1[...] li a a [...]: One could tentatively read this passage as [URU.ki-na]-li-a a-[na eš-šu-ti aṣ-bat] “[I reorganized the city Kina]lia (Kunalua)”; see text no. 12 line 11´.

2-ma: So Layard, MS A; both Layard, ICC p. 65 and 3 R pl. 9 no. 3 have GAL. -ṣa-: So Layard, MS A and Layard, ICC p. 65; 3 R pl. 9 no. 3 has -⸢qa⸣-. ad-: So Layard, MS A and Layard, ICC p. 65; 3 R pl. 9 no. 3 has ia-. [... ú]-ṣab-bit-ma [...]-ṣa-ti ad-[...] “[I] seized and [...] ... [...]”: N. Naʾaman (Tel Aviv 22/2 [1995] p. 276) suggests reading the line as [... ú]-ṣab-bit-ma ina^! [bi-ra]-a^!-ti ad-[di-šú-nu-ti] “[...] I seized and I pl[aced them in fet]ters.” Naʾaman interprets the GAL copied by G. Smith in 3 R pl. 9 no. 3 as two signs, ma and ina. G. Smith (3 R pl. 9 no. 3) read this same passage as [... ú]-ṣab-bit GAL x ⸢qa⸣-ti-ia “Azriyau my hand greatly captured” (Assyrian Disc. p. 276 line 12). Rost (Tigl. pl. XXI) proposed the reading É.GAL ⸢LUGAL⸣-ti-ia (“my royal palace”), thus taking the ṣa of Layard, ICC p. 65 as the end of the LUGAL sign.

3-at-: So 3 R pl. 9 no. 3; both Layard, MS A and Layard, ICC p. 65 have -la-. The restoration of damaged text at the end of the line follows Rost, Tigl. p. 20 line 124; see Tadmor, Tigl. III p. 58, the note to this line.

4URU.kur^?-x “the city Kur...”: Rost (Tigl. p. 20 line 125) read the signs as URU.kul-[la-ni] “the city Kul[lani].” [...]-⸢lu⸣: Or [...]-⸢kin⸣. URU.el-[...] “the city El[...]”: Layard, ICC p. 65 omits the first part of the EL sign, thus creating MÁ; hence URU.má- in 3 R pl. 9 no. 3 and G. Smith, Assyrian Disc. p. 276. N. Naʾaman (BASOR 334 [2004] p. 34) restored the name of the city as El[lišu].

5[URU.us-nu]-u “[the city Usn]û”: 3 R pl. 9 no. 3 has URU.us-nu-u all in bold type, which indicates that the text was restored by G. Smith; that restoration may have been based on text no. 43 ii 18. URU.⸢ma⸣-[...]: Probably URU.⸢ma⸣-[ʾa-ra-ba-a] “the city Ma[ʾarabâ],” which is mentioned in text no. 42 line 3´. Alternatively, N. Naʾaman (BASOR 334 [2004] p. 34) suggests URU.⸢SAG^?⸣-[ṣu^?-ri^?] “the city R[ēš-ṣūri].” a-di KUR.sa-ú-e KUR-e “as far as Mount Saue”: Text no. 30 begins here; that text is used to restore damaged text in this Annals unit, up to URU.a-ra-a (“the city Arâ”) in line 7.

6-pu-ni: Text no. 30 line 1 has -⸢pu-ú⸣-[ni]. ⸢KUR.am-ma⸣-[na]-na “Mount Amma[nā]na”: The full name appears in text no. 46 line 23 and text no. 47 rev. 26´. It has been discussed if this mountain is to be identified with the Anti-Lebanon (Tadmor, Tigl. III p. 61), Jabal an-Nusairiya (Helsinki Atlas), or the Amanus (Zadok, NABU 1996 no. 17); see also Bagg, Rép. Géogr. 7/1 pp. 8–9 sub Ammanāna. A. Bagg (SAAB 15 [2006] pp. 184–192) has persuasively argued that Ammanāna is to be identified with the northern part of the Anti-Lebanon. KUR-e “mountain”: The restoration is based on line 5, which is restored from text no. 30 line 1; text no. 30 line 2 has space for both of these signs at the end of that line. URU.kar-^dIŠKUR “the city Kār-Adad”: G. Smith’s copy of text no. 30 line 3 has a winkelhaken after IŠKUR. This wedge, however, is missing in 3 R pl. 9 no. 3; moreover, no wedges/signs are preserved after IŠKUR on BM 118899 + BM 118900 (collation by A. Shaffer).

