as pāšittum – by Enki/Ea is found in Atr. III vii:1 (Lambert/Millard 1969, 103). Her astral origins are also found clearly in the OA incantation BIN 4, 126, where Anu is mentioned. Note that the short historiola in these lines may refer to the three paths of the sky, known in Mesopotamian astronomy only since the Cassite period (see Horowitz 1998, 254–255).

         2: von Soden (1954, 340), read kal-ba-tim, claiming that the reading labbatim is difficult, as the sign /lab/ is not used in OB. But iconographical and textual evidence shows Lamaštu with lioness head (see Farber 1980–83, 444, and CBS 10455:5' which reads: qá-qá-as-sa qá-qá-ad ne!-[e-ši-im]). Based on this evidence I follow Veldhuis (1999, 42), and Foster (2005, 173), and translate here “lioness”. (It cannot be denied, however, that Lamaštu is known to have dog’s teeth (cf. Farber 1999, 42).

         3: Reading i-ṣa-at ri-ti!-in, with von Soden (1954, 338), Veldhuis (1999, 42) and Edzard (2004, 543), and contra Wiggermann (2000, 232, n. 107) and Foster (2005, 173) who prefer i-za-at for ezzat. Reading [a]rrakat follows von Soden (1954, 338), Veldhuis (1999, 42), Edzard (2004, 543) and Foster (2005, 173f.). Wasserman (2003a, 34 n. 34) proposed to read [w]a!-ra-qà-at, “very pale as to her hands”, but since the text uses /qa/ (l. 18), and arrakat yields a good chiasm ([a]rrakat ubānātim ṣuprātim arrakat), this proposal is now rejected.

         3–5: [a]rrakat / ubānātim ṣuprātim / arrakat is one of the rare cases of clear and undeniable enjambment in Akkadian incantations.

         5: For Lamaštu’s affinity to dung and mud cf. Farber 1980−83, 444. ­– Note the shortened du. form ammāša (not ammatāša). – The signs after a-ma-⌈ša⌉ are difficult to read: only -la by the end of the line is clear.

         6–7: īrub–iḫallup is a sequence preterite–present, the latter denoting a modal clause (cf. Streck 1999, 65–67), contra von Soden (1965, 339 and 341) and Veldhuis (1999, 43), who analyze i-ru-u[b]! as present tense.

         12: A similar warning to the maleficent agent (“go out before a healing means will reach you!”) is found in YOS 11, 14a: 5: [ṣ]i-i ma-aš-⌈ka⌉-⌈du⌉-⌈um⌉ ⌈la⌉-a-ma ik-šu-du-ka ṣú-ur-ru na-ag-la-b[u (ša) ^d]Gu-la, “Go out maškadum before the flint razors of Gula will reach you!”

         13: For the construction of apkallam šipir, see Wasserman 2003a, 47.

         15: atallakī is Gtn (von Soden 1954, 339: “geh herum”, Veldhuis 1999, 42: “roam”, Edzard 2004, 543: “tummle dich”), not Gt (Foster 2005, 173: “be gone into”). From this follows that ṣé-ri is probably “steppe”, not “door socket” (MPS).

         18: ZÀ.ḪI?.LI-a (or as AHw 1009^b 1 has it: ZÀ.ḪI.LI.A) is a back-formation Sumerogram from Akk. saḫlû. The form saḫlâ is probably a mistaken s. m. acc., as proves the incongruence with the adjective daqqātim. We suggest therefore to read ZÀ.ḪI.LI-a as the plural saḫlê.

         19: For the interpretation of umallû as an asseverative subjunctive denoting the speaker's oath which is mentioned in the following line, see Wasserman 2003a, 163 (cf. GAG §81e Erg.). See further Foster 2005, 175.