Four clay tablets unearthed from Nineveh's citadel mound (modern Kuyunjik) contain inscriptions pertaining to Ashurbanipal's construction work at Cutha in Babylonia. These texts report on the king's rebuilding of the god Nergal's temple Emeslam ("House, Warrior of the Netherworld") in that city. Among these texts is the so-called "Nergal-Laṣ Inscription," which is known from two large tablet copies, K 2631+ and K 2654. Together, these two pieces preserve a complete inscription of Ashurbanipal that commemorates the rebuilding of Emeslam. Traditionally, the two tablet fragments have been edited together as a composite text, however, there are significant differences between the two pieces where their contents overlap that suggest they are not duplicate inscriptions (see the commentary to text no. 228 for details on the differences between the two inscriptions). Thus, the two fragments have been edited separately in the present volume, with K 2631+ as text no. 227 and with K 2654 as text no. 228.
This large fragment of a single-column clay tablet, K 2631+, contains part of the so-called "Nergal-Laṣ Inscription" that together with text no. 228 preserves a complete inscription of Ashurbanipal commemorating his rebuilding of Emeslam, the temple of the god Nergal at Cutha (see the introduction to text nos. 227–230). The extant text of the present fragment contains an opening dedication to the god Nergal along with his epithets; Ashurbanipal's name and epithets; parts of a lengthy historical report that summarizes the king's conflicts with the Elamites — especially, with Ummanaldašu (Ḫumban-ḫaltaš III) — and that records the return of statues of the goddess Nanāya and other goddesses to their shrines in Eanna ("House of Heaven"), the temple complex of the goddess Ištar at Uruk; a building report that details the rebuilding of Nergal's temple Emeslam; appeals for blessings from the god Nergal and the goddess Laṣ, Cutha's divine patrons, for undertaking this work; and a warning to future rulers not to alter the inscription.
Access the composite text [/rinap/rinap5/Q007635/] of Ashurbanipal 227.
The tablet fragments K 2631+ and K 2654 (text no. 228) have generally been edited together and cited in the literature as a composite text. However, there are several differences between the contents of these two tablets in the sections that overlap (K 2631+ obv. 16–25 overlap with K 2654 obv. 2´–10´; and K 2631+ rev. 2–18 overlap with K 2654 rev. 11–27), making it clear that they are not exact duplicates of each other. As a result, they are edited separately here (see the commentary to text no. 228 for details on the differences between the two inscriptions).
K 2631+ preserves parts of both faces of a single-column tablet, as well as the left edge and portions of the top and bottom edges; the tablet is missing a portion of its right side (missing progressively more towards the middle of the tablet) and everything after obv. 25 to the bottom edge. The inscription on K 2631+ comprises approximately ninety-five lines, with about fifty-three lines on the obverse and forty-two lines on the reverse (plus a blank space after the horizontal rulings that would fit about eleven lines). Although the right edge of the tablet is broken, the shortest lines contain around 22–23 signs each, while the longest lines have about 32–33 signs each. Due to damage to the tablet, it is unclear if it originally contained a subscript after the horizontal ruling after rev. 42. One should note that the tablet also contains some kind of scribal notation in the left margin of the tablet (see the on-page note at obv. 6).
With respect to previous editions in the format of a composite text (see, for example, Borger BIWA pp. 82–85), obv. 1–25 correspond to lines 1–25 and rev. 1–42 correspond to lines 55–102 of the composite text. For rev. 18–24 of the building report, see text no. 12 (Prism H) i 13´b–25´, text no. 22 i 14´b–20´, and text no. 230; for rev. 24–25, see text no. 9 (Prism F) vi 51–54 and text no. 11 (Prism A) x 98–100.
This large fragment (K 2654), which is from a single column clay tablet, contains part of the so-called "Nergal-Laṣ Inscription" that together with text no. 227 preserves a complete inscription of Ashurbanipal commemorating his rebuilding of the god Nergal's temple Emeslam ("House, Warrior of the Netherworld") at Cutha (see the introduction to text nos. 227–230). The extant text of the present fragment contains most of the lengthy historical section that summarizes the king's conflicts with the Elamites — specifically, with Ummanigaš (Ḫumban-nikaš II), Tammarītu, Indabibi, and Ummanaldašu (Ḫumban-ḫaltaš III) — the return of statues of the goddess Nanāya and other goddesses to their shrines in Eanna at Uruk, and Ashurbanipal's war with his older brother Šamaš-šuma-ukīn, the king of Babylon. The last two extant lines of text on the tablet contain the beginning of a building report detailing Ashurbanipal's work on Emeslam.
