072 073 074 075 076 077 078 079 080 081 082 083 084 085 086 087 088 089 090 091 092 093 094 095 096 097 098 099
This inscription of Ashurbanipal is known only from a fragmentarily-preserved, two-column clay tablet. The extant text contains parts of the inscription's prologue and a report of the king's first Egyptian campaign.
Access the composite text [/rinap/rinap5/Q003771/] of Ashurbanipal 072.
K 3083+ preserves a portion of two columns on the obverse of a large clay tablet, while the reverse is missing. This tablet originally had two broad columns on each side given that the width of the right column roughly corresponds to that of the tablets for text no. 207 (LET) as the lineation of the duplicate material in these two inscriptions is the same.
In his publication, H.-U. Onasch treated K 3083+ as a draft for the Prism E inscriptions and so included col. ii of K 3083+ with his edition and score of Prism E (ÄAT 27/1 pp. 93–97, and 2 pp. 28–32). Since the main building report and the subscript are not extant, it is impossible to determine where copies of this inscription were intended to be deposited.
With respect to the contents of the tablet, for i 1´–3´, compare text no. 191 obv.? 12–15, for ii 1´–5´, see text no. 2 (Prism E₂) iii 12–21, and for ii 10´–21´, see text no. 207 (LET) obv. 6´–17´. Based on the extant text, the terminus post quem is 667 for the first Egyptian campaign.
A draft or excerpt of an annalistic text of Ashurbanipal is known from a multi-column clay tablet. Although only a small portion of it survives, the tablet was inscribed with accounts of the king's first and second Egyptian campaigns. Presumably, descriptions of other military expeditions of Ashurbanipal were written on other clay tablets.
Access the composite text [/rinap/rinap5/Q003772/] of Ashurbanipal 073.
K 3159+ is a fragment from the upper left side of a multi-column tablet that preserves parts of both faces, as well as a portion of its top and left edges. While only one column on each face is extant, the right side of the reverse preserves a portion of the two vertical rulings that separated the final column of the tablet from a preceding one.
For the contents of col. i, see text no. 3 (Prism B) i 48–53 and text no. 6 (Prism C) ii 4´–10´, and compare text no. 11 (Prism A) i 52–57; and for those of rev. i´, see text no. 3 (Prism B) ii 36–37, text no. 6 (Prism C) iii 55´b–57´, text no. 7 (Prism Kh) iii 13´b–15´, and text no. 11 (Prism A) ii 46b–48.
Three fragments that come from one and the same two-column clay tablet are inscribed with reports of events in Lydia, Mannea, and Media. The contents, as far as they are preserved, duplicate annalistic texts inscribed on clay prisms between 649 and ca. 644–642.
Access the composite text [/rinap/rinap5/Q003773/] of Ashurbanipal 074.
82-3-23,5218 is a small fragment that comes from the center of the tablet and contains portions of two columns on the obverse and two columns on the reverse, with parts of the top edge also preserved. The fragment K 4438A preserves part of a single column from one face of the tablet, along with a left and upper edge to that column. R. Borger (BIWA p. 332; see also his comments in 8o-Heft p. 159) listed 82-3-23,5218 as a non-physical join with K 4438A based on the similar script and clay of the two objects, and on the fact that the contents of K 4438A directly follow those at the end of 82-3-23,5218 iii. This makes K 4438A the beginning of col. iv of the tablet, and thus part of the reverse with the fragment originating from the tablet's lower left corner and preserving part of its bottom edge. The final two lines after the horizontal ruling in col. iv (from 82-3-23,5218 iv) would therefore likely be the tablet's catch line and subscript and not the beginning of another account. In addition to this join, the fragment K 4452 should more than likely be included with these two pieces as a non-physical join. K 4452 preserves part of one column on the obverse and one column on the reverse, while also preserving a right edge. Based on the similar script and clay of this piece to K 4438A and 82-3-23,5218, and based on the fact that the contents of the reverse of K 4452 (iii 1´–15´ of the master text) directly precede those of 82-3-23,5218 iii (iii 16´–24´ of the master text), all three objects are edited together here as a single tablet. Borger (BIWA 8o-Heft p. 159) noted the exceptional similarity of K 4452 with these fragments, but ultimately did not accept a join, although he did not provide a reason why.
For the contents and restorations of ii 2´–11´, see text no. 11 (Prism A) ii 98–106. For the contents of iii 3´–iv 15, see text no. 3 (Prism B) iii 65b–iv 3a, text no. 6 (Prism C) iv 52´´–v 9, text no. 7 (Prism Kh) iv 22´´b–63´´a, and text no. 8 (Prism G) iv 1´´–22´´; also compare text no. 9 (Prism F) ii 38–52 and text no. 11 (Prism A) iii 4–26. Restorations of the reverse are generally based on Prism C since iii 3´–15´ and iv 12–15 of the tablet only appear in the Prism B, C, Kh, and G accounts, but not in the Prism F and A accounts. However, the restorations of iii 19´b–21´ are taken from the Prism A account since those lines are only attested there.
A fragment of a clay tablet bears a tiny portion of an annalistic text. Only part of a report of the king's campaign against Aḫšēri of Mannea is preserved.
Access the composite text [/rinap/rinap5/Q003774/] of Ashurbanipal 075.
K 4533 preserves part of one face and part of the left edge of a clay tablet. For its contents, compare text no. 3 (Prism B) iii 25–34a and text no. 6 (Prism C) iv 3´´–14´´a. Although lines 1´–7´ duplicate materials found in those prism inscriptions, the list of gods in lines 5´–6´ has more in common with the list presented in the later accounts of text no. 9 (Prism F) ii 23–24 and text no. 11 (Prism A) ii 127b–129a. Yet even these lists have a few differences from the one found in K 4533 as both lack the goddess Mullissu, while the former also lacks the god Adad and the latter includes Šarrat-Kidmuri.
