100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129
A small fragment of a multi-column clay tablet is inscribed with an inscription whose extant contents are identical to a text written on clay prisms during the eponymy of Nabû-šar-aḫḫēšu, the governor of Samaria (645). Since the description of Ashurbanipal's fifth Elamite campaign duplicates verbatim the report of that event in text no. 10 (Prism T), R. Borger (BIWA p. 137) designated this inscription as "T Tablet 3" ("TTaf 3").
Access the composite text [/rinap/rinap5/Q003799/] of Ashurbanipal 100.
K 4520 preserves parts of ten lines of text from two columns on the obverse of a multi-column tablet; given the relatively short length of the preserved lines, the fragment likely originally belonged to a three-column tablet. The approximate date of composition is ca. 645 since the inscription duplicates the contents of text no. 10 (Prism T): obv. i´ = T iv 15–22 and obv. ii´ = T iv 47–v 1.
This inscription of Ashurbanipal, of which only a small portion is preserved, duplicates verbatim the contents of text no. 10 (Prism T), the known copies of which were inscribed in 645 (the eponymy of the governor of Samaria). Because the extant portions of the prologue and the description of Ashurbanipal's second war against the Elamite king Ummanigaš (Ḫumban-nikaš II) are identical to those in Prism T, R. Borger (BIWA p. 137) designated this text as "T Tablet 4" ("TTaf 4").
Access the composite text [/rinap/rinap5/Q003800/] of Ashurbanipal 101.
K 11610 preserves parts of two columns from the reverse of a multi-column tablet, probably originally a three-column tablet. The approximate date of composition is ca. 645 since it duplicates materials from text no. 10 (Prism T): rev. i´ = T iv 4–15 and rev. ii´ = T v 5?–8?.
A tiny fragment from a multi-column clay tablet contains an inscription whose extant contents duplicate text no. 10 (Prism T), a text written on prisms during the eponymy of Nabû-šar-aḫḫēšu, the governor of Samaria (645). The description of Ashurbanipal's fifth campaign (his second war against Ummanigaš [Ḫumban-nikaš II]), as far as it is preserved, matches the report of that event included in the aforementioned inscription. For that reason, this text is sometimes referred to as "T Tablet 2" ("TTaf 2"; Borger, BIWA p. 137).
Access the composite text [/rinap/rinap5/Q003801/] of Ashurbanipal 102.
K 3101A is a fragment that preserves parts of both faces from the bottom right corner of a multi-column tablet; given the relatively short length of lines the fragment likely originally belonged to a three-column tablet. The approximate date of composition is ca. 645 since it duplicates materials from text no. 10 (Prism T) iv 46–v 11. For rev. i 10, note that this version has 5 ME instead of 6 ME for the length of the goddess Nanāya's residence at Susa (see the on-page note to text no. 9 [Prism F] v 72).
This multi-column clay tablet, of which only a small portion remains, was inscribed with a long, annalistic inscription of Ashurbanipal. The tablet, when complete, contained reports of at least three different military expeditions, including an account of the king's fifth Elamite campaign in 646, during which Assyrian troops discovered a statue of the goddess Nanāya while they were looting and destroying the storerooms of Susa's palaces and temples.
Access the composite text [/rinap/rinap5/Q003802/] of Ashurbanipal 103.
K 4455+ preserves parts of two columns on one face and only part of one column on the opposite face of a multi-column tablet; a portion of the bottom and right edges are also preserved. At present, it is not certain which face is the obverse and which is the reverse, but based on the limited curvature of the fragment, the assignment of the faces in the present edition seems the most probable.
For obv.? ii´ 1´–8´, compare text no. 10 (Prism T) v 1–11. Note that the version on the tablet adds a reference to the god Aššur and the goddess Ištar in obv.? ii´ 5´ that is lacking in the prism inscription, and it also has 5 ME instead of 6 ME in obv.? ii´ 7´ for the length of the goddess Nanāya's residence at Susa (see the on-page note to text no. 9 [Prism F] v 72).
Part of the epilogue of an inscription of Ashurbanipal is preserved on the reverse of a small fragment from a clay tablet. The extant text records part of the king's appeals for blessings from his divine patrons for a building project he had carried out on their behalf that is unfortunately no longer preserved, as well as the beginning of Ashurbanipal's advice to future rulers. The inscription is not sufficiently preserved to know what project the text's building account commemorated.
Access the composite text [/rinap/rinap5/Q003803/] of Ashurbanipal 104.
The fragment K 10039 comes from the middle of a column on the reverse side of a multi-column (possibly a two-column) tablet. Rev. i´ 3´–9´ duplicate text no. 5 (Prism I) v 1–4, text no. 10 (Prism T) vi 18–30, and text no. 215 v 24–35.
The inscription is not sufficiently preserved to determine its date of composition. The few extant contents of the fragment appear in the epilogues of Ashurbanipal's prism inscriptions that date from 648 to 645. However, it is not certain how long this material 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. 98–99) 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 — includes in its epilogue this version of the king's appeals for blessings from the gods. Therefore, it is possible that the inscription written on the object to which K 10039 belongs could have been composed after 645, but before 640 at the latest.
