YBC 13524 (MSL 13, 113-124) [Nigga][via dcclt]
1The sign SUMUN is no longer visible on the object.
2Line no longer visible on the object.
3The Akkadian word may be related to pi-iš-šu-um in a text from the Sîn-Kašid palace listing jewelry (see D. Charpin and J.-M. Durand, MARI 7 371, no. 115)
4The entry is related to Lu₂-azlag A 152: lu₂ si-sa₂ = [pa]-tu-u₂-um.
5The Akkadian is a hapax; reconstruction is questionable.
6Line badly broken and sign inscribed in KA is not identifiable. MSL 13 117 suggests to correct the Akkadian to maʾlatum.
7Very little of this line is preserved. The reconstrcution is based on Erimhuš 5 48.
8Line now illegible.
9For this line and the next, see M. Civil, JNES 43 294.
10The edition in MSL 13 notes that the broken sign in this line and the next is a 'long sign ending in a broken vertical (DAG?)'. Nothing of this sign is currently visible on the photographs.
11Akkadian illūru 'flower' makes no sense in this context; it is assumed that the word is an early form of SB illurtu 'handcuffs'.
12The translation assumes that the Akkadian should be read ka-lu-u₂-um, but the surface of the object has deteriorated and the line can no longer be collated.
13The Sumerian is not understood
14The Sumerian is unclear; it appears to relate to ur₂ pad (Izi II 340), or ur₂ pa-at (HS 1461 i 25; Krebernik, ZA 94, 2004, 226-249); the latter is equated with itpuṣu, suggesting a disease (see preceding line).
15The common Sumerian equivalent of azamillu is sa-al-kad₅. Today, too little of the netry is preserved to confirm the MSL 13 reading.
16See M. Civil, Studies Biggs (2007), 27.
17The Akkadian is apparently misaligned, translating {dug}sila₃.
18For this entry and the following see A. Goddeeris, TMH 10 70.
19In this line and the next, še-im-ka is supposedly a frozen form, perhaps to be read eʾeka. See CAD Š/2 354.