While Alp S. 1991b, 152 reads [k]u-na-an the traces of the first sign visible from photo and 3D model do not quite match with KU. The present reading, proposed by Hoffner H.A. 2009a, 132 (also 380 n. 82) seems likely on the basis of the visible traces.
From photo and 3D model apparently [ḫa]-at-ra-a-⸢u-un⸣ or [ḫa]-at-ra-a-⸢mi⸣.
Plausible on the basis of the visible traces on 3D model, and in context (phraseological katta arḫa ariyami). Differently, Hout Th.P.J. van den 2010b, 398 proposed: [u]t-⸢tar⸣, also possible but the available space is limited. Unlikely [n]a-aš? ( Alp S. 1991b, 152) as lines 12 and 13 cannot be broken, as already pointed out by Hoffner H.A. 2009a, 380 n. 85, who maintained the gap.
e-eš-du written on the obv.
Text: ME-mi, as correctly pointed out by Hout Th.P.J. van den 2010b, 398. The sign is complete, as clearly visible in the 3D model, thus the reading cannot be [t]e-mi ( Hoffner H.A. 2009a, 134). Emendation is necessary (see translation).
|