This fragment, which comes from the right side of a clay tablet, bears part of an inscription of Ashurbanipal. The extant text contains a small portion of an account of Šamaš-šuma-ukīn's rebellion against the Assyrian king, his younger brother.
Access the composite text [/rinap/rinap5/Q003804/] of Ashurbanipal 105.
K 15151 preserves parts of both faces and the right edge of a tablet. Given the length of lines, the fragment probably originally belonged to a two- or possibly three-column tablet.
The restorations to rev.? i 9´–12´a are taken from text no. 11 (Prism A) iii 115–117. The terminus post quem for the inscription is likely 648, which is the date for Ashurbanipal's defeat of his brother and the capture of Babylon, but since the language of the text appears to follow that of text no. 11 (Prism A), the date of composition could be ca. 644–642.
A flake from a clay tablet preserves part of a report about events in Elam that took place ca. 651–650, during the Šamaš-šuma-ukīn rebellion. The extant text describes how Indabibi revolted against Tammarītu and how the recently-dethroned Elamite king fled to the Assyrian capital Nineveh with his family and the nobles who were still loyal to him. The inscription states that this situation was brought about by the god Aššur and the goddess Mullissu as a consequence of Tammarītu speaking ill of the Assyrian king for allowing a common soldier to behead Teumman, a previous king of Elam, and for questioning how Ummanigaš (Ḫumban-nikaš II), his immediate predecessor and own brother, could be friendly towards Assyria.
Access the composite text [/rinap/rinap5/Q003805/] of Ashurbanipal 106.
This small fragment, of which only a tiny portion of one face and the left edge are preserved, comes from a broad single-column tablet. Regarding the extant text, for lines 1´–6´, see text no. 8 (Prism G) viii 23´´b–32´´, and then compare text no. 3 (Prism B) vii 43–54, text no. 6 (Prism C) viii 18´´–24´´, text no. 7 (Prism Kh) vii 34´–46´, and text no. 11 (Prism A) iv 12b–27.
The exact date of composition cannot be determined since the inscription is not sufficiently preserved. Its terminus post quem can be established as the flight of Tammarītu with his family and eighty-five Elamite nobles to Nineveh in ca. 651–650. However, even though Prisms B, C, Kh, and A all contain similar descriptions of Indabibi seizing power, what little is preserved on the tablet fragment duplicates the account of Prism G. Specifically, the accounts of the present tablet and Prism G include two direct quotations of Tammarītu, while Prisms B, C, and Kh do not, and the tablet and Prism G mention the deities Aššur and Mullissu instead of Aššur and Ištar as in the other prism accounts. Since the tablet follows the tradition of Prism G, this might suggest that the tablet had a similar date of composition as that prism inscription, 646. The reconstruction of lines 1´–5´ is taken from Prism G until that text breaks off, and then the reconstruction of line 6´ is taken from Prism A.
This copy of an annalistic inscription is written on a multi-column clay tablet, which is now very fragmentarily preserved. The surviving contents, what little remains, duplicate the account of the Assyrian king's third Elamite campaign that was included in text no. 11 (Prism A), a lengthy inscription that was written on ten-sided clay prisms ca. 644–642. The extant text records how Indabibi, with support from the god Aššur and the goddess Ištar, seized the throne of Elam from Tammarītu, forcing the deposed Elamite king, his family, and other members of the ruling elite to flee to Assyria for safety.
Access the composite text [/rinap/rinap5/Q003806/] of Ashurbanipal 107.
Sm 2040 is a small fragment that preserves parts of two columns of text from one face of a tablet, although at present it is unclear to which face these belong. The approximate date of composition is ca. 644–642 since the contents of col. ii´ duplicate material from text no. 11 (Prism A) iv 21–33.
A clay tablet fragment, as far as it is preserved, contains a text of Ashurbanipal that duplicates a portion of an annalistic inscription written on clay prisms, text no. 11 (Prism A). The extant text includes a description of the fifth Elamite campaign, during which Assyria's armies conquered and destroyed numerous cities, including Bunanu, one of the royal cities of Ummanaldašu (Ḫumban-haltaš III); the Elamite king is said to have fled (naked) into the mountains.
Access the composite text [/rinap/rinap5/Q003807/] of Ashurbanipal 108.
K 2659+ preserves parts of both faces of a tablet, as well as a portion of its left edge. All of the tablet's content comes from one face, except for a handful of signs from a few lines on the opposite face. Based on the curvature of the fragment, the face with the majority of the inscription is most likely the reverse, but this is not absolutely certain. Traces of what appear to be one of the two vertical rulings that scribes use to delineate the column divisions on a tablet are probably visible at the end of rev.? i´ 5´–7´, suggesting that this fragment originally belonged to a multi-column tablet.
The contents of the rev.? duplicate text no. 11 (Prism A) v 90b–114; compare also text no. 9 (Prism F) iv 41b–56. Given the inscription's correlation to text no. 11 (Prism A), the approximate date of composition is probably ca. 644–642.
