A copy of an Akkadian inscription of Aššur-etel-ilāni is written on a crudely-fashioned, single-column clay tablet. That text records that this successor of Ashurbanipal had an offering table made of musukkannu-wood and ṣāriru-gold for the god Marduk, Babylon's tutelary deity. A two-line note appears after the inscription and mentions food offerings, the name of an individual (a certain Nādin, son of Bēl-aḫḫē-iqīša), and a date (the eleventh day of Ulūlu [VI] of the king's third regnal year). M. Jursa has argued convincingly that the tablet probably comes from Uruk and was copied in the reign of Cambyses, and that the date on the tablet refers to Cambyses' reign (NABU 2013/1 pp. 19–21 no. 13 and Current Research in Cuneiform Palaeography pp. 187–198).
Access the composite text [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/rinap5/Q003857/] of Aššur-etel-ilāni 2.
In 1915, Princeton Theological Seminary purchased their collection of cuneiform tablets, including the present one, from Yale University. Because Yale had earlier acquired the items from various dealers, the original provenance of the inscription is not known. Since the god Marduk is described as "lord of Babylon, who dwells in Esagil" (lines 8–9), it is plausible that the musukkannu-wood table mentioned in the text was to be placed in the Esagil temple and, thus, this might indicate that the inscription originally comes from Babylon, Marduk's principal place of worship. The inscription is written in Babylonian script, although a few sign forms are Neo-Assyrian. E. Leichty suggested that lines 1–20 are the text for the inscription which was to be carved or painted on the offering table and that they were written by the individual who is mentioned by name in line 22 (Nādin, son of Bēl-aḫḫē-iqīša) to serve as a draft or model for the craftsmen. Leichty suggested also that the offerings mentioned in line 21 were perhaps to have been presented to Marduk in Nādin's name when the table was dedicated. M. Jursa, however, has argued that the tablet is likely a late copy of an original written in Assyrian script and that it likely comes from Uruk, since Nādin, son of Bēl-aḫḫē-iqīša (line 22), is probably to be identified with a scribe by that name who is known at Uruk from the reign of Neriglissar into the reign of Cambyses, who was the author of texts composed between the third year of Nabonidus and the fourth year of Cambyses, and who is known to have on occasion carried out his duties in Babylon, including probably in the sixth month of Cambyses' third year. Jursa's careful study of the paleography of the inscription has also made him suggest a later date for the tablet than the reign of Aššur-etel-ilāni, a date in the second half of the sixth century. For details, see Jursa, NABU 2013/1 pp. 19–21 no. 13 and Current Research in Cuneiform Palaeography pp. 187–198.
The tablet is roughly oval in shape, crudely formed, and has been flattened at the edges. Leichty had suggested that it appears that a previously inscribed tablet had been moistened and flattened for reuse.
Line 12 is unintelligible and appears to have been inserted in between lines 11 and 13; there is no contextual break between lines 11 and 12. In the left margin between lines 16 and 17 are traces of what may be two signs, possibly ŠÀ NU. Leichty suggested that "they, as well as the blank spaces on the tablet, have to do with the placing of the inscription on the table ... Perhaps these notes refer to decoration on the table in which case we should probably read NU as ṣalam 'relief, drawing.'"
This clay tablet, which was found at Babylon in 1911, is inscribed with an Akkadian text stating that Aššur-etel-ilāni, Ashurbanipal's son and immediate successor, had a gold scepter made for the god Marduk. The scepter was placed in Eešerke ("House, Shrine of Weeping"), that god's shrine at Sippar-Aruru.
Access the composite text [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/rinap5/Q003858/] of Aššur-etel-ilāni 3.
This clay tablet was identified by W.G. Lambert as the object published in the Deimel Festschrift by E. Ebeling (who gave no museum or excavation number for the tablet and stated that it was among the Aššur texts of the Vorderasiatisches Museum). The inscription is written in Neo-Assyrian script and shows evidence of several erasures. The tablet was kindly collated by J. Marzahn on behalf of the RIM Project.
The Sumerian name of the temple é-èš-ér-ke₄ means "House, Shrine of Weeping" and that building is not otherwise attested. A.R. George tentatively suggested that the name might be a corrupted form of é-še-ri-ga ("House Which Gleans Barley"), the temple of the deity Šidada at Dūr-Šarrukku (=Sippar-Aruru), which might have contained a secondary cult of the god Marduk (George, House Most High p. 83 no. 269). W.G. Lambert suggested to G. Frame that "weeping" might refer to that of the deities Tiāmat and Kingu (or Qingu), together with their allies, whose defeat by Marduk is mentioned in lines 5–6.
This six-line Akkadian text is inscribed on a brick now housed in the Weld-Blundell Collection of the Ashmolean Museum (Oxford). The inscription records Aššur-etel-ilāni's restoration of E-ibbi-Anum ("House the God Anu Named"), the temple of the god Uraš and the goddess Ninegal at Dilbat. Moreover, the text states that this successor of Ashurbanipal had debris cleared from a well of that temple.
Access the composite text [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/rinap5/Q003859/] of Aššur-etel-ilāni 4.
