Relatively few inscriptions from Ashurbanipal's first decade as king are known today. Sixteen clay prism fragments, all of which are presumed to have come from Nineveh, are among the inscribed objects bearing early official texts of Assyria's last great king. These pieces are exemplars of three or four different inscriptions. Two of these fragmentary texts are generally referred to as "Prism E₁" and "Prism E₂" in scholarly literature and they are often assumed to have been composed ca. 666–665 and ca. 665–664 respectively. Despite their poor state of preservation, both texts likely recorded Ashurbanipal's nomination as heir designate of Assyria and his subsequent education in the House of Succession, his first campaign to Egypt, the conquest of the city Qirbit, and the voluntary submission of the Lydian king Gyges; reports of the latter event differ significantly in the "Prism E" recensions. In addition to the variant versions of how Gyges became an Assyrian vassal, it is certain that the building reports of the two "Prism E" texts were different: one recorded the rebuilding of the House of Succession at Nineveh, while the other described the reconstruction of (parts of) the citadel wall. All of the identifiable early prism fragments of Ashurbanipal are tentatively edited here as text nos. 1 (Prism E₁), 2 (Prism E₂), 14, and 15; for further details, see the commentaries of these inscriptions.
Fragments of at least three different clay prisms preserve parts of one of the earliest versions of Ashurbanipal's annals. This text included descriptions of Assyrian troops (with the aid of twenty-two Cypriot and Levantine rulers) defeating the Pharaoh Taharqa and his supporters, the capture of the city Qirbit, and the receipt of payment from Gyges of Lydia (on the instructions of the god Aššur that he had received in a dream). The prologue likely included an account of the nomination of Ashurbanipal as heir designate and a statement about his training in the House of Succession. The building report, at least in one exemplar, records that Ashurbanipal rebuilt the House of Succession at Nineveh, which his grandfather had (re)built; later inscriptions (text nos. 9 [Prism F] and 11 [Prism A]) record that his father Esarhaddon was born in that palace and that Ashurbanipal grew up there. Although none of the certain exemplars preserves a complete date, scholars generally think that this text, which they designate as "Prism E₁," dates to around Ashurbanipal's third or fourth regnal year (ca. 666–665); the terminus ante quem is the second Egyptian campaign, which took place after Tanutamon succeeded Taharqa as pharaoh in Egypt.
Access the composite text [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/rinap5/Q003700/] or the score [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/scores/Q003700/] of Ashurbanipal 01.
| Ex. | Museum Number | Registration Number | Provenance | Lines Preserved | cpn |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | K 1821 | — | Probably Nineveh | vi 1–15, vi 3´–15´ | c |
| 2 | A 7920 + A 8138 | — | Purchased by E. Chiera in Mosul | vi 1´–23´, vii 1´–23´ | c |
| 3 | A 8130 | — | As ex. 2 | vi 23´–31´, vii 20´–25´, date | c |
Ashurbanipal appears to have had his scribes write out the earliest versions of his annals (text nos. 1–2 and 14–15) on clay prisms with six, seven, or eight sides. With regard to this text (Prism E₁), ex. 1 is a hexagon, while exs. 2–3 are heptagons.
The 'annals' edition known as "Prism E" was first identified by G. Smith (Assurbanipal p. 78) in 1871. However, it was not until over a century later that M. Cogan and H. Tadmor correctly pointed out that that inscription was actually two different texts, which they labelled as E₁ and E₂. For further details on the relationship between the two Prism E inscriptions, see Cogan and Tadmor, Orientalia NS 46 (1977) pp. 65–85; and Weissert and Onasch, Orientalia NS 61 (1992) pp. 58–73. K 1821, A 7920+, and A 8130 are generally regarded as the main E₁ exemplars, and BM 121018+, BM 127923+, BM 127940+, BM 128306+, and BM 134454 are usually considered as the principal E₂ exemplars. These pieces are edited respectively as text no. 1 exs. 1–3 and text no. 2 exs. 1–5. Given the poor state of preservation of these two versions of the annals, it is uncertain if the five fragments K 1828, Bu 89-4-26,151, BM 121029+, A 8140, and 81-7-27,263 are exemplars of text no. 1 (Prism E₁) or text no. 2 (Prism E₂). These pieces are tentatively edited in this volume as text no. 2 exs. 1*–5*. Furthermore, three additional fragments sometimes assigned to Prism E — 82-5-22,21, BM 99326, and BM 128302+ — are edited separately as text no. 15, a hitherto unclassified edition of Ashurbanipal's annals that was composed between 663 and 649, rather than as exemplars of one of the E Prisms; for this opinion, see Weissert and Onasch, Orientalia NS 61 (1992) p. 73 n. 46; and Novotny, Orientalia NS 72 (2003) pp. 211–214. E. Weissert (in Parpola and Whiting, Assyria 1995 pp. 357–358) proposed that K 1821 (ex. 1) and 82-5-22,2 likely belonged to one and the same six-sided clay prism. Based on the reconstruction of Prism E₁ in this volume, that non-physical join has been rejected and, therefore, 82-5-22,2 has been edited separately as text no. 14 (see below).
