A fragment from a clay tablet, K 7596, preserves parts of probably eight epigraphs of Ashurbanipal. These epigraphs are completely unrelated to the previous two collections of epigraphs that are edited with the Nineveh material — the so-called "Teumman and Dunānu cycle" (see the introduction to text nos. 161–171) and the "Šamaš-šuma-ukīn and Tammarītu cycle" (see the introduction to text nos. 172–183). The text is a bit unusual in that the eighth presumed epigraph written on the left edge of the tablet mentions restoration work on the moon-god Sîn's temple Eḫulḫul at Ḫarrān and temple construction is not elsewhere known as a topic of Assyrian epigraphs or relief depictions.
Access the composite text [/rinap/rinap5/Q007592/] of Ashurbanipal 184.
K 7596 preserves parts of one face and the left edge of a tablet. The direction of the writing on the left edge suggests that the face preserved is the obverse. Restorations of the summary statement about Ashurbanipal's victories across the land in obv. 12´–16´ are based upon text no. 7 (Prism Kh) i 94´–101´ and text no. 10 (Prism T) iv 19–35; see also text no. 114 obv. 8–11.
This tablet is unique in the presently-extant corpus of Ashurbanipal inscriptions because it contains drafts of epigraphs on the obverse (with some of the names of officials left blank as in his other epigraph tablets), but then on its left edge it mentions construction work on the Eḫulḫul temple at Ḫarrān as part of the last presumable epigraph. Already in his publication of the epigraph materials, E. Weidner (AfO 8 [1932–33] p. 202) noted the difficulty of the contents of this tablet. After stating that the epigraphs on K 7595 are not related to any of the other epigraph cycles, he suggested that the epigraphs of the tablet were not intended to be accompanied by relief depictions, but were simply independent wall inscriptions. He based this conclusion on the fact that Assyrian reliefs do not contain any images of Assyrian temples on them; thus an epigraph about temple building that was to be associated with that kind of image seemed implausible.
In a short note, T. Bauer (Asb. p. 96 n. 8) asserted that the text on the left edge of K 7595 cannot possibly be an epigraph. Instead, he surmised that the tablet could have comprised multiple draft texts and that the epigraphs on the obverse would presumably have nothing to do with whatever text was on the tablet's reverse. J. Schawe (AfO 10 [1935–36] p. 171) took the same approach as Bauer, even citing Rm 40 (text no. 176) as an example of an epigraph text that contained epigraphs on its obverse but not on the reverse.
However, in disagreement with Bauer and Schawe, it is not necessary to dissociate the contents of both faces of a tablet unless there is a clear reason to do so. Even in Schawe's suggestion for Rm 40, it is unlikely that the contents of both faces should be viewed as separate texts (see the commentary to text no. 176). Assuming all the tablet's contents are epigraphs, J. Novotny (Eḫulḫul pp. 43–45 and 106) instead suggested that the topic of the presumed epigraph is not necessarily the temple building itself, but rather the subjugation of Syrian rulers and their contribution of the necessary construction materials for the Assyrian king to carry out his restoration work on that temple. The presumed epigraph mentions that the kings of the land Ḫatti are vassals of Ashurbanipal, and such rulers are said to have supplied lumber for this very project in text no. 207 (LET) rev. 51–56. Thus, the emphasis in the epigraph on the cooperation of the subjugated western lands generally parallels the sentiments of the epigraph in obv. 10´–16´, which contains the summary statement about Ashurbanipal's victories across the land from east to west and the submission of its inhabitants to his rule that is found in the prologues of some of his prism inscriptions. Novotny ultimately concluded that there is no reason to doubt this material was an epigraph that was to accompany a relief — possibly one depicting the transport of timber — that could have been intended for metal bands used to decorate a door hung in a palace or temple; for example, text no. 207 (LET) rev. 55–56 specifically mentions affixing bands of silver on the doors erected in the gateways of the Eḫulḫul temple.
Alternatively, one should note that glazed bricks could be another potential medium for such inscriptions. Glazed bricks showing scenes of battle are attested for the Neo-Assyrian period, for example, depicting Esarhaddon's Egyptian campaigns; for details, see in particular Fügert and Gries in Fügert and Gries, Glazed Brick Decoration pp. 28–47; Lehmann and Tallis, Esarhaddon in Egypt; Lehmann and Tallis in Fügert and Gries, Glazed Brick Decoration pp. 85–95; and Nadali, Iraq 68 (2006) pp. 109–119. One glazed brick with an epigraph of Ashurbanipal, reportedly from Nebi Yunus, is known; see Novotny and Jeffers, RINAP 5/1 pp. 366–367 no. 71.
Joshua Jeffers & Jamie Novotny
Joshua Jeffers & Jamie Novotny, 'Miscellaneous Epigraphs (text no. 184)', 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/TabletsPart4texts161-184/MiscellaneousEpigraphstext184/]