The present inscription is preserved on a small fragment of a clay tablet. The extant text contains part of a description of a military expedition against the Manneans, including the conquest of the city Arsiyaniš.
Access the composite text [/rinap/rinap5/Q003775/] of Ashurbanipal 076.
K 6546 is a small fragment that preserves only a portion of one face of a clay tablet. No edges are extant, but the left side of the fragment preserves what looks to be the margin between two columns of text; traces of the vertical ruling from the right side of the left column are visible. Thus, the fragment likely originally belonged to a multi-column tablet, and this assertion is confirmed by the fact that the preserved lines of text are relatively short. The contents of the tablet duplicate text no. 3 (Prism B) iii 54–64, text no. 6 (Prism C) iv 39´´–51´´a, and text no. 7 (Prism Kh) iv 12´´b–21´´.
This fragment of (multi-column) clay tablet is inscribed with an account of Ashurbanipal's war with Aḫšēri of Mannea. The preserved text records that the Mannean sent his heir designate Erisinni to the Assyrian capital Nineveh.
Access the composite text [/rinap/rinap5/Q003776/] of Ashurbanipal 077.
K 15366 is a small fragment that preserves only a portion of one face of a clay tablet. No edges are extant, but the right side of the fragment preserves what looks to be the margin between two columns of text; traces of the vertical ruling from the left side of the right column are visible. Thus, the fragment likely originally belonged to a multi-column tablet, and this assertion is confirmed by the fact that the preserved lines of text are relatively short. The contents of the tablet duplicate text no. 3 (Prism B) iii 85b–90, text no. 6 (Prism C) iv 81´´–v 3, text no. 7 (Prism Kh) iv 49´´–56´´, text no. 9 (Prism F) ii 46–51, and text no. 11 (Prism A) iii 18–24.
A small fragment of a clay tablet, presumably from Nineveh, is inscribed with a text that records Ashurbanipal's campaigns against the Manneans, Medes, and Urarṭians.
Access the composite text [/rinap/rinap5/Q003777/] of Ashurbanipal 078.
K 6384 is a small fragment from the middle section of a tablet that preserves parts of both its faces and part of its bottom edge. Obv. 4´–6´ are written on the bottom edge of the tablet. For obv. 1´–rev. 3, compare text no. 3 (Prism B) iii 87–iv 11, text no. 6 (Prism C) iv 84´´–v 20, and text no. 7 (Prism Kh) iv 51´´–72´´; note that obv. 6´ deviates from these accounts. Unlike the accounts of the prism inscriptions, each episode of the tablet is marked off by a horizontal ruling. Since there is not enough of the fragment preserved to establish its lineation, only the translation and not the transliteration is restored based on the prism accounts.
This damaged, two-column clay tablet contains the "third extract" of a long annalistic text, which was inscribed on a series of four different tablets. This part of the inscription narrates Ashurbanipal's first two Elamite campaigns, which are designated as his "sixth" and "seventh" military expeditions according to the campaign numbering of text nos. 3 (Prism B), 4 (Prism D), 7 (Prism Kh), and 8 (Prism G). Because the fourth and final tablet of the series has not yet been identified, it is uncertain exactly when the inscription was composed. However, since the preserved text duplicates the military narration of known, dated texts, the tablet series was likely inscribed ca. 647–646.
Access the composite text [/rinap/rinap5/Q003778/] of Ashurbanipal 079.
K 3040+ is a two-column tablet that preserves parts of both faces, the top edge, and the left and right sides. The majority of the inscription is supplied by K 3040 + DT 8, while the fragment Sm 1780 + Sm 2079 provides iv 1–12, although the surface of Sm 2079 is effaced.
The extant portion of the inscription duplicates material from text no. 3 (Prism B) iv 15–27, 61–v 3a, v 39b–81a, and 97b–vi 10a; text no. 6 (Prism C) v 24–42a, 88–107, 1´, vi 19´–24´´, and vii 1–11; and text no. 7 (Prism Kh) iv 75´´–93´´a, v 30–60, 66–68, 114–vi 21, and 10´b–23´a. Restorations to the present edition are taken from these inscriptions. It does not appear as if the scribe of K 3040+ was following any one of the textual traditions from these prisms specifically. The inscription of K 3040+ follows the textual tradition of text no. 3 (Prism B) in one place (see the on-page note to ii 29), but then follows the textual tradition of text nos. 6 (Prism C) and 7 (Prism Kh) in two other places (see the on-page notes to ii 30 and iii 32´b–33´). Moreover, compare the additional, although minor differences between the tablet inscription and the prism inscriptions in the on-page notes to iii 16´ and 23´.
K 3040+ belongs to Tablet III of a multi-tablet series, as is made clear by the subscript (iv 15´) 3-šú nis-ḫu NU AL.TIL "third extract, (inscription) not complete"; compare also text no. 95, which is the second extract of a three-tablet series. The final line of the text (iv 14´) is the catch line of Tablet IV, on which the last part of the inscription would have been written; that tablet began with ina 8-e ger-ri-ia UGU mdu-na-nu DUMU mEN-BA-šá a-na KUR.gam-bu-li lu-u al-lik "On my eighth campaign, I marched against Dunānu, son of Bēl-iqīša, to the land Gambulu" (text no. 3 [Prism B] vi 10–11; text no. 6 [Prism C] vii 11–13; text no. 7 [Prism Kh] vi 23´–24´; and text no. 8 [Prism G] vii 11´–13´). At present, the other tablets in this series have not yet been positively identified.
This small fragment of a multi-column clay tablet preserves part of an inscription that included a description of Ashurbanipal's conflict with the Elamite king Urtaku, after he and his armies invaded Babylonia. The report contained in this text is known from annalistic inscriptions written on clay prisms composed between 649 and 646 (see the commentary).