This clay tablet fragment contains only a small portion of an Ashurbanipal inscription. What little there is of the text reports on punishments meted out to those who had sided against Ashurbanipal and to one of the Arab rulers, namely Uaiteʾ, the king of the land Sumuʾel.
Access the composite text [/rinap/rinap5/Q003808/] of Ashurbanipal 109.
K 13650 preserves parts of two columns from a single face of a tablet, although only a few signs in the right column of the tablet are extant. Regarding restorations to the text, for i´ 3´–5´, see text no. 6 (Prism C) ix 8´´b–10´´, text no. 7 (Prism Kh) viii 76´–79´, and text no. 134 lines 20´b–21´; for i´ 6´–7´, compare text no. 23 (IIT) lines 111b–112a; and for i´ 8´–9´, compare text no. 11 (Prism A) ix 107–111.
This summary inscription is known from a small fragment of a single-column clay tablet. The extant text contains a short description of the Assyrian king's changing relationship with the Urarṭian Ištar-dūrī (Sarduri III), as well as a military expedition to the land Bīt-Ḫumbê, a place presently mentioned only in this text of Ashurbanipal within the corpus of Neo-Assyrian royal inscriptions.
Access the composite text [/rinap/rinap5/Q003809/] of Ashurbanipal 110.
The fragment only preserves about a dozen lines of text from one face of a clay tablet. For the contents of lines 6´–9´, compare text no. 11 (Prism A) x 40–50. Line 6´ is reconstructed from the prism account. However, it is unclear how to reconstruct lines 7´–9´ fully given that the contents of line 7´ are different from those of the prism inscription and that there appears to be insufficient space in lines 8´–9´ to incorporate all of the contents from the prism account. Given that the fragment's contents relate to text no. 11 (Prism A), its approximate date of composition is ca. 644–642.
A flake from one face of a (multi-column) clay tablet preserves parts of seven lines of text from an inscription of Ashurbanipal. The only discernible content of the fragment appears to be a list of gods who aided the Assyrian king while he was on campaign.
Access the composite text [/rinap/rinap5/Q003810/] of Ashurbanipal 111.
Because there is a vertical ruling line on the right side of the fragment and because each line of text was relatively short, the tablet to which K 15428 originally belonged had more than one column. The narrow width of columns is based on i´ 4´, whose now-missing content, can be securely restored from other inscriptions.
A fragment from a multi-column clay tablet preserves a portion of one of Ashurbanipal's annalistic texts; the tablet was presumably part of a series. The inscription, which is poorly-preserved, contains parts of reports on his third, fourth, and fifth Elamite campaigns, military expeditions that took place between 651 and 647.
Access the composite text [/rinap/rinap5/Q003811/] of Ashurbanipal 112.
K 3043+ preserves parts of both faces from the upper right corner of a broad two-column tablet, including a portion of its top and right edges. For col. ii, see text no. 6 (Prism C) ix 28´´–51´´, text no. 7 (Prism Kh) viii 98´–ix 8, and text no. 8 (Prism G) ix 9´–36´; for iii 1´–8´, compare text no. 7 (Prism Kh) ix 37´´–50´´; and for iii 9´–16´, compare text no. 9 (Prism F) iv 17b–20 and text no. 11 (Prism A) v 63b–67a. The terminus post quem for this inscription's composition is 646 since it includes the beginning of a report on Ashurbanipal's fifth Elamite campaign.
This clay tablet fragment is inscribed with a draft or archival copy of a text of Ashurbanipal that was engraved on a stele or a rock face. The text, of which only parts the first twenty-seven lines survive, comprises a list of the deities who had selected Ashurbanipal to be king, the king's genealogy, and a statement about having stone steles inscribed. The contents, as far as they are preserved, are similar to a stele inscription of Ashurbanipal's father, Esarhaddon, which is also known from copies written on clay tablets (compare Leichty, RINAP 4 pp. 103–109 no. 48).
Access the composite text [/rinap/rinap5/Q003812/] of Ashurbanipal 113.
Rm 2,243+ originates from the upper left section of a single column tablet and preserves parts of both faces, as well as a portion of the left and top edges; the reverse, as far as it is preserved, is uninscribed. The fragment 81-2-4,251 was originally attributed to Esarhaddon by R. Borger (Asarh. p. 120 §102a). However, E. Weissert joined this fragment with Rm 2,243 in 1991, and the inscription on the latter fragment confirms that the tablet dates to the reign of Ashurbanipal.
This inscription of Ashurbanipal is known from a badly-damaged, single-column clay tablet. The extant text, of which only a small portion is preserved, contains part of the inscription's prologue, which included the king's genealogy, as well as a short affirmation that his divine patrons had granted him a favorable lot and unrivaled power.
Access the composite text [/rinap/rinap5/Q003813/] of Ashurbanipal 114.