S. Langdon states that the brick originates from Dilbat (Langdon, OECT 1 p. 37), but it is unclear if this provenance was determined solely by means of the text's contents or by some knowledge about where the piece was actually found. The text is inscribed along the edge of the brick in Babylonian script.
With regard to E-ibbi-Anum, see Unger, RLA 2/3 (1935) pp. 222–223; George, House Most High p. 102 no. 493; and Almamori and Bartelmus, ZA 111 (2021) pp. 174–190. Unusually, the name of the temple includes an Akkadian word, ibbi, "(he) named."
This thirteen-line Sumerian inscription of Aššur-etel-ilāni recording that he had Ekur ("House, Mountain"), the temple of the god Enlil, rebuilt is known from a fragment of a brick discovered at Nippur that is now in the Hilprecht collection of the Friedrich-Schiller-Universität (Jena). The text is inscribed, not stamped.
Access the composite text [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/rinap5/Q003860/] of Aššur-etel-ilāni 5.
The brick probably originates from the University of Pennsylvania's excavations at Nippur, which were undertaken between 1888 and 1900. The text's contents also suggest such a provenance. Although the fragment presently measures 15.2×9.6×6.6 cm, the brick had been cut down to this size in modern times. The inscription is written in Babylonian script, with some of the sign forms having archaizing features. The inscription was collated by J. Oelsner on behalf of the RIM Project.
As already noted by D.O. Edzard, both this inscription and one of Ashurbanipal's (Asb. 259) appear to be based upon an inscription of the Kassite king Adad-šuma-uṣur (1216–1187) which has been found on several bricks from Nippur (Hilprecht, BE 1/1 no. 81 and duplicates).
Copies of this Akkadian inscription of Aššur-etel-ilāni are known from a clay tablet and two small clay cylinders. This text records that Aššur-etel-ilāni had the remains of a seventh-century chieftain of Bīt-Dakkūri returned from Assyria to the latter's ancestral home, Dūru-ša-Ladīni ("Fortress of Ladīnu"). The tribal leader in question, Šamaš-ibni, was likely the Dakkurian leader whom Esarhaddon (680–669) had taken to Assyria and executed in 678. This good deed on the part of Aššur-etel-ilāni presumably reflects his attempt to win the support of that important Chaldean tribe in Babylonia.
Access the composite text [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/rinap5/Q003860/] of Aššur-etel-ilāni 6.
The dealer from whom ex. 1 was purchased stated that it had been found at "Tel Khaled a few miles to the southeast of Hilla, near the present course of the Euphrates" according to A.T. Clay (YOS 1 p. 60). Tel Khaled might be Tulūl al-Ḫālidija; see Zadok, WO 16 (1985) pp. 54–55 and n. 166. There is no information on the provenances of the other two exemplars, which had passed through the antiquities market (Clay, YOS 1 p. 60 n. 1). Ex. 1 was collated by G. Frame both before and after it was baked. Several tiny fragments — at least some of which do not belong to this cylinder — had been attached to the piece in modern times and these were removed at the time of baking. These fragments are currently stored with YBC 2151 and preserve all or parts of one or more signs. These fragments are not taken into consideration in the score edition present on Oracc. The three exemplars are inscribed in contemporary Babylonian script and the line arrangement is identical for all three (as far as they are preserved). The master line follows ex. 1, with help from exs. 2–3 in line 2 and ex. 3 in lines 3 and 7–12. The minor (orthographic) variants are listed at the back of the book.
Two Babylonian chronicles record that the governor of Nippur (...-aḫḫē-šullim) and Šamaš-ibni, "the Dakkurian" (that is, leader of the Bīt-Dakkūri tribe), were taken to Assyria and executed in the third year of Esarhaddon (678); see Leichty, RINAP 4 pp. 7–8. While nothing more is known about that particular governor of Nippur, Esarhaddon's royal inscriptions tell us about Šamaš-ibni's crime. They state that he had forcibly taken possession of fields belonging to the inhabitants of Babylon and Borsippa; for example, see Leichty, RINAP 4 p. 18 Esarhaddon 1 (Nineveh A) iii 62–70. Undoubtedly, Šamaš-ibni had taken control of this land while Babylon lay abandoned after its destruction by Sennacherib in 689 and problems had probably arisen over ownership of the land when Esarhaddon began the restoration of Babylon. Esarhaddon sent Assyrian troops south, plundered Bīt-Dakkūri, returned the land to its original owners, and made Nabû-ušallim, son of Balāssu, head of the tribe instead of Šamaš-ibni. On this matter, see in particular Frame, Babylonia pp. 79–80; see also Baker and Gentili, PNA 3/2 pp. 1198–1999 sub Šamaš-ibni no. 4.
As for Dūru-ša-Ladīni, to which the tomb was transferred, it was a fortified settlement in the area of the Bīt-Dakkūri tribe. See Unger, RLA 2/4 (1936) p. 247 sub Dûr-Ladinna; and Bagg, RGTC 7/3–1 p. 192 sub Dūr-Ladīni.
Jamie Novotny, Joshua Jeffers & Grant Frame
Jamie Novotny, Joshua Jeffers & Grant Frame, 'Babylonian Inscription (text nos. 2–6)', 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/rinap53textintroductions/ashuretelilani/babylonianinscriptionstexts26/]