Elath (Tell el-Kheleifeh) reg. no. 2070

CV1: The M and S are clear and in the IR photographs so too is the ˀ. A name ending in -MSˀ is unknown to me in Aramaic or Phoenician. Compare North Arabian inscriptions in which is found ms¹ˀ (Saf. and Taym.) as well as a number of divine epithets in which a various spellings of ms# = √msˀ "to approach, to reach" are found. One is also tempted to compare the Aramaic name NMSW, where final û/ô of the period may be represented in Phoenician with ˀ. Divito's proposal ˁBDMS◦ is compelling, but would currently be unexplanable from an onomastic point of view. CV3, note (1) the stroke at the end of the line is the descender of N from the previous line and (2) the stroke at the beginning of the line is the ascender of the L from the proceeding line. The first three letters are not ˁBD as Divito reads, not least of which because the initial ink rises from the L in the next line. What he reads as B is certainly either M or T, the two of which can often be confused in mid-millennium cursive Phoenician. The second letter has two distinct strokes, unlike a D|R. It seems best to be read as either a slightly effaced M or G--paleographically, G is preferred. The best solution is either MGŠLM or TGŠLM. Of them MGŠLM seems the easiest to explain as coming from MGN (mġn) + ŠLM, though compare the Cypriotic name TGNṢ, which is left unexplained (Benz p. 428 of KAI 55).