K 4514 is a fragment from the upper right corner of a wide single-column tablet that preserves parts of both faces and some of its top and right edges; the reverse, as far as it is preserved, is uninscribed. For obv. 1–3, see text no. 3 (Prism B) i 1–5, text no. 5 (Prism I) i 1–7, text no. 7 (Prism Kh) i 1–5, and text no. 10 (Prism T) i 1–8; and for obv. 8–11, see text no. 5 (Prism I) iv 1–iv 8, text no. 6 (Prism C) ii 1´–3´, text no. 7 (Prism Kh) i 94´–101´, and text no. 10 (Prism T) iv 19–35; and compare text no. 3 (Prism B) i 39–47.
This prologue is significantly shorter than the prologues that are found in Prisms B, I, C, Kh, and T, although it incorporates the summary statement in obv. 8–11 about the king's victories over widespread lands from those texts, with only obv. 4–7 containing unique material that is not in the prism inscriptions. Given that the longer summary statement only appears in prism inscriptions after Prism B, the date of composition for the text on the fragment is probably sometime around 648–645, although possibly as late as ca. 641 (compare text nos. 98–99 and 104). Without knowing the building project for which this inscription was composed, the gods that are mentioned in obv. 11 cannot be restored.
Two fragments originating from separate clay tablets contain the beginning of an inscription. The extant text preserves only the first fourteen lines of the inscription's prologue, which consists of the king's titles and genealogy, a short statement concerning his nomination as king by the gods, and brief descriptions about him completing and decorating Eḫursaggalkurkurra ("House of the Great Mountain of the Lands"), the temple of the god Aššur at Aššur, and refurbishing a divine emblem of the goddess Šarrat-Kidmuri (presumably at Nineveh).
Access the composite text [/rinap/rinap5/Q003814/] or the score [/rinap/scores/Q003814/] of Ashurbanipal 115.
The present inscription is preserved on two duplicate tablet fragments, both of which come from the upper right portion of single-column tablets. Ex. 1 preserves the top and right edges of one tablet, as well as both of its faces, although the reverse, as far as it is preserved, is uninscribed. Ex. 2 only preserves the right edge and obverse of another tablet.
For obv. 1–4, compare the introductions of text nos. 3 (Prism B), 5 (Prism I), and 10 (Prism T). The description of the work on the Eḫursaggalkurkura temple at Aššur in obv. 5–7 has parallels with text no. 5 (Prism I) i 1´–7´, text no. 6 (Prism C) i 11´–17´, and text no. 10 (Prism T) i 14–20, although the account presented in this inscription more closely relates to that of an earlier prism inscription, text no. 15 ii 3–7, from which the restorations are taken. As with text no. 15, the present inscription makes no mention of placing tall columns in the "Gate of the Abundance of the Lands," and this omission suggests a probable date for the composition of this text. Given that such a reference appears in the parallel accounts of the prism inscriptions beginning with text no. 5 (Prism I), and given that text no. 3 (Prism B) i 16–19 contains the first reference to installing tall columns in the sanctuaries of the great gods (although the Eḫursaggalkurkura temple is not specifically mentioned), it is likely that the inscription dates slightly earlier than these prism inscriptions, probably to ca. 652–650. For obv. 8–13, compare the parallel passages in text no. 6 (Prism C) i 50´–58´, text no. 7 (Prism Kh) i 21´–31´, and text no. 10 (Prism T) ii 9–20.
A complete score of the inscription is presented on Oracc. This text, however, is not included in the minor variants section at the back of the book since the two exemplars do not contain any orthographic variants.
A clay tablet fragment, presumably from Nineveh, preserves a small portion of the prologue of an inscription of a late Neo-Assyrian king, almost certainly Ashurbanipal since the extant text appears to record that ruler's completion of the Aššur temple at Aššur (Eḫursaggalkurkurra), the refurbishment of several objects for Marduk's temple at Babylon (Esagil), and possibly the rebuilding and enlargement of the Sîn temple at Ḫarrān (interpretation conjectural); see the commentary for further details.
Access the composite text [/rinap/rinap5/Q003815/] of Ashurbanipal 116.
K 1834 is a multi-column tablet for which the right side of col. i and the traces of a few signs of the left side of a second column (that are not included in T. Bauer's copy [Asb. pl. 20]) are preserved; the reverse is completely broken away. When complete, the tablet to which K 1834 belonged probably had two columns on each face, based on the estimated width of col. i.
What little of the text remains appears to duplicate (verbatim) text no. 222 obv. 6–15; that text is a dedicatory inscription written on a single-column clay tablet. The extant contents include brief summaries of Ashurbanipal's building activities, probably the completion of Eḫursaggalkurkurra at Aššur (compare text no. 15 ii 3–7 and text no. 115 obv. 5–7) and the refurbishment of at least two objects displayed in Esagil at Babylon (compare text no. 10 [Prism T] i 31–38 and 46–54). Based on other texts written on multi-column tablets, the inscription likely began with the king's name, titles, and genealogy (Esarhaddon and Sennacherib as his father and grandfather). These now-missing lines would have been followed by descriptions of construction (starting with the completion of the Aššur temple at Aššur); compare, for example, text nos. 5 (Prism I), 6 (Prism C), 7 (Prism Kh), 8 (Prism G), 10 (Prism T), 13 (Prism J), 61, 115, 215, 229, and 232. Because the text breaks off in the (first part of the) prologue, nothing can be said with certainty about the remaining contents, including which historical events it narrated and which structure or object's rebuilding or construction was described in its building account. Therefore, it is unknown where copies of the text preserved on K 1834 were intended to be deposited or displayed.
