219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226
Eight clay tablets unearthed from Nineveh's citadel mound (modern Kuyunjik) contain copies of inscriptions of Ashurbanipal that pertain to his activities in Babylon. One text records his work on the god Marduk's temple Esagil (text no. 219), while several other texts record Ashurbanipal's bestowal of objects — such as a basket, censer, and writing board — to Marduk in Esagil (text nos. 224–226), the refurbishment of a pleasure bed (and possibly a canopy) likely for Marduk (text no. 222), and the return of Marduk's bed and throne to Babylon from Aššur (text no. 223). This group of texts also includes the L[ondon]4 Inscription (text no. 220) — which was to be inscribed upon a stele in Babylon and which describes the king's selection and training to be king and the procession to Babylon during his first regnal year to install his brother, Šamaš-šuma-ukīn, as king there — and also a small tablet fragment (text no. 221) whose limited contents bear a similar text.
The extant text of 81-2-4,212, a fragmentarily-preserved clay tablet, contains reports about various building operations in the Esagil ("House whose Top is High") temple complex at Babylon, such as the creation of a metal-plated and reinforced canopy and the enlargement of the god Marduk's throne-dais with bricks cast from zaḫalû(-metal), an appeal from Ashurbanipal to Marduk to bless him for creating objects for his temple, and the first line of the king's advice to future rulers.
Access the composite text [/rinap/rinap5/Q007627/] of Ashurbanipal 219.
81-2-4,212 preserves parts of both faces of the tablet, including portions of its left and bottom edges. For obv. 4´ and 6´, see text no. 10 (Prism T) i 33–38; and for obv. 7´–8´, compare text no. 15 ii 19–21 and text no. 10 (Prism T) i 27–30.
This broad, two-column clay tablet K 2694+ (= L[ondon]4) is inscribed with a draft of a text that Ashurbanipal intended to be engraved on a stone stele presumably to be displayed in Esagil, the temple of the god Marduk at Babylon. The inscription begins with a lengthy prologue (i 1´–ii 25´) that details Ashurbanipal's training as an adolescent boy, his education in the House of Succession (in Nineveh) while he was heir designate to the throne of Assyria, and the prosperous and peaceful state of affairs in the kingdom shortly after he became king. The text's introduction also recounts how the gods nominated Ashurbanipal for kingship while still in the womb and how they fashioned his regal form and granted him exceptional physical and mental prowess; and it records the extensive training that the Assyrian prince underwent in his youth in order to prepare him for his destined lot as king of Assyria. Moreover, this part of the inscription further details his academic abilities in regards to interpreting omens, solving mathematical equations, and reading esoteric Sumerian and Akkadian compositions; his military training in how to handle weaponry, ride horses, and maneuver chariots; and his performance at court in how to issue orders and appoint officials. Given this focus on the king's instruction while growing up, the text is frequently referred to as Ashurbanipal's "School Days Inscription." The prologue subsequently provides an account of his selection by Esarhaddon — with divine approval — to be the heir designate of Assyria and his subsequent entry into the House of Succession. The prologue concludes with a description of Ashurbanipal's success during his first days as king. His accession to the throne was met with much celebration, and his outstanding performance as ruler led enemies to lay down their weapons and allowed the people to dwell in security, resulting in a time of peace and prosperity for the land.
The historical narrative portion of the inscription (ii 26´–iii 29´) reports on the events of the early part of Ashurbanpal's first regnal year (668), during which the Assyrian king escorted the recently-repaired statue of Marduk back to Babylon — which had been residing in Aššur since 689 — presumably so that he could install his older brother Šamaš-šuma-ukīn as king of Babylon, exactly as his father Esarhaddon had planned a few years earlier. After imploring the god Marduk to return his attention to Babylon and to travel back to his home city, Ashurbanipal and Šamaš-šuma-ukīn, together with a large entourage of different classes of priests and musicians, accompanied the statue of Marduk from Aššur (Baltil) to Babylon. Interestingly, this inscription does not record the return of the statues of the other gods that Ashurbanipal's grandfather Sennacherib had taken from Babylon (Bēltīya [Zarpanītu], the Lady of Babylon [Ištar], Ea, and Mandānu). Before entering Babylon, statues of important Babylonian deities (including Nergal of Cutha, Nabû of Borsippa, and Šamaš of Sippar) reportedly joined the elaborate and festive procession. After entering the city, Marduk's statue participated in different ceremonies (including the mīs pî, "opening of the mouth," ritual) before being placed back on his dais in Esagil.
