39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52
Two five-legged human-headed winged bull colossi (aladlammu), which were stationed in one of the gateways of the South-West Palace at Nineveh (possibly Court VI, Door k), are inscribed with a text recording the construction and decoration of the "Palace Without a Rival," as well as the demolition of the former palace, which was said to have been too small and to have sustained damage from the Tebilti River. The inscription is only known from A.H. Layard's unpublished copies (which were made from squeezes sent to him by C.N. Williams) and a late nineteenth century copy of a squeeze once in the British Museum. Although the building report utilized some material from earlier texts written on clay prisms (698–695), which themselves are based on inscriptions on clay cylinders (ca. 702–699), many passages were composed anew for this bull inscription (or for earlier bull inscriptions). In addition, the arrangement of the contents was substantially reworked. This description of Sennacherib's palace records: (1) the removal of the previous structure, the changing of the course of the Tebilti River, and the conversion of a 340×289-cubit area into dry land suitable for building; (2) the construction of the new terrace and palace, with a Hittite-style portico (bīt appāti) and palatial halls constructed with various types of stone and wood; (3) the roofing of the palace, the hanging of doors, the creation of latticed windows, and the decoration of parts of the brick structure with glazed baked bricks; (4) the discovery of large cedar trees in the Sirāra mountain range, alabaster at Mount Ammanāna, breccia at the city Kapridargilâ, and white limestone in the vicinity of the city Balāṭāya, resources that were used for the roof, wall and floor slabs, and numerous human-headed winged bull colossi (aladlammu) and sphinxes (apsasû); (5) the creation of numerous cast-bronze statues, including those of raging lions, human-headed winged bulls, and sphinxes; (6) the installation of stone and metal colossi as gatekeepers; (7) the erection of elaborately decorated wood and metal columns on sphinx- and lion-shaped bases; (8) the lining of the lower sections of the walls with (carved) stone slabs; and (9) the creation of a new technique for easily drawing water. The building report concludes with a boast that Sennacherib made the palace an object of wonder and called it the "Palace Without a Rival" (ekallu ša šānina lā īšû). This text appears to be the earliest known bull inscription and, although the colossi are not dated, the approximate date of composition is ca. 696–695 (certainly after the composition of text no. 16). This inscription may be G. Smith's "Bull 1" (G. Smith, Senn. p. 3).
Access the composite text [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/rinap3/Q003513/] or the score [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/scores/Q003513/score] of Sennacherib 39
Sources [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/scores/Q003513/sources]:
The provenance of the bulls inscribed with this text is not known with certainty since there is little information on the colossi. Layard, MS D pp. 24–29 does not record the location of the texts copied apart from stating that they were "from Kouyunjik"; according to the notation on ibid. p. 24, Layard's copies were prepared from paper squeezes sent by C.N. Williams. J.M. Russell (Writing on the Wall p. 279) proposes Court VI, Door k as the provenance of the text since Layard (Discoveries p. 71) had stated that the inscription on those colossi was "nearly entire." This is not the only possible location, as there were many other colossi in the South-West Palace for which there is little or no information. Layard copied three inscribed surfaces of one bull (ex. 1a) — which he labeled as "1," "2," and "3" respectively — and one inscribed surface of a second bull (ex. 2), which he referred to as "4." The text of Layard's "4" duplicates, with a few minor orthographic variants, the text of his "3," thus making it certain that he copied inscriptions written on two different colossi. Layard's numbering of the inscribed surfaces in MS D suggests that this text was inscribed on a pair of five-legged colossi, a sculpture type not mentioned by the various excavators of Sennacherib's palace. As already pointed out by Russell (Writing on the Wall p. 279), this does not rule out the possibility that such statues were erected in this king's residence at Nineveh. Four-legged bulls (and lions) appear to have been the norm for colossi during Sennacherib's reign, unlike the five-legged bulls of his predecessors' reigns (Ashurnasirpal II, Shalmaneser III, and Sargon II). In the case of text no. 39 ex. 1, the inscription began between the front legs (lines 1–24 = Layard's "1"), continued beneath the belly (lines 25–54 = Layard's "2"), and concluded between the hind legs (lines 55–77 = Layard's "3"), whereas with ex. 2, the inscription began between the back legs (missing/not copied), continued beneath the belly (missing/not copied), and concluded between the front legs (lines 66–75 = Layard's "4"). For their editions of the building reports of Sennacherib, B. Meissner and P. Rost (BiS pls. 6–8) made use of two unnumbered squeezes then in the British Museum. The first (= "Unnumbered Cast no. 1"), which Meissner and Rost identified as originating from under the belly of a bull, is a squeeze of Layard's "2" (MS D pp. 26–27) and the second (= "Unnumbered Cast no. 2") belongs to one of the Court H Façade bulls (Bull 12 = text no. 44 ex. 1). "Unnumbered Cast no. 1" is probably one of the four squeezes that Williams sent to Layard. Both of these squeezes, and other squeezes in the British Museum, were destroyed by S. Smith on the grounds that they had outlived they usefulness. While working with Layard's unpublished copies, Russell discovered that Layard, MS D pp. 26–27 (Layard's "2") and "Unnumbered Cast no. 1" (Meissner and Rost, BiS pls. 6–7) were the same text and confirmed Meissner's and Rost's identification of "Unnumbered Cast no. 1" as coming from a bull; Russell points out that Layard's notation "sculpture?" on MS D p. 26 is the bull's penis, which penetrates into the text below the belly (see Meissner and Rost, BiS pl. 6). Because the colossi were left at Nineveh, no dimensions for them can be given. Moreover, the text could only be edited from Layard's unpublished copy and Meissner's and Rost's published copy of the (now destroyed) squeeze in the British Museum.
Based on the line divisions of the text (lines 1–10) and on the fact that this text does not include any military narration, Russell (Writing on the Wall p. 278) proposed that this text is G. Smith's "Bull 1" (G. Smith, Senn. p. 3). He concluded that "the absence of a historical summary in this inscription ["Bull 1"] explains why Smith referred to it only for the titulary and did not mention it thereafter." Russell's identification is supported by the fact that the casts sent by Williams to Layard would have been available to Smith in the 1870s. For the identification of "Bull 1" with text no. 42 ex. 1, see Galter et al., ARRIM 4 (1986) p. 30 no. 6; and Frahm, Sanherib pp. 113–115 T 25–27 and T 25. Note that Frahm, Galter, Levine, and Reade were unaware of the Sennacherib text copied in Layard, MS D and, therefore, the text copied on pp. 24–29 of that unpublished manuscript was not regarded as a possible candidate for "Bull 1."
A comparison of the building reports of text nos. 15–17, inscriptions written on clay prisms during Sennacherib's 8th–11th regnal years (697–695), with those on Sennacherib's colossi (text nos. 39–50), suggests that the inscriptions written on the human-headed winged bulls and sphinxes were composed ca. 696–691. The earliest of Sennacherib's colossi were written at some point between the time text no. 16 (696–695) and text no. 17 (694) were composed. Unfortunately, it is not yet possible to determine how much overlap, if any, there is between the earliest known bull inscriptions (this text and text no. 40) and the latest copies of text no. 16 (ex. 1 is dated to 3-V-695) and, thus, ca. 696–695 is tentatively given as an approximate date of composition for those texts. It is assumed, however, that the earliest known bull inscriptions were composed later than text no. 16 since they have material not included in it; that material, however, is included in at least one later prism inscription (text no. 17). Therefore, many of the differences in the accounts of the construction of Sennacherib's "Palace Without a Rival" in text nos. 16 and 17, both in the arrangement of the material and in the contents of the individual passages, were first introduced in bull and lion inscriptions and, thus, the building reports of some of the bulls and lions edited here should be regarded as principal sources for the building report of text no. 17.
With regard to the dating of the bull and lion inscriptions, the absence of certain passages cannot be used as criteria since inclusion or exclusion of these passages is generally, but not always, determined by whether or not an entire text was written on a single colossus or on a pair of colossi. Those texts written on a single colossus generally omit these passages. The passages in question are: (1) the reference to previous kings transporting colossi at the wrong time of year, (2) the statement about Sennacherib's predecessors ineffectually manufacturing metal statues of themselves, (3) a passage boasting about Sennacherib making significant advances in metalworking, and (4) passages recording the creation of a botanical garden, the digging of canals for irrigating fields and orchards, and the creation of a marsh. Although no two building reports are exactly the same, there are a few pieces of information that as a group can be reliably used to date the texts. The key factors include: (1) the dimensions of a plot that was converted into dry land; (2) the dimensions of the new terrace/palace; (3) the list of materials (metals, stones, woods) used to decorate the palatial halls; (4) the mention of a portico (bīt appāti) or a house with double doors (bīt muterrēti); and (5) the types of woods used for columns. Earlier bull and lion inscriptions record that Sennacherib: (1) raised a 340×289-cubit area out of the waters of the Ḫusur River (mod. Khosr); (2) built a 700×440-cubit terrace/palace; (3) built palatial halls of breccia, alabaster, elephant ivory, ebony, boxwood, musukkannu-wood, cedar, cypress, juniper, and elammaku-wood; (4) constructed a portico (bīt appāti); and (5) placed columns of cedar, cypress, daprānu-juniper, and tatīdu-wood on stone and metal bases. Later bull and lion inscriptions record that this king: (1) raised a 554×289-cubit area out of the waters of the Ḫusur River; (2) built a 914×440-cubit terrace/palace; (3) built palatial halls of gold, silver, bronze, AN.ZA.GUL.ME-stone, breccia, alabaster, elephant ivory, ebony, boxwood, musukkannu-wood, cedar, cypress, juniper, elammaku-wood, and Indian wood; (4) constructed a house with double doors (bīt muterrēti); and (5) placed columns of ebony, cypress, cedar, daprānu-juniper, juniper, and tatīdu-wood (or of ebony, cypress, cedar, daprānu-juniper, juniper, and Indian wood) on stone and metal bases. This text appears to be the earliest of the known bull and lion inscriptions. In additon to having all five key features of the earlier bull inscriptions stated above, this text also has: (1) the shortest description of the opening up of latticed windows in corridors and the placement of lamassu in gateways; (2) the briefest accounts of the discovery of a source of cedar in the Sirāra mountain range; and (3) the shortest descriptions describing the discovery of white limestone near the city Balāṭāya, the fashioning of human-headed winged bulls and sphinxes from that stone, the creation of numerous sculptures through a new bronze casting technique, the stationing of colossi at the palace gates, and the setting up of columns on stone and metal bases. Compare lines 35b–36a to text no. 43 lines 24b–28a and text no. 46 lines 127b–129a; lines 38b–41a to text no. 43 lines 33–42 and text no. 46 lines 130b–133a; and lines 45b–56a to text no. 43 lines 49b–67a and 79b–83a and text no. 46 lines 135b–139a and 143b–146a. The aforementioned passages in this text should be regarded as early versions of those passages, rather than abbreviated versions of them. Thus, a careful examination of all of the known bull and lion inscriptions points to this text being the earliest extant inscription of Sennacherib written on colossi stationed in a gateway of the South-West Palace (ca. 696–695), that is around the same time that text no. 16 was being inscribed on clay prisms.