Access the composite text [/rinap/rinap5/Q003779/] of Ashurbanipal 080.
K 2661 preserves the right portion of the obverse of a clay tablet, part of its right edge, and traces of a handful of signs at the end of a few lines on its reverse. Given the relatively short length of lines, it is likely that this fragment originally belonged to a multi-column tablet. Restorations to obv. i´ 10´–22´ are based on text no. 3 (Prism B) iv 29b-40, text no. 6 (Prism C) v 44b-61, and text no. 7 (Prism Kh) iv 95´´b–v 6.
A tiny piece from one face of a clay tablet preserves parts of just seven lines of an inscription that recorded some of the events that took place in Elam after the death of Urtaku. The extant text records how Teumman ruthlessly became king; numerous members of Urtaku's family fled the slaughter and sought refuge with Ashurbanipal in Nineveh.
Access the composite text [/rinap/rinap5/Q003780/] of Ashurbanipal 081.
The tablet fragment, as correctly pointed out by R. Borger (BIWA p. 198), does not join text no. 135. This is confirmed by the fact that the script of K 13440 is smaller and more densely written than that of text no. 135, and the short lines of the present fragment suggest it originally was part of a multi-column tablet while text no. 135 belongs to a single-column tablet. The extant text nearly duplicates text no. 16 i´ 5´–9´ and the restorations are based on that prism fragment; compare also text no. 3 (Prism B) iv 66–71, text no. 6 (Prism C) v 92–98, and text no. 7 (Prism Kh) v 33–39.
The exact date of composition cannot be determined since the inscription is so poorly preserved. However, it is likely that K 13440, as with text no. 16, also contained the report on Ashurbanipal's defeat of the Elamite king Teumman during his second Elamite campaign, which would establish the terminus post quem as 653. Of course, like the prism fragment, this tablet could also be a later summary inscription composed ca. 639–638 (see the introduction and commentary to text no. 16).
This clay tablet fragment, of which only a small portion of the middle of one face is preserved, is inscribed with part of an account narrating how the children of Urtaku and his brother Ummanaldašu (Ḫumban-ḫaltaš III) fled Elam after Teumman seized the throne for himself and plotted to murder them (compare, for example, text no. 3 [Prism B] iv 68–v 79).
Access the composite text [/rinap/rinap5/Q003781/] of Ashurbanipal 082.
A fragmentarily-preserved clay tablet bears part of an inscription of Ashurbanipal. The extant text contains the beginning of a substantially abbreviated version of a report about the king's second Elamite campaign, during which Assyrian troops defeated and killed the arrogant Elamite king Teumman in a battle at Tīl-Tūba.
Access the composite text [/rinap/rinap5/Q003782/] of Ashurbanipal 083.
K 3140 preserves part of one face from a left corner of a tablet, including a portion of its left and top or bottom edges; it is uncertain if this is the obverse or reverse. Given the relatively short length of lines and the shape of the fragment, the tablet probably contained two columns when complete.
For i´ 1–3, compare text no. 3 (Prism B) iv 81b–v 1 and text no. 7 (Prism Kh) v 50–65; for i´ 4–6, compare text no. 3 (Prism B) v 2–4a and text no. 7 (Prism Kh) v 66–69; for i´ 7–8, see text no. 3 (Prism B) v 41–42 and text no. 7 (Prism Kh) v 117–118; and for i´ 9–12, compare text no. 3 (Prism B) v 76–79 and text no. 7 (Prism Kh) vi 14–19. Besides the heavily redacted account of the campaign against the Elamite king Teumman, this text also includes a longer, more generic list of gods in i´ 4–5 than the lists in the prism inscriptions, and it removes the šá ina qí-bit AN.ŠÁR d30 u d15 "by the command of the deities Aššur, Sîn, and Ištar" clause of the prism texts that should have appeared in i´ 9.
The extant text of this badly-damaged clay tablet, of which only a small portion of one face is preserved, contains part of an account of Ashurbanipal's second Elamite campaign, that is, his war with Teumman in 653, after the Elamite king attacked the city of Dēr.
Access the composite text [/rinap/rinap5/Q003783/] of Ashurbanipal 084.
K 10621 preserves the ends of ten lines of text from one face of a tablet. The right side of the fragment has an exceptionally straight edge, suggesting that the fragment originally belonged to the left column of a two-column tablet in which the right column broke off cleanly along the left edge of the margin. This observation is likely supported by the relatively short length of most of the lines; when there is a fairly long line (such as with lines 3´ and 10´), its signs are written together very tightly.
For the contents of the tablet, compare text no. 3 (Prism B) v 8–19, text no. 7 (Prism Kh) v 73b–86, and text no. 8 (Prism G) v 5´–12´. However, i´ 3´b–6´a deviate in several ways from the account of the prism inscriptions (see the on-page notes).
This tiny fragment of a multi-column clay tablet preserves two small passages of a long annalistic inscription. The text, what little of it is preserved, narrates how Ashurbanipal placed Ummanigaš (Ḫumban-nikaš II) on the throne of Elam in Susa after Teumman was beheaded by a common Assyrian soldier and, probably, how Šamaš-šuma-ukīn, the king of Babylon and Ashurbanipal's older brother, bribed the Elamite to join his rebellion against Assyria.
Access the composite text [/rinap/rinap5/Q003784/] of Ashurbanipal 085.
K 2665 is a fragment that preserves parts of both faces from the bottom left corner of a tablet. For the fragment's contents, compare text no. 3 (Prism B) v 97–vi 3 and vii 18–19. Given that the contents of the reverse do not directly follow those of the obverse, the object originally belonged to a multi-column tablet.