The inscription concludes (iv 1´–5´) with a passage stating that Ashurbanipal had a stone stele made to commemorate the momentous occasion. That stele, which was presumably erected in Esagil and which has not yet been discovered, is reported to have had images of the gods mentioned in this text and an image of Ashurbanipal himself engraved upon it, together with a text proclaiming the praise of Marduk and recording the Assyrian king's pious deeds (that is, the present inscription).
Access the composite text [/rinap/rinap5/Q007628/] of Ashurbanipal 220.
K 2694+ is a broad, two-column clay tablet of which both faces and most of the left and right edges are preserved, but a portion of the entire top and bottom of the tablet is missing. Several so-called "firing holes" appear on each face of the tablet, and the scribe has written the signs of several lines of the inscription in a fairly cramped manner. The tablet clearly represents a draft inscription as there are numerous errors, erasures, and scribal notations (see below for the latter). Also, the scribe uses stative verbs throughout the inscription where one would expect finite verbal forms.
The contents of the prologue primarily correspond to those of the Prism E prologue material (see Weissert and Onasch, Orientalia NS 61 [1992] pp. 68–76): The lacuna before i 1´ likely duplicated text no. 2 (Prism E₂) i 1–12 and i 1´ overlaps with text no. 2 (Prism E₂) i 13–14; i 10´–13´ nearly duplicate text no. 15 i 2´–9´; ii 1´–4´ almost duplicate text no. 2 (Prism E₂) ii 1–8; and ii 11´–13´ duplicate text no. 2 (Prism E₂) ii 1´–7´. Undoubtedly, other elements of K 2694+ would have duplicated the Prism E-related material if the latter were better preserved (see the on-page notes to text no. 2 [Prism E₂] lacuna after i 14, ii 9 and lacuna, lacuna after ii 7´, and text no. 15 lacuna before i 1´).
In addition, for i 31´–35´, compare text no. 221 ii 2–4; for ii 8´–13´ and i 28´, compare text no. 191 obv.? 3–7; for ii 26´, compare text no. 191 obv.? 9; for iii 7´–22´, compare Leichty, RINAP 4 p. 113 no. 52 and p. 137 no. 60 lines 42´–49´; for iii 22´, see text no. 191 rev.? 12; and for iii 23´–28´, compare Leichty, RINAP 4 p. 207 no. 105 vi 15–27a.
There is a unique scribal notation on this tablet resulting from the scribe's efforts to edit the contents of the text. In the small space of the margin that exists between cols. iii and iv, the scribe wrote individual numbers in front of each line of text of col. iii 1´–7´ (the numbers ⸢9⸣, 10, 11, 7, 8, and ⸢13⸣ are written before iii 2´–7´, respectively, with the number 5 expected in the break before iii 1´ [see below]). Furthermore, the scribe wrote the first word or few words of these lines in much smaller cuneiform characters in the blank space at the end of col. iv, although he arranged them in a slightly different order (see Figures 3 and 19). The fact that there are thirteen of these smaller lines in col. iv 8´–20´ indicates that they include the beginning of the lines that are no longer preserved on the tablet due to the lacuna before iii 1´. The scribe has also used the blunt end of his stylus to put a broad, vertical strike across these lines.
Initially, scholars did not connect these two phenomena on the tablet. In the original publication of the tablet by C.F. Lehmann-Haupt, he copied the numbers next to iii 2´–7´ as 7, 10, 11, 7, 9, and 13 (Šamaššumukîn 2 pls. XXXVII–XXXVIII), and given the repetition of the number seven that does not allow for a sequence, he stated that they appear to be random remnants of a previous text and that the tablet was a palimpsest (ibid. p. 70). He then addressed the content at the end of col. iv separately. He noted that the broad, vertical strike through the lines was an indication of deliberate deletion of those lines. However, since these lines appeared to contain some type of cultic procession for Marduk that ends abruptly, he considered these lines to be possible notes that the scribe had jotted down in order to start a second tablet (ibid. pp. 70–71). In a similar manner, M. Streck read the numbers as 7, 10, 11, 7, 8? (or 9?), 12(!) and agreed with Lehmann-Haupt that they are incomprehensible (Asb. pp. 264–265 with nn. 1 and g). Regarding the material in col. iv, he also generally suggested that these lines are simply the scribe's notes, but did not state what purpose they served (ibid. p. 270 n. f). In his study of the tablet, T. Bauer (Asb. pp. 84–85 n. 3) was the first to suggest that the numbers represent the scribe reordering the lines of col. iii that had been written incorrectly, although he made no further comment on this. He also did not connect these numbers with the contents recorded at the end of col. iv, stating only that the lines of the latter are simply key words of extracts from the text.