As for the contents of i 1´–15´, which appear to duplicate text no. 222 obv. 6–15 (as mentioned above), it seems that i 1´ (= text no. 222 obv. 6) records work on Aššur's temple Eḫursaggalkurkurra and that i 2´–9´a (= text no. 222 obv. 7–14a) describe the refurbishment of objects for Marduk's temple Esagil. Although i 9´b–15´ (= text no. 222 obv. 14b–15) are not sufficiently preserved to be able to determine which building project they commemorate, it is not impossible that they include an account of the rebuilding of Eḫulḫul, the temple of Sîn at Ḫarrān. The report of construction at Aššur in this inscription (as well as in text no. 222) might duplicate verbatim text no. 115 obv. 5–7 and the reconstruction of the missing portions of those lines are based on that inscription; compare also text no. 15 ii 3–7. Col. i 2´–9´a are presently unique to this text and text no. 222 (obv. 7–14a), although the contents of i 4´–5´a have clear parallels in numerous other inscriptions of Ashurbanipal. For longer reports about the reconstruction of Marduk's pleasure bed (mayyāl taknê), see, for example, text no. 10 (Prism T) i 46–54, text no. 23 (IIT) lines 48b–51a, text no. 61 obv. 29–31, and text no. 223 iv 14´–19´. It is unclear if i 5´b–9´a (= text no. 222 obv. 10b–14a) record the refurbishment of one or two objects. Col. i 5´b–6´a (= text no. 222 obv. 10b–11a) appear to describe Ashurbanipal's construction of a canopy (erme anu), but it is unknown if i 6´b–9´a (= text no. 222 obv. 11b–14a) continue to describe work on that movable architectural feature of Esagil or if that passage gives an account of the king's renovation and redecoration of Marduk's chariot (narkabtu). Because the Assyrian king created the canopy anew for Babylon's tutelary deity and since he refurbished that god's chariot, a cherished object of Marduk that existed before Ashurbanipal became king, it is very likely that this passage gives an account of the creation of a new canopy and the rebuilding of an existing chariot. This supposition can be support by the fact that the stative forms in i 5´ (= text no. 222 obv. 10) (šu-ut-ru-ṣu and šu-pu-u) are masculine, the grammatical gender of the canopy (erme anu), while the possessive suffixes attached to nouns in i 7´ and 8´ (= text no. 222 obv. 12 and 13) are feminine (NA₄.MEŠ-šá, tam-lit-sa, and si-ḫi-ir-ti-šá), the grammatical gender of the chariot (narkabtu). Therefore, it seems likely that i 2´–9´a (= text no. 222 obv. 7–14a) gave brief descriptions of three objects dedicated to Marduk in his temple. As for the contents of i 9´b–15´ (= text no. 222 obv. 14b–15), it is uncertain which building project(s) this passage records. Note that [ú]-⸢rad⸣-di ina muḫ-ḫi ("[I a]dded to it") in i 12´ is attested only one other time in the extant Ashurbanipal corpus: text no. 207 (LET) rev. 48, a report recording the enlargement of Eḫulḫul, the temple of the moon-god Sîn at Ḫarrān. Could this text also include an account of work at Ḫarrān in its prologue? Possibly, but that passage is not sufficiently preserved to confirm that suggestion. See the on-pages notes for further details.
With regard to the date of composition, it is possible that the inscription was written ca. 655–650, perhaps earlier than or around the same time as text nos. 115 and 222. Assuming that the interpretation of i 5´b–9´a suggested above is correct, then the earliest date possible for the inscription is 655, since text no. 61 — whose only extant exemplar is dated to Tašrītu (VII) of the eponymy of Awiānu — records the refurbishment and return of Marduk's pleasure bed and chariot. On the date of the return of those objects, see also the commentary of text no. 223. Assuming that the report of the completion of Eḫursaggalkurkurra in this inscription duplicated those of text nos. 115 (obv. 5–7) and 222 (obv. 4–6), then the latest possible date of composition is ca. 652–650. See the commentary of those two texts for further information.
This small clay tablet fragment preserves an excerpt from an annalistic inscription of Ashurbanipal. The extant text, which comprises only parts of twelve lines of the original inscription, contains the beginning of an account about the king's first Egyptian campaign, which was directed against the pharaoh Taharqa in 667.
Access the composite text [/rinap/rinap5/Q003816/] of Ashurbanipal 117.
K 6338 preserves the upper portion of one face of a broad clay tablet, as well as part of its top edge. The language of the tablet and the fact that the scribe numbered the Egyptian campaign suggests that its contents are more closely related to the tradition recorded in text nos. 3 (Prism B) and 4 (Prism D) than the earlier accounts found in text nos. 1 (Prism E₁), 2 (Prism E₂), or 207 (LET).