The master text is generally ex. 1, but with some minor restorations from ex. 2. A score of lines 66–75 is presented on the CD-ROM. There are a few minor differences between Layard, MS D (ex. 1a) pp. 26–27 and Meissner and Rost, BiS pls. 6–7 (ex. 1b). These are all presumed to be errors made by one or the other modern copyist. See the on-page notes for further details. Preference is generally given to Layard's copy (ex. 1a).
A pair of sphinxes (apsasû), which are stationed in an entrance (Court LXIV, Door a) to the living quarters of Sennacherib's queen Tašmētu-šarrat, is inscribed with a text recording the construction and decoration of the South-West Palace, including the building of a palatial hall (with its protective winged human-head lion colossi) for her. The inscription is only known from an unpublished field copy of A.H. Layard. Although the inscription is badly damaged, the building report is nearly identical to that of text no. 39; a few passages have been slightly expanded and the description of the construction of Tašmētu-šarrat's palatial hall replaces the boast about making the palace an object of wonder and naming it the "Palace Without a Rival." Although the sphinxes are not dated, the text's date of composition is ca. 696–695; this text is later than text no. 39.
Access Sennacherib 40 [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/rinap3/Q003514/]
Source:
Because the colossi were left at Nineveh, no dimensions for the statues with this inscription can be given. Moreover, the text could only be editted from Layard's unpublished copy. Like text nos. 41–43, 46, and 49–50, the text was inscribed on two colossi. The inscription began under the belly of the first lion (lines 1'–10'), continued between its hind legs (lines 1''–12'') and the hind legs of the second lion (lines 13''–29''), and then concluded under the belly of that second colossus (lines 30''–50''). Approximately the first eleven lines of the text, which would have contained Sennacherib's titulary and the beginning of the building report, are missing. In addition, the first three or four lines of the text written between the hind legs of the first lion are completely destroyed.
Like text nos. 39, 43, and 49–50, this inscription does not include any military narration. Although the beginning of the text is completely missing and the first eleven lines preserved are badly damaged, it is fairly certain that this inscription is one of the earliest of the known bull and lion inscriptions of Sennacherib. It appears to have been composed later than text no. 39 and earlier than text nos. 42–43. Despite the fact that the passages recording the dimensions of the plot that was converted into dry land and of the new terrace/palace are completely missing and the fact that the list of materials (metals, stones, woods) used to decorate the palatial halls is badly damaged, it is clear that this text, like other earlier bull and lion inscriptions, records that Sennacherib: (1) built a portico (bīt appāti) and (2) placed columns of cedar, cypress, daprānu-juniper, and tatīdu-wood on stone and metal bases. For example, compare line 4' of this text and text no. 39 line 32 to text no. 17 vi 20 and text no. 46 line 125; and lines 39''b–41''a of this text and text no. 39 lines 65–67a to text no. 17 vii 36–38 and text no. 46 lines 149b–150a. The passages recording the discovery of white limestone near the city Balāṭāya, the fashioning of human-headed winged bulls and sphinxes from that stone, the creation of numerous sculptures through a new bronze casting technique, the stationing of colossi at the palace gates, and the setting up of columns on metal and stone bases (lines 18''–41''a) are very similar to those same passages in text no. 39 (lines 45b–68a) and, thus, indicate that this text and text no. 39 were written around the same time. Compare lines 18''–41''a of this text and text no. 39 lines 45b–68a to text no. 17 vi 62–79 and vii 9–40, text no. 43 lines 49b–67a and 79b–89a, and text no. 46 lines 135b–139a and 143b–150a. Moreover, this text also has a relatively short description of the opening up of latticed windows in corridors and the placement of lamassu in gateways; compare lines 6'b–10'a to text no. 17 vi 32–39, text no. 43 line 24b–28a, and text no. 46 lines 127b–129a. Variants in lines 8'–10'a, 1''–9'', 18''–20'', 31'', 33'', and 39'' indicate that this text was composed later than text no. 39; compare those lines of this text to text no. 39 lines 35b–36a, 38b–41a, 45, 51, 53, and 64. Thus, the available textual evidence points to this text being the second earliest extant inscription of Sennacherib written on colossi stationed in a gateway of the South-West Palace (ca. 696–695).
The restorations in lines 1'–7' are based on text no. 39 lines 27b–36a and those in lines 8'–10' are based on text no. 17 vi 33–41, text no. 43 lines 26–29a, and text no. 46 lines 128b–130a. The end of the building report (lines 44b''–46''), which describes the construction of quarters for Tašmētu-šarrat, Sennacherib's wife, is unique to this text.
A pair of human-headed winged bull colossi (aladlammu), which were stationed in Room LX, Door a of Sennacherib's "Palace Without a Rival," preserve part of a text recording the construction and decoration of the South-West Palace. The text on the first bull is completely missing, but most of the text on the second bull is preserved. The inscription is known only from A.H. Layard's unpublished field copy. Although the inscription is badly damaged, with its beginning completely lost, the text's approximate date of composition is ca. 695. The colossi with this text appear to have been inscribed sometime between those with text nos. 39 and 40 and those with text nos. 42 and 43.
Access Sennacherib 41 [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/rinap3/Q003515/]
Source:
Because the colossi were left at Nineveh, no dimensions for them can be given. Moreover, the text could only be edited from Layard's unpublished copy. Like text nos. 40, 42–43, 46, and 49–50, the inscription was written on two colossi. The text began under the belly of the first bull (missing/not copied), continued between the hind legs of that colossus (missing/not copied) and the hind legs of the second bull (lines 1'–19'), and then concluded under the belly of that second colossus (lines 1''–13'').
Because only a small portion of the inscription (parts of thirty-two lines) is preserved, with many of the key factors for determining a date of composition completely missing, it is difficult to know for certain when the bulls were inscribed with this text. Since this text records that Sennacherib placed columns of ebony, cypress, cedar, daprānu-juniper, juniper, and tatīdu-wood on stone and metal bases, the text was probably composed ca. 695, around the same time as text no. 42 and text no. 43 ex. 2. Compare lines 2''–6''a of this text, text no. 42 lines 33'b–38'a, and text no. 43 lines 85b–89a to text no. 17 vii 26–40, text no. 39 lines 61b–68a, text no. 40 lines 37''b–41''a, and text no. 46 lines 147b–150a. Given its poor state of preservation, one can only guess at whether this text is earlier or later than text no. 42 and text no. 43 ex. 2. Because this inscription was written over two colossi and because it does not include passages recording that the king improved the somber atmosphere of the palace by making the interior of the building shine like day, the creation of a botanical garden, the digging of canals for irrigating fields and orchards, and the creation of a marsh, one could very tentatively suggest that this text is earlier than text no. 42 and text no. 43 ex. 2 since both texts included all of those passages. The only evidence in support of this proposal is the fact that text no. 40, which is also written over two colossi, does not include any of the aforementioned passages. Thus, if this text is earlier than text no. 42 and text no. 43 ex. 2, the passages mentioned above were first introduced in Sennacherib's inscriptions after the composition of this text. However, one cannot exclude the possibility that the omission of the four passages mentioned above in text no. 40 and this text was not simply due to a lack of space. This text is very tentatively regarded here as the third earliest extant inscription of Sennacherib written on colossi stationed in a gateway of the South-West Palace (ca. 695). Further textual evidence will ultimately aid the dating of this inscription.
The restorations in line 1''–13'' are based on text no. 42 lines 32'b–56' and text no. 43 lines 84b–106.
Two pairs of human-headed winged bull colossi (aladlammu), which are stationed in two gateways of Sennacherib's throne room (Room I, Doors d and e), are inscribed with a text summarizing his first five campaigns and recording the construction and decoration of the "Palace Without a Rival," as well as other public works at Nineveh (see below). The building report not only utilizes material from earlier bull inscriptions, lion inscriptions, and clay prisms, but also includes passages composed for this bull inscription (or an earlier, now-lost bull or lion inscription). Photographs of both pairs of colossi have been published (although not with the inscription legible) and one set of bulls is still in situ (Room I, Door e), however, the text is only known to us from A.H. Layard's unpublished field copy (with notes on textual variants) and from his published, Neo-Assyrian typeset facsimile. In addition to all of the passages in the building reports of text nos. 39–41, the account of construction in this text includes the following passages: (1) a statement about Sennacherib's predecessors ineffectually manufacturing metal statues of themselves, exhausting their craftsmen, and depleting resources; (2) a passage boasting about Sennacherib making significant advances in metalworking, in particular a technique for casting large bronze sculptures; and (3) passages recording the creation of a botanical garden, the digging of canals for irrigating fields and orchards, and the creation of a marsh (in which resources needed to complete the palace grew). Like all of Sennacherib's other gateway colossi, this text is not dated. Although its terminus post quem is the fifth campaign (to Mount Nipur and against Maniye, king of the city Ukku), which took place in 697 (Sennacherib's 8th regnal year), comparison of the building report with those of earlier and later bull inscriptions, lion inscriptions, and clay prisms, suggests that the approximate date of composition is late 695 or the very beginning of 694; the colossi with this text appear to have been inscribed sometime between those with text no. 41 and those with text no. 43.
