222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229
This text is from a series of inscriptions that Sennacherib caused to be written on the face of Judi Dagh (Mount Judi) in eastern Anatolia near the Tigris River. L.W. King found eight sculpted panels, six near the village Shakh and two near the village Hasanah. Six of the panels have inscriptions and carved figures of the king. The remaining two panels were smoothed in preparation for engraving, but nothing further was done. The inscriptions are largely duplicates, but occasionally the texts have some major variations. Since most of the inscriptions are badly weathered and difficult to decipher, they have been grouped together here as exemplars of a single text. If they were better preserved it might have been necessary to edit some of them as separate texts. The subject and terminus post quem of the text is the fifth campaign of Sennacherib and, therefore, the inscriptions date to ca. 697. The text is sometimes referred to as the "Judi Dagh Inscription."
Access the composite text [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/rinap3/Q004027/] or the score [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/scores/Q004027/score] of Sennacherib 222
Sources [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/scores/Q004027/sources]:
| (1) King, PSBA 35 pls. XIV–XX [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/sources/P467035/] | (2) King, PSBA 35 pls. XII–XIII [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/sources/P467036/] | (3) King, PSBA 35 pl. XXI [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/sources/P467037/] |
| (4) King, PSBA 35 pls. XXII–XXV [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/sources/P467038/] | (5) King, PSBA 35 pls. XXV–XXVI [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/sources/P467039/] | (6) King, PSBA 35 pp. 89–91 [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/sources/P467040/] |
L.W. King numbered the eight panels I–VIII, with panels VI and VIII being uninscribed. For panels I–V, King published copies, as well as an edition and notes, but for panel VII he published only a transliteration. Only the inscriptions on two panels (II and IV, respectively exs. 1 and 4) are reasonably legible. The inscriptions on the other four panels (I, II, V, and VII, respectively exs. 2, 3, 5, and 6) are badly weathered. The master text and line arrangement follows ex. 1 because that exemplar is the best preserved Judi Dagh inscription and because this is the line numbering used in previous publications, especially the dictionaries (AHw and CAD). Ex. 4, as far as it is preserved, appears to duplicate ex. 1, but in the case of lines 24b–31, neither ex. 1 nor ex. 4 is sufficiently preserved to be certain that both exemplars are exact duplicates. Exs. 2–3 and 5–6 all deviate significantly from ex. 1. For details, see the score on the CD-ROM and the on-page notes. Minor variants are listed at the back of the book.
This text is written several times on the face of a cliff in stele-like panels, which also have images of the king and his patron deities. These are commonly called the Bavian reliefs, but, in fact, Ḫinnis (now Kharusa), not Bavian, is the village closest to the beginning of the canal, the construction of which is described in this inscription. The creation of this canal was part of a larger network of canals and aqueducts constructed by Sennacherib to provide water year round to Nineveh. Besides the inscriptions and reliefs, there are numerous stone ruins, which may be the remains of a building that Sennacherib used as a summer residence. The text is written three times on the rock face, with only minor variants. The inscription begins with an invocation of the god Aššur and other gods, the king's name, titles, and epithets, and a brief survey of his achievements (lines 1–5a). This is followed by a detailed narrative, which is often difficult to understand, due in part to the damaged state of preservation of the text; this records the construction of several canals in the region in order to divert the local water to Nineveh (lines 5b–34a). Sennacherib boasts that the work was carried out with only a small number of workmen. The text then describes two campaigns against Babylonia. The first (lines 34b–43a) is the well-known "eighth" campaign, which included the battle of Ḫalulê (691). The second (lines 43b–54a) involved the capture and destruction of Babylon (689). The inscription concludes with a description of the creation of inscribed and sculpted reliefs at Bavian and a curse on any future ruler who might tamper with the canal (lines 54b–60). The terminus post quem for the inscription is the conquest of Babylon in late 689 and, therefore, it was probably written ca. 688. The text is commonly referred to as the "Bavian Inscription."
Access the composite text [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/rinap3/Q004028/] or the score [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/scores/Q004028/score] of Sennacherib 223
Sources [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/scores/Q004028/sources]:
These inscriptions have been an enigma since the decipherment of cuneiform. A.H. Layard was the first modern western explorer to face the challenge of making squeezes, studying, copying, and publishing the cuneiform inscriptions written on the high and precipitous cliff in the area of Bavian. This he did in 1852. Many descriptions of Layard's explorations have been published, both by himself and by others, so it is unnecessary to repeat this information here; for details, see for example Larsen, Conquest of Assyria and the literature cited there. However, his original copies of the Bavian inscriptions (exs. 1a–c, 2a, and 3a, as well as a later copy of ex. 1 [see below]), which are in the Department of the Middle East in the British Museum, have never been published properly. Only composite versions of these have been made public; see the copy in 3 R (pl. 14), which has served as the principle source for this inscription since 1870. Careful comparison of Layard's original copies and the published versions, however, shows wide discrepancies; these are confirmed by unpublished copies of L.W. King (exs. 1d, 2b, and 3b).