As far as the Prism E inscriptions are preserved, the prologues, the accounts of the first campaign to Egypt, and the reports of the conquest of the city Qirbit appear to have been identical in text nos. 1 (Prism E₁) and 2 (Prism E₂); at this time, there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. The description of the voluntary submission of the Lydian king Gyges and the building reports, however, differ significantly. Because the accounts of how Gyges became an Assyrian vassal are very poorly preserved in both Prism E₁ and Prism E₂ and because reports of this event differs significantly from later, better preserved inscriptions, there are major complexities in reconstructing the Gyges narrative in text nos. 1 and 2. In 1977, Cogan and Tadmor (Orientalia NS 46 [1977] pp. 65–85) reconstructed both inscriptions as six-sided prisms and provided schematic drawings showing the proposed distribution of the known fragments. According to their reconstruction of Prism E₁ (this text), the extant parts of the Gyges narrative are preserved at the tops of cols. iv (= K 1821 i´) and v (= K 1821 ii´ and A 7920 i´); the end of the building report and the beginning of the concluding formulae appeared at the top of col. vi (= A 7920 ii´). The distribution of the contents of this part of the inscription was based solely on K 1821 (ex. 1) since the top of that hexagonal prism is preserved. Following the proposed reconstruction of Cogan and Tadmor, the lower four-fifths of cols. iv, v, and vi are completely missing and, therefore, there are very long lacunae (1) between the opening lines of the Gyges report (top of col. iv) and the description of problems that the Assyrian royal court had with translating the Lydian ruler's message when his envoy arrived in Nineveh (top of col. v); and (2) between the passage recording the arrival of the Gyges' messenger in the Assyrian capital (top of col. v) and the building report (which would have began at the bottom of col. v). In 1995, Weissert (in Parpola and Whiting, Assyria 1995 p. 340 n. 6) proposed that K 1821 (ex. 1) and 82-5-22,2 (text no. 14) could belong to one and the same six-sided clay prism because the width of the columns, the substance of the clay, and the spacing of the signs appear to have been the same on both pieces and because from "the historiographical point of view, the hunting episode in 82-5-22,2 fits remarkably well into an intermezzo-like passage following the military narrative [of K 1821], since this is exactly the place where the motif of the royal hunt had normally been integrated into the 'annals' of the Assyrian kings during the 11th–9th centuries BCE." Thus, the contents of 82-5-22,2 (lion hunt and akītu-festival near Arbela) would have appeared in col. v, between the end of the Gyges narrative and the beginning of the building report. According to the 1977 reconstruction of Cogan and Tadmor, there would be enough room for the contents of 82-5-22,2 in Prism E₁ (this text) col. v.
Given the fact that many of the positively identified E prisms are seven-sided, rather than six-sided (for example, exs. 2–3 of this text and text no. 2 [Prism E₂] exs. 1 and 4), Cogan and Tadmor's proposed reconstruction of the distribution of the contents of Prism E₁ (this text) and Weissert's proposed non-physical join between K 1821 (ex. 1) and 82-5-22,2 (text no. 14) are not as secure as one would like. It is certain that the narrative recording the arrival of Gyges' envoy at Nineveh appeared in the penultimate column (=col. vi) of both A 7920+ (ex. 2) and A 8130 (ex. 3). Because a date is partially preserved on A 8130, it is likely that that fragment comes from near the bottom of the prism, and since the contents of A 7920+ ii´ and A 8130 ii´ partially overlap, A 7920+ may also originate from near the lower half of a prism. Therefore, given that the contents of A 7920+ i´ partially duplicate the six-sided K 1821 ii´ (ex. 1), K 1821 should probably be regarded as preserving the first lines of cols. v and vi of a hexagonal prism, rather than those of cols. iv and v as Cogan and Tadmor suggest. Assuming that exs. 1–3 are all exemplars of one and the same inscription and that both A 7920+ (ex. 2) and A 8130 (ex. 3) come from the lower halves of the prisms to which they belong, then Weissert's proposed non-physical join between K 1821 (ex. 1) and 82-5-22,2 (text no. 14) seems less likely since there might not have been enough space for a report about a lion hunt and an akītu-festival between the Gyges narrative and the building report. It is impossible to know with absolute certainty because it is unclear how many lines were inscribed in each column of this inscription, depending on whether it was written in six or seven columns; it is assumed here that each prism had roughly 60–70 lines per column. Therefore, it is best to edit 82-5-22,2 separately, and it is assigned as text no. 14 in this volume.