Access the composite text [/rinap/rinap5/Q007636/] of Ashurbanipal 228.
As noted in the commentary to text no. 227 (K 2631+) and in the introduction to text nos. 227–230, although K 2654 and K 2631+ have generally been edited together, there are several differences between the contents of the overlapping sections of these two tablets that make it clear they are not exact duplicates of each other, and so they are edited separately.
K 2654 preserves parts of both faces of a single-column tablet, as well as a portion of the bottom edge and a very small part of the left edge of the tablet; the top and right edges are completely broken away. Given the differences between this tablet and K 2631+, it is difficult to estimate how many lines the tablet originally contained or even how much is missing in the right portion of the tablet that is now broken off. Regarding the sections that overlap in content, K 2654 obv. 2´–10´ overlap with K 2631+ obv. 16–25, and K 2654 rev. 11–27 overlap with K 2631+ rev. 2–18. However, the lineation of the former does not appear to have a predictable correspondence to that of the latter, and it also contains material that is lacking in the latter. The beginning of each line of K 2654 obv. 5´–10´ corresponds to the beginning of each line of K 2631+ obv. 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, and 25. And while the beginning of each line of K 2654 rev. 11–13 equates to the beginning of each line of K 2631+ rev. 2–4, the four lines of K 2654 rev. 13–16 encompass the six lines of K 2631+ rev. 4–9. As for additional materials, K 2654 obv. 3´–4´ and the relatively lengthy rev. 23–26, which addresses the betrayal of Šamaš-šuma-ukīn, are not found in K 2631+, and likely rev. 19 detailing Ashurbanipal's conquest of the cities Bašimu and Bunanu are not included in K 2631+. Moreover, the lists of gods in obv. 8´ and rev. 18 contain more deities than do the corresponding lines of K 2631+ obv. 22 and rev. 12, respectively. Thus, K 2654 preserves a different version of the inscription than the one represented by K 2631+.
The fact that the contents of K 2654 and those of K 2631+ are different is also confirmed by what must be different in the contents of the now-missing beginning or end of K 2654. The top of the tablet is broken off at the same location on both sides of the tablet, meaning that there is about an equal amount of material missing from the obverse and the reverse (currently the obverse preserves twenty-nine lines and the reverse twenty-eight lines). The first legible line of K 2654 (obv. 2´) corresponds to obv. 16 of K 2631+, and the last legible line of the tablet (rev. 27) — which is the first line of the building account — corresponds to rev. 18 of K 2631+. If the lines of K 2654 were comparable to those of K 2631+, then the beginning of the tablet would be missing fifteen lines of text and the reverse would be missing twenty-four lines of text. Thus, given that the missing portion of the obverse and the reverse should be about the same in length, either the contents of its introduction are longer than those of K 2631+ or the contents of its building account are shorter than those of K 2631+, or possibly some combination of the two.
With respect to previous editions that are in the format of a composite text with text no. 227 (see, for example, Borger BIWA pp. 82–85), obv. 2´–29´ correspond to lines 16–44 and rev. 1–27 correspond to lines 45–78 of the composite.
Two separate fragments from the same three-column clay tablet are inscribed with a summary inscription of Ashurbanipal that was to be written on clay foundation documents (clay cylinders or prisms), which were deposited in the structure of Emeslam ("House, Warrior of the Netherworld"), the temple of the god Nergal at Cutha. The extant text preserves portions of the prologue, reports of the king's third, fourth, fifth, and sixth Elamite campaigns, a building report commemorating the rebuilding of the Nergal's temple, and a subscript.
Access the composite text [/rinap/rinap5/Q007637/] of Ashurbanipal 229.
K 3079+ is a fragment that preserves portions of the left two columns of the obverse and reverse, as well as parts of the top and left edges, of what was originally a three-column tablet. The other fragment, Sm 2019+, preserves parts of three columns from both faces of the lower portion of the same three-column tablet, including its bottom edge and parts of its left and right edges.