The next explorer to seriously study the Bavian inscriptions was L.W. King. Unfortunately, King died prematurely, partly as a result of diseases he contracted during his travels, so he never fully published the results of his investigations. Fortunately, he left behind his unpublished notes and manuscripts, of which his completely new copies of the inscriptions take pride of place; these manuscripts are also in the Archives of the Department of the Middle East. Those copies (exs. 1d, 2b, and 3b), which he made at considerable bodily risk and discomfort during the spring of 1904, have never been fully published. King referred to them in his Tukulti-Ninib I pp. 114–121, where he edited several lines (lines 43b–54a); in his partial edition, his A is ex. 2b, his B is ex. 1d, and his C is ex. 3b. King says in a letter published by Bachmann: "I took plenty of photos at Bavian" (Bachmann, Felsreliefs p. IV), but these photographs, which are now in the British Museum, include only general views of Bavian. In 1914, King corresponded with E. Meyer, who intended to lead a small team to Bavian in order to do a thorough study and take detailed photographs. King generously sent the results of his own work to Meyer with advice about what still needed to be done.
Subsequently, in the spring of 1933, T. Jacobsen and S. Lloyd (OIP 24 pp. 36–39) studied the remains at Bavian in connection with their work on the Jerwan aqueduct. Jacobsen provided new readings of some difficult passages in the text and important observations on the work that Sennacherib had done in the region to provide a better water supply for Nineveh.
A major question is how many times the text was copied in antiquity; in other words, how many exemplars were there. Sennacherib states the following: "At the 'mouth' of the canal that I caused to be dug in the region of the mountain, [I ma]de six stele[s] (and) I fashioned image(s) of the great gods, my lords, upon them. Moreover, I had a royal image of myself expressing humility (lit. 'one who strokes the nose') placed before them" (lines 54b–56a). Based on this, one expects to find six inscribed and sculpted panels at Bavian. Layard, however, states that he found "eleven small tablets" and "across three of these royal tablets are inscriptions" (Discoveries pp. 210–211). King, in a letter published by Bachmann, presents a sketch showing the location of eleven "small panels sculptured with standing figures of Sennacherib, Nos. 4, 7, and 11 bear inscriptions in addition to the royal figure" (Bachmann, Felsreliefs p. V fig. 1). Later in the same letter he says: "At Mahad [on the way to Bavian], a neighbouring village, I found several inscribed stones built into the houses, two of which bore Sennacherib's name" (ibid. p. VI). Among Layard's manuscripts there are three exemplars represented, several on-the-spot copies (exs. 1a–c, 2a, and 3a) and a later copy (see below). King has also left copies of three exemplars (exs. 1d, 2b, and 3b). Layard's exemplars are identical with the three exemplars copied by King; these identifications are based on their having the same line division and variants. In general, Layard's copies show less text preserved than King's copies. This is odd because one would expect that with the passage of time between Layard and King the incised reliefs would have suffered further damage from the elements. King, however, could read cuneiform, whereas Layard could not and, therefore, the former was probably able to recognize more signs than the latter.
In the catalogue and in the score on the CD-ROM the various copies are treated separately. Each hand-drawn facsimile is regarded as a different version of the same exemplar because the copies all stem from the same inscribed object and, therefore, each copy is assigned the same exemplar number, but with a different lowercase letter appended to it in order to differentiate the various sources of information about what is on the exemplar. Layard's later copy of ex. 1 (MS C fols. 81v–80r) is excluded from the catalogue and score on the grounds that it is not an accurate copy of that inscription; it includes material from the other two exemplars and has a number of copyist errors (generally omitted signs). In addition, the copies in 3 R (pl. 14) and G. Smith, Senn. (pp. 129–135 and 157–160) are not included in the catalogue as exemplars since those copies conflate the contents of all three exemplars. These copies, however, are sometimes referred to in the on-page notes.
The lineation follows ex. 2 because this is the line numbering used in previous publications, especially the dictionaries; this is also the lineation used in 3 R (pl. 14) and Luckenbill, Senn. (pp. 78–85). The master text is a conflation of all three exemplars, but with preference given to exs. 1 and 2, when possible. A score is presented on the CD-ROM and the variants are listed at the back of the book.
Several stone blocks discovered at Jerwan are inscribed with a short, two-line label. Since the blocks were left where they were found, many of them being built into the walls of houses, the inscriptions on them could not be collated from the originals. This text is sometimes referred to as "[Jerwan] Inscription A."