Access the composite text [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/rinap3/Q003516/] or the score [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/scores/Q003516/score] of Sennacherib 42
Sources [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/scores/Q003516/sources]:
Uncertain Attribution
Like text nos. 40–41, 43, 46, and 49–50, this text was inscribed on two colossi. The inscription began under the belly of the first bull (lines 1–31), continued between the hind legs of that colossus (missing), the hind legs of the second bull (lines 1'–25'), and then concluded under the belly of the second colossus (lines 26'–56'). Because the colossi were left at Nineveh, no dimensions can be given for them. Moreover, although photographs of both pairs of colossi have been published, the inscriptions on the photos are basically illegible and the text could only be edited from Layard's copies. In the edition provided here, preference is given to the copy in Layard, MS A pp. 136–141 (ex. 1a), rather than to the one in Layard, ICC pls. 59–62 (ex. 1b), since Layard's earlier field copy appears to be more accurate than his later published, Neo-Assyrian typeset one. For example, there is more text preserved at the ends of lines 26'–43' in MS A than there is in ICC and the copy in ICC entirely omits lines 37' and 44'–56'.
With regard to the provenance of ex. 1, Layard gave the location of the colossi as Room I, Door d (= Entrance b, Chamber B) in ICC. Layard also gave that same location for a different pair of bulls (Layard, ICC pls. 38–42 variants), but that ascription is clearly a mistake since those colossi were erected at Court VI, Door a, a fact confirmed by collation of the north bull (the second colossus of the pair) from a legible photograph taken by J. Reade. Moreover, Layard's statement about the condition of the state of preservation of the text of the Room I, Door d colossi ("a considerable portion [of the text] remained entire" [Nineveh 2 p. 128]) and the in situ remains of the bulls when they were photographed in 1903–4 by L.W. King (J.M. Russell, Final Sack pp. 72–73 pls. 24–25) seem consisent with the text published on pls. 59–62 of Layard, ICC. Unfortunately, those two colossi have vanished completely since King's day. E. Frahm (Sanherib p. 115) tentatively proposed that the ex. 1 bulls are G. Smith's "Bull 1" (G. Smith, Senn. p. 3). Smith's "Bull 1," however, is probably the inscription copied on fols. 24–28 of Layard, MS D (= text no. 39 ex. 1); for further details, see the commentary to text no. 39. Based on the very limited amount of information provided by Smith about his "Bull 2" (G. Smith, Senn. pp. 3, 30–31, 51–52, 67–68, and 86), ex. 1 of this text does not appear to have been his source for that inscription; Smith's "Bull 2" was likely one of the Court H façade bulls (probably Bull 12). For further information on the identification of Smith's "Bull 2," see the commentary to text no. 44, as well as Frahm, Sanherib pp. 113–115 and J.M. Russell, Writing on the Wall pp. 265–272.
With regard to the provenance of ex. 1*, it was probably written on the pair of bulls placed at Room I, Door e since Layard (Nineveh 2 p. 126) states that text "was so much defaced, that I was only able to copy a few lines of it." Layard's statement matches perfectly the state of the text copied by him in MS A pp. 135–136 and the remains of the in situ colossi; see the photographs published in Sumer 22 (1966) figs. 4–5 (Arabic Section) and J.M. Russell, Final Sack p. 74 pls. 26–27. Layard's draft copy contains the first three fragmentary lines of the surface between the hind legs of the north bull (the second colossus of the pair), then a notation "27 lines illegible," and finally thirty-two of the thirty-three lines inscribed under the belly of that same colossus; the last line of the text was not copied. In 1966, little remained of the south bull (the first colossus of the pair) and this was probably the case in the 1840s since Layard made no note of the inscription on that bull in MS A pp. 135–136. With the exception of orthographic variants, ex. 1* duplicates lines 1'–3' and 26'–56' of ex. 1 of this text and text no. 43 lines 49–50 and 76–106. Since the first line of the surface between the hind legs and the first line of the surface under the belly of this bull (the second colossus of the pair) start at exactly the same points as the third and fourth inscribed surfaces of the ex. 1 bulls, Russell (Writing on the Wall pp. 272–273) proposes that the text copied by Layard on pp. 135–136 of MS A is a duplicate of the text copied by him on pp. 136–141 of that same manuscript (ex. 1a of this text); this, the first bull of the pair (the south bull) would have also begun with a summary of Sennacherib's first five campaigns. Because little more than the feet of the colossus are preserved today, Russell's proposal cannot be confirmed and, therefore, the text on that bull colossus is included here as an exemplar of uncertain attribution. Ex. 1* could be a duplicate of this text, text no. 43, or another bull inscription. Note that the statement by Galter, Levine, and Reade (ARRIM 4 [1986] p. 30 nos. 6–7) that the lineation of ex. 1* is exactly the same as that of ex. 1 is not correct.
Based on the terminus post quem of ex. 1 — the fifth campaign, which took place in 697 — Frahm (Sanherib p. 115) proposes that colossi in Room I, Door d were inscribed ca. 696. Although this may be true, it is more likely that these bulls were inscribed later, probably in late 695 or at the very beginning of 694. For further information, see the commentary to text no. 43.
With some minor variation, lines 1–12a duplicate text no. 44 lines 1–23, and lines 12b–56' duplicate text no. 43 lines 6b–106. Restorations are based on those inscriptions. The master text is generally ex. 1, with the exception of lines 1'–3' and 26'–56', which are a conflation of exs. 1 and 1*. A score of lines 1'–56' is presented on the CD-ROM. Exs. 1a and 1b are treated as a single exemplar in the score. Some differences between Layard's earlier, more accurate draft copy and his later published copy are noted in the on-page notes.
Two pairs of human-headed winged bull colossi (aladlammu), which were stationed in two gateways of Sennacherib's throne room suite (Court H, Door c and Court VI, Door a) at Nineveh, are inscribed with a text recording the construction and decoration of the "Palace Without a Rival," the creation of a botanical garden, the digging of canals for irrigating fields and orchards, and the formation of a marsh. Photographs of both pairs of the colossi in situ have been published but the inscriptions are not legible on them. Thus, the text is only known from A.H. Layard's unpublished field copy (with notes on textual variants) and from his published Neo-Assyrian typeset facsimile, as well as a photo, copy, and transliteration by A. al-Zibari. Apart from the dimensions of the area converted into dry land and of the palace, the building report is identical to that of text no. 42. The two measurements are 554×289 cubits and 914×440 cubits in ex. 1; 340×289 cubits and 914×440 cubits in ex. 2; and 340×[2]89 cubits and 7[00×440] cubits in text no. 42. The two pairs of colossi bearing this text were probably inscribed mid- to late 694. The ex. 2 bulls likely had their inscription written on them not long after those bearing text no. 42 were inscribed with that text and the ex. 1 colossi were probably inscribed not long before the bulls bearing text nos. 44 and 46; see the commentary for details.
Access the composite text [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/rinap3/Q003517/] or the score [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/scores/Q003517/score] of Sennacherib 43
Sources [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/scores/Q003517/sources]:
Uncertain Attribution
Like text nos. 40–42, 46, and 49–50, this text was inscribed on two colossi. The inscription began under the belly of the first bull (lines 1–29), continued between the hind legs of that colossus (lines 30–53), between the hind legs of the second bull (lines 54–77), and then concluded under the belly of the second colossus (lines 78–106). The colossi were left at Nineveh and thus no dimensions can be given for them. Although photographs of both pairs of colossi have been published, the text could only be edited from Layard's copies, except for ex. 2c, the text under the belly of the second bull of ex. 2, which was collated from an unpublished photograph taken by J. Reade. For photographs of the bulls in situ, see el-Wailly, Sumer 21 (1965) Arabic section fig. 2 (after p. 10); J.M. Russell, Final Sack p. 46 figs. 27–28, p. 60 pls. 6–7 and p. 98 pl. 60; and J.M. Russell, Writing on the Wall p. 334 fig. 107 and p. 338 fig. 113. Those photographs, however, are not legible enough for proper collation of the inscriptions.
With regard to the provenance of ex. 1, Layard gave the location of the colossi as Room I, Door c (= Entrance c, Chamber B) in ICC. That location can be confirmed from the in situ remains; see, for example, the mostly illegible photograph published in J.M. Russell, Final Sack p. 60 pl. 6. Furthermore, the text and lineation of al-Zibari's transliteration of the north bull at that entrance (Bayn al-Nahrayn 63/64 [1988] pp. 151–154) agree entirely with the text of ex. 1 (lines 1–53), with the following three exceptions: line 16, al-Zibari has 5 ME 54, not 4 ME 54; line 24 has i-<na> ba-rak-ki; and line 48 has URU.kap-ri-da-ar-<gi>-la-a. All of these variants can be explained as errors in Layard's copies or al-Zibari's transliteration. Note that since the time Russell photographed ex. 1 Bull 1, it has been further damaged and nothing remains in situ; see Lippolis, Sennacherib Wall Reliefs pl. 18.