Ultimately, it was R. Borger who pieced these two elements together. In a brief comment (Asarh. p. 79 §52), he noted that the shortened lines in col. iv 8´–20´ represent the beginning of the lines from col. iii, and that if one assigns numbers to the lines in col. iv, these numbers match the ones that have been placed in front of the lines of col. iii. In making this observation, Borger was able to correct the reading of some of the numbers that had been incorrectly read due to damage, and he also recognized that iii 1´ likely had the number 5 before it in the break given that the start of iii 1´ corresponds to the fifth entry in the collection of lines at the end of col. iv.
Borger's analysis allows one to explain what the scribe has done on the tablet. After composing the inscription, the scribe decided to rework the order of the lines at the beginning of col. iii. He used the blank space at the end of col. iv to reorder the lines by using snippets from the beginning of those lines to record the sequence he desired. He then took the new line number derived from the updated sequence that he had established and wrote those numbers in the margin in front of their corresponding lines in col. iii. Once he had completed the renumbering, he used his stylus to strike through the lines in col. iv as he no longer needed those notes. For a translation of the lines at the beginning of col. iii as they would have appeared on the stele after this rearrangement, see p. 6 of the Introduction to the present volume.
There are two additional scribal notations on K 2694+ at iv 6´ and 7´ that are written in the blank space of that column after the conclusion of the main inscription (see the on-page notes). Their exact purpose is unknown, but they are unrelated to the scribe's renumbering of the lines just discussed. S. Parpola (in Novotny, SAACT 10 pp. xvii and 79–80) suggested all of the scribal notations at iv 6´, 7´, and 8´–20´ that appear in the blank space of col. iv represent epigraphs that were to accompany bas reliefs depicting the events described at the beginning of col. iii. Given the internal evidence of the tablet for the notation at iv 8´–20´ presented above, this interpretation seems unlikely.
The upper right part of a clay tablet preserves a small portion of an inscription of Ashurbanipal. Only the obverse contains enough text to determine that its contents are related to the prologues of text no. 220 (L4) and text no. 2 (Prism E₂).
Access the composite text [/rinap/rinap5/Q007629/] of Ashurbanipal 221.
K 6061 comes from the upper right portion of a large tablet that originally contained two columns per face, although the left columns on each side are now entirely broken off. The contents of the obverse of the fragment correspond to the prologue of text no. 220 (L4) and also likely to that of text no. 2 (Prism E₂). For ii 2–4, compare text no. 220 (L4) i 31´–35´, and see the commentary to that text for its relationship to the prologue of text no. 2 (Prism E₂). Only a few words are preserved on the reverse.
A clay tablet fragment from Nineveh preserves a small portion of the introduction 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 of text no. 116 for further details. The inscription began with a one-line dedication, but, unfortunately, the name of the deity to whom the inscription was dedicated is no longer preserved. Given the extant contents of the text, it is possible that the opening address was directed to Marduk, the patron deity of Babylon, or Aššur, the Assyrian national god.
Access the composite text [/rinap/rinap5/Q007630/] of Ashurbanipal 222.
K 2695 is a single-column tablet whose top and right edges comprising the upper right portion of the tablet are preserved. The reverse, as far as it is preserved, is uninscribed. Obv. 6–15 appear to duplicate text no. 116 i 1´–15´. For further information about the reports of construction undertaken by Ashurbanipal in this inscription, see the commentary of text no. 116 and the on-page notes.
