1⸢KÙ^?⸣.[GI^?], “g[old]”: Since gold is normally mentioned before silver in Neo-Assyrian royal inscriptions, the restoration is uncertain.

2LAL^*-: According to the photo, the text has ME-.

3NU mu-sa-pu-u DINGIR^?-ti, “an image (of myself) praying to (his) divine majesty”: Cf. Leichty, RINAP 4 p. 136 no. 60 line 28´ ṣa-lam LUGAL-ti-ia mu-sa-pu-u DINGIR-ti-šú-un (see also CAD S p. 394). R.D. Barnett suggested reading NU.MU.SA-pu-u-rat-ti.KI, “the city of Almat-puratti” (lit.: “widow of the Euphrates”), although noting that no city with this name is otherwise attested (Woolley and Barnett, Carchemish 3 p. 280). We would also expect URU before the city name and NU.MU.SU instead of NU.MU.SA. Assuming that the passage does mean “widow of the Euphrates,” I. Winter suggested that it “could conceivably refer to Carchemish after its conquest” (AnSt 33 [1984] p. 194 n. 89). J. Penuela and D.J. Wiseman suggested KUR.mu-ṣa-ṣir ..., “the land of Musasir ...,” a suggestion which Barnett describes as “most plausible ... The ambiguity is due to faults of copying” (Woolley and Barnett, Carchemish 3 p. 280 n. 1). The photograph is not clear enough to confirm a reading KUR for the copy’s NU and, according to S. Parpola (Toponyms p. 250), Muṣaṣir is always written with ṢA, not SA. (The one instance given by Parpola of a writing with SA — KUR M(U)-SA-ṢI-RA (WO 2 230.178) — is a typographical error; the text in question [Grayson, RIMA 3 p. 70 A.0.102.14 line 178] has ṢA.)

4R.D. Barnett suggested ana mit^?-gu^?-ur^? for the end of the line (Woolley and Barnett, Carchemish 3 p. 280). While the copy allows reading ana mit-gu-, the traces of the final sign copied do not fit UR, but might allow RI. Cf. Grayson and Novotny, RINAP 3/2 p. 354 no. 1016 rev. 2´.