With regard to ex. 2, Layard wrongly assigned its provenance to Room I, Door d (= Entrance b, Chamber B) in ICC; that entrance is the location of text no. 42 ex. 1. A photograph taken by Reade (ca. 1969) confirms that ex. 2 comes from Court VI, Door a of the South-West Palace since the text and lineation of ex. 2c match exactly those of Layard, MS A pp. 141–148 variants and pp. 148–151 (ex. 2a) and Layard, ICC pls. 38–42 variants (ex. 2b). We thank Reade for generously providing us with this photograph; the photo is almost identical to the one published on Lippolis, Sennacherib Wall Reliefs pl. 128 (top image). Layard describes the colossi in Court VI, Door a as "very dilapidated" and his field copies (MS A pp. 148–151) provide us with an excellent example of his method of copying duplicate inscriptions. Layard began in the middle of the inscription, with the text between the legs of the second bull of the pair (= his Bull 1), and fully copied all twenty-two lines of that surface. Layard then began copying the text under the belly of that same bull. He copied the first twelve lines and part of the thirteenth line, at which time he realized that this text was a duplicate of the inscription that was written on the colossi in Court H, Door c (ex. 1), which he had just copied, and he, therefore, stopped copying the text. At this point, the copy breaks off with the note "rest compared with previous inscription—variants & restored passages noted beneath." Layard then went back to his copy of the inscription that was written on the Court H, Door c bulls (MS A pp. 141–148) and began listing beneath each line the variants from the bulls in Court VI, Door a. Without reference to lineation, he first noted the variants for the end of the inscription (beginning with the thirteenth line under the belly of the second bull [= his Bull 1]), and then noted the variants for the entire text of the first bull of the pair (= his Bull 2). Layard gave the variants in parentheses and basically the same variants are given as notes in his published copy in ICC. Sometimes the variants are just variant sign forms and these are not noted in this edition. Other times they are different signs and these are, of course, given here in the on-page notes. Usually the variants given in Layard, MS A agree with those published in Layard, ICC, but sometimes they differ. Where this happens, and they are all minor variants, we have noted the divergence.
A small fragment of a colossus from the South-West Palace is in the California Museum of Ancient Art (CMAA), Los Angeles. Because parts of only four lines (part of the prologue and the very beginning of the building report) are preserved and because those lines duplicate lines 4–8 of this text and text no. 49 lines 4–10, the CMAA piece is included here as an exemplar of uncertain attribution (ex. 1*).
Apart from orthographic variants and the dimensions of the plot of land that Sennacherib had converted into dry land and of the new palace, the building reports of this text and text no. 42 are identical and, therefore, both texts are presumed to have been written around the same time. Text no. 42 ex. 1 records the two dimensions as 340×[2]89 cubits and 7[00×440] cubits respectively, ex. 1 of this text as 554×289 cubits and 914×440 cubits, and ex. 2 of this text as 340×289 cubits and 914×440 cubits. Thus, the bulls with text no. 42 ex. 1 were probably inscribed first, then those with ex. 2 of this text, and finally the bulls with ex. 1 of this text. It is certain that the terminus post quem of text no. 42 ex. 1 is the fifth campaign (697), and, thus, the earliest that the bulls in question were inscribed is 696.
Taking into account the placement of the bulls in the South-West Palace — in entrances to the throne room suite (Rooms I–V, Court H, and Court VI) — as well as the assumption that these three pairs of bulls were inscribed around the same time, we suggest that this text and text no. 42 were both composed in 695, perhaps during the second half of that year, and that some of the bulls in Sennacherib's palace were inscribed with at least one of these texts during 694. Mid- to late 695 is suggested as the original date of composition of the inscription for the following reasons: (1) the dimensions of the plot of land that Sennacherib had converted into dry land and of the new palace in text no. 17 are respectively 340×289 (v 91–vi 1) and 700×440 (vi 11–12); and (2) at least six bulls in the throne room suite were inscribed approximately late 694 to early 693 (text nos. 44 and 46), which is clear from their terminus post quem, the first part of his sixth campaign, which took place in 694 (Sennacherib's 11th regnal year).
With regard to the first point, given the fact that none of Sennacherib's colossi bear dates, it is impossible to know for certain the precise chronological relationship between exs. 1 and 2 of this text and text no. 17, both of whose principal exemplars were inscribed in Abu (V) 694. At first glance, one would be inclined to date both exemplars of this text after text no. 17, since the dimensions of the plot converted into dry land and of the palace are higher in this text than they are in text no. 17. However, one should not rule out the possibility that this text is slightly earlier than or contemporaneous with that prism inscription. It is clear that (1) the building reports of Sennacherib's bull and lion inscriptions were primary sources for the building report of text no. 17; (2) text nos. 15 and 16, whose accounts of the construction of the "Palace Without a Rival" are based on earlier cylinder and prism inscriptions, were primary sources for some of the passages of the accounts of construction in the earliest bull and lion inscriptions; and (3) text no. 17 was a primary source for some of the passages in the building reports of later bull and lion inscriptions. It took some time, it appears, to fully incorporate new material from text no. 17 into texts written on human-headed winged bulls and sphinxes. That process can be traced from text no. 17 to text no. 44 and from the latter inscription to text no. 46; text nos. 44 and 46 were both certainly written after text no. 17 since the terminus post quem for those texts is the first part of Sennacherib's sixth campaign. Like text no. 17, the building report of text no. 44 lists gold, silver, bronze, AN.ZA.GUL.ME-stone, breccia, alabaster, elephant ivory, ebony, boxwood, musukkannu-wood, cedar, cypress, juniper, elammaku-wood, and Indian wood as the materials used to decorate palatial halls (lines 41b–42). It also states that Sennacherib constructed a house with double doors (bīt muterrēti) (line 43) and lists ebony, cypress, cedar, daprānu-juniper, juniper, and Indian wood as the types of woods used for columns (line 65). Text no. 44, however, follows earlier bull, lion, and prism inscriptions in its description of the demolition of the former palace and altering the course of the Tebilti River (lines 36b–39a); cf. text no. 17 v 84–vi 4a. Like text no. 44, the building report of text no. 46 records that gold, silver, bronze, AN.ZA.GUL.ME-stone, breccia, alabaster, elephant ivory, ebony, boxwood, musukkannu-wood, cedar, cypress, juniper, elammaku-wood, and Indian wood were used to decorate palatial halls (lines 123b–124a). That text also states that Sennacherib constructed a house with double doors (bīt muterrēti) (line 125) and mentions that trunks of ebony, cypress, cedar, daprānu-juniper, juniper, and Indian wood were used for columns (lines 149b–150a). Moreover, the building report of text no. 46 also uses the description of demolishing the former palace and altering the course of the Tebilti River (lines 116b–121a) used in text no. 17 (v 84–vi 4a). Text no. 46, however, still uses the earlier description of the digging of canals for irrigating fields in the vicinity of Nineveh (lines 154b–156), rather than the one included in text no. 17 (viii 22–42); of course, this may have been due entirely to space considerations. Exs. 1 and 2 of this text (text no. 43) list breccia, alabaster, elephant ivory, ebony, boxwood, musukkannu-wood, cedar, cypress, juniper, and elammaku-wood as the materials used to decorate palatial halls (lines 20b–21a), and state that Sennacherib constructed a portico (bīt appāti) (line 22). They also list ebony, cypress, cedar, daprānu-juniper, juniper, and tatīdu-wood as the types of woods used for columns (line 88). Therefore, this text must have been written during a period when the contents of text no. 17 were not yet being incorporated into texts inscribed on human-headed winged bulls and sphinxes. Thus, the bulls in Court VI, Door a and Room I, Door c were probably inscribed either shortly before the composition of text no. 17 (early 694), around the same time as that prism inscription (mid-694, around the month Abu [V]), or shortly after that edition of Sennacherib's res gestae (mid-694, either during Ulūlu [VI] or Tašrītu [VII]). If it is assumed that the dimensions are the primary clues to dating, then both sets of bulls with these were inscribed shortly after the composition of text no. 17. Furthermore, both pairs of bulls would have been inscribed shortly before the bulls inscribed with text nos. 44 and 46.
The proposed date of composition is entirely consistent with that of other bull inscriptions of the throne room suite, the second point cited above. The Court H façade bulls (text no. 44) and the Room I, Door a bulls (text no. 46) — all of which are in the vicinity of the bulls inscribed with ex. 1 of this text (Room I, Door c) and text no. 42 (Room I, Doors d and e) — were inscribed no earlier than late 694 and no later than early 693. Based on the contents of the building reports (see above), both text no. 44 and text no. 46 were composed shortly after this text (and text no. 42). Assuming that both exemplars of this text were inscribed on their respective colossi not long after the fifth month of 694 (the date of text no. 17 exs. 1–2), then we may conjecture that Sennacherib first had the Court VI, Door a bulls inscribed with the text, then had this text written on the Room I, Door c bulls and (shortly thereafter) text no. 44 written on the Court H façade bulls, and, finally, had the Room I, Door a bulls inscribed with text no. 46 (not long after that). With regard to the throne room suite, this leaves the bulls in Court H, Door b, about which we know nothing since they were entirely missing in Layard's day, and the Room I, Doors d and e bulls, which were probably inscribed with text no. 42. Presumably, those would have also been inscribed around the same time. Although the terminus post quem for text no. 42 ex. 1 is the fifth campaign, which took place in 697, the Room I, Door d bulls must have been inscribed much later based on the colossi's proximity to the bulls inscribed with text nos. 43, 44, and 46. Thus, those bulls must have been inscribed not long before the other throne room suite colossi, possibly earlier in the year, Nisannu (I) to Duʾūzu (IV) 694, or possibly even late in the year 695. One could suggest that text no. 42 dates to early 694, rather than to 696 or 695, based on the argument that the omission in that text of the summaries of the campaigns that took place in the eponymies of Šulmu-Bēl (696) and Aššur-bēlu-uṣur (695) could be because (1) Sennacherib had not yet decided to include reference to those military victories since he was not the person who led them and/or (2) there may not have been sufficient space to include statements about those campaigns on the Room I, Door d bulls; compare, for example, text no. 43 ex. 2, which did not have room to include reference to the new technique invented by Sennacherib for drawing water (lines 90b–92a), a passage of approximately the same length as the summaries of the campaigns of 696 and 695 in text no. 44 (lines 24–25a). Thus, one should not exclude the possiblity that text no. 42 ex. 1 is later in date than its terminus post quem would suggest. Note that at least one copy of text no. 16, an edition of Sennacherib's res gestae whose terminus post quem is also the fifth campaign, was written in mid-695, and, therefore, a date of composition in mid- to late 695 would not be inconsistent with other texts whose military narration ends with the attacks on the inhabitants of the Mount Nipur region and on Maniye of the city Ukku. Thus, a date of composition as early 694, or even late 695, for text no. 42 fits both the extant textual and archaeological records. Taking into account that text's placement in the South-West Palace, a later date, rather than an earlier one, is preferred here. In sum, it appears that all of the throne room suite bulls (Rooms I–V, Court H, and Court VI) could have been inscribed in 694 and early 693.