Access Sennacherib 224 [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/rinap3/Q004029/]
Source:
Several stone blocks discovered at Jerwan are inscribed with a short, two-line label; this text is a near duplicate of text no. 224. Many of them were built into the walls of houses and thus were left where they were found. The inscriptions on them therefore could not be collated from the originals. This text is sometimes referred to as "[Jerwan] Inscription A."
Access Sennacherib 225 [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/rinap3/Q004030/]
Source:
Several sets of stone blocks found at Jerwan are inscribed with a text recording the construction of an aqueduct to direct water to Nineveh. This text is sometimes referred to as "[Jerwan] Inscription B."
Access Sennacherib 226 [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/rinap3/Q004031/]
Source:
Several exemplars of the text were found, but most were in a fragmentary condition. No score is provided on the CD-ROM because only one exemplar has a variant: It omits A.MEŠ "water" after ÍD.pul-pul-li-ia "the Pulpulliya River" in line 3. Although the stone blocks were left in the field, the inscription could be collated from a published photo of one set of stone blocks that is inscribed with this text; see Figure 26 on the next page.
This text, which was inscribed across three stone blocks found at Jerwan, is an abbreviated version of text no. 226. Since one cannot be certain of the missing portions, due caution has been exercised in making restorations. Moreover, since the blocks were left where they were found, many of them being built into the walls of houses, the inscription could not be collated from the originals. This text is sometimes referred to as "[Jerwan] Inscription C."
Access Sennacherib 227 [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/rinap3/Q004032/]
Source:
Two hundred and two stone blocks found at Jerwan in secondary usage are inscribed with one or more texts of Sennacherib recording at least his first two campaigns and a building project, possibly the construction of aqueducts for bringing water to Nineveh. Their state of preservation is described by the excavators T. Jacobsen and S. Lloyd (OIP 24 p. 23) as follows: "Inscription D is unfortunately in an almost hopeless state of preservation. West of the wadis we found that the south façade of the aqueduct had been strengthened with a new shell of masonry (cf. pp. 9–10). A great many of the stones used for this purpose bore traces of an inscription; but it soon became clear that the stones, before they were used to strengthen the aqueduct, had formed part of some other building, on the façade of which the inscription had originally been carved. In re-using these stones no account had been taken of the old inscription, and fragments of it were consequently scattered haphazardly among uninscribed blocks (p. 9 fig. 3 and p. 24 fig. 7; cf. pl. XA). In some cases the inscription had been turned sideways, in others upside down; but it seemed that generally the masons had placed the inscribed face outward, no doubt because it had the advantage of being already worked. The inscription had suffered serious damage when margins were cut on many of the blocks, so that not infrequently both the top and the bottom line of text have disappeared altogether. ... There is reason to believe, however, that more inscribed blocks would be found if the masonry were taken down stone by stone." The order and content of the majority of the 202 copied blocks is still unknown. Jacobsen and Lloyd (ibid. pp. 23–27) and E. Frahm (Sanherib pp. 155–159 T 126) have made some progress on putting this jigsaw puzzle of an inscription back together and their reconstructions have been followed here. The inscription, when complete, was written in at least three columns, with a minimum height of at least nine courses of blocks per column and approximately sixteen to twenty-one signs per line (with each line stretching over seven blocks); each course usually contained three lines of text. Each column of text contained about twenty-six lines of text, making the inscription at least seventy-eight lines long. From the traces of paint still on the blocks, it appears that the space occupied by the text was accentuated by red paint. This text is sometimes referred to as "[Jerwan] Inscription D."
Access Sennacherib 228 [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/rinap3/Q004033/]
Source:
The number of columns and lines of text cited above follows E. Frahm (Sanherib pp. 155–159); T. Jacobsen and S. Lloyd (OIP 24 pp. 23–25), uncertain if this inscription had more than two columns, state that Inscription D had at least fifty-two lines of text. It is certain from block nos. 88, 136, and 170, all of which have double vertical lines, that the inscription had no less than two columns. Based on the number of known blocks — not including any stones still to be discovered — it seems likely that there were at least three columns of text. However, as Frahm (Sanherib pp. 156–157) has already mentioned, it is uncertain if the known 202 blocks belong to one inscription or two different inscriptions/exemplars (see the discussion of the first campaign below).
