PHILOLOGICAL COMMENTARY

• As If a City 2 sees this side of the manuscript as the obverse, the omen sequence is different in that edition. The above omen corresponds to the first omen of the Assur recension[1] in If a City 2 (172, *32.1').  Further this side of VAT 10167 and the Sultantepe manuscript SU 1952, 242 no longer duplicate each other as closely as VAT 10167’s obverse did.
• In the available photos of VAT 10167, É is severely broken. Only the two horizontal wedges on the left-hand side of the sign as well as a partial vertical wedge are visible.

While the most recent edition of the Assur manuscripts, KAL 1 (16-17, Rs. 1’ A1’ and 16-17, 73 Rs. 1’), reads and translates line VAT 10167 r 1’ as above, the earlier If a City 2 (194, *32.1' C1’) leaves the broken É uninterpreted, reading x.