Although this inscription is slighly later in date than text no. 42, it may have omitted the military narration due to lack of space. The engraver would have needed room for an additional ca. 9–10 lines of text (with ca. 30–40 signs on each line) to include the summary of Sennacherib's first five campaigns and it is clear from ex. 2 that the surfaces of the Court VI, Door a bulls did not have sufficient space to include the entire building report. Ex. 2 omits the reference to the technique invented by Sennacherib for drawing water (lines 90b–92a). As Russell has already stated, it appears that each set of colossi in the South-West Palace was inscribed with a unique inscription, that is, no two sets of bulls or lions bore the exact same text. Since the sizes of the surface areas on each colossus or pair of colossi varied, the text inscribed on them had to be customized to fit the space into which it was to be carved. This text and text no. 42 best illustrate that fact.
With minor variations, lines 6b–106 duplicate text no. 42 lines 12b–56'. Restorations are based on that inscription. The master text is generally ex. 1, but with a few restorations from ex. 2. A score is presented on the CD-ROM. Exs. 1a, 1b, and 1c are treated as a single exemplar in the score, as are exs. 2a, 2b, 2c, and 2d. Since there is no full text for ex. 2, ellipses appear in the score for the portions of that exemplar where Layard did not fully copy the text, where no variant is given by Layard, and where the text is not legible or visible from published and unpublished photographs. Some differences between Layard's earlier, more accurate draft copies and his later published copy are noted in the on-page notes. In the edition provided here, preference is given to the copies and variants in Layard, MS A, rather than to those in Layard, ICC pls. 38–42 (ex. 1b), since Layard's earlier field notes appear to be more accurate than his later published, Neo-Assyrian typeset copies.
Four human-headed winged bull colossi (aladlammu), which lined the façade of Court H (Bulls/Slabs 1, 3, 10, and 12) of the South-West Palace, are inscribed with the same text summarizing Sennacherib's first five campaigns, the campaigns that took place in the eponymies of Šulmu-Bēl (696) and Aššur-bēlu-uṣur (695), as well as the first part of his sixth campaign (against the Bīt-Yakīn exiles living in Elam), and recording the construction and decoration of the "Palace Without a Rival." The inscription is known from A.H. Layard's unpublished field copies, G. Smith's published (composite) Neo-Assyrian typeset copy, a late nineteenth century copy of a squeeze once in the British Museum, in situ fragments (photographs published by J.M. Russell), and fragments now in the Vatican Museum (Rome) and the Kestner Museum (Hannover). Because the text is written on a single bull, rather than on a pair of bulls (like text nos. 41–43 and 46), the building report omits and abbreviates several passages concerning the construction of Sennacherib's palace. The terminus post quem for the inscription is the first part of Sennacherib's sixth campaign, which took place in 694 (Sennacherib's 11th regnal year), and thus the approximate date of composition is late 694 to early 693; the colossi with this text appear to have been inscribed shortly before those with text no. 46. Exs. 1 and 2 may be G. Smith's "Bull 3" and "Bull 2" (G. Smith, Senn. pp. 3, 30–31, 51–52, 67–68, 86 and 88–89) respectively. The three fragments of ex. 1 in Rome are referred to in previous literature as the "Papal Bull"; those pieces were given as a gift to Pope Pius IX in 1855. Ex. 3 is called the "Hannover Bull" in earlier editions and studies; that piece is named after the city in which it now resides.
Access the composite text [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/rinap3/Q003518/] or the score [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/scores/Q003518/score] of Sennacherib 44
Sources [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/scores/Q003518/sources]:
In a popular account of his explorations in Ottoman lands, A.H. Layard (Discoveries p. 138) reported the following about the Court H façade bulls: "On the four bulls of the façade were two inscriptions, one inscription being carried over each pair, and the two being of precisely the same import." Layard and F.C. Cooper made at least two drawings of the in situ remains of Court H, the "Grand Entrance," Slabs 10–12 (= Bull 10, Slab 11, and Bull 12), images that not only show the state of preservation of the colossi and their inscriptions, but also a glimpse of how Layard unearthed the long lost ruins of Sennacherib's palace (the so-called "Kouyunjik King"). For reproductions of Or. Dr. 1 no. 33 and Or. Dr. 2 no. 49b, see J.M. Russell, Final Sack p. 66 pls. 16–17. Since the drawings did not include accurate, legible copies of the inscribed surfaces of the colossi, since most of the then-known bull inscriptions were written on pairs of colossi, and since there are no surviving copies or squeezes of the texts, Layard's statement about the text written on the Court H façade bulls was not called into question. This assessment of Layard's, however, has caused a great deal of confusion, especially with regard to identifying these bulls with Smith's "Bull 3" and "Bull 2" (see below). In 1989–90, J.M. Russell carefully re-examined and photographed the in situ remains of all four Court H façade bulls, documenting their progressive and extensive deterioration since Layard's initial discovery; on the poor state of preservation of the colossi, see J.M. Russell, Final Sack pp. 61–62 pls. 8–9 and 11, pp. 67–68 pls. 18–20 and pp. 199–202 pls. 202–207. Although little remained of the inscribed surfaces, Russell was able to significantly improve our understanding of the text written on those once majestic colossi adorning one of the grand entrances of the South-West Palace. The most important discovery was the fact that each bull was inscribed with a complete text and that all four bulls were inscribed with the exact same text, and not as stated by Layard, "one inscription being carried over each pair." Thus, the Court H façade bulls are like the colossi inscribed with text nos. 39 and 45; copies of this text were inscribed on a single colossus, rather than on a pair of colossi, like the other throne room suite bulls (text nos. 42–43 and 46). On exs. 1 and 2, the inscription began between the hind legs and concluded under the belly, but, in exs. 3 and 4, the inscription began under the belly and concluded between the hind legs. See below for details on the lineation of the edition.
Or. Dr. 1 no. 33 and Or. Dr. 2 no. 49b show the state of preservation of Bulls 10 and 12 as they were in Layard's day. The inscribed surfaces of both colossi were fairly intact at that time. The surface beneath the belly of Bull 10 (ex. 4) is preserved, with the exception of the first half of the first fifteen lines, which are broken away. The surface between the hind legs of that bull is fully intact. The surface between the hind legs of Bull 12 (ex. 1) is completely preserved and most of the surface beneath its belly is preserved. Layard does not appear to have copied the texts since no facsimiles have been found in his notebooks (MS A, MS B, MS C, and MS D), perhaps because he made paper squeezes (see below). When T. Madhloom re-excavated Sennacherib's throne room suite (Rooms I–V, Court H, and Court VI) for the Iraq Department of Antiquities and Heritage in 1965–71, little of those two colossi survived, as suggested by the remains recorded in a plan published in Sumer 23 (1967; pl. IX after p. 82, English section); those in situ remains more or less correspond with the photographs of the colossi published by Russell (Final Sack pp. 67–68 pls. 18–20 and p. 202 pl. 207). Thus, Layard's Bull 10 and Bull 12 have disappeared almost completely since their initial discovery. Even less is known about the state of preservation of Bulls 1 and 3 in Layard's day, presumably since both colossi were already in very poor condition. Layard may have made paper squeezes of some of the extant text (see below). Although Layard and later nineteenth century excavators backfilled most of the trenches and tunnels in the throne room area — L.W. King reports that he had to re-excavate this section of the South-West Palace in search for clay tablets — some of the sculptures were removed from the site by European visitors. For example, G. Bennhi sent three fragments of one of the Court H façade bulls, possibly Bull 12 (ex. 1), to Pope Pius IX in 1855; those fragments (VAT/15022, VAT/15023, and VAT/15024) are now in the Vatican Museum in Rome. In 1855, the Court H façade bulls were probably exposed, as H.C. Rawlinson uncovered them in 1854 in order to saw off the inscribed surfaces of the Court H, Door a bulls (see the commentary to text no. 46); presumably, he did not backfill the area. The fragment presented to the Kestner Museum in Hannover (no. 1891,12) in 1860 was probably also left exposed by Rawlinson in 1854; the Hannover fragment, which was sawn and trimmed on three sides — probably to highlight the mention of Hezekiah — was "brought from Maskat [Oman] in 1860 and presented to the Museum, said to be from Nineveh" (Galter et al., ARRIM 4 [1986] p. 32 A). For details about the destruction and deterioration of the throne room suite sculptures, see J.M. Russell, Final Sack pp. 45–51.
Layard probably made paper squeezes of some of the extant text of the Court H Bulls and Smith is generally thought to have made use of at least two of these for his editions of Sennacherib's annals; these are probably the sources for his "Bull 2" and "Bull 3" (see below). For their editions of building reports of Sennacherib, B. Meissner and P. Rost (BiS pl. 8 = "Unnumbered Cast no. 2") made use of an unnumbered squeeze then in the British Museum; this is likely one of the squeezes made by Layard during his excavations of Sennacherib's throne room suite at Nineveh (see below). Unfortunately, none of those squeezes survive today since S. Smith had them destroyed.
