Line	Text original	Text translated
o. 1	a-na ⸢zi-nu-u2⸣[individual=Zinû] [qi2]-⸢bi2⸣-<ma>	To Zinû[individual=Zinû], say:
o. 2	um-ma d[utu-ḫa-zi-i]r[individual=Šamaš-ḫāzir]-⸢ma⸣	thus (speaks) Šamaš-ḫāzir[individual=Šamaš-ḫāzir].
o. 3	dutu u3 dn[in.šubur li-ba-al-l]i-ṭu3-ki	May Šamaš and Ilabrat keep you in good health!
o. 4	aš-šum še-e-i[m š]a ⸢a-na u2-ba-al⸣-li2-iṭ
o. 5	in-na-ad-nu a-n[a še-e-i]m ša-a-ti tu-ur-ri
o. 6	ṭup-pu it-ta-[al-k]a-am
o. 7	ṭe-e-em še-e-im ša-⸢a-ti⸣ ša tu-ur-ri
o. 8	u3 ⸢la tu⸣-ur-⸢ri⸣-im
o. 9	am-⸢mi-nim la⸣ ta-aš-pu-ri-im
o. 10	aš-šum ⸢a⸣.[š]a3-lim* ša aš.dub.baki[geogr=Ašdubba]	Regarding the field of Ašdubba[geogr=Ašdubba],
o. 11	⸢iš*?-tu*? ša-at-tum i-zi-bu	since the (grain) season has passed,
o. 12	a.[ša3-lam] ⸢a-na še.giš.i3[glossary=šamaššammū]⸣ li-is-pu-nu[glossary=sapānum]	one should flatten[glossary=sapānum] the field for sesame[glossary=šamaššammū]!
o. 13	⸢u3⸣ [a-na] urura-ka-bat⸢ki [geogr=Rakabat] šu-up⸣-[r]i-ma	Moreover, write to Rakabat[geogr=Rakabat] so that
o. 14	1.0.0⸢gana2⸣ [a.š]a3-lam a-na še.giš.i3
o. 15	[e-pe-ši-im x] ⸢sar li-is⸣-pu-nu
o. 16	[… šu-u]p-ri-ma	[…] write [to …], and
	(Break of one or two lines.)
r. 1'	I*⸢x x x x x um-ma-mi⸣	[…] (spoke) in these terms:
r. 2'	gu4ḫi.a šu-nu-ti ⸢a-na⸣ urura-ka-batki
r. 3'	⸢a-ta-am-ru⸣-um it-ru-šu-nu-ti
r. 4'	gu4ḫi.a ša a-na na[m]-ri-a-tim u2-ša-ri-a-am
r. 5'	am-mi-ni a-na urura-ka-batki ir-du-u2
r. 6'	⸢e⸣-pe-šum an-nu-u2-um i-⸢re⸣-ed-du-u2	Is such a way of doing appropriate?
r. 7'	gu4ḫi.a šu-nu ki-ma aš-pu-ra-a-am
r. 8'	0.0.1 ta.am3 še-a-am ⸢u3 0.0.3?⸣ ta.am3 duḫ
r. 9'	li-ku-lu-u2-ma su2-u2-tam ⸢x i*⸣ ni-pu-ul
r. 10'	gu4ḫi.a ul-lu-tum ša i-⸢ik⸣-ka-lu
r. 11'	⸢la⸣-ab-bu-ma u2-ul ib-ba-la-ka-tu
r. 12'	⸢a-na⸣ e2 u3 ṣu2-ḫa-re-e la te-eg-gi-i	Do not be negligent towards your house and fellows!
r. 13'	ša-al-ma-nu ḫi-ṭu3-um u2-ul i-ba-aš-ši	We are fine; there is no lack.

1. Palaeographical and philological commentary

• Line 1: On Driver’s copy, one can observe signs a-na clearly and the beginning of a zi; at the end of the line, we can see two parallel horizontal signs, which have been interpreted as a malformed sign ma^! [Kraus, Archibab]. But, on the photograph, one can see traces of zi-nu-u2, while the last sign is probably a ne, which can be read bi2. The large oblique in front of the sign ne could be the end of a ki for qi2. If our reading is correct, we must restore the sign ma.
• Line 2: A vertical of a sign ir is visible just before the sign ma.
• Line 4: According to the photography, the sign a2 for iṭ is clear at the end of the line.
• Line 10: Note that the space is reduced on the photograph for the succession of signs še-giš-i3, and traces could correspond to one sign igi, to be read lim as previously proposed by Kraus. In this sense, note that the logogram a.ša3 is also declined in the letter with Akkadian phonetic complements (l. 14).
• Line 11: Fiette’s reading in Archibab of ša-at-tum from Driver’s copy is validated by examining the picture. From the photograph, the two signs before ša-at-tum seem to be iš*-tu*, which fits the context well. Kraus restituted the sign šu at the end of the line, but it does not appear that there is a break after the sign bu.
• Line 14: After the sign u for one buru3, which is clear in the photograph, it looks like the traces are good for a sign gana2 as proposed by Kraus.
• Line 15: We follow here Fiette’s restitution in Archibab.
• Line 1′: The line is very broken on the top, so it is difficult to provide restitution from the picture. It is probably a proper name given the context, especially as a vertical seems perceptible at the very beginning of the line.
• Line 3′: As observed by Fiette in Archibab, the beginning of the line is more a single vertical (maybe for a proper name) than a sign a, but we follow here Kraus‘ proposition failing to achieve a better reading.
• Line 8′: The quantity of bran had been proposed by Kraus that we follow here, although we can hesitate between 2 and 3 ban2 in the light of the photograph.
• Line 9′: Traces are good on the photograph for rendering a sign i before ni-pu-ul, which makes it possible to understand an optative way (i* ni-pu-ul), which corresponds well to the context and the concordance of the tenses in the passage. There is a sign before the i which is very damaged and difficult to read.
• Line 13′: We follow here Sallaberger’s translation(Sallaberger 1999b: 98) (see also his book for other examples).

2. Historical commentary

This letter comes from Šamaš-ḫāzir’s archives and is of particular interest to us because it describes several actions related to sesame cultivation, such as field preparation.

For more details, see Dossier A.1.1.16.