Based on J. Novotny's understanding of the known pieces of this text and text no. 2 (Prism E₂), the contents of the seven-sided version of Prism E₁ may have been roughly distributed as follows: i–iii (top) = prologue; iii (upper half)–v (middle) = first Egyptian campaign; v (middle)–vi (top) = expedition against Qirbit; vi (upper half)–vii (upper half) = Gyges narrative; vii (middle) = building report; vii (lower half) = concluding formulae; and vii (bottom) = date. The six-sided version would have differed from this, perhaps: i–ii (upper three-quarters) = prologue; ii (bottom)–iv (upper half) = first Egyptian campaign; iv (lower half)–v (top) = expedition against Qirbit; v (upper half)–vi (upper half) = Gyges narrative; vi (middle) = building report; vi (lower half) = concluding formulae; and vi (bottom) = date. Following exs. 2 and 3, this text is tentatively reconstructed here as a heptagon, rather than a hexagon.
None of the three positively identified exemplars is complete and the master line is a conflation of the various exemplars. The line count of this edition is based on the following exemplars: ex. 1 in vi 1–15 and 3´–10´; ex. 2 in vi 1´–2´, 11´–23´, and vii 1´–23´; and ex. 3 in vi 24´–31´ and vii 24´–25´. The numerous restorations are as follows: the expedition against Qirbit (vi 1–10) is restored from text no. 2 (Prism E₂) and the so-called "Large Egyptian Tablets" Inscription (Novotny, SAACT 10 pp. 81–83 no. 20); and the building report and concluding formulae (vii 1´–25´) are restored from text nos. 3 (Prism B), 4 (Prism D), and 11 (Prism A). A complete score of this badly damaged inscription is provided on Oracc. The attested minor (orthographic) variants are given in the critical apparatus at the back of the book.
It is generally assumed that Ashurbanipal had his scribes write out a new version of his annals shortly after the composition and issuing of text no. 1 (Prism E₁), perhaps in the following year (ca. 665–664). This inscription, which is commonly referred to as "Prism E₂," also includes reports of the defeat of Taharqa and his supporters in Egypt, the conquest of the recalcitrant city Qirbit, and the voluntary submission of Lydia's ruler Gyges. The account of how Gyges became Ashurbanipal's vassal in this text is significantly different from the version found in text no. 1 (Prism E₁). Moreover, the building report describes a different construction project at Nineveh: repairs made to (a section of) the citadel wall, for which Sennacherib is cited as a previous builder.
Access the composite text [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/rinap5/Q003701/] or the score [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/scores/Q003701/] of Ashurbanipal 02.
For details about this early version of Ashurbanipal's annals, see the commentary to text no. 1 (Prism E₁). Exs. 1, 4, and 4* may have all been seven-sided clay prisms; ex. 1* is either a hexagonal or heptagonal prism; ex. 2* is probably a six-sided prism; and exs. 2 and 3* may have been heptagonal or octagonal prisms.
In 1977, M. Cogan and H. Tadmor (Orientalia NS 46 [1977] pp. 69–74) reconstructed Prism E₂ as a six-sided prism and provided a schematic drawing showing the proposed distribution of the known fragments. According to their reconstruction of this text, the extant parts of the Gyges narrative are preserved in the lower half of col. v (= BM 134454 i´, BM 128306+ iii´, BM 121018 iii´, and BM 127923+ i´) and in the upper part of col. vi (BM 134455 i´). That proposed reconstruction more or less still stands today. However, the lacuna between BM 134454 i´ (ex. 5) and BM 128306+ iii´ (ex. 4) and BM 121018 iii´ (ex. 1) is much larger than it is shown in Cogan and Tadmor's schematic reconstruction (ibid. p. 69 fig. 2). Moreover, BM 121018 iii´ (ex. 1) and BM 127923+ i´ (ex. 2) do not hold the same position in the narrative: the contents of BM 121018 iii´ (ex. 1) come before those of BM 127923+ i´ (ex. 2). It is unclear given the current state of preservation of Prism E₂ (this text), whether the contents of BM 121018 iii´ (ex. 1) and BM 128306+ iii´ (ex. 4) slightly overlap those of BM 127923+ i´ (ex. 2) or if there is a very short gap between them. Given the distribution of the Gyges narrative on the identified pieces, a marginal overlap, rather than a lacuna of just a few lines, seems more plausible, although this cannot be proven with certainty. The same may have been the case for BM 134455 i´ (ex. 3) and BM 134454 ii´ (ex. 5).
Following exs. 1, 4, and 4*, this text is tentatively reconstructed here as a heptagon, rather than a hexagon. Based on the J. Novotny's understanding of the known pieces of this text and text no. 1 (Prism E₁), the contents of the seven-sided version of Prism E₂ may have been roughly distributed as follows: i–iii (top) = prologue; iii (upper half)–v (middle) = first Egyptian campaign; v (middle)–vi (top) = expedition against Qirbit; vi (upper half)–vii (upper half) = Gyges narrative; vii (middle) = building report; vii (lower half) = concluding formulae; and vii (bottom) = date. The six-sided version would have differed from this, perhaps: i–ii (upper three-quarters) = prologue; ii (bottom)–iv (upper half) = first Egyptian campaign; iv (lower half)–v (top) = expedition against Qirbit; v (upper half)–vi (upper half) = Gyges narrative; vi (middle) = building report; vi (lower half) = concluding formulae; and vi (bottom) = date.
