While Šamaš-šuma-ukīn was king of Babylon and after Baʾalu of Tyre had reaffirmed his loyalty to Assyria (ca. 662[163] and Ḫundāru of Dilmun became a tribute-paying client (or reconfirmed his status as such),[164] Ashurbanipal repaired the enclosure wall of Eanna ("House of Heaven"), the temple of the goddess Ištar, at Uruk.[165]
During the second war with the Elamite king Ummanaldašu (Ḫumban-ḫaltaš III) in 646, the Assyrian army thoroughly looted and destroyed the important religious center Susa, together with its principal temples and ziggurat.[166] At least two inscriptions record the countless wonders that Ashurbanipal had discovered in that city's palaces and sacred buildings, which included royal and divine objects that had been looted from Babylonia by Elamite kings (on seven different occasions) or that had been sent there as bribes by former kings of Babylon, including his own brother Šamaš-šuma-ukīn.[167] Of the numerous items kept in Susa's treasuries, the most important, at least according to the textual record, was a statue of the goddess Nanāya, which Ashurbanipal believed had been carried off to Elam "1635 years" earlier (during the Old Babylonian Period).[168] That statue, together with those of the goddesses Uṣur-amassa and Urkayītu, which were apparently also discovered at Susa, was ceremoniously returned on 1-XI-646 to its "rightful" place in Eḫiliana ("House of the Luxuriance of Heaven"), which was located in the Eanna temple complex.[169] After this time, Ashurbanipal appears to have sponsored some work on Eḫiliana, but since none of the texts of this king (thought to be) written for objects deposited or displayed are sufficiently preserved, it is unclear what he did for Nanāya's cella at Uruk after XI-646.[170] Because a statue of Nanāya was already in Eḫiliana at the time, as is clear from at least two inscriptions of his father Esarhaddon,[171] it is not known if Ashurbanipal replaced the then-residing Nanāya statue with the one he had taken from Susa or if that long-absent image was placed elsewhere in the Eanna complex. How this dilemma was resolved is not recorded in presently-available sources. It is certain, however, that Nabopolassar (625–605), returned the Nanāya statue that Ashurbanipal brought into Eḫiliana in 646 BC to Susa in his accession year (626) BC.[172]
A clay tablet containing an archival copy of an inscription of Ashurbanipal discovered at Uruk records that the Assyrian king had a metal-plated (and inscribed) ceremonial cart (attaru) dedicated to one of that city's gods or goddesses.[173] Given the poor state of preservation of that text, it is uncertain to whom the cart was given — Ištar, Nanāya, or some other deity (Uṣur-amassa or Urkayītu) — and when the inscription was composed, either before the outbreak of the Šamaš-šuma-ukīn rebellion in 652 or after the conclusion of the second war with Ummanaldašu in 646. Since Ištar was the goddess of war, it is likely that the cart had been dedicated to her, probably in connection with Ashurbanipal's restoration of Eanna's enclosure wall, sometime before 652, although this cannot be proven with certainty.
[163] See Novotny and Jeffers, RINAP 5/1 pp. 17–18 for details and textual references.
[164] Dilmun is mentioned twice as a vassal of Assyria in extant inscriptions: once in Asb. 23 (Novotny and Jeffers, RINAP 5/1 p. 308 IIT lines 131b–132, as well as line 137) and once in Asb. 263 (line 9). It is clear from Asb. 263 that its ruler (Ḫundāru) was already sending regular payments to Assyria prior to the outbreak of the Šamaš-šuma-ukīn rebellion in 652 since the king of Babylon is mentioned favorably in that text. This is interesting since the only other inscription mentioning that king of Dilmun dates to ca. 638. For details about this ruler of Dilmun, who is also mentioned in royal correspondence, see Brinkman, PNA 2/1 p. 479 sub Ḫundāru 2.
[165] Asb. 263 (lines 22b–24a). For a brief history of Eanna, see George, House Most High pp. 67–68 no. 75.
[166] For information about the Assyrian campaigns against the Elamite king Ummanaldašu, see Novotny and Jeffers, RINAP 5/1 pp. 23–25.
[167] Novotny and Jeffers, RINAP 5/1 p. 202 Asb. 9 (Prism F) v 3–18 and p. 249 Asb. 11 (Prism A) vi 7–26.