7⸢KUR^?⸣.[ḫa]-su^*-[at-ti a]-di “the land [Ḫa]su[atti, to]gether with”: The restoration, which follows N. Naʾaman (NABU 2007 p. 2 no. 2), is based on text no. 35 ii 10´, where ⸢KUR.ḫa⸣-su-at-ti and KUR.ṭu-ri-na-qa-di-na (which is probably identical with Nuqudina in the Annals) are also mentioned together. Based on this same parallel, text no. 30 line 4 should be read as KUR.ḫa-su-[at-ti], not as KUR.ḫa-su (Tadmor, Tigl. III p. 88). Oddly, however, G. Smith’s eclectic text (worksheet for 3 R pl. 9 no. 3 [reproduced in Tadmor, Tigl. III pl. XXVII] line d) has KUR.ḫa-su KUR.[...]; the source of the second KUR remains unclear. ...-ni ki-lal-li-šu-nu “[...] ... both sides of them”: Text no. 31 begins here; that text is used to restore damaged text in this Annals unit up to áš-kun (“I placed”) in line 11. Kilallīšunu (“both”) refers to a dual or twin phenomenon, and not to a plural form. It would appear that another toponym (ending in -ni) should be restored after URU.a-ra-a or that the text refers to twin cities of Arâ, “greater” and “lesser” Arâ, as in the case of Sidon. If this proves correct, then -ni should be emended to TUR. J. Lewy (Orientalia NS 21 [1952] p. 420 n. 3) restores [É BÀD.MEŠ]-ni (“[fortress]es”) here.

8-⸢ḫir^*-ti^*⸣-[šú-nu]: The reading -⸢ḫir^*-ti^*⸣- is based on text no. 31 line 2; Layard, MS A has an unintelligible ME-AN and no space to restore -šú-nu.

9URU.x-(x)-ri “the city ...ri”: Rost, Tigl. pl. XXI has URU.[x-(x)]-ri. One could tentatively read this passage as ⸢ša⸣ [ku]-tal (“that are [be]hind”), which appears in line 19 and in text no. 39 line 28; however, this restoration does not fit the context of the passage. [URU.el]-⸢li-tar⸣-[bi] “[the city El]litar[bi]”: Text no. 31 line 4 has -ta-ar-bi. However, in 3 R pl. 9 no. 3, three hatched and unintelligible signs appear after URU.⸢a-ti⸣-in-ni (“the city Atinnu”); these are perhaps traces of another toponym (so also G. Smith, Assyrian Disc. p. 276 line 9). After he had copied the text of text no. 31 from a paper squeeze into his notebook (see below, text no. 31), G. Smith apparently found another tiny squeeze fragment (now lost) with traces of signs; he placed that line in his copy in 3 R pl. 9 no. 3. URU.bu-ma-me “the city Bumame”: The copy of text no. 31 line 5 in Rawlinson, Notebook 2 has URU.bu-ma-a-me (“the city Bumāme”). M. Weippert (ZDPV 89 [1973] p. 42 n. 61) suggests emending the text to URU.bu-ta-me (“the city Butame”), as such a toponym is attested in Unqi.

10-šu-: Text no. 31 line 6 has -šú-.

112*: Text has ⸢A⸣. K. Kessler (WO 8 [1975] pp. 54–58) proposed emending A to 2 on the basis of text no. 49 rev. 2. E. Forrer (Provinz. p. 57) proposed emending the text to “four” (4). Since A (which is apparently excessive when indicating the ventive [esp. after -ra]) is also attested in text no. 31 line 8 (in both Rawlinson, Notebook 2 and 3 R pl. 9 no. 3), one would have to assume a mistake in the Vorlage of the text since this error was repeated by two different scribes. LÚ.šu-[ut SAG].MEŠ “eu[nuch]s”: Text no. 31 line 8 has šú- and omits MEŠ. UGU-šú-nu “over them”: Text no. 31 line 8 has -šu-nu. 80 LIM 3 LIM “83,000”: So in Layard, MS A; Layard, ICC p. 65, however, has 90^? (DIŠ+30) LIM 3 LIM; DIŠ could be the final wedge of a sign now mostly missing. G. Smith’s worksheet for 3 R (= Notebook 5 fols. 57v–59r) line f reads [...] LIM^? 30 LIM 3 ME, but 3 R pl. 9 no. 3 has another variant: [x] 90 LIM 3 ME. G. Smith, Assyrian Disc. p. 277 gives yet another reading of the number: 30,300. The numbers noted in Tadmor, Tigl. III (p. 62, the critical apparatus to this line) are partly imprecise.

