LKA 040[via caspo]

1I think I see a trace of the KIT on the tablet, not in Abusch and Schwemer's new copy (2016, pl. 79).

2Abusch and Schwemer's copy assigns the sign I am reading here at the head of the line to line 17. See next line.

3Abusch and Schwemer's copy shows traces of four signs in the middle of the line here, which seem compatible with a reading KA-ka qi₂-x. In fact, this is close to the reading they give for what they call line 18 of this tablet (= line 22 of their eclectic text of Nabu 2). The reading is, of course, quite tentative. In any case, I suspect this manuscript of the prayer may have left out a (very formulaic) line, which reads GIG NU DU₁₀.GA DU₃-MEŠ N[U] DU₁₀.GA-[MEŠ . . .] in a fuller witness (LKA 57, their MS B = P413969). Thus, my line numbers will be one lower compared to theirs for the remainder of the obverse.

4Some ŠAR sign is expected before DANNA. ŠAR₂ and ŠAR₅ both are attested in duplicates. "A million miles" translates šār bēri, "3,600 'miles'."

5The preposition at the head of the line is certain; the orthography is not.

6The traces may be compatible with a reading [IBI]LA [(u) NUM]UN, as the Nimrud duplicate (CTN 4 168 = P363582) suggests. Collation in person is required.

7Ebeling's copy looks accurate to me. My reading takes its cue from Ebeling's edition, though there he gives [ri-e-ši] (1953: 24). Seux also reads S[AG] (1976: 334n2). The Nimrud duplicate has ša₂ ṣa-a-ti, "from ancient times," at the head of this line. There does not seem to be room for this here.

8The Nimrud duplicate reads ŠI MA before Tashmetu. Van Buylaere (2010d) reads this as ši-ma-<ti>, "fates," and understands the word as the nomen rectum of a long construct chain: "the goddess, the queen, and the lady of fates"). She then understands Tashmetu as beginning a new phrase. But the present tablet may suggest reading those signs with the goddesses name. The traces before the DINGIR here might support reading TI, which might suggest [ši-ma-t]i. But what would this mean?

9Ebeling's copy shows a broken sign, perhaps ⸢I⸣, before the BE sign, suggesting the verb is a durative, though we expect the preterite. The traces on the photo may support simply taking these traces as an extension of the horizontal and part of the last vertical of the ALEPH₂ sign (?). The traces seem too far apart to be a regular ALEPH with nothing else following it, which is Ebeling's reading in his edition (1953: 24).

10I am reading the end of the line with Seux (1976: 334n4).

11For the colophon, see Hunger 1968, no. 199.