[168] Most inscriptions record the number of years that Nanāya was in Elam as 1,635, but a few texts state that she was in Susa either 1630, 1535, or 1530 years. For details, see Novotny and Jeffers, RINAP 5/1 p. 204 on-page note to Asb. 9 (Prism F) v 72. Asb. 227 obv. 12–15 (Jeffers and Novotny, RINAP 5/2 p. 346) states that Kudur-Nanḫundu, a king of Elam, abducted Nanāya. Scholars have identified that Elamite ruler with either (1) Kutir-Naḫḫunte I, a contemporary of the Old Babylonian kings Samsu-iluna (1749–1712) and Abī-ešuḫ (1711–1684), or (2) Kutir-Naḫḫunte III, an Elamite ruler who held authority in Babylonia after the fall of the Kassite Dynasty in the mid-12th century. For the proposal that it was the former Elamite ruler who had taken Nanāya's statue to Susa, see, for example, Scheil, RA 29 (1932) pp. 67–76, especially p. 76; König, RLA 2/5 (1938) p. 330; Hinz, RLA 6/5–6 (1983) pp. 383–384; van Koppen, Susa and Elam pp. 380–384 (with references to previous studies); and Janssen, NABU 2021/3 pp. 186–188 no. 81. For the suggestion that it was the later Kutir-Naḫḫunte III who had carried off the goddess Nanāya, see, for example, Stolper in Carter and Stolper, Elam pp. 88–89 n. 323; and Vallat, NABU 1993/1 pp. 25–26 no. 31 (with references to earlier studies). As pointed out by F. van Koppen (Susa and Elam p. 381), the Kutir-Naḫḫunte in question can only be the earlier Elamite ruler as it would be very difficult to reconcile the 1635-year span of time (Distanzangabe) with the later ruler; the abduction of the statue of Nanāya might have taken place while Abī-ešuḫ, Ḫammu-rāpi's grandson, was on the throne. He also suggested that Ashurbanipal's scholars arrived at the number 1635 using (a) source(s) comparable to the Babylonian King List A (Grayson, RLA 6/1–2 [1980] pp. 90–96 §3.3): "We are not familiar with the sources for Babylonian history used by Ashurbanipal's scholars, but may assume that their figures resembled those of the Babylonian King List A, with 368 years for the First Sealand Dynasty and 576 years and 9 months for the Kassite Dynasty" (van Koppen, Susa and Elam p. 381 n. 35). It is unclear, as stated already by van Koppen, precisely which Old Babylonian king's reign was the starting point used by Ashurbanipal's scholars to calculate the length of Nanāya's residence in the Elamite capital Susa. Recently, however, T. Janssen (NABU 2021/3 pp. 186–188) has suggested that the variant 1535-year span began with Abī-ešuḫ's immediate successor Ammī-ditāna (1683–1647) — thus excluding the reigns of Ḫammu-rāpi (1792–1750), Samsu-iluna, and Abī-ešuḫ — and ended with the battle of Tīl-Tūba in 653, rather than with the sack of Susa in 646, the year when Nanāya's statue was actually recovered and returned to its "rightful" place in Eḫiliana: 89 (Babylon I Dynasty after Abī-ešuḫ) + 368 (entire Sealand I Dynasty) + 576 (entire Kassite Dynasty) + 502 (post-Kassite period until 653) = 1535. If Janssen's proposal proves correct, in that the 1535 years begin after the reign of Abī-ešuḫ, then the more-commonly-used span of 1635 years would have placed that Urukian goddess' abduction during the first half of Ḫammu-rāpi's tenure as king. For the evidence that Kutir-Naḫḫunte I might have taken the statue of Nanāya while Abī-ešuḫ, Ḫammu-rāpi's grandson, was on the throne, see van Koppen, Susa and Elam pp. 380–384. As for the 1630-year span, could that number refer to the time from Ḫammu-rāpi's first regnal year to Ashurbanipal's first year as king? One arrives at that number as follows: 43 (Ḫammu-rāpi's reign) + 38 (Samsu-iluna's reign) + 28 (Abī-ešuḫ's reign) + 89 (Babylon I Dynasty after Abī-ešuḫ) + 368 (entire Sealand I Dynasty) + 577 (= 576 years and 9 months; entire Kassite Dynasty) + 487 (post-Kassite period until 668) = 1630. Given the variants 1635, 1535, and 1530, it is less certain that Ashurbanipal's scribes regarded the start of his reign as the end date of Nanāya's stay in Susa, which would have been far too early and, thus, the 1630-year period ended closer to that goddess' return to Uruk, perhaps even in 653, as Janssen has suggested. That proposal might find some contemporary textual support from Asb. 126 rev. 5–7 (Jeffers and Novotny, RINAP 5/2 p. 123), a damaged passage that seems to record that Ummanigaš (Ḫumban-nikaš II) — the son of Urtaku whom Ashurbanipal placed on the Elamite throne shortly