12ul-: Both Layard, MS A and Layard, ICC omit the initial winkelhaken; the sign is correctly copied in Rawlinson, Notebook 2. URU.tuš-[ḫa-an] “the city Tuš[ḫan]”: So Forrer, Provinz. p. 59 and p. 86 n. 1. NAM KUR.ul-lu-ba “province of the land Ulluba”: This province was organized immediately after the campaign to Ulluba in 739; see text no. 37 lines 43–45. Moreover, this province is probably identical with “the province of the city Aššur-iqīša” mentioned in text no. 39 lines 28–29 and text no. 49 obv. 10´; see Forrer, Provinz. p. 85; Weippert, ZDPV 89 (1973) p. 38; and Radner, RLA 11/1–2 (2006) p. 56 sub Provinz, Birtu. LÚ.⸢qu⸣-ru-x [...] “[my] qurru[būtu officials]”: One could tentatively restore LÚ.⸢qu⸣-ru-⸢bu⸣-[te] “a special force.” E. Frahm (AfO 44/45 [1997–98] p. 401), however, proposes LÚ.⸢qu⸣-ru-[la-a-a] “the people of Quru[la]”; cf. URU.qu-ru-la (“the city Qurula”) in text no. 37 line 31. With regard to lines 12–14, the gaps for [ḫa-an] (line 12), [di-ia TA] (line 13), and [za-ba ...] (following ÍD in line 14) are indicated in Rawlinson, Notebook 1 and in 3 R pl. 9 no. 3; the breaks, however, are omitted in Layard, MS A and Layard, ICC.

13-ta: So Rawlinson, Notebook 1 and 3 R pl. 9 no. 3; both Layard, MS A and Layard, ICC have -ru. LÚ.aḫ-la-am-ak-ka-<di> “the Aḫlam-Akkadî”: Or LÚ.aḫ-la-am-ak-ka-<ad> (ad omitted by haplography).

14ki-ši: So Layard, MS A and Layard, ICC; ki- is omitted in 3 R pl. 9 no. 3. x: The traces in Layard, MS A do not seem to fit LÚ, which one expects here. ša šid-di ÍD.[...] “on the banks of the [...] River”: 3 R pl. 9 no. 3 indicates that there is a gap after ÍD. One might therefore read ÍD.[za-ba] “[Zab] River.” This gap could also indicate uninscribed sculpture on the orthostat, as the copy in Rawlinson, Notebook 1 may suggest. -⸢šú⸣-[nu]: -⸢šú⸣- appears in Rawlinson, Notebook 1. [iš-lu]-lu-ni “[they brou]ght to me”: The restoration follows Schramm, Orientalia NS 68 (1999) p. 170. Cf. Tadmor, Tigl. III p. 64, which restores [ú-bi]-lu-ni. There are problems with lines 14–15, mainly because of the unprecedented change of subject and number. The translation is therefore conjectural. The participants seem to be Assyrian soldiers, the Arameans, and a certain leader whose name is not preserved. The signs at the beginning of lines 14 and 15 may perhaps be the remainder of that name, although it is not clear whether [...]-ki-ši x is the same as [...]-ši-i. The latter might also be restored as the name of another gentilic.

15it-bu-ma ⸢a^?⸣-[na^?] “they drew up ag[ainst]”: So Rawlinson, Notebook 1, but with the left side of ⸢a⸣ copied as šú. it-bu-ma [x x] in 3 R pl. 9 no. 3: All of these signs are omitted in Layard, MS A and Layard, ICC. ⸢GABA^?⸣- “breast”: This sign was copied as MU in Layard, MS A (hence so in Layard, ICC) and as AŠ+ḪI in Rawlinson, Notebook 1 (hence ḪI in 3 R pl. 9 no. 3; Rost has [muḫ]-ḫi-šu-nu). Here, the original sign is assumed to be GABA, with the lower parts of the horizontal wedges broken off. What remained was MU, as correctly copied by Layard, but emended by Rawlinson. -[mu]: The gap is indicated in Rawlinson, Notebook 1 and 3 R pl. 9 no. 3, but omitted in Layard, MS A and Layard, ICC.

16-uš-šú: Rawlinson, Notebook 1 omits -šú.

17LÚ.GAR.KUR KUR.lul-lu-mi-i “the provincial governor of the land of the Lullumê”: This is probably the Aššur-daʾʾinanni who is mentioned in text no. 47 obv. 42 and the governor of Mazamua who was the eponym official for the year 733 (Klengel, MIO 11 [1966] p. 368).

18⸢ša⸣: 3 R pl. 9 no. 3 erroneously has ri.

19This line is duplicated in text no. 14 line 1.