Erimḫuš is an advanced Sumerian–Akkadian–Hittite lexical text which includes many passages that remain obscure to modern scholarship. Boddy's study is by far the most detailed and meticulous treatment of this text yet written, and it is a welcome contribution to the growing scholarly literature on lexical lists that has appeared in recent years.

This book takes the form of an analysis of Erimḫuš. It does not attempt to offer a full new edition, although a comprehensive treatment of the manuscripts from Hattusa is included in the form of an appendix. A new edition would be warranted, since the available treatments of Erimḫuš (MSL 17, 1–128; for the Hattusa manuscripts, T.S. Scheucher, The Transmissional and Functional Context of the Lexical Lists from Hattusha and from the Contemporaneous Traditions in Late-Bronze-Age Syria, PhD Dissertation, Leiden, 2012, 610–55) are not sufficiently detailed and comprehensive. The online edition of Erimḫuš (http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/dcclt/corpus) includes transliterations of the manuscripts in score form; however, this online resource is not intended to replace a full critical edition. Boddy's work needs to be read in conjunction with the Digital Corpus of Cuneiform Lexical Texts (DCCLT) in order to verify the relevant line discussed, and to consult the score transliterations. However, in order to locate Boddy's discussion of each line one must use the book's index of citations. Some passages of Erimḫuš are cited up to three different times in different parts of the book; indeed, there are several repeated statements throughout. One may well argue that a score edition combined with a critical commentary would be easier to use, and it may also have aided in the book's concision.

Erimḫuš is known from manuscripts dating to the latter half of the second millennium bc and the first millennium bc. (However, an Old Babylonian fragment has recently been identified, for which see D.O. Edzard et al., Keilschrifttexte aus Isin, Munich, 2018, no. 201.) It was originally composed in Sumerian and Akkadian, and when it was transmitted from Mesopotamia to Anatolia, Hittite and syllabic Sumerian columns were added. In its first millennium form Erimḫuš contains six chapters. Due to the differences between the chapters, Boddy suggests that chapters 4–6 are later additions to the series (p. 136). Furthermore, Boddy states that the order of entries in the first millennium version is closer to the original, in comparison with the Hattusa version, due to its internal logic (p. 159). Since Erimḫuš is not widely attested in Old Babylonian manuscripts, as many lexical texts are, its date of composition remains uncertain. Boddy argues for Erimḫuš as a product of Middle Babylonian scholarship, partly on the basis of its affinity with the academic, artificial form of Sumerian which is characteristic of this period (pp. 200–08). Indeed, it was almost certainly in the Middle Babylonian period that selected Sumerian literary and liturgical texts were first provided with Akkadian translations; Erimḫuš reflects the concerns of such Babylonian scholars with Sumerian–Akkadian equivalents and translations. The fact that Erimḫuš quotes extensively from the Sumerian literary text Ininšagura surely supports this conclusion.

Erimḫuš is usually considered together with Antagal, Nabnītu and other lexical texts, as “group vocabularies”. These texts are arranged in the form of groups of related entries. However, Boddy questions the association, emphasizing the unique characteristics of Erimḫuš (p. 95). Erimḫuš, together with Nabnītu, is almost always organized by the Akkadian column, as opposed to the usual organization of lexical texts according to the Sumerian. Boddy illustrates why this organizing principle of Erimḫuš is yet more evident than previously assumed (pp. 188–94). A further peculiarity of Erimḫuš is that entries are not necessarily read “horizontally” (i.e. from left to right, corresponding to the Sumerian and Akkadian entries), but may be read “vertically” (i.e. according to the entries in the Akkadian or Sumerian column within a group). In the analysis of “horizontal” entries the Sumerian may be a translation of a homonym of the corresponding Akkadian entry (see e.g. p. 184).

This book is focused especially on the Hattusa version of Erimḫuš. In this recension the Hittite column is usually a translation of the Akkadian column, not the Sumerian (p. 245). However, the Sumerian was clearly of importance at Hattusa due to the fact that a syllabic Sumerian column was included in some manuscripts. Following Veldhuis, Boddy considers such syllabic writings as evidence of an academic context; according to this interpretation such writings may represent the oral instruction of a teacher (p. 284). Indeed, this seems convincing, and it may possibly be compared to a very different context, namely Old Babylonian Emesal in Babylonia, where syllabic Sumerian seems to have functioned as a means of rehearsal and/or memorization in a performative context (see P. Delnero, How to Do Things With Tears. Ritual Lamenting in Ancient Mesopotamia, Boston/Berlin, 2020; incidentally, I know of no evidence in support of Boddy's statement on p. 187 that the “syllabic spelling of Sumerian is typical of later periods”).

Boddy's central thesis regarding the Hattusa recension of Erimḫuš is that it represents advanced Hittite scribal scholarship. This interpretation, which follows Veldhuis, contrasts with earlier studies which have considered the sometimes quite radical transformation of the text at Hattusa as a product of the various mistakes which Hittite scribes made in the process of its transmission. In one often cited example, Akkadian ṣiddu “mob” is read as ṣītu “exit”, suggesting either a mistake, or a deliberate reading of an Akkadian homonym (p. 252). Whether or not the case for a Hittite school of hermeneutics is wholeheartedly accepted, it seems clear that the Hittites’ appropriation and transformation of Erimḫuš functioned as a means of “legitimising a local scholarly culture” (p. 307).

This book contains numerous valuable insights, and it will serve as the main resource on Erimḫuš for many years to come.