Ashurbanipal 050

1⸢ep^?-šet^? qa^?⸣-ti-šú SIG₅.MEŠ “his good [d]e[e]ds (lit. “[the] good [d]ee[ds of] his hands”)”: The proposed reading is based on the preserved traces. The reading ⸢ep^?⸣-[še^?-e^?]-ti-šú, which is suggested by C.J. Gadd (Stones pp. 179–180) and R. Borger (BIWA p. 298), does not seem to fit the traces on BM 124794, as already noted by R.D. Barnett (Sculptures from the North Palace p. 57). ⸢kiš-šá^?-ti^?⸣ [KUR.KUR^?] “the entiret[y of the lands]”: The reading is tentatively based on the preserved traces. There are two damaged signs visible after KIŠ and probably only two narrow signs missing at the end of the epigraph (as suggested by the proposed restorations in lines 2–3).

2[^mum-man-al]-⸢daš^? LUGAL⸣.MEŠ “[Ummanalda]šu (Ḫumban-ḫaltaš III), kings of”: The first preserved sign of the line appears to be the end of the UR sign (read as daš), thus representing the last sign of the Elamite royal name ^mum-man-al-daš “Ummanaldašu (Ḫumban-ḫaltaš III).” Contrary to previous editions, there is only one sign missing between the first preserved sign and the MEŠ sign: This is a badly damaged LUGAL sign. Because the captured Ummanaldašu is mentioned together with Tammaritu and Paʾê in text no. 11 (Prism A) x 17 and text no. 23 (IIT) line 99, as well as text no. 59 (Nabû Inscription) lines 6–7 and text no. 60 (Mullissu Inscription) lines 6–7, those two deposed Elamite rulers were probably also mentioned in this epigraph and, therefore, the names of all three men are restored here. If the restoration proves correct, then probably all three Elamite rules were depicted in the scene to which BM 124794 belongs.

3[i]-⸢zi⸣-zu-ma “[they sto]od and”: Or possibly [iz]-⸢zi⸣-zu-ma.