Ashurbanipal 116

1[LUGAL^?] DINGIR.MEŠ “[king of] the gods”: Or possibly restore [ABGAL^?] DINGIR.MEŠ “[sage of] the gods.” It is assumed here that a word might have preceded the name of the god Marduk and that there was an epithet/title between his name and the partially-preserved title [LUGAL^?] DINGIR.MEŠ.

2The restorations are based on text no. 10 (Prism T) i 46 and 51. Compare the longer reports about the reconstruction of this bed of the god Marduk in text no. 10 (Prism T) i 46–52, no. 23 (IIT) lines 48b–51a, no. 61 lines 29–31, and no. 223 iv 14´–19´.

3These lines likely state that Ashurbanipal had a canopy constructed anew for Marduk. Compare, for example, the reports in text no. 10 (Prism T) i 31–38, no. 23 (IIT) line 46, and no. 219 obv. 3´b–6´. In the extant inscriptions of Ashurbanipal, reports about that king’s activities at Babylon generally place the description about the building and decoration of Marduk’s canopy before the account of the renovation of that deity’s pleasure bed.

4Since Ashurbanipal’s inscriptions give the impression that he constructed a canopy anew for Marduk, it is tentatively assumed here that this passage records the refurbishment of Babylon’s tutelary deity’s chariot, which had been built by a former king and which had been taken to Aššur by Sennacherib in 689. This suggestion is supported by the fact that the possessive suffix attached to nouns in lines 7´ and 8´ are feminine (NA₄.MEŠ-šá “its (precious) stones,” tam-lit-sa “its decoration,” and si-ḫi-ir-ti-šá “its entirety”), the grammatical gender of the chariot (narkabtu). For a better-preserved and longer accounts of the restoration of this object, see text no. 10 (Prism T) i 39–45 and no. 23 (IIT) lines 47–48a. Note that in the extant inscriptions of Ashurbanipal, reports about Ashurbanipal’s activities at Babylon generally place the account about the renovation of Marduk’s chariot before the description of that deity’s pleasure bed.

5[...]-⸢la^?⸣ ka-bat-ti “[...] my mind”: There are no direct parallels in extant inscriptions of Ashurbanipal, but uš-ta-bi-la ka-bat-ti, “I thought,” appears in the known Esarhaddon corpus; see, for example, Leichty, RINAP 4 p. 12 no. 1 (Nineveh A) i 32. Alternatively, following the inscriptions of Sennacherib (for example, Grayson and Novotny, RINAP 3/1 p. 67 no. 4 [Rassam Cylinder] line 70), one could read the end of the line and beginning of the next line as [i-na uz-ni-ia ib]-⸢ši^?⸣-ma^? ka-bat-ti / [ub-lam-ma], “[it cam]e [to my attention] and [I put] my mind [to it].”

6[...] x-na “[...] ...”: Perhaps one could tentatively read the partially-preserved word as [URU.ḫar]-⸢ra^?⸣-na “[the city Ḫarr]ān.” For that orthography of the city, see text no. 207 (LET) rev. 43.

7[ú]-⸢rad⸣-di ina muḫ-ḫi “[I a]dded to it”: This word combination is attested also in text no. 207 (LET) rev. 48, in connection with Ashurbanipal enlarging Eḫulḫul, the temple of Sîn at Ḫarrān.

8[É^?].⸢KUR^?⸣ gab-bi “[the] entire [templ]e”: Conjectural restoration based on context and the traces of the sign before gab-bu “entire.” Could this line and the beginning of the next line refer to Ashurbanipal raising the height of the walls of an entire temple, possibly the Sîn temple at Ḫarrān? If so, then compare text no. 207 (LET) rev. 47 si-ḫir-ti É šu-a-tu 30 ti-ib-ki ⸢ú⸣-[šaq-qi ap-ti]-qa pi-ti-iq-šú, “I [raised up] the entirety of that temple thirty courses of brick [(and) I fashi]oned its brickwork.”

9Before ⸢ar⸣-ṣip, “[I] built,” restore ul-tu UŠ₈-šú a-di gaba-dib-bi-šú, “from its foundation(s) to its crenellations,” or a-na si-ḫir-ti-šú, “in its entirety.”

10This line probably refers to the roofing of a temple and the installation of doors in its (principal) gateways. Thus, based on space, possibly read the last word of the line as [GIŠ.IG^?].MEŠ, “[door]s.”