this passage to be _Ȧmsu_. In M. Naville’s edition, II, pl. 41, the
name, as written in _Ce_, would seem to be ⁂⁂⁂ _ȧm._ But I
already in _Zeitschr._, 1877 (p. 98) pointed out, that in this
manuscript the last sign ⁂ is at the top of a column, and that at the
foot of the preceding column there is a space where the signs ⁂,
following ⁂⁂ (_as they still do in the next passage_), have been
obliterated. No one from merely looking at M. Naville’s copy would guess
that there was any interval between ⁂ and ⁂.
The god’s name is written ⁂⁂⁂ on a tablet, Denkm. III, 114 i.
And the name is also written ⁂ or ⁂, which are ligatures of ⁂
and ⁂.