No exemplar is complete and the master line is a conflation of the various exemplars. The line count of this edition is based on the following exemplars: ex. 1 in iv 1–12, 30´–v 12, 29´–vi 13, and 7´–15´; ex. 2 in vi 1´´–vii 6; ex. 3 in i 1–14, 1´–5´, and vii 7–15; ex. 4 in iv 5´–19´, v 1´–28´, and vi 1´–6´; ex. 5 in vi 14–25 and vii 1´–8´; ex. 1* in iii 6–23, iv 1´–4´, and 20´–29´; ex. 2* in iii 1´–9´; ex. 3* in ii 1–9, iii 1–5, 1´´–6´´, and iv 13–17; and ex. 4* in ii 1´–7´. The numerous restorations are as follows: the prologue is restored from text nos. 9 (Prism F) and 11 (Prism A); the reports of the first Egyptian campaign and the expedition against Qirbit are restored from text no. 1 (Prism E₁) and the so-called "Large Egyptian Tablets" Inscription (Novotny, SAACT 10 pp. 81–83 no. 20); and the building report is restored from text no. 4 (Prism D). A full score of this poorly preserved inscription is provided on Oracc. The few attested orthographic variants are listed at the back of the book.
Very few inscriptions written on clay or stone objects during the fourteen years after the issuing of text nos. 1 (Prism E₁) and 2 (Prism E₂) are extant today. It is, however, not the case for Ashurbanipal's third decade as king, starting with this version of his annals, copies of which were inscribed on eight-sided clay prisms during his twentieth and twenty-first regnal years (649–648; respectively, the eponymies of Aḫu-ilāʾī, governor of Carchemish, and Bēlšunu, governor of Ḫindānu). At least six prisms, and presumably many more, bore a lengthy inscription that divided its military narration into eight campaigns and recorded the rebuilding of a wing of the armory at Nineveh that his grandfather Sennacherib had constructed anew. Following the model of his earlier inscriptions (as well as those of his father Esarhaddon), this text, which is frequently referred to as "Prism B" in Assyriological publications, arranges the "campaigns" (girrus) geographically, and not chronologically. Ashurbanipal boasts that he defeated Egypt twice, forced Baʾalu of Tyre into submission, captured the city Qirbit, destroyed numerous cities in Mannea, fought many successful battles against various Elamite rulers (especially the arrogant and belligerent Teumman), conquered the Gambulian capital Ša-pī-Bēl and deported its anti-Assyrian leaders (Dunānu and his brothers), and plundered Arab tribes. Numerous other details are provided, including, for example, Yakīn-Lû of Arwad, Mugallu of Tabal, and Sanda-šarme of Ḫilakku (Cilicia) voluntarily sending tribute, along with their daughters; Gyges of Lydia defeating invading Cimmerians and sending a substantial payment to Assyria; Urtaku of Elam, Bēl-iqīša of Gambulu, and Urtaku's eunuch Marduk-šuma-ibni all dying from unusual circumstances within the same year; Aḫšēri of Mannea, Ummanigaš (Ḫumban-nikaš II) of Elam, and Tammarītu of Elam all being deposed; and Kamās-ḫaltâ of Moab capturing Ammu-ladīn of Qedar and handing him over to Assyria.
Access the composite text [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/rinap5/Q003702/] or the score [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/scores/Q003702/] of Ashurbanipal 03.
This version of Ashurbanipal's annals was inscribed on eight-sided clay prisms. The main difference between this inscription and text no. 4 (Prism D) is that the building report of this text (at least in ex. 5) describes work undertaken on a wing of the armory and that of text no. 4 records repairs made to the citadel wall. It should be noted here that the building reports of ex. 1 of this text (Prism B) and ex. 1 of text no. 4 (Prism D) are not preserved. Nevertheless, K 1775+ is edited here as a certain exemplar of this inscription and K 1741+ as a certain exemplar of text no. 4. Although the building reports of exs. 2–4 and 6 are very poorly preserved, they appear to record work on the armory, just like ex. 5.
There are two different versions of the concluding formulae: One appears in ex. 5 (the basis for the master text), and the other in exs. 3 and 6; exs. 2 and 4 do not preserve enough to be able to determine which version of the inscription they follow. Full details about these significant editorial variations are provided in the on-page notes.
In addition to the six principal exemplars, numerous other prism fragments may be inscribed with copies of this text, rather than some other (earlier or later) inscription of Ashurbanipal. These are edited here as exs. 1*–147*. Exs. 1*–137* could also be exemplars of text no. 4 (Prism D); exs. 138*–142* could bear copies of text nos. 4 (Prism D), 6 (Prism C), 8 (Prism G), or 11 (Prism A); exs. 143*–144* could actually be exemplars of text nos. 4 (Prism D), 6 (Prism C), 8 (Prism G), 9 (Prism F), or 11 (Prism A); exs. 145*–146* could bear copies of texts nos. 4 (Prism D) or 9 (Prism F); and ex. 147* could be a copy of texts nos. 4 (Prism D) or 11 (Prism A). These pieces, despite their uncertain attribution to this inscription, are included in the score and their minor (orthographic) variants are noted with this text. Moreover, these fragments are used to reconstruct the master text of passages in which the principal exemplars (exs. 1–6) are not preserved; see below for details.