This badly-damaged, two-column clay tablet, which is probably the final installment of a series of tablets, is inscribed with reports about Ashurbanipal's dealings with four Elamite kings (Teumman, Ummanigaš, Tammarītu, and Indabibi), the Gambulu tribe (led by Dunānu), and several Arabian tribal leaders (Iautaʾ, Abī-Yateʾ, Ammi-ladīn, Kamās-ḫaltâ, and Natnu), as well as an account of the Assyrian king's construction of a new royal residence for himself at Nineveh, the so-called "House of Succession."
Access the composite text [/rinap/rinap5/Q003785/] of Ashurbanipal 086.
K 30+ comprises several fragments that together preserve parts of two columns on both faces of a two-column tablet, along with parts of its left and right edges. I. Finkel (letter dated August 19th, 1994) suggested it is feasible that the fragment 81-7-27,240 could belong with K 30+, and R. Borger (BIWA p. 320) included this fragment in his index entry for K 30+, citing it as "(Anfang Kol. IV?)." The piece is tentatively edited here as part of col. iv of K 30+ given that its script is similar to the rest of the fragments of the tablet and that its contents duplicate those of text nos. 6 (Prism C) and 7 (Prism Kh) — as does most of the tablet (see below) — and fit into the account immediately before the fragment K 4459+. Several of the lines on 81-7-27,240 appear to be slightly longer than the other lines of col. iv, although the signs at the end of those lines are written tightly together. The breakdown of the tablet is as follows: K 30 = i 1´–29´, ii 1´–15´, iii 1´–25´, iv 1´´–14´´; K 4459 + K 13750 = i 39´–57´, iv 9´–18´; K 11289 = i 60´–74´; K 11389 = i 31´–38´; and 81-7-27,240 = iv 1´–7´.
The narrative of historical events in i 1´–iv 18´ duplicates materials found in Ashurbanipal's prism inscriptions, specifically text nos. 3 (Prism B), 6 (Prism C), and 7 (Prism Kh): see text no. 3 (Prism B) vi 1b–65, 75–83, vii 76–viii 9, and 27–43; text no. 6 (Prism C) vii 2–13´, 33´b–45´, ix 24´´b, and x 8´–20´; and text no. 7 (Prism Kh) vi 12´–vii 2, 25–34, viii 94´b, ix 64´´–x 22a, and 6´–28´. With regard to the building report in iv 1´´–16´´, compare text no. 6 (Prism C) x 1´´´–8´´´ and 12´´´ and text no. 7 (Prism Kh) x 58´–62´.
The restorations to cols. i, ii, and iv are generally taken from text no. 6 (Prism C) or text no. 7 (Prism Kh), on the basis that the tablet appears to be following those traditions rather than the one found in text no. 3 (Prism B) (see the on-page notes). However, it is clear that col. iii contained the shorter version of Ashurbanipal's third Elamite campaign that was included in text no. 3 (Prism B) and not the longer version that appears in the later prism accounts. The end of the report on that campaign appears in iii 1´, which corresponds to text no. 3 (Prism B) vii 76, text no. 6 (Prism C) ix 24´´b, and text no. 7 (Prism Kh) viii 94´b. But after this line, the accounts in both text no. 3 (Prism B) and the present tablet commence with a description of Ashurbanipal's Arab campaigns. In contrast, the subsequent account of text no. 6 (Prism C) ix 25´´–52´´ has a longer account of the king's third Elamite campaign before it describes his Arab campaigns, while the account of text no. 7 (Prism Kh) viii 95´–ix 63´´ has a longer report about the third Elamite campaign plus — for the first time in the prism inscriptions — an account recording his fourth Elamite campaign before narrating the Arab campaigns.
A fragment from a multi-column clay tablet, of which only a portion of one column on each face is preserved, contains part of a report of the Assyrian king's third Elamite campaign. The extant text records that the newly-enthroned Elamite Tammarītu, whom Ashurbanipal installed on the throne in the city Ḫidalu, accepted bribes from Šamaš-šuma-ukīn and sent troops to support him in his rebellion against Assyria.
Access the composite text [/rinap/rinap5/Q003786/] of Ashurbanipal 087.
K 10746 preserves parts of one column on the obverse and one column on the reverse of a tablet, as well as some of its top edge. However, the tablet also preserves a portion of the margin on the left side of both of these columns, indicating that there was another column on the left side of the tablet on each face that is no longer preserved. If this were originally a two-column tablet, then rev. i´ would be the first column of that face and col. iii of the tablet. Although possibly less likely given the length of the preserved lines, this fragment might have originally belonged to a three-column tablet in which another column on the right side of the fragment is no longer preserved, and given this possibility the first column on the reverse has been designated as rev. i´. Furthermore, if this were a three-column tablet, it is unlikely that the third column would be to the left of the already missing columns of the tablet. What clay is preserved in the column on the reverse after the lacuna has been left uninscribed, yet this is not the last column of the tablet. If the additional missing columns were on the left side of the fragment, then that would mean the scribe left the majority of the reverse of a three-column tablet blank. Since this is unlikely, the preserved column on the obverse has been designated as col. ii rather than as obv. ii´.
For the extant text, compare text no. 3 (Prism B) vii 32b–36, text no. 6 (Prism C) viii 5´´–12´´a, text no. 7 (Prism Kh) vii 19´–27´a, text no. 8 (Prism G) viii 10´´–17´´a, text no. 9 (Prism F) iii 12–17a, and text no. 11 (Prism A) iv 3–9a.
This text, which is inscribed on a clay tablet presumed to have been discovered at Nineveh, contains an abbreviated report of the actions that several Elamite kings took during the Šamaš-šuma-ukīn rebellion. The preserved passage records that Indabibi, who had recently seized power from Tammarītu, returned captive Assyrian troops to Ashurbanipal as a goodwill gesture; those men had been sent to Elam to aid Nabû-bēl-šumāti, a grandson of Marduk-apla-iddina II (Merodach-baladan), but they were betrayed by him and held as prisoners of war.
Access the composite text [/rinap/rinap5/Q003787/] of Ashurbanipal 088.