Previously, these two fragments have been treated separately since R. Borger (BIWA 8o-Heft pp. 401 and 531) read the divine name after the mention of the god Aššur in iv 1 (from Sm 2019+) as the god Adad (d⸢IŠKUR⸣), which he regarded as possibly a mistake for the goddess Ištar (d15), who is mentioned in parallel prism accounts (text nos. 9 [Prism F] and 11 [Prism A]). However, collation reveals that that divine name is actually Nergal (d⸢U⸣.GUR), the patron god of Cutha, and such a reading connects the inscription on this fragment with Ashurbanipal's work at that location. Based on this, J. Novotny identified a non-physical join between Sm 2019+ and K 3079+, the latter of which is inscribed with a text intended for the Emeslam temple, as its subscript (rev. ii´ 1´–2´) states. This join is supported by several factors. First, the scribal hand and color of the clay is the same for both fragments. Second, the contents of each piece appear to directly follow those of the other. It is clear that the contents at the end of rev. i´ of K 3079+ (= col. v) are directly followed by those at the beginning of col. vi of Sm 2019+ since these lines (v 4´´–vi 12 of the master text) parallel text no. 227 rev. 30–36, the so-called "Nergal-Laṣ Inscription" that was written on objects to be displayed or deposited in Nergal's temple at Cutha (although there is some variation since the latter was written on a single-column tablet and, thus, contains significantly longer lines). Also, the end of col. i of Sm 2019+ appears to be directly followed by the beginning of col. ii of K 3079+, the former of which concludes with a "canonical" prologue report about Ashurbanipal's work on the Ezida temple at Borsippa, while the latter opens with a general statement about the rebuilding of the sanctuaries of Assyria and Babylonia. Finally, the indirect join is supported by the spacing of the inscriptions. Based on text no. 227 rev. 37–42, there were probably only twelve to eighteen lines missing after vi 12 in Sm 2019+, which would suggest that that three-column tablet should have had a significant amount of blank space in col. vi. K 3079+ rev. ii´ (= col. vi), as far as it is preserved, has about nine centimeters of uninscribed surface after its two-line subscript and possibly more blank space between the end of the inscription and that scribal note. Based on the assumed missing contents in Sm 2019+ vi, which presumably parallel text no. 227 rev. 37–42 (with variation), it seems likely that the large amount of uninscribed surface in K 3079+ rev. ii´ would match the expected blank space suggested for Sm 2019+ vi. Given these pieces of evidence, K 3079+ and Sm 2019+ are edited here as a single text.
With respect to the prologue, for i 1–9, compare text no. 3 (Prism B) i 1–5, text no. 7 (Prism Kh) i 1–5, and text no. 10 (Prism T) i 1–8 (and see the on-page note to i 4–5 of the present text); for i 14–16, see text no. 3 (Prism B) i 7–8 and text no. 6 (Prism C) i 1´; for i 17–19, compare text no. 6 (Prism C) i 2´–4´ and text no. 10 (Prism T) i 11–13; for i 20–23, see text no. 6 (Prism C) i 5´–8´; for i 1´–13´, see text no. 5 (Prism I) ii 1–8, text no. 6 (Prism C) i 37´b–47´, text no. 7 (Prism Kh) i 6´b–17´, and text no. 10 (Prism T) i 45–ii 6; and for ii 1–9, compare text no. 6 (Prism C) i 94´–98´, text no. 7 (Prism Kh) i 66´–72´, and text no. 10 (Prism T) iii 35b–49a. Regarding the military narrative, the extant text corresponds to text no. 9 (Prism F) iii 18–26, iv 26–28, 41–45, 47–48, and 57–60; text no. 10 (Prism T) iv 46–52; and text no. 11 (Prism A) iv 10–27, v 73b–76, 115–118, and vii 9–13a and 51–57. The approximate date of composition is probably ca. 646–640.
A flake from one face of a clay tablet preserves a handful of lines from an inscription of Ashurbanipal. The poorly-preserved contents appear to report on this king's rebuilding of Emeslam, the god Nergal's temple in Cutha.
Access the composite text [/rinap/rinap5/Q007638/] of Ashurbanipal 230.
Given the short length of the lines preserved, K 17706 probably originally belonged to a three-column tablet (compare text no. 229). Moreover, since the fragment contains the beginning of the building report, its contents more than likely come from the reverse, probably the lower part of col. v. Although the contents of this fragment might suggest that it belongs with text no. 229 as a non-physical join, the scribal hand of K 17706 is different from that of text no. 229. Rev. i´ 2´–6´ duplicate text no. 227 rev. 18–19; compare also text no. 12 (Prism H) i 13´b–17´ and text no. 23 (IIT) lines 61–62a. Given its duplication of the building account of text no. 227, this fragment is edited with the material related to Cutha.
Joshua Jeffers & Jamie Novotny
Joshua Jeffers & Jamie Novotny, 'Tablets Related to Cutha (text nos. 227-230)', 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/TabletsPart7texts219-236/TabletsrelatedtoCuthatexts227-230/]