Tiglath-pileser III 20

1⸢LÚ⸣.qu-[ra-di-šú] “[his] war[riors]”: According to the copy in Layard, MS A, there is not sufficient space available for this restoration. With regard to lines 3´–8´, the restoration of damaged text is based on a similar topos in Sargon II’s Eighth Campaign Inscription (TCL 3 lines 135–138).

2[a-lik] pa-ni-šu “his [lead]ers”: The restoration was suggested by J. Novotny. Cf. Tadmor, Tigl. III p. 78, which restores [manzaz] pānīšu. However, [a-lik] pa-ni-šu is more likely in this military context.

3[x] x: x looks like PAP (perhaps napḫar) or MAŠ. Rost emended the text to [...]-nu. ⸢ANŠE⸣.[GÌR.NUN.NA].⸢MEŠ⸣-[šú-nu LÚ.mun]-⸢daḫ⸣-ṣe-šu “[their] mul[es], his [war]riors”: Instead of ⸢x₂⸣ [...] ⸢LÚ⸣ in Tadmor, Tigl. III (p. 78); see text no. 19 line 4.

4-⸢ši^*⸣: Or perhaps -⸢aš^*⸣. The sign in Layard, MS A looks like MAŠ. -⸢ṣab^*⸣-: Layard, MS A has BI; the sign was not copied in Rawlinson, Notebook 1.

5za*-: Rawlinson, Notebook 1 erroneously has a-. 40.ÀM 5 UD.MEŠ “for forty-five days”: So in both Layard, MS A and Rawlinson, Notebook 1. The ÀM of 40.ÀM probably indicates the long a in erbâ, like the distributive a₄ in Neo-Babylonian arḫâ (see CAD A/2 p. 255).

6[...]-nu <ṣip>-: Rost emended nu to ṣip. ul*: Both Layard, MS A and Rawlinson, Notebook 1 have ṢUR; the vertical wedge of the UL sign was apparently omitted by the scribe on the original.

7[x x]-ḫa-a-da-ra: This birthplace of Raḫiānu (Rezin) is otherwise unknown. Tadmor (Tigl. III p. 80) suggested the conjectural restoration [URU.É]-ḫa-a-da-ra “[the city Bīt]-Ḫādara.”

8[a]-⸢šar⸣ iʾ-al-du “[the pl]ace where he was born”: Not [a-šar] i-ʾa-al-du, as transliterated by Rost.

9-at*: Both Layard, MS A and Rawlinson, Notebook 1 have -la; one of the horizontal wedges of the AD sign must have been omitted by the scribe on the original.

105 ME 91 “591”: So Rawlinson, Notebook 1. The number in Layard, MS A is garbled, having 5 ME 60+⸢ŠE^?⸣+1; ⸢ŠE^?⸣ is clearly a mistake for 30.

11-ma DUL: Rawlinson’s copy erroneously erased -ma and the left half of DUL by placing crossmarks across both signs (after he had copied them once), and then kept the right half of DUL, which he took as -ma (a sort of haplography). ú-: The sign is ú- according to Rawlinson, Notebook 1; both Layard, MS A and Layard, ICC erroneously have É+TAB.

12-a*-: The sign is -a- according to Rawlinson, Notebook 1; Layard, MS A erroneously has -za-. The DIŠ sign copied in Layard, MS A (Tigl. III, pl. XX) actually belongs to the next unit of the Annals, text no. 21 (see the commentary to that text).