| | Bennett 1992, p. 111; Smith 1992-1993, p. 228 and fig. 21; Bennett 1996-1997, p. 138-140. |
|
| + 433 + 1058 + 1154: PTT, p. 180;
|
|
| + fr.: Melena 1992-1993a, p. 78;
|
|
| + frr. (4): Melena 1992-1993b, p. 314;
|
|
| + fr.: Melena 1994-1995b, p. 278.
|
| .2
| wi-ja-ni-jo over erasure; ⸤5[: 4 units preserved and a fifth discernible in the break; ⟦ro⟧ after -ro₂.
|
| .3
| da-ṃạ-so (Bennett 1992, p. 111) almost certain.
|
| .4
| The erased area begins under 6.
|
| .5
| qe-ṭọ-ro-no: cf. line .13.
|
| .7
| [L 1]: by calculation of the sum.
|
| .11
| tu-ri-ja-[•]: tu-ri-ja-j̣ọ (PTT) not entirely compelling.
|
| .15
| vacat: in the middle of this line a deep scoring was made for the separation of the two parts, followed by a « repair » (one fragment at the right end apparently retained the original connection when found); note that all this followed the ruling of line .16, but preceded the inscription of its text.
|
| .16
| -pe-ke-e , -ke- , po-ti-ni- and -ra- clearly inscribed after the « repair ».
|
| .24
| me-ri-wa-ṭạ not excluded.
|
| .25-26
| Over erasure.
|