There has been much ink spilt over the identification of the bulls from which Meissner's and Rost's "Unnumbered Cast no. 2" (BiS pl. 8) and Smith's "Bull 2" and "Bull 3" (G. Smith, Senn. pp. 3, 30–31, 51–52, 67–68, 86 and 88–89) originate. As already pointed out by Russell (Writing on the Wall pp. 267–268 and 280–281), Meissner and Rost, BiS pl. 8 probably comes from under the belly of Bull 12 (ex. 1) since the copy of the squeeze then in the British Museum duplicates the sign forms and lineation of two of the fragments in the Vatican Museum (except for one variant, which is likely a modern copyist error) and since the lineation of that copy matches perfectly the in situ remains of Bull 12. Thus, Meissner and Rost, BiS pl. 8 (= BM —; squeeze), J.M. Russell, Final Sack p. 202 pl. 207, VAT/15022 and VAT/15023 + VAT/15024 are tentatively edited together as a single exemplar (ex. 1).
The identification of Smith's "Bull 2" and "Bull 3" has proven to be even more of a challenge. This is due in part to Layard's statement in Discoveries (p. 138) that each pair of Court H façade bulls carried a single inscription and in part to the lack of information published by Smith (Senn. pp. 3, 30–31, 51–52, 67–68, 86 and 88–89) about these two sources, which he published as a conflated text, noting the occasional textual or orthographic variant. For the text's prologue ("Bull Inscription, Nos. 1, 2, and 3, Lines 1 to 10"), he conflates the contents of three sources: "Bull 1," "Bull 2," and "Bull 3"; the lineation for this section matches exactly that of a text copied on pp. 24–28 of Layard, MS D (text no. 39 ex. 1a) and that text must have been the source for Smith's "Bull 1." For his editions of the reports of Sennacherib's first five campaigns and the campaigns that took place in the eponymies of Šulmu-Bēl (696) and Aššur-bēlu-uṣur (695), however, Smith uses two sources: "Bull 2" and "Bull 3." Four variants are given for the conflated edition of Smith's "Bull 1," "Bull 2," "Bull 3": a-bu "father" for AD in line 5 (lineation of Bull 1); the addition of ina ta-mir-ti kiš.KI "in the plain of Kish" after i-na ta-ḫa-az EDIN "in a pitched battled" in line 7; e-la-me-e "Elamites" for LÚ.ELAM.MA.KI in line 10; and the addition of tar-bit bir-ki-ia "(whom I) raised on my (own) knee" after DUMU-ú-a reš-tu-ú "my first-born son" in line 11.
There is a general consensus in previous studies and editions that the inscription on the Room I, Door d bulls (text no. 42 ex. 1), an inscription long known from Layard, ICC pls. 59–62, was not the source for Smith's "Bull 2," even though that text includes the aforementioned variants ina ta-mir-ti kiš.KI "in the plain of Kish" and tar-bit bir-ki-ia "(whom I) raised on my (own) knee." The principal evidence is twofold: (1) the orthography of Layard, ICC pls. 59–62 is not consistent with that of G. Smith, Senn. pp. 3, 30–31, 51–52, 67–68 and 86; and (2) the historical narration of Layard, ICC pls. 59–62 ends with a summary of the fifth campaign, but that of Smith's "Bull 2" (G. Smith, Senn. p. 86) ends with a one-line summary of the campaign that took place in the eponymy of Aššur-bēlu-uṣur (695). For further details, see J.M. Russell, Programmatic Study pp. 29–33 and 36–41; Galter et al., ARRIM 4 (1986) pp. 28–30 nos. 2–3; Frahm, Sanherib pp. 113–115 T 25–27; and J.M. Russell, Writing on the Wall pp. 270–272. Galter, Levine, and Reade, as well as Frahm, assumed that Smith used Layard, ICC pls. 59–62 and proposed that that inscription was the source of Smith's "Bull 1." As it turns out, that assumption is not correct. In fact, Layard, MS D pp. 24–28 (text no. 39 ex. 1a), not Layard, ICC pls. 59–62, is the source for "Bull 1"; for details, see the commentary to text no. 39.
Previous studies and editions generally agree that the Court H bulls were the sources for Smith's "Bull 2" and "Bull 3," but disagree on which bull(s). All earlier attempts to identify Smith's sources have been hampered by the assumption that each pair of bulls (Bulls 1+3 and Bulls 10+12) on the façade of Court H carried an entire inscription. In his doctoral study, Russell (Programmatic Study pp. 31–33) concluded that both pairs of bulls (Bulls 1+3 and Bulls 10+12) served as the source for "Bull 3"; at that time, he thought "Bull 2" was Layard, ICC pls. 59–62. Based on the lineation and state of preservation (see Or. Dr. 1 no. 33 and Or. Dr. 2 no. 49b), Galter, Levine, and Reade (ARRIM 4 [1986] pp. 28–30 nos. 2–3) tentatively suggested that Bulls 10+12 were the source for "Bull 2" and that Bulls 1+3 were the source for "Bull 3." Frahm (Sanherib pp. 113–116) followed the suggestion of Galter, Levine, and Reade. However, as Bulls 1, 3, 10, and 12 each contained a complete inscription (see above), those proposals must be amended. The lineation of "Bull 3" is consistent with that of a text inscribed between the hind legs and, therefore, only Bull 3 and Bull 12 are potential candidates. The lineation of the in situ remains of Bull 3 does not correspond to that of G. Smith, Senn. pp. 3, 30–31, 51–52, 67–68, 86 and 88–89, so that colossus can be ruled out. As already concluded by Russell (Writing on the Wall p. 266), Court H, Bull 12 is the most likely candidate for Smith's "Bull 3"; that colossus' state of preservation in Or. Dr. 1 no. 33 and Or. Dr. 2 no. 49b support Russell's proposal. Assuming the lineation of "Bull 2" and "Bull 3" were similar, then Court H, Bull 3 is a possible candidate for Smith's "Bull 2." Russell (Writing on the Wall p. 269), who first proposed this identification, suggests that the omission of the report of Sennacherib's sixth campaign was because Smith had no record of the in situ remains, which preserved an account of that campaign, and thus used only the part of that bull that preceded the sixth campaign. Assuming that the lineation of "Bull 2" and "Bull 3" was not similar, one could tentatively suggest that Court H, Bull 1 or Bull 10 was the source for "Bull 2." Bull 10 is unlikely since part of the sixth campaign was preserved on that bull (see Or. Dr. 1 no. 33 and Or. Dr. 2 no. 49b). Very little is known about Bull 1, so no evidence for or against it being the source for "Bull 2" can be offered. Court H, Bull 3 is tentatively regarded here as Smith's "Bull 2." In the edition presented below, "Bull 2" is edited as ex. 2 (along with the other Court H, Bull 3 sources) and "Bull 3" is edited as ex. 1 (along with the other Court H, Bull 12 sources).
The fragment in the Kestner Museum in Hannover (no. 1891,12) originates from under the belly of a colossus and could belong to either Court H, Bull 1 (ex. 3) or Bull 10 (ex. 4). This piece is arbitrarily edited as coming from Bull 1 (ex. 3). Should that fragment come from Bull 10 (ex. 4), then the terminus post quem for its destruction can be established as 1860 since the piece was presented to the Kestner Museum in that year. E. Bleibtreu (Barnett et al., Sculptures from the Southwest Palace 1 p. 49 no. 8d) has tentatively suggested that a photograph taken during King's 1903–4 excavations (ibid. 2 pl. 25 no. 8d) shows the in situ remains of Bull 10, Slab 11, and Bull 12. Russell, however, has pointed out that this attribution is unlikely since the east wall of Room I is largely missing and, therefore, these may have been two of the bulls discovered by King in the southwestern section of the palace. In that area of the palace, King found part of an entrance façade, of which he uncovered one pier consisting of two bull colossi and a "Gilgamesh" figure. For additional photographs of that area of the palace, which was ca. 18.3 m southwest of Layard's outer (grand) façade, and the problem of determining the actual position and alignment of the new façade in relation to Layard's plan of the palace, see Barnett et al., Sculptures from the Southwest Palace 1 pp. 34–36 (Turner) and p. 143 nos. 788–789 (Bleibtreu); and 2 pl. 521 nos. 788–789. However, should that photograph prove to be of Bulls 10 and 12, the bull fragment in the Kestner Museum cannot have come from Bull 10 since the inscribed surfaces of the left-facing colossus are intact.
The terminus post quem for the inscription is the first part of Sennacherib's sixth campaign, which took place in 694, and thus the approximate date of composition is late 694 to early 693. Based on the contents of the building report, the Court H façade bulls appear to have been inscribed with this text shortly after the colossi in Court H, Door c were inscribed with text no. 43 and shortly before the bulls in Court H, Door a were inscribed with text no. 46. See the commentary to text no. 43 for further information.
The lineation and master text follow ex. 1 for lines 1–49, ex. 2 for lines 57–73 (with restorations from ex. 3), and ex. 3 for lines 50–56. Note that ex. 1 lines 1–32, the text and lineation of which are based entirely on Smith's transliteration (Senn. pp. 3, 30–31, 51–52, 67–68, 86 and 88–89), could very well be a composite text of his "Bull 2" (ex. 2) and "Bull 3" (ex. 1). Furthermore, the lineation of lines 1–7 here is conjectural since the lineation of the prologue in G. Smith, Senn. p. 3 followed the lineation of his "Bull 2" (text no. 39 ex. 1). The building report and concluding formulae (lines 32b–73) duplicate (with some variation) text no. 42 lines 12b–15a, 21b–15'a, 28'b–42'a, and 52'–56'; text no. 43 lines 6b–9a, 14b–67a, 79b–93a, and 101b–106; and text no. 46 lines 106b–109a, 116b–139a, 143b–153a, and 161b–164. The restorations are based on those texts. A score is presented on the CD-ROM. Since Smith (Senn. pp. 3 and 30–31) suggests that the prologue and summaries of the first and fourth campaigns were preserved on his "Bull 2," ellipses (...) appear for ex. 2 in lines 1–14 except where Smith has noted a variant. Because Or. Dr. 1 no. 33 shows ex. 4 mostly preserved, with every line preserved, an ellipsis (...) appears for each line of that exemplar in the score.
