1Because the faint traces of this line were overlooked and not included in the print version of this text, the line count of the obverse of the updated edition differs from the 2011 edition by one line; obv. 2´–22´ correspond to obv. 1´–21´ of RINAP 4.

2URU [šu-bat-su eš-re-e-ti-šu] “the city, [its dwelling(s), (and) its shrines]”: The restoration is conjectural and is based in part on text no. 114 (Babylon) ii 3–4. Note that there may be a word missing in Babylon D between šu-bat-su and eš-re-e-ti-šu since there is room to restore a few signs at the end of ii 3; see fig. 8 on p. 233. Compare text no. 104 (Babylon A) i 41–42, which has URU šu-bat-su “the city (and) its dwellings,” and text no. 105 (Babylon C) ii 4–5, which has a-lam eš-re-e-ti-šú “the city (and) its shrines.” It is unclear what should be restored between URU and A.MEŠ in this inscription.

3DINGIR.⸢MEŠ⸣ [(ù ^d15.MEŠ)] “the gods [(and goddesses)”: It is uncertain if this text had only DINGIR.MEŠ, just like text no. 104 (Babylon A), or if it also had (ù) ^d15.MEŠ, like text no. 105 (Babylon C) and text no. 114 (Babylon D); compare text nos. 104 i 43–44, 105 ii 8–9, and 114 ii 6–7.

4The exclamation aḫulap is used in the same manner as text no. 2 (Nineveh B) iii 30; for further details, see the note to text no. 2 iii 30.

5Some of the restorations in these lines are conjectural, although they are generally based on other inscriptions of Esarhaddon recording building activities in Babylon. The distribution of text in rev. 4–8, esp. rev. 5–6, is uncertain since both the beginning and ends of these lines are missing. The distribution of the contents of these lines have been adjusted slightly from the 2011 print version. These changes are based on further examination of the tablet by J. Novotny from the original and photographs. Nevertheless, the proposed text distribution in these lines still remains conjectural, as do the suggested restorations. See the on-page notes to rev. 2, 4, and 5b–6a.

6It is uncertain if there is sufficient space to restore mut-tan-bi-ṭu pa-ri-is EŠ.BAR KUR URI.KI “the giver of decisions on Akkad.” It is possible that this epithet of the planet Jupiter was not included in this inscription, as it is in later texts.

7The proposed restoration of the 2011 print version of this text, which followed Borger (Asarh. p. 17) — ni-pi-iḫ-šú ki-ma ni-pi-iḫ ^dUTU ga-mir DINGIR.MEŠ ze-nu-ti it-ti KUR URI.KI is-li-mu “its rising was as complete as the rising sun. The angry gods were reconciled with Akkad” — was conjectural, not based on the contents of other inscriptions of Esarhaddon, and exceeded the expected amount of space missing at the beginning of the line (compare, for example, the suggested restorations for rev. 7–12, 14–15, and 20). For these reasons, the restorations at the beginning of rev. 3 have been deleted.

8⸢i^?⸣-[na KI.TUŠ-šu i-kun] “[stayed] i[n its place]”: The restoration is conjectural and is more or less based on text no. 104 (Babylon A) ii 40b–41a and text no. 105 (Babylon C) iii 18. Alternatively, following text no. 48 (Aššur-Babylon A) line 57, ⸢i^?⸣-[kun šub-tu-uš-šú] is also possible.

9The proposed restoration is conjectural and appears to exceed the expected amount of space missing at the end of rev. 5 and beginning of rev. 6. Because this text (Babylon B) is one of the earliest of Esarhaddon’s inscriptions, it is possible that it did not contain ud-du-uš DINGIR.MEŠ “the renewing of the gods,” as it does in the much later text no. 48 (Aššur-Babylon A; line 60).

10Based on further examination of this passage in this text, text no. 104 (Babylon A; iii 32–34a), and text no. 105 (Babylon C; iv 26–28), it is likely that this line should be read as [ina GIŠ.Ù.ŠUB.MEŠ GIŠ.MES.MÁ.KAN].⸢NA⸣ a-na né-ri-šá ⸢ú⸣-šal-bi-na li-bit-tuš “I had its bricks made for a whole year [in brickmolds of musukkan]nu-wood.” The reading of rev. 13 in the 2011 print version of RINAP 4 — [ina GIŠ.Ù.ŠUB.MEŠ ZÚ AM.SI GIŠ.ESI GIŠ.TÚG GIŠ.MES.MÁ.KAN].NA AD.ME.KÁR a-na né-ri-šá ú-šal-bi-na libit-tuš “I had its bricks made for a whole year [in brickmolds of ivory, ebony, boxwood, (and) musukkannu]-wood” — was more or less based on text no. 106 (Babylon E) iii 29–36 and text no. 114 (Babylon D) iv 12–15. Moreover, although it is difficult to gauge, it seems unlikely that there is sufficient space for the restoration that was proposed in the print version of RINAP 4; compare, for example, the suggested restorations for rev. 7–12, 14–15, and 20.

11The proposed restoration of im-gur-^dEN.LÍL BÀD-šú GAL-a “Imgur-Enlil, its great wall” at the beginning of the line has been deleted. It is unlikely that this text included a report of work on Babylon’s wall. Therefore, rev. 17–19 probably continue the narration of work on the foundations of Esagil.

12⸢NA₄⸣.ṣa-lam-ti “basalt”: The list of materials used for foundation inscriptions in text no. 110 (iii 1´–2´) also ends with ṣallamtu. Compare the long lists of stones (and clay) in text nos. 104 (Babylon A) vii 4–10a, 105 (Babylon C) iv 21–26, 106 (Babylon E) vi 2–14 and 107 (Babylon F) ix 14´–24´. It is uncertain if anything should be restored between NA₄.NA.RÚ.A.MEŠ “foundation inscriptions” and ⸢NA₄⸣.ṣa-lam-ti “basalt.”

13The new readings are based on collation, as well as comparison with parallel passages in other inscriptions, especially text nos. 104 (Babylon A) and 105 (Babylon C). Note that there is not sufficient space to restore áš-tak-[ka-na si-ma-a]-te “I pl[aced what was befitt]ing,” as suggested in the 2011 print version (which was based on a suggestion of R. Borger). lem: X; X

14[pel-lu]-de-e-šú “its [ritu]als”: Following J. Novotny (SAAB 19 [2011–2012] p. 48 no. 29), the proposed restoration [ki-du]-de-e-šú has been changed to [pel-lu]-de-e-šú since pelludû appears elsewhere in the Esarhaddon corpus, whereas kidudû does not. lem: X; X; X