Because only parts of the first fifteen lines are extant, it is not known what the rest of the inscription would have contained, including the main building report (probably inscribed on the tablet's reverse), a passage that might have aided in the identification of the deity to whom the text was dedicated. As for the accounts of construction (obv. 4–15), these are part of the prologue and, therefore, these passages also cannot be used in identifying to whom the text was (originally) dedicated, Aššur, Marduk, or some other (male) deity. The authors tentatively suggested Babylon's patron god when the material for the present volume was initially prepared because the majority of the extant contents record the refurbishments of objects for his temple Esagil and, thus, provisionally edited the text with the Babylon inscriptions discovered at Nineveh (text nos. 219–226), rather than with the Aššur texts from the Assyrian capital (text nos. 194–196). This need not be the case as it is equally likely that the text preserved on K 2695 could have been dedicated to Assyria's national god or another deity altogether (Adad, Nabû, Nergal, Nusku, or Sîn). Despite this uncertainty, the inscription was kept with the Babylon material, especially since moving it to the Aššur (or Ḫarrān, Nineveh, or Tarbiṣu) group(s) of texts would have been equally as problematic.
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. 115–116. Assuming that the interpretation of obv. 10b–14a is correct (see the commentary of text no. 116), 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. The latest possible date of composition is ca. 652–650. This is based on the fact that the present inscription, like text nos. 15 and 115, makes no mention of placing tall columns in the "Gate of the Abundance of the Lands" of the Aššur temple at Aššur, an accomplishment first alluded to in i 16–19 of text no. 3 (Prism B), an annalistic text whose earliest-dated copies were inscribed in Abu (V) of the eponymy of Aḫu-ilāʾī (649). Thus, it is highly probable that the text was written on K 2695 ca. 655–650.
A two-column clay tablet preserves parts of inscriptions of Sennacherib and his grandson Ashurbanipal. In 689, Sennacherib plundered a pleasure bed and the throne of the god Bēl (Marduk) from Esagil ("House Whose Top is High"), took them to Aššur, and then inscribed and dedicated them to the god Aššur. The subscript at the bottom of col. iii records that Ashurbanipal removed the inscriptions that his grandfather Sennacherib had written on these two objects and reinscribed them with a text written in his own name. To avoid the displeasure of Aššur and to avoid the curses reserved for those who intentionally erase an inscription of an Assyrian king, Ashurbanipal had his scribes make a copy of Sennacherib's inscriptions. On this same tablet, he then included an archival copy or draft of the new text that was written on the bed and throne of Bēl (Marduk) when he had those objects returned to Esagil in Babylon. His replacement inscription contains a damaged address to the god Marduk, the king's name and epithets, a report about his work on the Esagil temple and other objects — including the pleasure bed for the use of the god Marduk and the goddess Zarpanītu — appeals for blessings from Marduk and Zarpanītu for this work, and finally warnings to future rulers not to tamper with the inscription. According to the subscript, these two items were returned to their rightful place in Babylon on the 27th day of the month Simānu (III) in the eponymy of Awiānu (655).
Access the composite text [/rinap/rinap5/Q007631/] of Ashurbanipal 223.
Contrary to the copy published by J. Craig (ABRT 1 pp. 76–79), parts of both the obverse and reverse of a two-column tablet are preserved, along with portions of its left, right, and bottom edges. The obverse, which contains cols. i–ii, is almost completely destroyed and only the ends of the first five lines of col. ii are partially extant; these appear to belong to an inscription of Sennacherib. The reverse of the tablet contains the bottom half of cols. iii–iv, which Craig erroneously regarded as the obverse. The text of iii 1´–16´ contains the end of an inscription that Sennacherib had written on the bed and throne of the god Bēl (Marduk), both of which were removed from Esagil in Babylon in 689; iii 17´–35´ contain the measurements and description of the bed and throne; and iii 36´–40´ contain a statement about how Ashurbanipal removed Sennacherib's inscriptions from these objects and replaced them with his own text. Col. iv contains the inscription that Ashurbanipal had written on the metal plating of these objects before returning the objects to Esagil in Babylon. The remainder of col. iv after the double horizontal ruling is not inscribed.
