1The translation assumes that the lacuna and obv. 1´ contained a-na-ku ^mAN.ŠÁR-DÙ-A MAN KUR aš-šur.KI šá AN.ŠÁR u ^d15 ṣe-er ga-re-e-šú ú-šá-zi-zu-šú “I, Ashurbanipal, king of Assyria, whom (the god) Aššur and the goddess Ištar made stand over his foes”; see text no. 175 iii 1´–2´.

2The join of Rm 926 with K 4457+ makes it clear that the subject of this epigraph is Ummanigaš and not Indabibi; compare Weidner, AfO 8 (1932–33) pp. 196–197 including n. 95. For this episode in the prism inscriptions, compare, for example, text no. 3 (Prism B) vi 86–vii 33a.

3in-nab-⸢ta^? ú^?-ru^?-uḫ^? KUR tam⸣-tim “he fled (on) the road to the Sealand”: G. Smith’s copy in 3 R pl. 37 has in-nab-ta ú-ru-uḫ^*-ḫi^* tam-tim “he fled (on) the road to the sea” (with the uḫ^*-ḫi^* given as ḪI plus a sign that is similar to BÚR; his transliteration of this line is in G. Smith, Assurbanipal p. 192) without any indication of damage, while A. Leeper’s copy in CT 35 pl. 24 has in-nab-ta iṣ-ba-ta ú-ru-uḫ KUR tam-tim “he fled (and) took the road to the Sealand,” also without any indication of damage. R. Borger (BIWA p. 315) suggested the latter copy was influenced by text no. 179 obv.? 2´, which has the verb iṣ-ba-ta “took,” and he thus excluded it from his transliteration of the present text arguing that he sees no possibility of how this word could fit into the line. Upon collation, although the traces on the second half of the line are difficult to construe (see the commentary), Borger’s assessment seems accurate, so the edition here follows Smith’s earlier copy and does not include iṣ-ba-ta.

4ni-qí-il-⸢pa-a la^? ti⸣-šú-u “it did not have (a way) to sail on”: Contrary to G. Smith’s and A. Leeper’s copies, the traces at the beginning of this line conform with the reading ni-qí-il-[...] from the parallel account in text no. 179 obv.? 6´. The reading of ⸢la^?⸣ “not” follows E. Weidner’s suggestion in AfO 8 (1932–33) p. 198.

5For this line, G. Smith’s copy in 3 R pl. 37 has ú-[...] ⸢DIŠ⸣-še-rib^*(copy: KID)-šú qé-reb GI LAGAB.MEŠ [x x] ŠE followed by two oddly shaped signs, which he rendered as ú-par-ri-[x]-uš^? ú-še-rib-šú qé-reb GI.LAGAB.MEŠ a-na bu-ri-šú-nu and translated “he placed him on, he caused him to enter into the reeds. For their food” in G. Smith, Assurbanipal p. 193. R. Borger (BIWA p. 315) suggested that Smith’s GI.LAGAB.MEŠ “reeds” could possibly be read as GI.AMBAR^?.MEŠ “marshes” and that his ŠE plus final odd signs are consistent with bu-ri-šú-nu “their hunger.” A. Leeper’s copy in CT 35 pl. 24 has ú-par-ri-x x ⸢ú⸣-še-rib-šú ⸢qé-reb⸣ [...]-⸢ri-šú-nu⸣. With the exception of the first word of this line, the parallel epigraph in text no. 179 obv.? 9´–10´a confirms most of these readings as it contains ú-še-⸢ti^?⸣-[iq^? ... ú]-še-rib-šú qé-reb [GI.AMBAR.MEŠ^?] / a-na bu-⸢ri⸣-[šú-nu ...]. Unfortunately, this line of K 4457+ is effaced and damaged to such a degree (see the commentary) that it is now impossible to decipher anything past the first few signs of the line with any certainty. Despite this difficulty, many of the traces of the line could conform generally to the readings provided by the earlier copies and the parallel account even though a full transliteration of the line cannot be supplied. Thus, the translation tentatively incorporates that evidence and treats the line as ú-par-ri-ir ú-še-rib-šú qé-reb GI.AMBAR^?.MEŠ a-na bu-ri-šú-nu “He broke through ... (and) made him (Tammarītu) enter the marshes. On account of their hunger” The verb ú-par-ri-ir at the beginning of the line follows Weidner, AfO 8 (1932–33) p. 198.

