For the tentative restoration of the phrase cf. KBo 2.2 obv. II 47.
There is not enough space for the restoration proposed by Ünal A. 1978a, 54–55: a-ra-[an-za ma-a-an-za DINGIR-LIM a-pádsic-da še-er TUKU.TUKU-u-an-za IGI-zi SUMEŠ SIG₅-ru EGIR-zi-ma NU.SI]G₅-du (sim. also Beckman G. 1997f, 205). The restoration is also unlikely because of the following requested oracle outcome “ [let the first SU oracle be favorable and ] let [the second one ] be [unfa ]vorable” which requires an oracle question, to which a positive answer is desired. Only traces of the two signs are visible.
The vertical wedge following -an that can be seen in the handcopy KUB 22.70 by Walther A. 1928a, 46 is not visible on the photo. According to the handcopy and Ünal A. 1978a, 58, the second inscribed vertical of -ta may be missing. However, the photo is not clear in this regard. Furthermore, the inscribed verticals are also elsewhere often barely recognizable. Reading based on a collation by A. Ünal; see Ünal A. 1978a, 58 with note c; 110–111 against the reading wuu -ru-li-az suggested by the photo and the cuneiform copy by Walther A. 1928a, 46 based on it.
Restoration based on obv. 72.
The PAP sign (see also obv. 60; rev. 12; rev. 19; rev. 30 and rev. 34) presumaby denotes in the present text that no other information (e.g. a description and outcome of another oracle precedure) follows or was available at that time. For a discussion see the introduction.
The Glossenkeil written over an erasure probably marks that the following text in the same line, as well as lines 44–48, were first forgotten and later added. See also Ünal A. 1978a, 66 note a. Ünal A. 1978a, 68 suggests reading x[ ....] ⸢e⸣-ni-wa . This could be possible, although grammatically the enclitic particle -war is not expected here.
The reading IṢ-BAT remains unsure (see also Ünal A. 1978a , 68 with note b; 116). The translation by Beckman G. 1997f , 206 suggests that he interprets the signs as ⸢BA.ÚŠ⸣ ‘he/she died’ (cf. also Ünal A. 1978a , 116 which, however, for contextual reasons, is less likely. For a discussion see the comment on the translation. Restoration based on obv. I 42. See also Ünal A. 1978a, 68. Cf. also his restoration of the previous clause ( n[u a-pád-d]a ⸢še-er⸣šar-ni-ik-ze-el SI×SÁ-at) which, however, remains uncertain. According to Ünal A. 1978a , 68 note e, there is no sign between DKAL and -kán. If this is correct, the scribe may have made a mistake, as -kán is normally at the beginning of the sentence, which is inconsistent with Ünal’s reading and restoration of the line. Moreover, the space between the deity name and -kán would be very large. Since the sign was written directly on the edge, it is difficult to say whether it was accidentally omitted or if it is (almost) unrecognizable today. For the sentence structure cf. obv. 43 nu-wa-kán da-a-li-ia-at-tén ku-it-ki and obv. 73 nu-wa-kán da-a-li-ia-an-zi ku-it-ki (both preceded by a relative clause). Or erroneously -a instead of -ia?
SAGSAG written with two verticals at the end.
The broken horizontal wedge at the end of the sign is missing. This, along with the fact that the sign is written above the line, indicates that the scribe first forgot it and later inserted it.
-ma written above the line as if first forgotten and later inserted.
Ünal A. 1978a, 84 erroneously TÚGma-aš-ši-ia-na instead of TÚGma-aš-ši-ia-aš BABBAR.
Restoration based on rev. 16.
Differently Ünal A. 1978a, 86 ⸢aš-šu-la⸣-aš. However, this reading is not supported by the sign traces and is also unlikely from a linguistic point of view. Differently, Ünal A. 1978a, 88 na-⸢a⸣-[wi₅. However, the second sign, seems to begin with two verticals. Despite the writing na-a-ú-i in obv. 15, obv. 31, obv. 73, rev. 22 and na-a-wi₅ in rev. 22, rev. 25 the reading na-wi₅ is more likely. Ünal A. 1978a, 90 restores w[a-aš-ši-ia-ši. Yet, since the sign before the break starts with two verticals this reading is unlikely.
The sign is written with only one vertical.
|