The Sennacherib inscriptions — one of which is a duplicate of K 8664 — and the descriptions of Marduk's bed and throne are edited with Sennacherib's texts (see Grayson and Novotny, RINAP 3/2 pp. 226–231 nos. 161–162; Figure 22 on p. 230 of that volume is a photograph of the reverse of the tablet). Only the subscript and Ashurbanipal's inscription are included here.
Unlike most of the positively-identified inscriptions of Ashurbanipal written on clay tablets, K 2411 contains a date; iii 39´ records that that Bēl's bed and throne were returned on the 27th day of the month Simānu (III) in the eponymy of Awiānu (655) and, thus, the tablet was inscribed shortly after that date. A stone tablet of Ashurbanipal from Aššur (see text no. 61) was written in the month Tašrītu (VII) of the same eponymy; compare iv 11´–15´ of K 2411 with text no. 61 obv. 14–16 and 27b–31. The Šamaš-šuma-ukīn Chronicle (Grayson, Chronicles p. 129 no. 15 line 4) mistakenly records that the pleasure bed was returned to Babylon in the fourteenth regnal year of Šamaš-šuma-ukīn (654 = Ashurbanipal's fifteenth regnal year); there is no mention of Marduk's throne. The scribe of that chronographic text appears to have confused Ashurbanipal's "fourteenth regnal" (655, the eponymy of the Awiānu) — the year that this text and text no. 61 give as the date that Bēl's bed was returned to Babylon — with Šamaš-šuma-ukīn's fourteenth year, and thus provided Ashurbanipal's regnal year instead of that of his older brother in this passage. The reliability of the information provided in Babylonian Chronicles will be discussed in more detail in the introduction of Part 3.
Five clay tablets housed in the British Museum preserve a dedicatory inscription to the god Marduk ("Weihinschrift an Marduk") that probably dates to the later part of Ashurbanipal's reign. This text was inscribed upon a reddish-gold basket (masabbu) and a gold censer (nignakku) that were presumably placed in Esagil, the temple of Marduk at Babylon. Of the five exemplars that bear this inscription, one is written in contemporary Babylonian script while the others are written in Neo-Assyrian script. Given that the tablets in Neo-Assyrian script contain a longer text than that of the former, E. Jiménez (Iraq 76 [2014] p. 114) has rightly suggested that there were two versions of the inscription. Thus, the "Babylonian" version (text no. 224) is edited separately from the "Assyrian" version (text no. 225).
One tablet that preserves a dedicatory inscription to the god Marduk is written in contemporary Babylonian script. The text opens with a list of Marduk's titles and epithets, followed by a passage that briefly mentions Ashurbanipal's conquest of Elam and his defeat of the Cimmerian ruler Tugdammî, "king of the Ummān-manda." The remainder of the inscription concerns the fashioning of a cult object to be dedicated to Marduk and the benefits that Ashurbanipal will receive from Babylon's tutelary deity and his entourage (the deities Zarpanītu, Nabû, and Tašmētu) as a result of that pious gesture. The fifty-line-long "Dedication Inscription to Marduk" ("Weihinschrift an Marduk") was written on a reddish-gold basket (masabbu). The fact that the text was written in exactly fifty lines is probably an allusion to the fifty names given to Marduk in the Babylonian poem of creation Enūma Eliš, and one of Marduk's names from that composition is mentioned in line 6 of the present text.
Access the composite text [/rinap/rinap5/Q007632/] of Ashurbanipal 224.
K 120B+ preserves the left half of a clay tablet written in Babylonian script. In his edition, M. Streck (Asb. pp. 276–287) assumed that only a little bit of the right side of the tablet was broken off, and so he only allowed for a handful of signs in the break at the end of the lines before inserting a closing bracket. But from the curvature of the tablet, it appears that it was originally a much wider tablet than Streck had thought, with approximately half of it broken off and possibly even more missing in places. A large piece of the upper left portion of the obverse at the beginning of lines 6–11 was initially broken away, but E. Jiménez (Iraq 76 pp. 112–113) joined K 12582 to K 120B+, restoring those damaged lines. Lines 1—30 are on the obverse of the tablet and lines 31—52 are on the reverse.
Although there were two separate versions of this dedicatory inscription to Marduk — a "Babylonian" one (this text) and an "Assyrian" one (text no. 225) — it appears that the scribe of K 120B+ knew of the latter version of the inscription (see line 41 and the on-page note).