A small fragment of a colossus from the South-West Palace at Nineveh (original location not known) preserves parts of six lines of an inscription summarizing some of Sennacherib's campaigns and recording the construction and decoration of the "Palace Without a Rival." The fragment is housed in Room V of the Sennacherib Site Museum and originates from the inscribed surface between the colossus' hind legs. Like two of the bulls lining the façade of Court H (Bulls/Slabs 3 and 12), the inscription on this colossus, possibly a human-headed winged bull (aladlammu), began between the hind legs and concluded beneath the belly. Since only a small portion of the summary of campaigns (the second and third campaigns) is extant, late 695 to late 694 or early 693 is suggested here as the text's date of composition.
Access Sennacherib 45 [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/rinap3/Q003519/]
Source:
Based on the lineation, it is certain that the fragment originates from between the colossus' hind legs and that it is part of the first inscribed surface on the colossus, just like text no. 44 exs. 1–2. Presumably, like text nos. 39 and 44, the entire inscription was written on a single colossus; note that the only colossi in Sennacherib's palace whose inscriptions begin between the hind legs are those inscribed with an entire text. The original location of the colossus in the South-West Palace is not known. The extant text duplicates text no. 42 lines 7–10 and text no. 44 lines 16–21, but with one variant line 3'. The restorations are based on those texts.
A pair of large human-headed winged bull colossi, which were stationed in the main entrance of Sennacherib's throne room (Court H, Door a), is inscribed with an annalistic narration of his first five campaigns and the first part of his sixth campaign (against the Bīt-Yakīn exiles living in Elam) and with a building report describing the construction and decoration of the "Palace Without a Rival," as well as other public works at Nineveh (see below). This 164-line inscription, which is the longest extant bull inscription of Sennacherib, is known from the originals and H.C. Rawlinson's published copy; the four inscribed surfaces of the colossi were cut off and sent to the British Museum (London). The military narration includes accounts of six campaigns: (1) against Marduk-apla-iddina II (biblical Merodach-baladan) and his Chaldean and Elamite allies in Babylonia; (2) against the Kassites and Yasubigallians, and the land Ellipi; (3) to the Levant, against an Egyptian-led coalition that had been organized by the nobles and citizens of the city Ekron, and against the Judean king Hezekiah; (4) against Bīt-Yakīn; (5) to Mount Nipur and against Maniye, the king of the city Ukku; and (6) against the Chaldeans living in Elam. The account of the sixth campaign in this bull inscription is the longest and earliest attested report of those events and it records in detail how Sennacherib used well-trained sailors from Tyre, Sidon, and Cyprus (or Ionia) and Syrian ships to sail down the Tigris and across the Gulf. Like all the texts on Sennacherib's other gateway colossi, this one is not dated. The terminus post quem for the inscription is the first part of his sixth campaign, which took place in 694 (Sennacherib's 11th regnal year), and thus the approximate date of composition is late 694 to early 693; the colossi with this text appear to have been inscribed shortly after those with text no. 44. This inscription is G. Smith's "Bull 4" (G. Smith, Senn. pp. 3–4, 32–34, 43–67, 85 and 89–98).
Access Sennacherib 46 [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/rinap3/Q003520/]
Source:
Like text nos. 40–43 and 49–50, this text was inscribed on two colossi. The inscription began under the belly of the first bull (lines 1–46), continued between its hind legs (lines 47–85), between the hind legs of the second bull (lines 86–121), and then concluded under its belly (lines 122–164). A.H. Layard unearthed "the great bulls forming the centre portal of the grand entrance" (Discoveries p. 138; = Court H, Door a, Bull 6 and Bull 7) and stated that they were inscribed with 152 (error for 164) lines of text; for the state of preservation of Bull 7 at the time of its discovery, see Or. Dr. 2 no. 49b (J.M. Russell, Final Sack p. 66 pl. 16). Layard appears not to have copied the inscription before leaving Nineveh since no facsimiles have been found in his notebooks (MS A, MS B, MS C, and MS D). A partial squeeze of one of the surfaces was once in the British Museum (Galter et al., ARRIM 4 [1986] p. 28 no. 1) and this probably indicates that Layard had squeezes made of the text, making it not necessary for him to copy them. In 1854, three years after leaving Nineveh, Layard wanted the Court H, Door a bulls for the British Museum, and requested that Rawlinson, who was then supervising the Museum's excavations in "Assyria," remove them and send them to London. In a letter dated to May 13th, 1854, Rawlinson complains to Sir H. Ellis, Principal Librarian (Director) of the British Museum, about this request. Rawlinson complied with it, but in order to lighten his load, he sawed off the four inscribed slabs, in the process destroying the uninscribed, sculptured parts of the colossi and leaving only the bases. For photographs of the in situ remains, see J.M. Russell, Final Sack p. 65 pls. 14–15 and p. 216 fig. 30. The four inscribed surfaces made their way to London, where they were displayed in the British Museum. BM 118815a–b (formerly BM 819) is the surface under the belly of the first bull (Bull 6), BM 118821 (formerly BM 817) is the surface between the hind legs of that bull, BM 118819 (formerly BM 821) is the surface between the hind legs of the second bull (Bull 7), and BM 118817 (formerly BM 823) is the surface under the belly of that second colossus; note also that the surface under the belly of the first bull (BM 118815a–b) was cut in half. The base of Bull 6 measures 652 cm in length; the inscribed surface of that colossus (BM 118815a–b + BM 118821) is 453 cm long.
With regard to the provenance of the bulls in the nineteenth century records and publications, the heading in 3 R (pl. 12) refers to them as "the Kouyunjik Bulls." In a letter dated December 1st, 1854, Rawlinson refers to them as "the large bulls at the grand entrance," while an original British Museum inventory describes the slabs as "from Bull on E. side of the Grand Entrance of the South Palace" and "Do. Do. from Bull on W. Side." From the in situ remains, it is certain that the four slabs now in the British Museum originate from Court H, Door a of the South-West Palace. Furthermore, a comparison of the lineation and text of these inscribed slabs (and the fuller text in 3 R) with G. Smith, Senn. pp. 3–4, 32–34, 43–67, 85 and 89–98 shows that this inscription is Smith's "Bull 4."
The terminus post quem for the inscription is the first part of Sennacherib's sixth campaign, which took place in 694, and thus the approximate date of composition is ca. late 694–early 693, as suggested by E. Frahm (Sanherib pp. 118 and 123); note that L. Levine (JCS 34 [1982] pp. 41–48) proposes that the text dates to mid- to late 694 on the grounds that the inscription describes only the first phase of the sixth campaign and so it must have been composed while that military expedition was still in progress. Based on the contents of the building report, the Court H, Door a bulls appear to have been inscribed with this text shortly after the Room I, Door c bulls were inscribed with text no. 43 and the Court H façade bulls were inscribed with text no. 44. See the commentary to text no. 43 for further information.
The slabs are so badly worn that in many places the readings are very uncertain. To put a question mark in each of these places would make the transliteration very difficult to follow. The copy in 3 R generally shows much more text than is now preserved. Frahm collated the originals and noted numerous passages where the copy in 3 R is erroneous. Both authors also collated the originals and most of their readings agree with those of Frahm. The reports of Sennacherib's first five campaigns are abbreviated versions of the accounts known from earlier inscriptions written on clay prisms; compare lines 3b–47 to text no. 16 i 27–v 32 and text no. 17 i 22–iv 60. This version of the account of the first part of the sixth campaign is not otherwise attested in the extant Sennacherib corpus, except for a few lines which are preserved on a clay prism fragment (text no. 20). Compare, for example, the later annalistic account of this event in text no. 22 iv 32–53. The concluding passage of the military narration (lines 102b–106a), which records the number of archers and shield bearers added to Sennacherib's army, also duplicates material from earlier prism inscriptions, but with deviation in the numbers; cf. text no. 16 v 33–40 and text no. 17 v 15–22. The building report and concluding formulae duplicate (with some variation) those sections of earlier prism, bull, and lion inscriptions. Compare lines 106b–164 to text no. 17 v 56b–vii 57 and viii 46–76, text no. 42 lines 13b–56', text no. 43 lines 7b–106, and text no. 44 lines 33b–73. Restorations are based on those texts. When possible, preference is given to text nos. 17 and 44.
A small fragment from a colossus of the South-West Palace at Nineveh (original location not known) preserves parts of seven lines of an inscription recording the construction and decoration of the "Palace Without a Rival," in particular the discovery of alabaster at Mount Ammanāna, breccia at the city Kapridargilâ, and an abundance of white limestone in the vicinity of the city Balāṭāya, resources used for the roofing, for wall and floor slabs, and numerous human-headed winged bull colossi (aladlammu) and sphinxes (apsasû). The fragment, which is now in a private collection in Vienna, orginates from the inscribed surface under the belly of the colossus. Like two of the bulls lining the façade of Court H (Bulls/Slabs 1 and 10), the inscription on this colossus, possibly a human-headed winged bull, began under the belly and concluded between the hind legs. Since only a small portion of the building report is extant, late 695 to late 694 or early 693 is suggested here as the text's date of composition. This piece is sometimes referred to in earlier editions and studies as the "Austrian Bull."
Access Sennacherib 47 [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/rinap3/Q003521/]
Source:
The original location of the colossus in the South-West Palace is not known and the fragment is presumed to have come from a human-headed winged bull, rather than a sphinx; see, for example, Frahm, Sanherib p. 119 and J.M. Russell, Writing on the Wall p. 281. Based on the lineation, it is certain that the fragment originates from under the creature's belly. Based on comparison with the inscriptions on other bulls and lions, the piece is either part of the first inscribed surface on the colossus, just like text no. 44 exs. 3–4, or part of the fourth and final inscribed surface of a pair of colossi, just like text no. 46. Because the width of each line is approximately the same as text no. 44 exs. 1 and 3, it seems more likely that the fragment originates from the first inscribed surface on the colossus and, therefore, the entire inscription was written on a single colossus (like text nos. 39 and 44), rather than on a pair of colossi. The extant text duplicates, with some variation in line 5', text no. 44 lines 50–54 (and text no. 46 lines 133–138). The restorations are based on text no. 44.
