Although Miller in his handcopy and edition reads 𒑱šu-wa-⸢na⸣-ša-ḫu-uš-kán (hapax), the photographs might suggest that ḪU is to be read RI, instead. Since this reading would correspond with an existing form, šuwanaššari- (CHD Š 543), this solution seems more likely.
|
Attested elsewhere as 𒑱palayanalliya-, an unidentified object, likewise attested with the ending -anza ( pa-la-ia-na-al-li-ia-an-za; KUB 48.126 II 11) and as direct object. The form, in my view, is to be understood as a Luw. N.SG.ABS. (NOM-ACC.) in -n, with the Luw. suffix - za/sa. The same applies to the form la?-muwanza in the next line. Cf. the discussion in Miller J.L. 2019a, 146, who considers the option of an alternative reading pa-la-r[a?]-an-za. Lit. “there is/was not”.
Attested elsewhere only in KpT 1.56 III 57´. This is another accessory or part of the figurines, or a different precious item.
Lit. “they have emptied out”. In principle, the form could also be ḫarkan (PTCP.N.NOM-ACC., e.g. KpT 1.56+1.71, III 63´ (arḫa ḫarkan), but based on an exact parallel in KpT 1.39 (I 5), this solution seems more compelling here. The passage refers to the gems or stones someone had pilfered from the divine images’ (eye?) sockets.
Alternatively, Miller J.L. 2019a, 146 considers the possibility of a mistake for SUD-li₁₂ (the last part of SUD corresponds to three vertical wedges, as the numeral 3). |
