According to the photo, it seems that NU.SIG₅ -ta was not written over the erasure, but was rather erased itself. However, since a new sentence follows and the same structure appears in obv. I 36, this observation may be incorrect, or the scribe accidentally deleted the sign sequence.
Apparently mistaken for pa-a-iš (cf. obv. I 46′; 71′).
Marcuson H. 2016a, 425 restores [nu] m[a]-⌜a⌝-[a]n, obviously based on the similar passages obv I 23′ and obv. II 59′-60′. However, if the scribe did not write on the left edge, there is not enough space for this (cf. also obv. I 63).
Marcuson H. 2016a , 426, restores pa-a-i, followed by a space for two signs at the beginning of the line. Although this restoration is plausible in terms of content, there does not appear to be enough space for it. It is therefore more likely that it is a verbless enumeration or the verb has been errouneously left out by the scribe. A similar case can be found in obv. I 21′–23′.
Restoration based on obv. I 7′; 28′; 55′ passim.
The KIN formula with two consecutive sentences with ME-aš is exceptional and probably due to a mistake.
Text -za.
Maybe a form of ḫazziwi- "ritual" is to be restored.
In analogy to other passages, a number sign is to be restored. For comparision, see obv. 14′; obv. 15′; obv. 23′, obv. 42′.
Restoration based on obv. I 24′ and obv. I 51′.
|