The arrangement of text, as well as the number of lines of each column, varies between the exemplars. No exemplar is complete and the master line is a conflation of the various exemplars. The line count of this edition is based on the following exemplars: ex. 1 in i 1–31, ii 1–13, 32–64, iii 1–21, 30–59, iii 82–iv 28, 42–52, 84–v 20, 33–52, 73–82, vi 2–16, 52–61, vii 1–15, 37–49, and 81–viii 34; ex. 4 in i 34–42; ex. 5 in i 43–73, 86–94, ii 70–93, iii 60–81, iv 29–41, 53–83, v 21–32, 53–72, 83–90, vi 21–51, vii 24–36, 50–80, and viii 35–92; ex. 6 in i 74–85, 95, ii 65–69, v 91–vi 1, and 62–84; ex. 28 in vi 85; ex. 32* in i 32–33; ex. 71* in ii 14–31 and iii 23–30; ex. 92* in vi 86–90; ex. 110* in vi 17–20; and 126* in vii 16–23. The column and line numbering of R. Borger's edition of Prism B in BIWA generally follows that of A.C. Piepkorn (Asb.); see Borger, BIWA p. 86. There are relatively few completely damaged words and signs in the master text. When possible, these signs are restored from text no. 4 (Prism D); otherwise, the restorations come from text nos. 6 (Prism C), 7 (Prism Kh), and 10 (Prism T). A complete score, including the exemplars of uncertain attribution, is presented on Oracc. The numerous orthographic variants that appear in this text are listed at the back of the book. Also, since the lineation of the present edition differs from the one given in Borger, BIWA, a concordance of line numbers is provided at the back of the book.
Fragments of numerous clay prisms are inscribed with a version of Ashurbanipal's annals that records eight campaigns and describes the rebuilding and widening of (part of) Nineveh's citadel wall, which had fallen into disrepair; Sennacherib is named as a previous builder. The prologue and military narration of this inscription, which is generally called "Prism D" in earlier publications, is identical to that of text no. 3 (Prism B), apart from a few minor textual variants. At least three of the exemplars of this text were inscribed during the post-canonical eponymy of Bēlšunu, governor of Ḫindānu (648).
Access the composite text [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/rinap5/Q003703/] or the score [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/scores/Q003703/] of Ashurbanipal 04.
Ashurbanipal had his scribes write out copies of this version of his annals on both eight-sided and ten-sided clay prisms; exs. 1–2, 4, 6–7, and 9–15 are octagons and exs. 3, 5, 8, and 16–17 are decagons. Note that the surfaces of the extant columns of ex. 17 are slightly rounded, rather than flat as one expects for a normal clay prism; A 8009 should not be regarded as a vertical cylinder because its columns are angled 31–32 degrees, like a ten-sided prism. Text no. 9 (Prism F) ex. 6 (BM 121008+) also has marginally rounded surfaces; see the commentary of that inscription.
As far as the exemplars are preserved, there are only minor (orthographic) variants in the prologue and military narration. However, there is significant variation in the building report and concluding formulae. The account of the rebuilding and expansion of the citadel wall of Nineveh in exs. 3, 7–8, 11, and 15 is fourteen words longer than it is in exs. 2, 10, and 16–17; the former group includes viii 65–67, whereas the latter group does not. The building reports are not sufficiently preserved in the other exemplars to be able to determine which version they follow. Since none of the exemplars in question preserves a date, one cannot be absolutely certain that the copies with the longer building report were inscribed later than those with the shorter one. However, because the building report of exs. 3, 7–8, 11, and 15 states that Ashurbanipal strengthened the foundations of the citadel wall with limestone blocks and made it thicker and higher than it had been in the reign of Sennacherib, these copies of Prism D may have been inscribed later than exs. 2, 10, and 16–17. Of course, one cannot rule out the possibility that exs. 2, 10, and 16–17 are later in date and contain an abridged version of the rebuilding of the citadel wall. Moreover, there are also at least two different versions of Ashurbanipal's advice to future rulers (viii 75–93): The first is found in exs. 1, 8, 12, and 14, while the second appears in exs. 5–6 and 9. Given the fact that only ex. 8 sufficiently preserves both a version of the building report and the king's advice, it is not possible to make any firm conclusions about how the different building accounts correlate to the different advice passages. Further details about these editorial differences are provided in the on-page notes.