6⸢in^?-nab^?⸣-[tú^?]-⸢ma^?⸣ “fl[ed] and”: G. Smith’s copy in 3 R pl. 37 has IB-BAL-⸢KID^?⸣, which he transliterated as ip-pal and translated as “fell” in G. Smith, Assurbanipal p. 193. E. Weidner (AfO 8 [1932–33] p. 198) treated these signs as ip-pal-[si-ḫu], and translated “niederstür[zte].” A. Leeper’s copy in CT 35 pl. 25 records only traces of two partial horizontal wedges, followed by a possible vertical wedge after a bit of space; this is much closer to what is on the tablet today. The signs at the end of the line are here tentatively read as in-nab-tú-ma “fled and,” given that this is the verb that appears in the parallel passage in text no. 179 obv.? 12´ and that the few traces on this tablet conform with such a reading. However, as a caveat, it is possible that there is room for an additional verb after ^min-da-bi-bi “Indabibi” in text no. 179 obv.? 11´ that could be whatever the damaged verb is here, with this text then lacking in-nab-tú-ma (see the on-page note to text no. 179 obv.? 11´–12´).

7x x [x x] x-ma “<who> [had turned hostil]e towa[rds him] and”: M. Streck (Asb. pp. 338–339) read the line as ša it-ti-šú [im-da-ḫi-ṣu^?]-ma “der mit ihm [kämpfte?] und,” but E. Weidner (AfO 8 [1932–33] p. 199 n. 114) ruled out such a restoration in the break due to lack of space. Weidner made no attempt to restore a verb, but said the meaning behind Streck’s restoration is probably correct. R. Borger (BIWA p. 316) read the line as ⸢ša^?⸣ [it-ti-šú ik-ki^?]-⸢ru^?⸣-ma (“who [had turned hostil]e [towards him] and”) based on the appearance of the verb ik-ki-ru “turned hostile” in text no. 3 (Prism B) viii 33. Although Borger pointed out that space is limited, there is still not enough room for even his reading in the break. Based on text no. 174 rev. 5´, which begins the line ^mtam-ma-ri-tú <ša^?> it-ti-šú [...] “Tammarītu, <who> [...] towards him,” it might be possible to read ⸢^m⸣tam-ma-ri-⸢tú⸣ <ša^?> ⸢it^?-ti^?⸣-[šú x] x-ma “Tammarīt[u], <who> [...] towa[rds him] and,” assuming that the omission of ša in text no. 174 is not a scribal error that is limited to that text, but an unmarked relative clause in this particular epigraph. However, the traces of the first x appear to favor ša over it, and even this slightly shorter reading would leave little room for any verb in the break.

8[ik^?]-⸢lu^?⸣-u “[had detain]ed”: The restoration at the beginning of the line is based on text no. 3 (Prism B) vii 26–27.

9[^mx]-NU-NU/BAD^? “[...]-NU-NU/BAD”: E. Weidner (AfO 8 [1932–33] pp. 200–201 with n. p) restored the beginning of the line as [^mum-man-am]-nu “[Ummanam]nu,” with a note saying that the second NU is a duplication, or possibly that the first NU is the end of ⸢AM⸣. However, there is certainly not enough room in the break to restore this name given that there is only room for one sign besides {DIŠ}, the masculine determinative of the personal name. A trace of said sign is possibly visible; the bottom point of a winkelhaken or an oblique wedge appears to be protruding from the break and touching the horizontal ruling underneath the head of the first NU sign. In any case, it is unclear how to construe the name. Apparently, the epigraph contains the name of an as yet unattested son of Ummanappa.

10[^m]um-man-ap-pi^* “Ummanappa”: The pi lacks its final horizontal wedge, and thus looks like the UD sign.

11The line is indented about one-third of the way onto the tablet, beginning under the GAR₈ sign of É.GAR₈.MEŠ “walls” from the previous line.