^{page 131 note 1} Perhaps a scribal error for GIŠ.

^{page 131 note 2} IGI. MU. A name Ši-mu seems unlikely, but MU for -ia is rare.

^{page 131 note 3} UD.13.KAM. See Thureau-Dangin, in R.A., XXXI, 192–3Google Scholar; Goetze, in J.N.E.S., V, 187–8Google Scholar, n. 13.

^{page 132 note 1} Literally ‘for a supplementary payment’ for napālu means ‘to make up a difference” (see Landsberger, , Ana Ittišu 227Google Scholar, and San Nicoló-Ungnad, Neubabylonische Rechts- und Verwaltungsurkunden, glossary). A similar phrase ana napāli imḫur occurs in K.A.J., no. 129, 12. In the present passage the use of the construct, indicating a close connexion with the following words, renders the meaning peculiarly obscure.

^{page 132 note 2} Perhaps the text may be amended to read simply ‘gardens.’

^{page 132 note 3} Or perhaps ‘in the eighth year of the stewardship of Uballiṭsu-Gula,’ on the analogy of the common formula for the regnal year.

^{page 132 note 4} NIM.MA.KI.

_{page 132 note 5} A.RA.ZU.GIŠ.TUK.

^{page 133 note 1} A change of subject seems to be required here; for in the first place it seems unlikely that the mayor, having ‘given’ the fugitive to the steward, would then ‘assign’ him to another person, and secondly the fetter would most probably be issued by the temple official rather than the mayor.

^{page 133 note 2} Cf. ana itti šu 2, iv, 11: šir-šir-ra-ta (URUDU. ŠÌR. ŠÌR) i-pa-su ‘enclosed him (in) a fetter,’ which exhibits the same double accusative as here. The translation is an attempt to render the ideogram URUDU.MURUB. ŠÌR. ŠÌR, literally ‘a fetter for the middle.’ On the whole phrase, see Landsberger, , Ana Ittišu, 137Google Scholar.

^{page 133 note 3} For this meaning of sanāqu see Koschaker, , Bürgschaftsrecht, 72–3Google Scholar, and Torczyner, , Altbabylonische Tempelrechnungen 125Google Scholar.

^{page 133 note 4} KI AD.A.NI. Cf. text no. 5.

^{page 133 note 5} These signs appear on the reverse of the tablet. It is not certain to which line they belong.

^{page 133 note 6} Possibly two signs SAL KAM.

^{page 134 note 1} AN.TA.DUL.

^{page 134 note 2} MU.GI.NA.

^{page 134 note 3} Ì. ŠAM.E.

^{page 134 note 4} Some writing seems to have been accidentally erased here, but there is hardly room for il-qi in the last line.

^{page 134 note 5} Presumably the same person as Lultamel-ili (lines 3, 27), who is the bride's father. But the variable form of the name is very strange. Iltamel-ili may be thought to have some connexion with the name Ilta(m)meš found in documents of the Neo-Babylonian period and discussed by Thureau-Dangin, in R.A., XXXVIII, 98 (a reference for which I am indebted to Mr. Gadd)Google Scholar; but Lultamel-ili looks more like a variant of Lu-uš-ta-bil(?)-ili (Ungnad, , V.A.B., VI, 183, 6)Google Scholar.

^{page 135 note 1} zununnû from zanānu ‘maintain, care for.’ The word is to be added to those discussed by Soden, W. Von, in Orientalia, 1946, 423–6Google Scholar, and in Symbolœ … P. Koschaker Dedicatœ, pp. 199-207.

^{page 135 note 2} On takmesu, see Langdon, in R.A., XXXIV, 75Google Scholar, n. 1, and Holma, in Orientalia, 1944, 109 fGoogle Scholar. The present passage shows that it must be an animal, since it is parallel to immeru.

^{page 136 note 1} The text reads ‘I maššiktu of kizzu’; but the word kizzu is fairly common, and occurs always either as the name of a garment (e.g., B.H., XIV, 157: 51, 91Google Scholar; U.M.B.S. II (2), 54: 7; 127: 17; 142: 2)Google Scholar, or in the genitive with naḫlaptu, as in our text no. 7, line 15. According to Bezold, Glossar, it is an attachment to a garment; but it seems unlikely that it should be measurable in terms of seah like grain. The present text is carelessly written, and it seems possible that PI is a mistake for TUG.