With respect to the contents of the tablet, compare text no. 3 (Prism B) i 48–70; and for obv. 7–11, compare text no. 207 (LET) obv. 13´–17´. Restorations to obv. 1–10 are taken from the former, while the restoration of obv. 11 is taken from the latter. Note that there is a slight variation in the language between the present text and that of text no. 3 (Prism B) in obv. 2 and 9 before it diverges almost completely in obv. 11. Furthermore, it is uncertain what the exact contents of obv. 1 were on the tablet. The scribe left the clay after ger-ri-ia "my campaign" uninscribed, but then the tablet breaks off halfway through the line. It is unclear if the rest of the line was also blank, or if the scribe included a-na KUR.má-kan u KUR.me-luḫ-ḫa lu-u al-lik "I marched to Makan (Egypt) and Meluḫḫa (Ethiopia)" from text no. 3 (Prism B) i 49 in the portion of the line that is no longer preserved.
This heavily-damaged text, of which only a tiny portion survives, records the aftermath of Ashurbanipal's first Egyptian campaign, which was led by Assyrian officials in 667.
Access the composite text [/rinap/rinap5/Q003817/] of Ashurbanipal 118.
82-5-22,10 preserves the center section of one face of a broad clay tablet. The width of the tablet roughly corresponds to that of the tablets for text no. 207 (LET) given that the lineation of the duplicate material in these two inscriptions is the same.
For lines 4´–14´, compare text no. 207 (LET) obv. 37´–45´, as well as text no. 2 (Prism E₂) iv 2´–21´, text no. 6 (Prism C) ii 3´´–17´´, text no. 7 (Prism Kh) ii 19´´–33´´, and text no. 11 (Prism A) i 118–127. Based on the events recorded in the extant text, the terminus post quem is a short time following 667, after the king's first Egyptian campaign.
A poorly-preserved clay tablet fragment contains a draft copy of one of Ashurbanipal's inscriptions. Although the fragment does not preserve any names, similarities with text no. 197 show that this inscription contained reports about the aftermath of Ashurbanipal's first Egyptian campaign in 667 and the death of the Elamite king Urtaku, which took place a few years later, in 664.
Access the composite text [/rinap/rinap5/Q003818/] of Ashurbanipal 119.
K 2626 preserves a portion of both faces from the lower right corner of a tablet, including parts of its right and bottom edges. For the extant text, compare the contents of text no. 197 obv. 2´´–9´´, from which the restorations to the present inscription are taken; for obv. 1´–3´, also compare text no. 3 (Prism B) i 83–87 and text no. 11 (Prism A) i 110b–113. The ends of rev. 11–12 duplicate the ends of lines 3´ and 5´ of text no. 120.
A small fragment from one face of a clay tablet preserves only the ends of a dozen lines of a text of Ashurbanipal. With so little of the original inscription remaining, it is difficult to ascertain its narrative context. However, the ends of lines 3´ and 5´ of this fragment duplicate the ends of rev. 11–12 of text no. 119. Thus, if these two accounts are related, the extant text possibly reports on the death of the Elamite king Urtaku, which took place sometime after Ashurbanipal's first Egyptian campaign in 667 (see text no. 119).
Access the composite text [/rinap/rinap5/Q003819/] of Ashurbanipal 120.
K 6049 is a tablet fragment that preserves only a handful of lines of text from an inscription of Ashurbanipal. Although the contents of the fragment have traditionally been viewed as epigraphs of that seventh-century king that broadly relate to the so-called "Teumman and Dunānu cycle" of epigraph inscriptions (see the introduction to text nos. 161–171), it is more likely that the tablet belongs to a display or summary inscription. The text, as far as it is preserved, is somewhat puzzling since it mentions the Egyptian pharaoh Tanutamon immediately after reporting on numerous members of the Elamite royal family fleeing Elam after Teumman had seized power and had begun slaughtering anyone related to the recently-deceased king Urtaku.
Access the composite text [/rinap/rinap5/Q003820/] of Ashurbanipal 121.
K 6049 preserves parts of six or seven lines from the center of one face of a tablet. As far as it is preserved, the clay of line 6´ is uninscribed, but it is not clear if this entire line before the horizontal ruling was blank or if there was writing at the beginning and end of the line that continued the text from line 5´. For lines 1´–4´, compare text no. 3 (Prism B) iv 72–79, text no. 7 (Prism Kh) v 40–47, and text no. 170 obv.? 2´–4´; and for line 5´, compare text no. 3 (Prism B) ii 5b–6a and text no. 11 (Prism A) ii 22.