The arrangement of text, as well as the number of lines of each column, varies between the exemplars. No exemplar is complete and the master line is a conflation of the various exemplars. The line count of this edition is based on the following exemplars: ex. 1 in iv 11´–32´, 35´–v 1´, 15´´–46´´, 50´´–vi 4, 35´–82´, vii 22–53, 63–91, and viii 83–93; ex. 2 in i 1–63, ii 1´–11´, vi 7´–26´, vii 1–21, 54–61, viii 4–64, and 68–73; ex. 3 in i 79–ii 4, 45´–63´, iii 15–25, 1´–iv 13, 33´–34´, v 1´–9´, 1´´–14´´, 47´´–49´´, vi 1´–6´, and 86´–92´; ex. 4 in ii 12´–32´, iii 26–64, and iv 1´–10´; ex. 5 in i 64–73 and ii 64´–74´; ex. 6 in i 74–78; ex. 7 in ii 33´–44´ and viii 65–67; ex. 8 in viii 74–82; ex. 9 in ii 5–10 and iii 1–14; and ex. 17 in vi 27´–34´. The column and line numbering of R. Borger's edition of Prism D in BIWA generally follows that of A.C. Piepkorn (Asb.); see Borger, BIWA p. 86. The restorations are based on text no. 3 (Prism B), with a little help from text nos. 6 (Prism C) and 7 (Prism Kh). A full score of the inscription is presented on the CD-ROM and all of the numerous minor (orthographic) variants are listed at the back of the book, in the critical apparatus. In addition, because the lineation of the present edition differs significantly from the one given in Borger, BIWA, a concordance of line numbers is provided at the back of the book.
Numerous other prism fragments may be inscribed with copies of this text, rather than some other (earlier or later) inscription of Ashurbanipal. These are edited as text no. 3 (Prism B) exs. 1*–147*. For further details, see the catalogues and commentaries of that inscriptions. Moreover, it is possible that ex. 13 (BM 98629) could actually be an exemplar of text no. 8 (Prism G). Despite this uncertainty, that piece is tentatively edited here as a positively identified exemplar of this text.
An inscription of Ashurbanipal recording only his building activities in Assyria and Babylonia (despite his older brother Šamaš-šuma-ukīn being the king of Babylon) is written on at least four fragmentary clay prisms. Unlike other extant prism inscriptions of his, this text does not contain any military narration; the absence of campaign reports is commonly attested for Ashurbanipal's Babylonian inscriptions, but not for his Assyrian ones. The lengthy prologue — which, as far as it is preserved, is identical (apart from minor variants) to those of text nos. 6 (Prism C), 7 (Prism Kh), and 8 (Prism G) — provides information on the following projects: (1) the completion and decoration of the Aššur temple at Aššur, Eḫursaggalkurkurra ("House of the Great Mountain of the Lands"); (2) the completion of Esagil ("House whose Top is High"), the temple of Marduk at Babylon, and the return of the statues of Babylon's tutelary deities; (3) the refurbishing and creation of ornate cult objects for Marduk and his consort Zarpanītu; (4) the setting up of statues of wild bulls in prominent gateways of Nabû's temple at Borsippa, Ezida ("True House"); (5) the decoration of the Ištar temples at Nineveh (Emašmaš) and Arbela (Egašankalama, "House of the Lady of the Land") (passage not preserved); (6) the refurbishing of a (forgotten) image of the goddess Šarrat-Kidmuri and the reinstitution of her cultic rites (not preserved): (7) the setting up of lion-headed eagles and divine emblems in Egalmeslam ("Palace, Warrior of the Netherworld"), the temple of Nergal at Tarbiṣu; and (8) the rebuilding of the temple of the moon-god Sîn at Ḫarrān, Ehulhul ("House which Gives Joy"), and the construction of its (twin) Emelamana ("House of the Radiance of Heaven"), the temple of Nusku. In addition, Ashurbanipal boasts that he had metal (silver, gold, and bronze) images made of himself and had them placed in the presence of his divine benefactors. The building report records the renovation and subsequent decoration of the Sîn-Šamaš temple at Nineveh, which had last been worked on by his father Esarhaddon; the building's Sumerian ceremonial name is not known and its archaeological remains have not yet been positively identified. One exemplar of this inscription, which was formerly referred to as "Prism TVar[iant]" (or "T-Type") and is now sometimes called "Prism I," was inscribed during the post-canonical eponymy of Bēlšunu, governor of Ḫindānu (648), around the same time as some copies of text no. 4 (Prism D).
Access the composite text [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/rinap5/Q003704/] or the score [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/scores/Q003704/] of Ashurbanipal 05.
This inscription was inscribed on five- and six-sided clay prisms. In earlier Assyriological literature, this text is referred to as "T-Type" (Cogan, JCS 32 [1980] p. 149 n. 10) or "T Variant" ("TVar" for short; Borger, BIWA pp. 134–136) since its contents most closely resembled the "Thompson Prism" (text no. 10 [Prism T] ex. 1). Because the inscription is a clearly definable edition, and not a sub-edition or variant of another prism class, including "Prism T," J. Novotny (Studies Walker p. 192 n. 6) suggested Prism I as a suitable replacement.
