The analysis of Deutsch and Heltzer goes astray here. They read this clause as zy dsûrn’ and render the final part as “at the Sharon (plain or area),” explaining d- as “the particle expressing in this case the relation to the place” (p. 83). This is puzzling, but I’m afraid they are thinking of later Aramaic d-, which can have such a meaning. But this would be phonologically incompatible with the preceding zy (the older form, from which d- developed!) and therefore impossible. Moreover, the photograph shows that the sign in question has a clearly curved stem; it is not dalet but bet. Hence, the clause is zy bsûrn’, which clearly and elegantly means “who is/are in the Sharon.”