A.H. Layard mentions that there was a "nearly illegible" inscription on the pair of sphinxes (apsasû) in Court XIX, Door a. Because no copy, transliteration, or photograph of this lion inscription is known, no edition is provided here. Although no details about the inscription have been published, it is certain that these sphinxes were inscribed with a text recording the construction and decoration of the South-West Palace; it is not known, however, if the text also included military narration.
Access Sennacherib 48 [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/rinap3/Q003522/]
Source:
H. Galter, L. Levine, and J. Reade (ARRIM 4 [1986] p. 31 no. 12) tentatively suggest that the "nearly illegible" inscription on the sphinxes in Court XIX, Door a could be a text copied by Layard on MS C fol. 58r, an inscription on "a fragment on part of a yellow bull at entrance." This proposed identification is unlikely since the colossi in that door of the South-West Palace are reported to have been sphinxes and since MS C fol. 58r appears to be a field copy of a bull inscription of Sennacherib's father Sargon II; lines 1'–6', as already pointed out by E. Frahm (Sanherib pp. 122–123), parallel Fuchs, Khorsabad pp. 69–70 and 305–306 Steirkolossen lines 71–78. Therefore, the identification of the Court XIX, Door a colossi as the text copied on MS C fol. 58r by Layard must be rejected. That inscription will be edited in Frame, RINAP 2, as a 1000-number text.
Several fragments of human-headed winged bull colossi (aladlammu) from the northeastern end of Sennacherib's palace (the so-called Eastern Building; erroneously called the bīt nakkapti in older literature) at Nineveh are inscribed with a text recording the construction and decoration of the South-West Palace. The colossi were first discovered by L.W. King during his 1903–4 excavations of the northeastern end of the palace (Sennacherib's Eastern Building) and re-excavated by J.M. Russell in 1989–90 as part of D. Stronach's Nineveh Project. The text is only known from King's unpublished field copies and R.C. Thompson's published copies. Because most of the inscribed pieces are small and because sections of the preserved text are not duplicated in other (bull and lion) inscriptions of Sennacherib, reconstruction of the text is problematic. The prologue more or less duplicates that of text no. 43, while the building report utilizes material from earlier bull inscriptions (especially text nos. 44 and 46). The series abnu šikinšu (the so-called "stone description book") was consulted in order to provide descriptions of various stones used in the construction of the palace. Despite the fact that the text is badly damaged, it is certain that it is one of the latest known bull inscriptions from the South-West Palace. It was likely composed ca. 693–691; the latter date is based on Sennacherib's boast in text no. 22 (vi 36b–37), a copy of which is dated to 20-XII-691, that his palace had been completed.
Access Sennacherib 49 [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/rinap3/Q003523/]
Source:
In 1903–4, King discovered a poorly preserved building on the east side of the Kuyunjik mound, ca. 300 m northeast of Sennacherib's throne room; this building came to be called the Eastern Building. The most notable feature of the building was a monumental gate flanked by inscribed bull colossi. King copied a number of the inscribed fragments, but never published them; these copies are in his "Kuyunjik: Notes on Sculptures and Inscriptions" notebook, which is found in the Department of the Middle East at the British Museum. Thompson (Arch. 79 [1929] pl. LII nos. 122M and 122N) later published copies of two of the fragments, not realizing that the two pieces joined; the join between the fragments was recognized by Russell. In 1989, Russell re-excavated Sennacherib's Eastern Building and recovered seven fragments, some of which King had already copied. Nine additional fragments of the bulls from the Eastern Building have been identified among the copies in King's notebook. Most belong to this text, but some are too small to be of use (and are therefore not incorporated into this edition); two of the fragments are part of another inscription of Sennacherib (see text no. 50). The fragments edited here may come from two or more bulls with the same inscription. Russell's proposed join between Thompson, Arch. 79 (1929) pl. LII nos. 122M and 122N is not entirely certain; these pieces could come from different bulls. Note that one or both fragments could also join King, Notebook p. 3 no. 2 (text no. 50).
Like text nos. 40–43, 46, and 50, this text was inscribed on two colossi. The inscription began under the belly of the first bull (lines 1–29), continued between the hind legs of that colossus (lines 1'–17'), between the hind legs of the second bull (lines 1''–7''), and then concluded under the belly of that second colossus (lines 1'''–3''' and 1''''–6''''). Lines 1–7a duplicate text no. 43 lines 1–6a and text no. 50 lines 1–7a; lines 11b–16a duplicate, with some variation, text no. 50 lines 11b–16a; lines 23b–28 duplicate, with some variation, text no. 44 lines 43–47 and text no. 46 lines 125b–130; lines 16'b–17' and 1''–7'' duplicate, with some variation, text no. 44 lines 52 and 54b–56 and text no. 46 lines 135 and 137b–139a; and lines 5''''b–6'''' duplicate text no. 44 lines 72b–73 and text no. 46 line 164b. Lines 16b–20a are similar to other texts, but the order of the individual phrases differs to that found in any other text. Lines 20b–23a are based on text no. 44 lines 41b–43a and text no. 46 lines 123b–125a. Lines 1'–16'a are an expanded version of text no. 44 lines 50–52a and text no. 46 lines 133b–135a; the descriptions of the various stones used in the construction of the palace are from the series abnu šikinšu (Schuster-Brandis, AOAT 46 pp. 24–47). Lines 1'''–3''' probably correspond to text no. 44 lines 63b–66a and text no. 46 lines 148b–150a. Lines 2''''b–5''''a are not duplicated verbatim in other known inscriptions of Sennacherib; for the contents, cf. text no. 34 lines 91–94 and text no. 40 lines 47''–50''. Restorations are based on texts nos. 43–44, 46, and 50, as well as on text nos. 15–17 (which are used to restore damaged passages in those aforementioned inscriptions).
Two fragments from another human-headed winged bull colossus (aladlammu) from the northeastern end of Sennacherib's palace (the so-called Eastern Building) at Nineveh preserve part of a text recording the construction and decoration of the South-West Palace. Like text no. 49, this text is one of the latest known bull inscriptions of Sennacherib (ca. 693–691) and it borrows material from earlier bull inscriptions and the series abnu šikinšu. This inscription is edited separately from the previous text since it is similar to, but not a duplicate of, that text.
Access Sennacherib 50 [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/rinap3/Q003524/]
Source:
For details on the fragments discovered in the area of Sennacherib's Eastern Building, see the commentary to text no. 49. This fragmentary inscription comes from a third colossus discovered on the east side of the Kuyunjik mound, ca. 300 m northeast of Sennacherib's throne room; it is similar to text no. 49, which is inscribed on the other colossi flanking gateways in the northeastern part of Sennacherib's palace. The text is formed by two fragments now joined together. Lines 1–19 were inscribed on the surface under the belly of the bull (the first of a pair of colossi) and lines 1'–11' were inscribed between the hind legs of that same colossus. Based on comparisons with the other bull and lion inscriptions, the text began under the belly of this bull, continued between its hind legs, between the hind legs of a second bull (now lost), and then concluded under the belly of that second colossus. It is not impossible that the fragments belong to the same bull as the two bull fragments copied by R.C. Thompson on Arch. 79 (1929) pl. LII (nos. 122M and 122N); see the commentary to text no. 49 for further details. Because no join can be confirmed with certainty, those fragments have been tentatively edited with text no. 49. Lines 1–9a duplicate, with some variation, text no. 43 lines 1–7a and text no. 49 lines 1–9a; lines 9b–12a duplicate, with some variation, text no. 44 lines 33b–36a; and lines 12b–16a and 1'–7' duplicate, with some variation, text no. 49 lines 12b–16a and 1'–7'. Restorations are based on those texts, as well as on text nos. 1 and 15–17 (which are used to restore damaged passages in the aforementioned inscriptions).
The back of a sphinx (apsasû) found by A.H. Layard in Room XXXIII, Door p (Lion 1) of Sennacherib's palace at Nineveh and the backs of at least two wall slabs from that same room are inscribed with a short account of the discovery at Mount Nipur (Judi Dagh in southern Turkey) of a special kind of stone, pendû-stone, from which the objects were sculpted. The inscription dates to sometime after 697, the year that Sennacherib first went to Mount Nipur.
Access Sennacherib 51 [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/rinap3/Q003525/]
Sources [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/sources/P466660,P466661,P466662]:
A.H. Layard copied the inscription that was on the back of Lion 1 in Room XXXIII, Door p (ex. 3) and H.C. Rawlinson published at least two more exemplars that were on the "backs of slabs at the entrance of Sculptured Chamber, transferred to New Galley at the British Museum" (exs. 1–2). The inscriptions have not been collated since the slabs are on display in the British Museum, with the text not visible, and since the sphinx (apsasû), was left in situ. Because no full text of ex. 2 has been published and since it has only a few minor orthographic variants, no score is provided on the CD-ROM. The known variants, however, are listed at the back of the book in the Minor Variants.
A.H. Layard published a copy of a poorly preserved inscription that was written on a piece of stone that he thought came from a relief "representing the Siege of a City." The text is probably not an epigraph, but rather an inscription from another stone object, possibly a monumental colossus bearing a commemorative inscription.
Access Sennacherib 52 [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/rinap3/Q003526/]
Source:
R. Borger suggests that that the inscription might be ascribed to Sennacherib; J.M. Russell notes that the text has the same phraseology as other Sennacherib texts, in particular an inscription written on steles (text no. 38 lines 1–13), and proposes that the inscription is probably not an epigraph as Layard suggests, but rather a commemorative building inscription. Since the original object is not known or available for study and since Layard's identification is uncertain, the text is not regarded here as an epigraph.
A. Kirk Grayson & Jamie Novotny
A. Kirk Grayson & Jamie Novotny, 'Nineveh, Part 4', RINAP 3: Sennacherib, The RINAP 3 sub-project of the RINAP Project, 2019 [http://oracc.org/rinap/rinap3/rinap32textintroductions/nineveh/]