The reading of the sign traces remains unclear, but is supported by obv. I 95. See also Ünal A. 1974b, 32 n. a. Or da-〈pí〉-i .
Differently, Ünal A. 1974b, 34, who reads here and elsewhere UGULA instead of pa. Yet, since the name of the token appears here as well as in obv. I 13, obv. I 17, obv. I 33, obv. I 36, obv. I 42, obv. I 51; obv. II 12 passim in similar constellations as the token panku- “assembly” (i.e. as an active token that tákes other tokens such as, e.g., rightness, well-being of the house, campaign or blood, and as a recipient to which other tokens are given (such as well-being of the house, year, rightness or whole soul) it is more likely that the sign PA is to be read as Hittite pa and not as the sumerogram UGULA. See also, e.g., CHD P, 88, 91 s.v. panku-; Beal R.H. 1999a, 42 n. 7; Marcuson H. 2016a, 127–129. Text: SILIM-ul-na.
On the photo, only the beginning of -uš is visible, -za is completely broken off.
On the photo, only the second half of -zi is visible, DINGIRMEŠ is completely broken off.
-aš is missing in the handcopy, but clearly visible on the photo.
The handcopy shows DINGIR-eš-aš, but the vertical wedge of MEŠ is clearly visible on the photo.
Handcopy: BAD-an-〈〈an〉〉ma-kán. The second -an is, however, not visible on the photo.
In the handcopy, the vertical wedge of SUM is missing.
In the handcopy, an-da is followed by -ma which, however, is not visible on the photo.
According to the photo and the handcopy, there seem to be two additional oblique wedges crossing the two verticals.
Interestingly, the requested outcome is not stated.
Differently, Ünal A. 1974b, 44 A-NA GIG-i “(gaben sie) der Krankheit”, followed by Beal R.H. 1999a, 45 “To ‘sickness’. The sign looks, however, more like TUR (see also Warbinek L. 2020a, 245). Furthermore, there is no other attestation for GIG as a token in the KIN oracle. For A-NA GIG.TUR see, e.g., KUB 5.4+ obv. I 23′, obv. II 17, KUB 5.3+ obv. I 41 and KUB 50.40 obv. 3′. For A-NA GIG.GAL see, e.g. KUB 5.1+ obv. II 20, rev. III 38, rev. III 38, 69, 81. UD is written with three oblique wedges.
The last horizontal seems to cross an erroneously written vertical.
The sign looks rather like ER.
Text: na-an-za-at-kán. That na-an-za-at-kán is probably a scribal error is suggested by the similar passage rev III 74. The common gender of DUḪ is revealed by obv. I 84. Differently, Yakubovich I. 2008g, 464, according to whom the two objects ZAG-tar (neut.) and DUḪ (com.) of the preceeding clause are resumed by pl. ‑at, whereas na-an-za "was probably not intended to convey any agreement information relevant for the scribe".
Text: UŠ.
There are only a few sign traces left which are very difficult to interprete. In the present context, however, the reading DUTU-ŠI is very likely.
Presumably -ri above -zi.
The vertical wedge of -ša- that is missing in the cuneiform copy is clearly visible on the photo.
Differently, Ünal A. 1974b, 60: nu ma-a-an-ma!-za with footnote b: "-mu verschrieben".
Cf. obv. I 78. Otherwise, the verb is attested with the reflexive particle -z(a) and -kan (cf., e.g., obv. I 53, obv. I 70; obv. II 66).
For the restoration see obv. II 106.
Maybe to be restored by the ending of the 3.P.PL of * palšiyaḫḫ- "to dispatch, set on the road, satisfy" (see CHD P, 78 s.v. * palšiaḫḫ-; on the present passage see Beal R.H. 1999a, 49). Some sign traces.
Since the pronoun refers back to a word in the acc. pl. neut., one would expect -at instead of -aš.
The final vertical wedge of -ta- that is missing in the hand copy is clearly visible on the photo.
Ünal A. 1974b, 78 reads KUR instead of PAP, apparently misunderstanding a marginal note on the passage by the copyist and editor of KUB 5, Arnold Walther “dann KUR darüber”. Yet, as Beal R.H. 1999a, 51f. note 48 notes, the reading of the sign PAP in the beginning of the 20th century was different from today’s. Thus, Walther meant that PAP which can also be read KÚR (or, in the time of the publication KUR) was written over an erased sign. Remarkable is the fact that, in contrast to the normal usage, PAP is not written with a phonetic complement ( PAP- nu-mar). In general, also a reading KÚR “enemy” is possible which, however, is usually written with the determinative LÚ.
Maybe as per Ünal A. 1974b, 82 URUT[a-.
Or, as in the handcopy in KUB 52.65, ]-tar?
Restoration based on obv. I 48 and II 57.
NU].SIG₅?
The reading of a D/L sg of šullatar n. is probable. Whether the form without the sign UL results from a writing mistake or genuinely exists is still uncertain. See CHD Š, 575 s.v. šullatar.
zu- is not cleary visible on the photo, but it seems to be written with only two instead of three horizontals.
Since the pronoun refers back to neuter nouns one would rather expect na-at instead of na-an.
The copy shows GISKIM. According to the photo, the reading wa-aš-túl is, however, more likely. See also Beal R. 1999a , 53 note 55. |