At least one block (no. 91) can tentatively be assigned to the text's prologue since it mentions the god Anu (da-num); cf. text no. 223 line 1 and text no. 230 line 1. However, one cannot rule out the possibility that this piece belongs to another part of the text. The first campaign (against Marduk-apla-iddina II and his allies) is known from the following groups of blocks: Fragment A = nos. 143 + 144 + 152; Fragment B = nos. 56 + 79 (+) 62; Fragment C = nos. 103 + 123 + 110 + 61; Fragment D = nos. 74 + 73 + 111; and Fragment E = nos. 71 + 59. That campaign is also preserved on nos. 124 and 132. Jacobsen and Lloyd (OIP 24 pp. 25 and 27) suggest that Fragment A, Fragment C, and block no. 124 indirectly join; see Figure 27 on the next page. Frahm (Sanherib p. 158 T 126 §b) correctly notes that it is unlikely that Fragments A and C belong to the same course of blocks since block no. 124 records Marduk-apla-iddina II fleeing for his life and Sennacherib entering the palace in Babylon to plunder it, and Fragment C records the plundering of Marduk-apla-iddina II's palace. Therefore, Fragment C cannot come immediately before block no. 124; in fact, it comes after it. Frahm (ibid.) tentatively advances the proposal that Fragment B could come from the last row of blocks of the first column of text, that is, the same course of blocks as Fragment A. This fits well with an indirect join to block no. 124, but this would make the width of column one of the inscription wider than column two. Since the relationship between Fragment A, Fragment B, and Fragment C, and block no. 124 is uncertain, these groups are edited separately. Because Fragment C could duplicate Fragment D and/or Fragment E and because there is some uncertainty as to the arrangement of Fragment A and Fragment B, especially with regard to their relationship to block no. 124, the 202 known Jerwan "Inscription D" blocks could belong to more than one inscription of Sennacherib or more than one exemplar of the same text. The text is not sufficiently preserved to be able to make any firm conclusions on the matter.
The second campaign (against the Kassites and Yasubigallians, and the land Ellipi) is known from the following groups of blocks: Fragment F = nos. 149 + 31 (+) 33; Fragment G = nos. 26 + 20 + 29 + 27 + 60; Fragment H = nos. 34 (+) 39 (+) 35 + 37 (+) 32 + 55; and Fragment I = nos. 45 +? 41 +? 47. That campaign is also preserved on nos. 3 and 70; see the on-page notes. For details on the joins and contents, see Frahm, Sanherib p. 158 T 126 §c. Frahm (Sanherib p. 158 T 126 §d) points out that numerous other blocks appear to be inscribed with an account of military narration, possibly reports of campaigns other than Sennacherib's first or second campaign. These are block nos. 2, 16, 23, 30, 42–43, 49, 53, 65–66, 68, 75, 80, 84, 86–87, 94, 104, 108, 113–114, 116, 118–119, 130, 135–136, 140, 145–146, 150–151, 153, 157–158, 164 + 109, 167, 173, 176, 178–180, 184, and 195. Nos. 164 + 109 are edited as Fragment J. None of the other blocks, however, are sufficiently preserved to warrant an edition; for transliterations of these pieces, see Frahm, Sanherib p. 158. At least one block comes from the building report: nos. 69 + 121 + 67 + 117. That passage is edited here as Fragment K. Frahm (Sanherib pp. 157–158 T 126 §e) tentatively suggests that the following pieces also belong to the building report, the exact content of which is presently not known: nos. 88, 122, 167, 176–177, 182–183, 189, and 192–194. Those blocks are not edited here since too little on them is preserved; see Frahm, Sanherib p. 158 for transliterations.
Several stone blocks forming the entrance to a tunnel make up part of an aqueduct that Sennacherib had built to divert water from the Bastura River (a tributary of the Upper Zab) to Arbela, a principal cult city of the goddess Ištar. One ashlar block bears an eight-line inscription recording the construction of a (subterranean) watercourse.
Access Sennacherib 229 [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/rinap3/Q004034/]
Source:
In 1946, F. Safar and F. Basmaji investigated the remains of a wall constructed of large stone blocks (62×43×80 cm each) and the entrance to a tunnel along the Bastura. The ancient structure had been known since at least 1932. The tunnel — approximately the first 15 m of which remained in situ at the time of discovery — was built entirely of stone ashlars and slabs. The height of the entrance is 1.2 m and the width of the tunnel is 1.12 m for the first 6 m and 2.7 m thereafter. For a map showing the location of the remains, as well as a plan and section of the stone structure, see Safar, Sumer 3 (1947) Map 2 and Plan 1, Arabic section. An inscription written on one of the ashlars inside the tunnel (the sixth block from the entrance in the third course) states that Sennacherib was the king who commissioned the project. The text is similar in style and language to text no. 226; in particular, compare lines 3–5 to text no. 226 lines 5–6. The text was not collated since the block bearing the inscription was stolen in the early 1990s (MacGinnis, Erbil p. 71).
A. Kirk Grayson & Jamie Novotny
A. Kirk Grayson & Jamie Novotny, 'Northern and Northeastern Assyria', RINAP 3: Sennacherib, The RINAP 3 sub-project of the RINAP Project, 2019 [http://oracc.org/rinap/rinap3/rinap32textintroductions/northernandnortheasternassyria/]