P14 A 1 i 29 [ ]˹ak˺ OV – The verb √alāku, “to go,” is
I i 9 T 19 tal-lak GIN-ak written syllabically in T.
(^) P15 A
I i 13^2 i 5 MIN gal-a [ z]u dè gal-a SV(1) – The incantation incipit is ab-breviated in A and K.^697
K 1 MIN gal- ˹a˺ (^)
P16 A M 8 1 ii 17 MU-ár MU-ar √OV – Different spelling of the noun zakāru, “to speak,” in A.
N 5 MU-ár
P17 A 1 ii 18 UDU.SISKUR 2 OV – N has a masculine determinative marking the noun
M 8 N 6 UDU.UDU.NITA˹SISKUR 2 .S[ISKUR 2 ˺ (^2) ] √niqû, “offering, sacrifice.”
O 4 UDU.SISKUR 2
P18 A I ii 2 ŠUTUG 1 ii 19 ŠUTUG.MEŠ SV(1) – Difference in number.^698
P19 A I ii 11 BABBAR.BABBAR 1 ii 27 BABBAR.MEŠ OV – Different spelling of the plural adjective √peṣû, “white, pure.”
(^) P20 I iii 14’ (^) an-ki-bi-da-ke
P 6 an-ki-bi-da-kám^4 OV(l) – Possible difference of gram-matical forms or pronunciation.^699
(^697) Manuscript E seems to have contained the full incipit: è-a-zu-dè è-a-zu-dè gal-a, “As you go out, as you
go out, great ...,” abbreviated in the other sources with the use of Wiederholungszeichen: è-a-zu-dè MIN
gal-a, “As you go out, 698 ditto, great ....”
The noun √šutukku, “reed hut,” lacks the plural marker MEŠ in manuscript I, though this is very diffi-
cult to see from the photograph. An inspection of the tablet reveals the sign ŠUTUG is clearly preserved,
followed by a break of two or three signs, then coming out of the break one sees the remains of the sign A.
This would support the reading in C.B.F. Walker and M.B. Dick, Transliteration, Translation, and Com-
mentary, 46, where the plural marker is missing. Indeed, there seems to be insufficient room to restore all
of the text “ŠUTUG.MEŠ ana d é-a” as the parallel sources have it. Context would seem to demand that this
form is read as a defective plural, seeing as the text continues to describe the erection of three thrones to the
deities Ea, Šamaš and Asalluḫi, in the midst of the reed-huts. If the text of tablet I did indicate a single
reed-hut here then the following instructions would make no sense. 699
See also V18 and the note for the variation between the signs KE 4 and KAM. While it is true that here
the signs KE 4 and KÁM vary, the same grammatical observations apply. It might also be said that there is
very little graphical difference between the signs KAM and KÁM.