K 3073 is a fragment that contains parts of two columns from a single face of a multi-column tablet. All of the tablet's text comes from its right column, except for traces of a single sign from one line at the edge of the left column; portions of the two vertical rulings that divide those columns are also preserved.
For ii´ 2´–11´, compare text no. 3 (Prism B) vii 61–76, text no. 6 (Prism C) ix 11´´–24´´, text no. 7 (Prism Kh) viii 80´–94´, and text no. 8 (Prism G) ix 1´–5´; and for ii´ 12´–21´, compare text no. 6 (Prism C) ix 25´´–36´´, text no. 7 (Prism Kh) viii 95´–106´, and text no. 8 (Prism G) ix 6´–18´. The account of events in Elam inscribed on this tablet is abbreviated and thus deviates from that of the prism inscriptions (see the on-page notes). Given that this inscription includes the longer report on Nabû-bēl-šumāti and the return of the Assyrian prisoners that first appears in text no. 6 (Prism C), the approximate composition is ca. 647–646.
An excerpt from a long annalistic inscription of Ashurbanipal is inscribed on this badly-damaged clay tablet. This three-column tablet might have been the penultimate installment in a series of tablets and its contents might represent an earlier draft of the prism inscriptions, specifically text no. 6 (Prism C), which was composed in 647, and, thus, is sometimes referred to in the scholarly literature as "C Tablet 1" ("CTaf1"; Borger, BIWA p. 127). The extant text contains parts of reports about the events that took place between 653 and 648, specifically the conquest of Gambulu and the Šamaš-šuma-ukīn rebellion, which was actively supported by the Elamite kings Ummanigaš (Ḫumban-nikaš II), Tammarītu, and Indabibi. Passages recording Šamaš-šuma-ukīn's death and the capture of Babylon are preserved on this tablet.
Access the composite text [/rinap/rinap5/Q003788/] of Ashurbanipal 089.
K 3110+ preserves parts of two columns on the obverse and three columns on the reverse of a three-column tablet, including portions of its left, top, and bottom edges. With respect to its contents, for i 1–12, see text no. 3 (Prism B) vi 10–21, text no. 6 (Prism C) vii 11–24, and text no. 7 (Prism Kh) vi 23´–35´; for i 1´–ii 14, see text no. 3 (Prism B) vi 45–64a, text no. 6 (Prism C) vii 52–11´, and text no. 7 (Prism Kh) vi 10´´–33´´; for ii 1´–13´, see text no. 3 (Prism B) vi 78–vi 86, text no. 6 (Prism C) vii 38´–48´ and text no. 7 (Prism Kh) vii 30–36; for col. iv, see text no. 6 (Prism C) viii 8´´´–13´´´; for v 1´–6´, see text no. 7 (Prism Kh) viii 12´–18´; and for v 1´´–vi 14, compare text no. 6 (Prism C) ix 19´–23´´ and text no. 7 (Prism Kh) viii 53´–93´. The approximate date of composition is ca. 646 since this inscription contains material known from text nos. 6 (Prism C) and 7 (Prism Kh), and since it reports on the capture of Babylon and the deportation of some of its inhabitants.
One should note that the contents of col. v deviate somewhat from those of the prism inscriptions (see the on-page notes to col. v). Most noticeable is the major scribal correction related to this column. The tablet originally lacked the long list of plunder taken from Babylon that is found in text no. 7 (Prism Kh) viii 65´–74´ (only partially preserved in text no. 6 [Prism C] ix 1´´–7´´). Thus, the scribe wrote out this material for col. v (lines 15´´A–15´´G in the present edition) in the blank space at the end of col. vi and indicated that it was to be inserted between v 15´´ and 16´´ by drawing two parallel lines from it to this location in col. v. However, this additional content does not exactly duplicate the list that is found in the prism inscriptions.
This fragment of a two-column clay tablet contains parts of reports about Ashurbanipal's affairs in Arabia. The extant text of this annalistic inscription, which is probably the final installment of a long text that was written on a series of tablets, records that the Assyrian king defeated Iautaʾ and that Ashurbanipal's ally Kamās-ḫaltâ captured the anti-Assyrian Ammu-ladīn. A passage narrating the background to a campaign against Natnu, the Nabayatean, is also partially preserved.
Access the composite text [/rinap/rinap5/Q003789/] of Ashurbanipal 090.
The fragment most likely comes from the left side of a two-column tablet that preserves parts of two columns on the obverse and one column on the reverse, including a portion of the tablet's left edge. As far as it is preserved, the only extant column on the reverse — the final column of the tablet — is blank. This text could be the fourth and final tablet of a series, but too little of the inscription is extant to be certain.
Regarding its contents, for col. i, see text no. 3 (Prism B) vii 89–viii 10 and text no. 7 (Prism Kh) x 11–23; and for col. ii, see text no. 6 (Prism C) x 1´´–2´´ and text no. 7 (Prism Kh) x 25´b–35´, and compare text no. 3 (Prism B) viii 41–50a and text no. 8 (Prism G) ix 1´´–12´´. The inscription is not sufficiently preserved to establish a date of composition. However, the presence of ii 9´ indicates that the tablet contained the expanded description of Natnu's flight that is present in the accounts of Prisms C, Kh, and G, but not in Prism B, yet the tablet does not contain the description of Adiya's capture before the Natnu account that is present in Prism G, but not in Prisms C or Kh. Thus, in this section, the tablet is following the narrative tradition recorded in Prisms C and Kh, which might suggest a date of composition ca. 646.
