Tentative. One would expect the name of a bird here; among the available names, we might consider [ālli]yaš=ši=(š)šan. However, if this analysis is correct, the meaning of the D/L enclitic pronoun remains unclear in this context. Alternatively, the form might be an unknown name of bird in -ašši-, (cf. names such as ḫalwašši-, maršanašši- etc.) thus [ ]-yaššiš=šan (SG.NOM+=šan).
Ünal A. 1998d, 117, based on parallel oracular formulary, suggested the restoration ḫa-an-da-a-[an-du? ...]. However, the imperative form does not seem to apply in this context, and a present or possibly preterite form is probably preferable.
Or, possibly, [... É LÚE]-MI-ŠU, (cf. (Frg. 1) obv.! 13).
See (frg. 2) rev. IV 11´, 13´.
See previous (frg. 1) obv.! 6´.
This reading was suggested in Ünal A. 1998d, 115, but this verb is hapax, and other readings might be considered, such as e.g. l[a?-l]a-wa?-an-ke?-eš-zi (or other combinations with individual readings of each uncertain sign). Cf. (Frg. 2) obv. I 8´. Unless the verb here is ti-i-ia-zi, which is also possible, based on the photographs.
Cf. Ünal A. 1998d, 115: MUNUSSIKIL, thus a mistake for MUNUS〈KI.〉SIKIL? But this reading is unlikely after photo collation.
Cf. Ünal A. 1998d, 116: kat-t[a ú-d]a-aš, which is not possible based on the available space on the tablet. An alternative restoration kat-t[a d]a-aš is likewise difficult to confirm after photo collation.
Cf. {frg. 2} obv. I 16´.
For this restoration see previously Dardano P. 2006a, 36. The alternative proposal by Waal W. 2015a, 388-389, ⸢ar-ḫa⸣ ḫ[a-ra-an e-e]š-ta na-a[t seems less likely, based on photo collation. The restoration of the second line by Gordin S. 2015a, 208 ( PA-NI mx-x-x ú-[uk m ]… IN.SAR; followed also in Francia R. 2019e, 223) is not possible in the available space. The expected scribal name should be sought in the gap in the previous line, which aligns with the typical formulation (PN ANA PANI PN). |