The tablet is highly unusual in that it mentions events that took place in Egypt alongside material related to the king's dealings with the Elamites. Treating all of the contents together, T. Bauer (Asb. p. 93) asked whether the presence of this material here could imply that Tanutamon or one of his relatives had fled Egypt to the Elamite court because of the trouble in his land, but such an occurrence seems unlikely. In contrast, J. Schawe (AfO 10 [1935–36] p. 171) argued that the presence of Egyptian material in a tablet that apparently contains epigraphs might suggest that the scribes were also planning to compose Egyptian-related epigraphs. In his view, the fact that the Egyptian material appears with the Elamite material is due to the carelessness of the scribe who forgot to separate the two accounts with a horizontal ruling. One should note that in the accounts of text no. 3 (Prism B) and text no. 7 (Prism Kh), the material that parallels lines 1´–4´ of this tablet concludes the sections in those prisms, after which a horizontal ruling appears, and this would buttress Schawe's overall assertion that the Egyptian material of line 5´ should not be viewed as part of the preceding even though it is unlikely that this fragment contains epigraphs.
This inscription, which is preserved on a tiny fragment of a clay tablet, narrates the events leading up to Ashurbanipal's second Egyptian campaign. Only the middle sections of nine lines of the original text are extant.
Access the composite text [/rinap/rinap5/Q003821/] of Ashurbanipal 122.
The contents of K 13726 appear to duplicate text no. 207 (LET) obv. 69´–rev. 3. However, the fact that the width of each line of text is shorter than the lines of the LET, and that line 8´ does not contain the reference to the god Sîn after the god AN.ŠÁR that appears in the LET, suggests that the present inscription was not intended to be inscribed on objects for that deity's temple at Ḫarrān (Eḫulḫul) and, therefore, should be regarded as a separate text. R. Borger (BIWA p. 175) raised the possibility that the contents of this fragment could belong to the E Prisms (text nos. 1 [Prism E₁] and 2 [Prism E₂]). If this is correct, then the fragment would be the first attestation of Ashurbanipal's campaign against Tanutamon in that text, but it is unlikely that there is enough space in the lacuna after text no. 2 (Prism E₂) v 12 for this material to fit (see the on-page note to text no. 2 [Prism E₂] lacuna after v 12).
Based on the text's extant contents, the terminus post quem for the inscription is ca. 664.
The middle parts of seven lines of this text of Ashurbanipal are known from a tiny fragment of a clay tablet. The extant text, what little there is of it, contains part of a description of the king's second Egyptian campaign (ca. 664), when Assyrian troops thoroughly plundered Thebes.
Access the composite text [/rinap/rinap5/Q003822/] of Ashurbanipal 123.
For the contents of K 19651, see text no. 207 (LET) rev. 2–7, although lines 2´ and 5´–6´ of the fragment deviate from that account. The translation presented here is taken from text no. 207 (LET), but since no edges of the tablet are preserved, the transliteration of each line of text that presumably matches the contents of the LET has not been reconstructed. Given that three lines of the fragment deviate from the LET, the reconstructed translation must be considered tentative as additional variation is possible.
Based on the text's extant contents, the terminus post quem for the inscription is ca. 664.
A small fragment from one face of a clay tablet preserves a portion of seven lines of an inscription that is only attested here. The text likely contains an account of Ashurbanipal's blockade of the Phoenician city Tyre. For the extant contents of this inscription, compare text no. 3 (Prism B) ii 38–46, especially ii 45–46.
Access the composite text [/rinap/rinap5/Q003823/] of Ashurbanipal 124.
A small fragment of a clay tablet preserves parts of eighteen lines of an inscription of Ashurbanipal. What little of the text remains contains reports about the Lydian king Gyges and the capture of the Gambulian capital Ša-pī-Bēl, which was taken during a punitive campaign against its leader Dunānu in 653, when the Assyrian army was returning home from Elam.
Access the composite text [/rinap/rinap5/Q003824/] of Ashurbanipal 125.
82-3-23,85 preserves parts of both faces of a clay tablet, including a portion of its bottom edge, but it is unclear which side is the obverse and which is the reverse and only Side A contains decipherable writing. For Side A lines 1´–7´, the translation is restored from text no. 11 (Prism A) ii 98–110, but without any edges, the lineation of the tablet fragment cannot be ascertained and thus the transliteration of the fragment is not fully reconstructed. Note that Side A line 6´ has [AN.ŠÁR u d]⸢NIN⸣.LÍL "[(the god) Aššur and the goddess M]ullissu" instead of AN.ŠÁR u d15 DINGIR.MEŠ EN.MEŠ-ia "(the god) Aššur and the goddess Ištar, my lords" of text no. 11 (Prism A) ii 107. Side A lines 8´–9´ report on Ashurbanipal's campaign against the Gambulu; compare text no. 11 (Prism A) iii 50–69.
This small clay tablet fragment preserves parts of eleven lines of a summary inscription of Ashurbanipal. The text, as far as it is intact, records the king's defeat of Teumman, the appointment of Ummanigaš (Ḫumban-nikaš II) as king of Elam and the installation of Ummanigaš' younger brother Tammarītu as ruler in the city Ḫidalu, a journey of a statue of the goddess Nanāya to Uruk, Ummanigaš siding with the rebellious king of Babylon (Šamaš-šuma-ukīn), and the overthrow of Ummanigaš by Tammarītu.
Access the composite text [/rinap/rinap5/Q003825/] of Ashurbanipal 126.