A fragmentary clay tablet from Nineveh bears an archival copy or possibly an earlier draft of one of Ashurbanipal's prism inscriptions, namely text no. 9 (Prism F), which was composed during the eponymy of Nabû-šar-aḫḫēšu (645). From that inscription, the preserved text of the tablet contains only parts of the reports on forcing Baʾalu of Tyre into submission, along with the voluntary submission of several Anatolian and Levantine rulers; the succession of the Mannean ruler Uallî, son of Aḫšēri; and the two wars against Ummanaldašu (Ḫumban-ḫaltaš III) of Elam, during the second of which the Elamite royal city Susa was looted and destroyed and a statue of the goddess Nanāya was recovered and brought back to its rightful place in Uruk. Although the building report is not preserved, it most likely recorded work on the House of Succession at Nineveh (see the commentary).
Access the composite text [/rinap/rinap5/Q003790/] of Ashurbanipal 091.
K 3404+ preserves part of the top edge, as well as parts of two columns on the obverse and three on the reverse of an originally three-column tablet. R. Borger (BIWA p. 332 and 8o-Heft p. 505) noted that even though K 7589 physically joins with the right side of K 3404, the two fragments were not actually affixed to one another and remain separate; this is likely due to the fact that they are only sub-surface joins in the clay. With respect to K 7590, the similar color of clay, scribal hand, and contents suggest that this fragment also belongs with K 3404+. However, after noting the join of K 7589, which contains the top half of col. iv of the tablet, Borger then stated (ibid. 8o-Heft p. 505) that K 7590 cannot belong here with K 3404+, but it is unclear why Borger came to this conclusion. J. Jeffers identified a sub-surface join between the clay on the left half of K 7590 and the underside of the right half of K 7591, which situates K 7590 as the lower portion of col. iv of the tablet and makes the contents of K 7590 the left edge of that column that nearly abuts the end of col. v on the right edge of K 7591. This is exactly where its contents are expected in the inscription, with a gap of about six lines between K 7590 and K 7589 (see Figure 13). Although K 7589 and K 7590 remain separate from K 3404 + K 7591 + 79-7-8,207, the joins are treated as physical joins here.
When complete the tablet would have contained a full version of text no. 9 (Prism F) (compare text no. 92), thus the approximate date of composition is ca. 645 given that its contents duplicate those of the aforementioned inscription: col. i = F i 60–75, col. ii = F ii 48b–55?, col. iv = F iii 39–54 and 61–68, col. v = F iv 33–75, and col. vi = F v 47–vi 6. Although this tablet would have included the entire Prism F inscription, the variants it contains suggest that it belongs to a discrete recension of that inscription. M. Cogan (JCS 29 [1977] p. 101) classified this tablet as his F₇ recension of the Prism F inscription based on only one of its textual variants (at vi 10–11). However, by taking all of the variant traditions into consideration, it appears that the tablet preserves the earliest version of the Prism F inscription as identified by Jeffers that was then edited and augmented into what became the master text of text no. 9 (see Jeffers, ZA 108 pp. 209–225 and the commentary to text no. 9 [Prism F]). For the specific variants that lead to this tablet being classified as part of the earliest-attested recension of Prism F, see the on-page notes to v 11, v 18–21, vi 12, and vi 14. But in addition to these, the tablet also contains other variant traditions that are not represented in any of the exemplars of the prism inscription (see the on-page notes to iv 9 and vi 10–11), suggesting that this tablet could preserve a slightly earlier version for this material than was contained even in the first version of the prisms themselves (Jeffers, ibid. p. 223).
The building report is not preserved, but given that the Prism F inscription records Ashurbanipal's construction of a replacement House of Succession at Nineveh and that the building reports of three other probable tablet copies of Prism F appear to also describe that building project (see text no. 92 v 5–6, text no. 96 rev. ii´ 1´–8´, and text no. 97 rev. ii´ 1´–6´, although the first two of these accounts are mostly reconstructed), the building account that would have been inscribed on K 3404+ almost certainly commemorated the building of Ashurbanipal's new palace.
This clay tablet fragment contains a possibly defective archival copy or draft of text no. 9 (Prism F), an annalistic inscription written on clay prisms in 645 (eponymy of the governor of Samaria). The text, as far as it is preserved, contains parts of the reports of the voluntary submission of the Lydian king Gyges after he won a battle against the Cimmerians; the defeat and beheading of the Elamite king Teumman at Tīl-Tūba; the capture of the Gambulian capital Ša-pī-Bēl; the dethronements of Ummanigaš (Ḫumban-nikas II) and Tammarītu in Elam; and the end of Ashurbanipal's second war against Ummanaldašu (Ḫumban-ḫaltaš III) of Elam, which ended in the sack and destruction of the city Susa. The building report, of which only a few signs of the first two lines are preserved, appears to have recorded work on the House of Succession, Ashurbanipal's palace at Nineveh.
Access the composite text [/rinap/rinap5/Q003791/] of Ashurbanipal 092.
K 2697+ preserves part of the bottom edge, as well as portions of two columns on both the obverse and reverse of what was originally a three-column tablet. The approximate date of composition is ca. 645 since its contents duplicate those of text no. 9 (Prism F): col. ii = F ii 8b–17, col. iii = F ii 52–iii 23, col. iv = F iii 24–30, and col. v = F vi 15b–25a.
The contents and format of K 2697+ would lead one to expect a full version of text no. 9 (Prism F) (compare text no. 91), but it appears that a large portion of that inscription was not included on the tablet. The contents of the first four columns of this text roughly correspond to the contents preserved in the first four columns of text no. 91, a tablet that originally contained the Prism F inscription in full. However, the contents of K 2697+ unexpectedly jump from col. iii of Prism F at the top of its fourth column to col. vi of Prism F at the top of its fifth column, leaving cols. iv and v of Prism F generally unrepresented on the present tablet. For comparison, text no. 91 begins its col. v with F iv 33 and its col. vi with F v 47. Without more of the inscription preserved, it is impossible to determine the reason for the missing text unless it was simply the result of gross scribal negligence by omitting an entire column's worth of content. One should note that the inscription on K 2697+ would have concluded in col. v of the tablet, presumably leaving the remainder of that column and col. vi uninscribed. If the deviation in the tablet's contents was due to scribal error, there is a possibility that the scribe might have noticed the error once he had finished copying the inscription, and there would have been sufficient room to include the missing contents at the end of the text as an editorial correction, but this is only speculation.