after Teumman was beheaded during the battle at Tīl-Tūba in 653 — failed to send Nanāya's statue back to Uruk. The number 1630 in reports about the fifth Elamite campaign was changed to 1635, a figure that became the most-commonly-used Distanzangabe; for details, see Jeffers, ZA 108 (2018) pp. 215–216 §2.5. It is unlikely that the addition of five years was random and, therefore, there must be some logical explanation for the change. Perhaps this alteration (using exclusive counting) reflects the time between the death of Teumman in 653 — assuming that that year was the original endpoint of the 1630 (and 1530) years — and Ummanaldašu (Ḫumban-ḫaltaš III) assuming power in 648. Apart from the five-year period between the start of the Šamaš-šuma-ukīn rebellion in 651 and the sack of Susa in 646 (also using exclusive counting), the present authors are not aware of any major events in (Babylonia and) Elam that would have necessitated the five-year change. Assuming that Ashurbanipal's scribes' calculations were based on source(s) comparable to the Babylonian King List A, as van Koppen has suggested, then the 1530 and 1535 time spans would have placed Nanāya's departure at the beginning of Ammī-ditāna's reign (around his fifth year as king); and the 1630 and 1635 time spans would have regarded that event as having taken place during the reign of the more-famous Ḫammu-rāpi, who was a contemporary of Šamšī-Adad I (1813–1781), a ruler of Assyria well-known to Ashurbanipal's scribes. Given the lack of firm information from extant sources, these issues must remain a matter of speculation.
[169] The date that Nanāya entered Eḫiliana is recorded in Novotny and Jeffers, RINAP 5/1 p. 251 Asb. 11 (Prism A) vi 122: ina ITI.GAN UD.1.KÁM "in the month Kislīmu (IX), on the first day." For details on Eḫiliana, see George, House Most High pp. 98–99 no. 459.
[170] Jeffers and Novotny, RINAP 5/2 pp. 359–368 Asb. 232–236. The subscript of Asb. 236 (ibid. p. 368 rev. ii´ 1´–2´) implies that the text written on the tablet to which fragment K 13360 belongs was inscribed on an object, possibly a foundation document (likely a clay prism), displayed or deposited in a (sacred) building at Uruk. The prominent mention of Nanāya indicates that the inscription was composed after that goddess' return to Eḫiliana in late 646. Work on Eḫiliana might have also been recorded in Novotny and Jeffers, RINAP 5/1 p. 291 Asb. 21 (line 12´), but that text is badly damaged, so it is unclear if it records Nanāya's return to Uruk or her return to Eḫiliana and Ashurbanipal's subsequent work on that sacred structure.
[171] Leichty, RINAP 4 p. 276 Esarhaddon 135 (Uruk C) lines 11–15 and p. 278 Esarhaddon 136 (Uruk D) lines 11–17. Esarhaddon's renovation of Eḫiliana was prompted by him returning the statue of Nanāya that his father Sennacherib had taken to Assyria in 693, after Assyrian troops had captured and looted Uruk and Eanna. For a letter recording some of the details of the repair of the statues of Uruk's deities, see Parpola SAA 10 pp. 284–285 no. 349. Esarhaddon claims that the Kassite king Nazi-Maruttaš (re)built or renovated that holy part of Eanna. If this reflects historical reality, then Nanāya's cult at Uruk, despite the abduction of its cult statue several hundreds of years earlier (see n. 168 above), had been restored in or before this time. Clearly, a new cult statue had been created and was worshipped in Eḫiliana from the Middle Babylonian Period onwards. Esarhaddon also names Erība-Marduk, a member of the Bīt-Yakīn tribe in the Sealand who became the king of Babylon, as a previous builder of Nanāya's cella. Erība-Marduk's work on Eanna was not favorably remembered in the Neo-Babylonian Period. For details, see Beaulieu, Pantheon of Uruk pp. 136–138; and Da Riva and Novotny, IOS Annual 22 pp. 21–22.
[172] This is recorded in the Chronicle Concerning the Early Years of Nabopolassar lines 15b–17 (see p. 43).
[173] Asb. 264. The opening dedication and building report are not preserved. The association of the inscription with Uruk is based solely on the provenance of the tablet (W 22669/3).
Jamie Novotny
Jamie Novotny, 'Uruk', RINAP 5: The Royal Inscriptions of Ashurbanipal, Aššur-etel-ilāni, and Sîn-šarra-iškun, The RINAP/RINAP 5 Project, a sub-project of MOCCI, 2023 [http://oracc.org/rinap/rinap5/rinap53introduction/buildinginbabylonia/uruk/]