The text dates towards the end of Ashurbanipal's reign due to the historical reference in line 20 to Tugdammî, who appears in such later sources as text no. 13 (Prism J) and text no. 23 (IIT), both of which probably date to around 638. The fact that Tugdammî's successor, Sandak-šatru (or Sandak-kurru), is not mentioned in those inscriptions but is mentioned here in line 25 suggests that the present text was written sometime after 638. For the historical material of lines 20–25, compare the accounts in text no. 13 (Prism J) viii 6–45, text no. 21 line 19´, and text no. 23 (IIT) lines 146b–159a.
Four exemplars written in Neo-Assyrian script bear a dedicatory inscription to Babylon's patron deity, Marduk; a fifth exemplar containing a slightly different version of this text and written in Babylonian script is edited separately (see text no. 224). The present inscription opens with a longer list of Marduk's titles and epithets than in the "Babylonian" version. However, the historical section of the "Assyrian" version is not preserved, so it is unclear if this version contained the same historical material as in the latter or if separate exemplars recorded different events (Jiménez, Iraq 76 [2014] p. 114). Like the "Babylonian" version, the remainder of the inscription records the fashioning of cult objects to be dedicated to Marduk and the benefits that Ashurbanipal would receive from the tutelary deity of Babylon and his entourage (his wife Zarpanītu, and Nabû and Tašmētu, the patron deities of Borsippa) as a result of this gesture. The present version of the text was written on a gold censer (nignakku) (ex. 1) and a (reddish-)gold basket (masabbu) (ex. 3); at least one version of the text (ex. 3) contained fifty-five lines (see the commentary).
Access the composite text [/rinap/rinap5/Q007633/] or the score [/rinap/scores/Q007633/] of Ashurbanipal 225.
The copies of the "Assyrian" version of this dedicatory inscription to Marduk are not well preserved. Altogether, the exemplars preserve at most the first quarter of any line of the inscription, and even then they only contain the introductory and concluding sections of the text without any historical material. However, this inscription is well enough represented to differentiate it from the "Babylonian" version (text no. 224) since the former includes numerous lines that are not present in the latter: obv. 7–8, 10, 12, 14, 16, rev. 4´, 11´–12´, and 23´ of the "Assyrian" version are not in the "Babylonian" one. Furthermore, it appears that the scribe of ex. 4 knew of the "Babylonian" version of the inscription (see the on-page note to obv. 13).
The master text generally follows ex. 1, which is the largest of the Neo-Assyrian fragments, although rev. 1´–7´ are only preserved on ex. 2. E. Jiménez identified and published the new fragment Sm 1474 (ex. 4) in Iraq 76 (2014) pp. 112–114. In his brief study of this inscription, Jiménez also raised the possibility that there might have been different renditions of the "Assyrian" version given that there are important variations even among the exemplars of this version of the inscription (for these variations, see the on-page notes). The text of ex. 1 was inscribed upon a gold censer (nignakku), while the text of ex. 3 was instead written on a (reddish-)gold basket masabbu, but the latter information is only known from the exemplar's subscript since this tablet fragment merely preserves the final few lines of the inscription. The scribe of ex. 3 also wrote on the top edge of that tablet (= rev. 25´ of the master text) that its inscription contained fifty-five lines of text. In contrast, although the end of ex. 1 is preserved, the scribe did not write a subscript or provide a total line count for the inscription, but instead left the space after the horizontal ruling on the reverse and the top edge of the tablet uninscribed.
A complete score of the inscription is presented on Oracc, and the sole minor orthographic variant is given at the back of the book.
A fragment from the bottom left portion of a clay tablet that preserves parts of both faces contains a dedicatory inscription of Ashurbanipal to Marduk, the tutelary deity of Esagil ("House whose Top is High") at Babylon. The text was to be inscribed on (the metal plating of) a wooden writing board (lēʾum) and was probably to be displayed in Esagil.
Access the composite text [/rinap/rinap5/Q007634/] of Ashurbanipal 226.
Joshua Jeffers & Jamie Novotny
Joshua Jeffers & Jamie Novotny, 'Tablets Related to Babylon (text nos. 219-226)', 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/tabletspart7texts219236/tabletsrelatedtobabylontexts219226/]