Cf. the previous reading URUpal-ḫi-iš-na-za ( Alp S. 1991b, 208, followed by Hoffner in his editions). The sign form of the presumed BAL sign does not conform to the writing of this sign elsewhere in the Tapikka tablets (see the forms collected in Alp S. 1991b, 113) nor to any of the variants listed in Rüster C. – Neu E. 1989a, 90. Thus, as both readings result in a hapax, we prefer the one that is epigraphically more likely (see Trameri A. 2025b, 211). Or: ar-ḫ[a-ia]-an 'separately'? ( Alp S. 1991b, 208; Hoffner H.A. 2009a, 183). Neither option can be excluded, although the limited space and a stone inclusion likely impeding writing might favor A — or no sign at all — over IA in the gap ( Trameri A. 2025b, 211-212).
Text ḫu-u-IT-a-a[k].
Cf. Alp S. 1991b, 208 (followed in Hoffner's editions) ku-ú-ra-l[a-an ma?-a?-an? Ú?-U]L, but the available space is not sufficient for this restoration ( Trameri A. 2025b, 214 with fig. 3).
See lo. e. 20, rev. 26.
Photo collation excludes the restoration proposed originally by Alp S. 1991b, GIŠT[IR-ni?], and maintained in the following editions. The fragmentary sign is clearly not one with four initial Winkelhaken (cf. ŠE in rev. 25). A possible reading is GIŠk[i-, but a complete restoration is not possible, also due to the uncertainty of the presence of an-da(?) in the gap, based on the parallel lo. e. 19-20. See Trameri A. 2025b, 214-215 with fig. 4. Based on the parallel in lo e. 21-rev. 23, Alp S. 1991b, 208, followed in Hoffner's editions, suggested that ḫu-u-da-a-ak was also present in the gap before the verb. However, this is certainly not possible given the available space. A shorter sentence, such as the one proposed here, is plausible and fits the space precisely, as confirmed by comparison with the same sign sequences in lines 21 and 23 ( Trameri A. 2025b, 214-215 with fig. 6). Cf. Hoffner H.A. 2009a, 183 URUpal-ḫ[i-iš-na-za], but the ablative is not expected here (see Hoffner H.A. 2010c, 135, for āppan with dative). The locative particle =kan might have been present as well.
The restoration in Hoffner H.A. 2009a, 183, [še-er MUŠE]N? | laḫlaḫḫi[maš ... ] is less likely, as typically laḫlaḫḫima- precedes MUŠENḪI.A, and MUŠEN in singular does not correspond with the usual formulation either. See Trameri A. 2025b, 216 for a discussion and parallels. |