The non-physical join between BM 134464 and BM 134479 (ex. 4) was recognized on the basis of the hand (same scribe), color (deep orange), and composition of the clay. Exs. 5–10 should probably be regarded as exemplars of this inscription, rather than text no. 10 (Prism T), on the basis of one or more of the following characteristics: (1) the color (deep orange) and composition of the clay (which is similar to exs. 1, 3, and 4); (2) very large script; (3) very wide columns; and (4) textual variants, particularly in the passage describing the circumstances in which Ashurbanipal came to rebuild Eḫulḫul ("House which Gives Joy"), the temple of Sîn at Ḫarrān.
The arrangement of text, as well as the number of lines of each column, varies between the exemplars. No exemplar is complete and the master line is a conflation of the various exemplars. The inscription is reconstructed here as a pentagonal prism with an estimated 50–55 lines per column. The line arrangement follows ex. 1 in v 1–24; ex. 2 in iv 1–17; ex. 3 in iii 1´–23´ and iv 20–38; ex. 4 in col. i, iv 39–42, and v 25–36; ex. 8 in ii 1–8; ex. 9 in ii 27´–44´; and ex. 10 in iii 25´–30´. Restorations are generally based on text no. 10 (Prism T), but also on text nos. 3 (Prism B), 6 (Prism C), and 7 (Prism Kh) when necessary. A score is presented on Oracc. The few attested minor variants are listed at the back of the book.
After the tragic death of Ashurbanipal's brother Šamaš-šuma-ukīn and the capture of Babylon in 648, the Assyrian king had his scribes prepare a new edition of his annals, one commemorating his victory over the king of Babylon and his numerous allies. That inscription is known from at least four badly damaged ten-sided clay prisms. Its prologue and much of its military narration were borrowed (with modifications and additions) from earlier versions of Ashurbanipal's annals, including all of the five previous inscriptions (text nos. 1–5). This text's prologue is more or less identical to text no. 5 (Prism I) — which records construction in five Assyrian cities (Aššur, Arbela, Ḫarrān, Nineveh, and Tarbiṣu) and two Babylonian cities (Babylon and Borsippa) — and its descriptions of the king's victories generally duplicate those of text nos. 3 (Prism B) and 4 (Prism D), apart from the new report about the Šamaš-šuma-ukīn rebellion (652–648) and events in Elam (648), including Ummanaldašu (Ḫumban-ḫaltaš III) deposing Indabibi; note that some passages in the first Egyptian campaign report (against Taharqa) were borrowed from earlier inscriptions, including text nos. 1 (Prism E₁) and 2 (Prism E₂). With regard to the events of the Babylonian rebellion, this inscription records that the siege ended when the gods cast Šamaš-šuma-ukīn into a fire; this vague statement could imply either that the king of Babylon took his own life or that he was murdered by one or more of his officials. Moreover, some of the harsh and heart-breaking conditions that Babylon's citizens had to endure while their city was besieged, including having to resort to cannibalism, are explicitly recorded. Although little of the building report is preserved, it is generally assumed that that passage recorded the renovation of a wing of the armory at Nineveh that Esarhaddon constructed since Ashurbanipal is known to have worked on that palace (text no. 3 [Prism B]), since Esarhaddon is named a previous builder, and since the word ekallu ("palace") appears in the concluding formulae. Scholars usually refer to this inscription as "Prism C"; one copy of this text (ex. 3b) was previously referred to as "Prism G" and "Prism K." Although no certain exemplar of this text preserves a date, it is generally thought that the inscription was written on clay prisms during the year after the fall of Babylon, in 647 (possibly the post-canonical eponymy of Nabû-daʾʾinanni, governor of Que).
Access the composite text [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/rinap5/Q003705/] or the score [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/scores/Q003705/] of Ashurbanipal 06.