K 2644 is a tablet fragment that preserves part of the reverse of a broad single-column tablet, including some of its bottom edge. For rev. 1–2, see text no. 11 (Prism A) iii 38–41; for rev. 3–4, compare text no. 3 (Prims B) v 97–vi 2, text no. 7 (Prism Kh) vi 10´–13´, text no. 11 (Prism A) iii 44–49, and text no. 23 (IIT) line 96–97a; for rev. 5, compare text no. 155 rev. 7–8; and for rev. 8–10, compare text no. 3 (Prism B) vii 31–33a, text no. 6 (Prism C) viii 3´´–6´´, text no. 7 (Prism Kh) vii 17´–20´, text no. 8 (Prism G) viii 8´´–11´´, and text no. 11 (Prism A) iv 1–4.
This poorly-preserved clay tablet fragment probably contains a draft of a campaign report for an annalistic inscription. Although relatively little of the text has survived, the tablet does not appear to have comprised an entire inscription, but only an excerpt of a complete text. The reverse preserves a portion of one version of a report about the king's third Elamite campaign, while the obverse might mention Nabû-šuma-ēreš, a governor of Nippur who had encouraged the Elamites to invade Babylonia. The obverse is not sufficiently preserved to be able to establish the context of the mention of Nabû-šuma-ēreš with any degree of certainty.
Access the composite text [/rinap/rinap5/Q003826/] of Ashurbanipal 127.
K 4500 originates from the upper left corner of a tablet, and it preserves parts of both faces as well as portions of the tablet's left and top edges. The obverse is heavily damaged, and although the shapes of several signs can be made out, it is difficult to identify their values in any meaningful way. The scribe wrote the signs of the reverse in a smaller script, especially as he approached the end of the tablet; rev. 12´–15´ are written on its top edge. For the contents of the rev., compare text no. 3 (Prism B) vii 6–24, text no. 6 (Prism C) viii 1´–20´, and text no. 7 (Prism Kh) vii 1´–7´.
This clay tablet fragment preserves parts of nine lines of a summary inscription. The extant passage recorded events related to Ashurbanipal's capture of the city Bīt-Imbî and the defeat of the Elamite king Teumman in 653.
Access the composite text [/rinap/rinap5/Q003827/] of Ashurbanipal 128.
Rm 2,295 is a fragment that preserves parts of only nine lines from one face of a tablet, along with a portion of its left edge. For the tablet's contents, compare generally Ashurbanipal's second Elamite campaign in text no. 3 (Prism B) v 73–vi 9. Note that in the prism inscriptions, only the city Bīt-Imbî is compared to a "great wall" in text no. 9 (Prism F) iii 46–48 and text no. 11 (Prism A) iv 123b–125, which report on the king's conquest of that city during his war against Ummanaldašu (Ḫumban-ḫaltaš III).
This small fragment, which originates from the bottom of a clay tablet, preserves part of an annalistic inscription of Ashurbanipal. What little of the text is extant records part of an account of the king's conflict with the Arabs, particularly with Uaiteʾ (Iautaʾ), son of Hazael, a king of Qedar; Ammu-ladīn, another king of Qedar; Adiya, wife of Uaiteʾ (Iautaʾ) and queen of the Arabs; and Natnu, the king of the Nabayateans.
Access the composite text [/rinap/rinap5/Q003828/] of Ashurbanipal 129.
K 4687 is a small fragment that preserves parts of only seven lines on each face of a broad single-column tablet, as well as a portion of its bottom edge.
Although little remains of the inscription, it is clear that it contains a mixture of traditions concerning Ashurbanipal's conflicts with the Arabs. It includes materials that are found in the prism inscriptions and the so-called "Large Letter to the God Aššur" (text no. 194), as well as some material that is not represented in those texts. I. Ephʿal (Arabs p. 49) suggested that the tablet contains only the "main facts" of Ashurbanipal's Arab wars without the literary elaborations of the other texts, and that ultimately this inscription represents an abridgment of the letter to the god Aššur. Due to the uncertainty of the text's missing contents, restorations in the transliteration have been kept to a minimum. The terminus post quem for the date of composition for the inscription on the tablet is 646 since it includes the narrative about the defeat of the Arab queen Adiya in rev. 5, which first appears in the account of text no. 8 (Prism G) ix 1´´–6´´.
For the contents of the obv., compare text no. 194 i 42, 48–49, and ii 24–31, as well as text no. 3 (Prism B) vii 88–viii 1, 6, and 24–28, text no. 6 (Prism C) x 4´–9´, and text no. 7 (Prism Kh) x 10–12, 18, and 1´–8´; and for rev. 3–7, see text no. 194 ii 41–55, as well as compare text no. 3 (Prism B) viii 39–48, text no. 7 (Prism Kh) x 23´–34´, and text no. 8 (Prism G) ix 1´´–11´´.
Joshua Jeffers & Jamie Novotny
Joshua Jeffers & Jamie Novotny, 'Inscriptions on Tablets, Part 2 (text nos. 100-129)', 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/tabletspart2texts100129/]