Based on the photo, it is difficult to determine how many signs are broken off at the beginning of the lines of the obverse. Judging from the edition of Ünal A. 2019a, 697-698, who saw the original, the photo is displayed at an angle, showing part of the left edge. If so, the beginning of lines 3′–7′ would be preserved, whereas in lines 2′ and 8′ one or two signs were missing. Similarly, in lines 9′–19′, up to three or four signs would be broken off. In view of this, Ünal’s restorations seem imbalanced. Thus, he restores in line 10′ seven signs, in line 12′ 4 ½ signs, and in line 13′ 5 ½ signs, but otherwise only up to three signs. Without access to the original, Ünal's assumptions can hardly be assessed.

Ünal A. 2019a, 697 suggests to restore ne-⸢pí⸣-[ša-aš DUTU-aš ]... and to translate “[What concerns that the Sun God(?) of Hea]ven [is determined by oracle as angry in his temple]”. Yet, since the text otherwise deals with oracles concerning the cult of Pirwa this restoration seems unlikely. Rather, nepiš (or some case form of it) might refer to a sky en miniature as a cult object as it is the case in the oracle text KUB 5.7+ rev 22-23 (CTH 574). For this and other references see CHD L-N 453 s.v. nepiš- g. Alternatively, nepi[šaš could be an epithet of the god Pirwa “Pirwa [of the] sk[y]”. However, this would be without parallels.

Restoration based on KUB 38.4 obv. 6. See also Ünal A. 2019a, 697; 700 note b.

A similar sign sequence is attested in KUB 57.35 rev. III 11 x-an(-)ta-pí-iš. Cf. E. Rieken et al. (ed.), hethiter.net/: CTH 385.11 (TX 2015-08-26, TRde 2015-06-10), retrieval date: July 39, 2024. Both sequences remain obscure.

The gap is probably to be restored in analogy to KUB 38.4 obv. I 4 ZAG-za ŠU-za 𒑱du-pa-ú-x[ Cf. also Ünal A. 2019a, 697, who suggests to restore ALAMbefore ZAG-za.

The restoration is based on KUB 38.4 obv. I 5 (see also Ünal A. 2019a, 697).

Presumably, the generic term wattatar ‘(image of) a mountain’ or sim. is to be restored. For other attestations and a discussion of the meaning see Rieken E. 2022c, 345-346. By contrast, Ünal A. 2019a, 697; 700 note g, restores ḪUR.SAGwa-[a-ši-it-ta-aš based on KUB 33.118 obv. 1 (CTH 365.5 Kumarbi myth) and notes that Wašitta- is almost the only mountain name beginning with wa-. Although the preceding determinative ḪUR.SAG may suggest the restoration of a mountain name, the generic word ‘mountain’ or ‘(image of) a mountain‘ fits the context better.

Thus also Ünal A. 2019a, 697.

Probably to be restored by pu-[nu-uš-šu-u-en or pu-[nu-uš-šu-un. Cf. also Ünal A. 2019ap[u-nu-uš-ša-an-zi. Although this is, in general possible, the 1 c="st"/> pers. pl. pret. is more often attested in oracle reports.

Ünal A. 2019a, 697 restores [nu-mu 1 ALAM]. If, however, no signs are missing at the beginning of lines 5′ and 6′, the space in line 8′ seems too limited for Ünal's restoration.

Maybe SI×SÁ-at(?) is to be restored after G[Ú.È.A as per Ünal A. 2019a, 697.

Ünal A. 2019a, 697 suggests to restore [na-at A-N]A DPí-ir-wa [pí-iḫ-ḫu-un(?)]. However, the space at the beginning of the line seems too small for 3 ½ signs.

Ünal A. 2019a, 698 restores [ki-i ku-it(?) A-NA D]pí-ir-wa-aš.

Cf. also the restoration by Ünal A. 2019a , 698 (Z[I.KIN.BAR URUDU SI×SÁ -at), which, however, remains uncertain.

Ünal A. 2019a, 698 restores [1 ZI.KIN.B]AR. Yet, if the broken sign is indead BAR, also other words such as ZABAR ‘bronze’ or AN.BAR ‘iron’ are possible.

The restoration by Ünal A. 2019a, 698 [1 ZI.KIN.BAR(?)-i]a seems rather unlikely because with pins, usually no plating is mentioned but only the material of which they are made.

Maybe p[u-nu-uš-šu-un or sim. as in obv. 6′. Cf. also Ünal A. 2019a, 699: p[u-nu-uš-ša-an-zi])..

Ünal A. 2019a, 698 restores -d]a.

Ünal A. 2019a, 698 restores -d]a.

Maybe ki-i] ku-it as per Ünal A. 2019a, 698.

Ünal A. 2019a, 698 restores [LÚSANGA IŠ-T]U.

Possibly [ki-i] as per Ünal A. 2019a, 698.

Ünal A. 2019a , 698 suggests to restore pu-nu-uš-ša-an-zi].

Presumably [ša-r]a-a or [pa-r]a-a as per Ünal A. 2019a, 698.

Ünal A. 2019a, 699 reads: ..-[i]a-ia-za-wa.

Ünal A. 2019a, 699 suggests to restore the otherwise unattested form [ne]-e?-at-t[a? followed by ku-iš(?).

Ünal A. 2019a, 699 reads -mar! and notes that the sign looks like MA or KU. The form of the latter is, however, elsewhere different (cf., e.g., obv. 18′; rev. 3′).