This reading here and in obv. I, 6 and 11 tentatively suggested by Miller J.L. 2019a, 132, are dependent on the appearance of the same divine name in obv I 83.
Restorations in this and the following lines follow Miller J.L. 2019a, 116. This area of the tablet remains very difficult to read from the photographs. There appear to be traces of a second internal vertical, making this a preferable reading to ŠA.
See e.g. obv. I 48 and passim.
This line is written over a ruling.
Following Miller J.L. 2019a, 120; this was necessarily written below the previous line, as a self standing word in the broken portion of the tablet. Text aš-TA-nu-uš-ker.
Photo collation; pace Miller J.L. 2019a, 122: 1½ BÁN; the same reading, without an additional sign ½, is also found in the handcopy of DAAM 1. Text IŠTAR-TI.
Or MU]KAM-ti-li.
Or pé-d]a-an-zi.
Or pé]-da-an-zi.
Or ZA.
Text: wa-aš-ta-at.
Or Z[A.
Photo collation.
Or pé-eš-〈〈ši〉〉⸢šer?⸣; however, cf. rev. IV 12.
Miller J.L. 2019a, 128 indicates a gap of approximately 25 lines in rev. III, which appears to be an overestimate based on the photographs (closer to 15–17 lines?).
Or DUMU.DUMU-wa.
Text: mšu-up-pí-〈lu〉li-lu-⸢ma⸣.
Or S]IG₅.
As noted by Miller J.L. 2019a, 137, this NU.SIG5 seems to be misplaced, and perhaps belongs either to line 75′.
Restorations in this line, partially unreadable in the photographs, follow Miller J.L. 2019a, 130.
Or NU.SIG₅-du.
As noted by Miller J.L. 2019a, 138, this NU.SIG5 seems to be misplaced, and likely belongs either to the previous or following line. |
