1The fragment comes from the left side of the front of the stele and traces of eleven lines are preserved; however, “the inscription is so worn as to be illegible even if individual signs can be discerned here and there (e.g., EN [line 4], URU.aš-šur [line 7] and perhaps SIG₅ [line 9])” (Lauinger and Batiuk, ZA 105 [2015] p. 60). It is possible that the end of the preserved portion of line 4´ has URU.MEŠ šá KUR DÙ-šú-nu, that the seventh line begins with x pa-da-a URU.aš-šur x.MEŠ (where the first indeterminate sign does not appear to be LA), and that the ninth line has ina na-ge-e after the tentative SIG₅; however, we do not expect to find some of these words/phrases in the introductory section of the inscription where various deities are normally invoked and, as noted in the commentary, Fragment A comes from the beginning of the inscription. Compare for example text no. 103 i 1–28, text no. 116 lines 1–10, and text no. 117 i 1–19a.

2For the restorations, cf. text no. 103 i 19–28 and text no. 116 lines 1–10.

3ša i-na e-⸢peš⸣ [KA-šú-nu el-li] “by who[se holy command]”: Possibly translate instead “who in order to carry o[ut their holy command]” (cf. Novotny and Jeffers, RINAP 5/1 p. 231 no. 11 i 13).

4The restorations are based on text no. 103 ii 18–21. The line breaks are conjectural and some of what is restored at the end of line 3´ may have been on line 4´. For line 3´ J. Lauinger and S. Batiuk (ZA 105 [2015] p. 65) read [... GN]kimāt(KUR) [GN ...], but the second sign appears to be DIN rather than KUR; compare the KUR in Frgm. D line 5´ (see the photos on ibid. p. 59).

5The exact amount of space missing at the beginnings and ends of the lines is uncertain, as are the line breaks in the restorations.

6For the restorations, cf. in particular text no. 81 lines 8–20 and text no. 89 lines 19–26; see also Frahm, Last Days pp. 63–64. Possibly restore a-na i-di-šú ú-ter-ra, “he brought to his side” at the end of line 4´ (also Frahm, ibid. p. 64). E. Frahm (ibid. pp. 63–64) tentatively reads [mārē aššurša ina qé]-⸢reb⸣ at the beginning of line 5´, [... bašû kī ištēn] at the end of line 5´, and [iddūk qātīaš-ši]-⸢ma⸣ at the beginning of line 6´, thus “[He killed the citizens of Assyria who were i]n the land Hamath ... [... altogether. I raised my hands a]nd” (Frahm’s translation slightly modified), and this would make good sense, but must remain uncertain. He also tentatively suggests restoring EN ḫi-iṭ-ṭi in line 9´ before adūk based on text no. 7 line 35, thus “I killed [the criminal(s)]” (ibid. p. 64).

7⸢sa⸣-kap, “overthrow”: The reading of the signs as sa-kap is certain even although the first sign is slightly damaged with only two (instead of three) vertical wedges being clear and the second sign has one more angled wedge head than is expected.

8The passage deals with the settling of 6,300 Assyrian criminals in Hamath. The restoration is based on text no. 105 ii´ 8–12 and assumes that the beginning of the following line began with e-mid-su-nu-ti. As noted by J. Lauinger and S. Batiuk (ZA 105 [2015] p. 65), in view of Fragment D line 5´, we should perhaps restore KUR.a-ma-te in line 2´, rather than KUR.ḫa-mat-ti.

9For the restorations, cf. text no. 103 iv 63–68 and text no. 106 iii 14´–15´. We would expect SIG₅.MEŠ rather than just SIG₅, but there does not appear to be room to allow this. The translation assumes that the following line had i-na KUR li-ḫal-li-qu, following text no. 103 iv 69.