^{page 136 note 2} The text seems to be in disorder here. The word ‘received’ in line 13 is incomplete, but the word is inserted superfluously at the end of line 15. The above translation must render the sense intended.

^{page 136 note 3} Scribal error for -di.

^{page 136 note 4} The tablet appears to have ⅓, but the figures require ⅔.

^{page 136 note 5} ININNI.GIŠ.TUK (Ištar ašarittu ?) is the goddess of Dûr-Kurigalzu. See Clay, , Morgan, IV, no. 25, l. 19Google Scholar.

^{page 137 note 1} GÛ.È.

^{page 137 note 2} Hardly egirrû ‘message’ in this context.

^{page 137 note 3} SISKUR.

^{page 137 note 4} Apparently 53, but this is 3 too many.

^{page 137 note 5} See above on text no. 5, line 10.

^{page 138 note 1} SAL+KU.A.NI. The sign is not DAM ‘wife’ In obv. 22 we find SAL+KU.A.NI GAL ‘his elder sister.’

^{page 138 note 2} Assuming the last word of the line to be aš-bat.

^{page 139 note 1} This sign can hardly be anything but ZI, though the form is unique and the word napištu does not occur elsewhere, so far as I know, in this phrase. The sign may be understood as a variant of that listed by Fossey (no. 6394) for the time of Ammizaduga (and by Labat, Manuel d'Épîgraphie Akkadienne, for the Middle Babylonian period), in which the second clement of the sign is the normal form of KUR, whereas here this clement has the Kassite form used elsewhere in this text.

^{page 139 note 2} The traces preclude a verb in the 3 pl., and in fact ḫurat ḫirana is treated as sing, in 21 ff. below.

^{page 139 note 3} The restorations in this and the following lines are conjectural.

^{page 139 note 4} The sign is largely destroyed, but this must be the correct reading in view of the association of Mari with Suḫi in the stele of Šamaš-rêš-uṣur (Weissbach, Babylonische Miscellen, no. IV) and with Ḫana in the inscription of Tukulti-Ninura, I, K.A.H .II, no. 60, iii, 69Google Scholar (Luckenbill, , Ancient Records, I § 166)Google Scholar, and in the annals of Aššur-bêl-kala (apud Weidner, , Analecta Orientalin XII, 337–8)Google Scholar. The name of Mari continued in use after the destruction of the city as a name for the district over which the city had once ruled.

^{page 139 note 5} Written over erasure.

^{page 139 note 6} Literally: ‘as the scapegoat of my lord may I walk.’ See Speiser, in Symbolœ … Koschaker Dedicatœ, p. 149Google Scholar.

^{page 139 note 7} This should be a statement ‘it is well’ but if the reading ZI ‘soul’ is correct, šulmu must here stand for lû šulmu. The line is a crux.

^{page 139 note 8} The Hirānu were an Aramaean tribe; see M.V.A.G., 1906, 3, 25Google Scholar.

^{page 139 note 9} Cf. (al)Ha-sa-me in Johns, , Doomsday Book, no. 1, II 32Google Scholar (Schiffer, , Die Aramäer, p. 63)Google Scholar, and (mat)Ḫa-sa-mu in the Monolith Inscription of Shalmaneser III.

^{page 140 note 1} Hardly [ina ma]ḫ-ri-i ‘formerly,’ since this would cquire ašpur rather than altapra.

^{page 140 note 2} See Gelb, Hurrians and Subarianst passim.

^{page 141 note 1} U.M.B.S. I (2), no. 50; see Waschow, , Babylonische Briefe aus der Kassitenzeit (M.A.O.G. X, 1), 55–6Google Scholar.

^{page 141 note 2} This sense is attested for sanāqu, II, 1, only, but none of the known meanings of sanāqu, I, 1 (assuming that a-sá-an-qa belongs to this verb) is suitable here.

^{page 141 note 3} Apparently ‘shepherd’!

^{page 141 note 4} In the Early Babylonian period ḫarāşu certainly means ‘deduct; see San Nicoló-Ungnad, op. cit., p. 102, where the same sense is inferred for the Neo-Babylonian phrase ana šîmi ḫaris. But this meaning is unsuitable in the present passage. A similar use of ḫaraşu with kima occurs in Virolleaud, , Sin, III 136Google Scholar: kima attāli ta-ḫar-ra-aş ‘thou shalt reckon (the omen) like an eclipse.’