Although only a tiny portion of the building report (v 5–6) survives, it — like the Prism F inscriptions of text nos. 91 and 96–97 — gave an account of the construction of Ashurbanipal's palace at Nineveh, the House of Succession; see the commentaries of those three texts for further details.
The extant text of this small fragment of a clay tablet contains the final lines of a report on the king's second Egyptian campaign, specifically the plundering of Thebes, and the beginning of an account about Ashurbanipal setting up outposts to deprive the anti-Assyrian Phoenician coastal city of Tyre of food and fresh water.
Access the composite text [/rinap/rinap5/Q003792/] of Ashurbanipal 093.
K 3402 is a fragment that preserves part of one face of a clay tablet, as well as part of its left edge. The approximate date of this text is ca. 645 since its contents duplicate material from text no. 9 (Prism F) i 52–67a.
This summary inscription of Ashurbanipal is known from a poorly-preserved, two-column clay tablet. The extant text contains part of the report of the king's fifth Elamite campaign, which describes the looting of Susa and the carrying off of royal statues, including one of Ḫallušu (Ḫallušu-Inšušinak I), a rival of Ashurbanipal's grandfather Sennacherib. The inscription records that because of the sedition that Ḫallušu had committed against Sennacherib, Ashurbanipal had that Elamite's statue mutilated as a posthumous punishment for his actions. Although the text is broken, it appears that the Assyrian king — as a final act of vengeance — put this statue on display in the gateway of Sennacherib's "Palace Without a Rival" (Egalzagdinutuku) in Nineveh so that it could publicly praise the god Aššur and the goddess Ištar.
Access the composite text [/rinap/rinap5/Q003793/] of Ashurbanipal 094.
K 3062+ preserves parts of two columns on the obverse and reverse of a multi-column tablet, including a portion of its right edge. Given that the second column on the reverse, as far as it is preserved, is uninscribed, this fragment most likely originated from a two-column tablet.
The terminus post quem for the inscription is Ashurbanipal's fifth Elamite campaign in 646. For col. ii, compare text no. 9 (Prism F) iv 34b–48 and text no. 11 (Prism A) v 82–94; and for iii 1´–11´, compare text no. 9 (Prism F) v 34–39 and text no. 11 (Prism A) vi 48–57.
A small fragment from a corner of a multi-column clay tablet preserves part of an excerpt of an annalistic text of Ashurbanipal that largely duplicates two inscriptions written on clay prisms: text nos. 9 (Prism F) and 11 (Prism A). This piece (K 2640+) belongs to the second tablet of a multi-tablet series; this is confirmed by the number "2" written on the left edge. The tablet, when complete, would have included parts of the accounts of Ashurbanipal's third and fifth Elamite campaigns, as well as a complete description of the fourth Elamite campaign, events that took place between ca. 651 and 646. Because the third and final tablet of the series has not yet been identified, it is uncertain exactly when the inscription was composed. However, since the preserved text duplicates the military narration of known dated texts, the tablet series was likely inscribed ca. 645–642.
Access the composite text [/rinap/rinap5/Q003794/] of Ashurbanipal 095.
Parts of the obverse, reverse, top edge, and left edge are preserved. Its extant contents duplicate (with variation) small portions of the military narration of text nos. 9 (Prism F) and 11 (Prism A). For the obverse, compare text no. 9 (Prism F) iii 6–17 and text no. 11 (Prism A) iii 136–iv 9; and for the reverse, see text no. 9 (Prism F) iv 74–v 3a and text no. 11 (Prism A) vi 1–7a.
K 2640+ is a small fragment from Tablet II of a multi-tablet series. This is evident from the fact that i 1 begins in the middle of an account describing the events of the third Elamite campaign and ends partway through a report of the sack of the Elamite city Susa, which took place during Ashurbanipal's fifth Elamite campaign. The final preserved line (rev. i´ 6´) is the catch line of Tablet III, on which the last part of the inscription would have been written; that tablet began with KÙ.BABBAR.MEŠ KÙ.GI.MEŠ NÍG.ŠU.MEŠ NÍG.GA šá KUR EME.GI₇ URI.KI "silver, gold, possessions, (and) property of the land of Sumer (and) Akkad" (text no. 9 [Prism F] v 3 and text no. 11 [Prism A] vi 7–8a). The subscript, which is now completely broken away and was written on the top edge, likely read 2-ú nis-ḫuNU AL.TIL "second extract, (inscription) not complete"; compare the subscript of text no. 79 (iv 15´), which is the third extract of a four-tablet series. The fact that K 2640+ belongs to part of Tablet II is confirmed by the fact that the scribe who wrote it inscribed the number "2" on the upper part of the left edge. At present, the other tablets in this series have not yet been positively identified.
Rm 2,274 is a small clay tablet fragment that contains only part of what was likely a full draft or archival copy of text no. 9 (Prism F), an annalistic inscription that was written on clay prisms and vertical cylinders in 645 (the eponymy of the governor of Samaria). However, the extant text of the tablet only preserves part of a report about the Assyrian king's troops looting Susa during his second war against Ummanaldašu (Ḫumban-ḫaltaš III) of Elam and part of Ashurbanipal's advice to future rulers.
Access the composite text [/rinap/rinap5/Q003795/] of Ashurbanipal 096.
