See obv. II 13, 25, 33, 37, 45.
Sakuma Y. 2009b, II, 551. Note that there is some extra space in this lacuna (photo collation), which could accommodate an additional word, or be left blank.
According to Sakuma Y. 2009b, II, 552, this word must be a mistaken addition, thus should be deleted from the text: 〈〈k[u-uš(?)〉〉. In principle, a relative clause would be possible in context, as in our translation. The problem remains that a clause-linking conjunction would be necessary at the beginning of the next line (e.g. n=aš=kan; cf. infra obv. II 7-8.). See obv. I 16-17.
The accusative case is expected here (see obv. I 28). If the following gap at obv. I 46 yielded [wa-ra-a-u]š, the form might be explained as a mistake for ḫar-r]a-ni-i-uš!-ša).
Although one expects kat-ta here (see also Sakuma Y. 2009b, II, 566), the photographs do not show clearly that further text was written at the end of this line. The sign ḪU (=MUŠEN) rather looks like RI.
In the gap a name of bird in singular is expected (see also obv. I 9-10, and the 3sg. verb in the next line).
Sakuma Y. 2009b, II, 571. For a parallel, see KUB 50.1+ rev. III 16´ (CTH 573.54).
Small erasure visible before -er.
Most likely, the two horizontal wedges of PA are written almost overlapping, so that the sign looks actually like QA, but otherwise see obv. II 33, obv. II 49 for the same formulation.
Sakuma Y. 2009b, II, 582, virtually certain (see obv. I 30, 36, 47; II 5, 26, 38, 46; III 17´).
Traces of erasure in correspondence of the presumable paragraph line, in KBo 66.70.
The restorations in this paragraph follow Sakuma Y. 2009b, II, 589, when virtually certain. For the exact restoration of this line Sakuma suggests ar-ši-in⸣-t[a-at-ḫi-iš ÍD-an pa-ri-ia-an]. However, the sentence might have also included additional information on the initial position of the bird, such as the notation EGIR ÍD. See obv. I 50; II 12, 36, 48; III 14.
Sakuma Y. 2009b, II, 591: Í[D?, but this restoration is unlikely, due to the content of the end of the line.
|