Rm 2,274 preserves the lower part of two columns of text from the reverse of a tablet, as well as a small portion of its top edge; i´ 13´ is written on the top edge. The tablet likely contained a full version of text no. 9 (Prism F) that would have originally been written in three columns on each side (see text no. 91, but compare text no. 92). The two columns preserved on the fragment are possibly the final two columns of the inscription, although it is unclear if there is sufficient room at the end of col. ii´ and on the top edge of the tablet to finish the inscription and then include a subscript without having to start another column. The approximate date of composition is ca. 645 since its contents duplicate Prism F: col. i´ = F v 32–44, and col. ii´ = F vi 63–70a.
Even though the building report (rev. ii´ 1´–8´) is mostly reconstructed — given that the Prism F inscription was written to commemorate work on the House of Succession at Nineveh and that the building reports of two other probable tablet copies of Prism F appear to report on this work (see text no. 92 v 5–6 and text no. 97 rev. ii´ 1´–6´, although the former account is mostly reconstructed) — the inscription written on Rm 2,274 likely also described the construction of Ashurbanipal's palace.
A small clay tablet fragment preserves only part of what was possibly a full archival copy or draft of text no. 9 (Prism F), one of Ashurbanipal's prism inscriptions, when complete. From that inscription, however, the extant text of the tablet only preserves a portion of the report on probably the king's first war against Ummanaldašu (Ḫumban-ḫaltaš III) of Elam, as well as part of the building account, which appears to pertain to work on the House of Succession at Nineveh.
Access the composite text [/rinap/rinap5/Q003796/] of Ashurbanipal 097.
Rm 2,490 preserves only small portions of probably the final two columns of text from the reverse of a tablet. The tablet likely contained a full version of text no. 9 (Prism F) that would have originally been written in three columns on each side (see text no. 91, but compare text no. 92). The approximate date of composition is ca. 645 since its contents duplicate Prism F: col. i´ = F v 13?–16?, and col. ii´ = F vi 43–49a. The authors would like to thank E. Jiménez for bringing this fragment to their attention.
Although only a tiny portion of the building report (rev. ii´ 1´–6´) is preserved, it mostly likely recorded the construction of the replacement House of Succession at Nineveh; for details, see the commentary of text no. 96.
A small flake from a clay object, probably a multi-column tablet, contains part of the prologue of an inscription of Ashurbanipal. The extant text preserves a portion of the report on the completion and decoration of Esagil ("House whose Top is High") in Babylon — specifically the return of the statues of Marduk and his entourage — and the enlargement of Marduk's dais.
Access the composite text [/rinap/rinap5/Q003797/] of Ashurbanipal 098.
The fragment probably originated from the middle of col. i of the obverse of a multi-column (most likely a three-column) clay tablet, although it is not impossible that the flake could have also come from a clay prism. The contents of the flake duplicate text no. 5 (Prism I) i 10´–13´, text no. 6 (Prism C) i 20´–24´, and text no. 10 (Prism T) i 23–27.
The inscription is not sufficiently preserved to determine its date of composition. What little of the text is extant on the flake appears in the prologues of Ashurbanipal's prism inscriptions that date from 648 to 645. However, it is not certain how long this description of the king's deeds in Babylon remained in circulation at Nineveh after the composition of text no. 10 (Prism T) in 645. It is possible that this text (see also text nos. 99 and 104) was composed as late as ca. 641 given that text no. 215 — an inscription known from a fragmentary tablet composed sometime around the eponymy of Šamaš-daʾʾinanni in ca. 644–642 — almost certainly includes in its prologue (although it is mostly in a lacuna) the return of the statues of Marduk and his entourage and the enlargement of Marduk's raised dais. Therefore, it is possible that the inscription written on the object of which K 17901 is part could have been composed after 645, but before 640 (or perhaps slightly earlier) when the king's scribes began composing new descriptions of his deeds for Marduk in Babylon, as in text no. 22, whose date of composition is ca. 642–640.
A fragment from a multi-column clay tablet preserves a portion of the prologue of an inscription of Ashurbanipal. The extant text includes reports on the enlargement of Marduk's raised dais in Esagil ("House whose Top is High") in Babylon and the construction of a musukkannu-wood canopy, as well as part of a passage describing Ashurbanipal's creation of temple appurtenances, returning statues of his tutelary deities to their inner sanctums, and providing them with offerings when he rebuilt the sanctuaries of Assyria and Babylonia. Because these passages duplicate verbatim material included in text no. 10 (Prism T), an inscription written on prisms in 645 (the eponymy of the governor of Samaria, Nabû-šar-aḫḫēšu), R. Borger (BIWA p. 137) designated this text as "T Tablet 5" ("TTaf 5").
Access the composite text [/rinap/rinap5/Q003798/] of Ashurbanipal 099.
Rm 2,322 is a fragment that preserves parts of cols. i and ii from the obverse of a three-column clay tablet. The extant text duplicates text no. 5 (Prism I) i 14´–16´, text no. 6 (Prism C) i 24´b–30´a, text no. 7 (Prism Kh) i 69´–72´a, text no. 8 (Prism G) i 5´–10´a, text no. 10 (Prism T) i 27b–34 and iii 40–47a, and text no. 215 i 1´–6´ and ii 9´–15´.
The inscription is not sufficiently preserved to determine its exact date of composition. Although the extant text of Rm 2,322 duplicates the contents of the prologues of inscriptions written on clay prisms that date from 648 to 645, it is possible that this object (see also text nos. 98 and 104) was inscribed as late as ca. 641. For further details, see the commentary of text no. 98.
Joshua Jeffers & Jamie Novotny
Joshua Jeffers & Jamie Novotny, 'Inscriptions on Tablets, Part 1 (text nos. 72-99)', RINAP 5: The Royal Inscriptions of Ashurbanipal, Aššur-etel-ilāni, and Sîn-šarra-iškun, The RINAP/RINAP 5 Project, a sub-project of MOCCI, 2022 [http://oracc.org/rinap/rinap5/RINAP52TextIntroductions/TabletsPart1texts72-99/]