Ashurbanipal's scribes had copies of this inscription written on ten-sided clay prisms. For many years, K 1794+ (ex. 1) and K 1703 (ex. 3b) were regarded as belonging to different versions of this king's annals; the former was designated as "Prism C," while the latter was called "Prism G" (by T. Bauer) and then "Prism K" (by A.C. Piepkorn). R. Borger (BIWA p. 126), however, has satisfactorily proved that K 1703 (Bauer's "Prism G" and Piepkorn's "Prism K") and K 1794+ ("Prism C") both bear one and the same version of Ashurbanipal's annals. Borger describes his discovery as follows: "Cogan + Tadmor, OrNS 50, 229ff. und Cogan, JCS 41 96ff. haben „Prism K" weitere Texte zugewiesen, wobei es ihnen allerdings offensichtlich schwer fiel, „K" und C sauber voneinander zu trennen. Dies war kein Wunder, denn K 1703 ist einfach ein Textvertreter von Prisma C! Die beiden für „K" typischen Passagen, eingebaut nach B VI 82 bzw. wie seit 1987 (Sumer 44 152 n4, siehe dazu Weissert, NABU 1990 n126) nachweisbar, unmittelbar nach B VII 76, durfte man in C VII Mitte bzw. VIII Mitte erwarten, aber gerade dort klafften in C, auch noch nach Freedmans Bearbeitung, grosse Lücken. Diese Tatsache sowie der Umstand, dass K 1703 wie C 10kolumnig ist (IWA p8 korrekt! Piepkorn äussert sich nicht zur Kolumnenzahl), hätten die korrekte Identifizierung von K 1703 bereits ermöglicht. Als ich im Juli 1991 ND5411+ (unten CND8) abschrieb, traf ich dort den ersten für „K" typischen Passus an ; hier folgt nach B VII lf. nicht B VII 3, sondern C VII 120, womit Zugehörigkeit zu C erwiesen war. Freedman VIII „x+ 1"–„x+6" (Zusatzstück zu Cl) konnte ich als Reste des zweiten für „K" typischen Passus identifizieren (bei mir C VIII 70ff.). Nachdem ich CND8 abgeschrieben hatte, wurde es mir alsbald klar, dass sämtliche Assurbanipal-Prismen aus Nimrud zur Prismenklasse C gehören müssen (CND1–15). Weissert hatte übrigens bereits mit dem Gedanken gespielt, dass sie alle zu C gehören konnten, und keines zu B." Following Borger, K 1794+ and K 1703 are both regarded as exemplars of "Prism C." However, based on J. Novotny's (SAOC 62 p. 128) recent examination of the original of ex. 1, it is certain that the military narration of Borger's "Prism CKalach" (or "Prism CND") does not duplicate that of this text. The Kalḫu version of the annals includes a report of the first war against the Elamite king Ummanaldašu (Ḫumban-ḫaltaš III), whereas the military narration of this text (Prism C) does not (see below). Therefore, Ashurbanipal's Nimrud annals are edited separately as text no. 7 (Prism Kh); moreover, its designation has been changed to "Prism Kh."
Novotny (SAOC 62 p. 128, with nn. 6–7) carefully examined the numerous fragments of K 1794+ (ex. 1) and concluded that there was not sufficient space for an account of his fourth Elamite campaign in that prism since there is a lacuna of approximately twenty-three lines at the end of col. ix and a gap of about eighteen lines at the beginning of col. x. The proposed forty-one missing lines perfectly corresponds to the expected number of lines missing from the descriptions of the campaigns against the Arabs; the lacuna between ix 52´´ and x 1´ corresponds to text no. 3 (Prism B) vii 77–viii 23. Given the fact that it would require an additional ninety to one hundred lines to narrate the first war against the Elamite king Ummanaldašu, one must conclude that K 1794+ (ex. 1) could not have included a report of that campaign in its military narration. Based on this critical reassessment of the original of K 1794+, it is certain that (1) the terminus ante quem for this text is the fourth Elamite campaign; (2) a report of Ashurbanipal's first war against Ummanaldašu was recorded for the first time in text no. 7 (Prism Kh), and not in this version of the annals; and (3) K 13778 (Borger's C16) is an exemplar of text no. 8 (Prism G; ex. 4) since it includes an account of the Elamite campaign in question. Moreover, this text was probably composed one year earlier than text nos. 7 (Prism Kh) and 8 (Prism G), and not in the same year; for example, see Borger, BIWA p. 257. Novotny (SAOC 62 p. 128), based on this new information, dates the post-canonical eponymy of Nabû-nādin-aḫi to 646 since there should be one year separating it from the eponymy of Bēlšunu, which most scholars generally date to 648. Unfortunately, because the date lines are not preserved on K 1794+ (ex. 1), it is uncertain who held that position in 647. Novotny (Eḫulḫul p. 17; and SAOC 62 p. 128), following M. Falkner (AfO 17 [1954–56] p. 118) tentatively suggests that Nabû-daʾʾinanni was the eponym-official for that year. For further information, see the Dating and Chronology section of the book's introduction.
Borger (BIWA pp. 122–127) assigned sixteen certain exemplars to this edition of Ashurbanipal's annals. Although this may be true, some of the smaller fragments could actually bear copies of text no. 8 (Prism G) and, therefore, these pieces are tentatively included here as exemplars of uncertain attribution (exs. 1*–11*). Five further small fragments are included here; exs. 12*–16* could be exemplars of this inscription, text no. 8 (Prism G), or text no. 11 (Prism A). In addition, eight possible exemplars of this text are edited as text no. 3 (Prism B) exs. 138*–144* and text no. 8 (Prism G) ex. 1*. For further details on those pieces, see the catalogues of those two inscriptions.
The arrangement of text, as well as the number of lines of each column, varies between the exemplars. No exemplar is complete and the master line is a conflation of the various exemplars. The line count of this edition is based on the following exemplars: ex. 1 in i 2´–55´, 67´–98´, 1´´–9´´, ii 8´–18´, 73´–85´, 1´´–4´´, iii 1´–18´, 39´–71´, iv 1´–18´, 1´´–21´´, 28´´–35´´, v 8–25, 57–68, vi 21´–32´, 23´´–39´´, vii 4–22, 37–53, 35´–48´, viii 1´–20´, 1´´–24´´, 1´´´–3´´´, ix 1´–24´, 1´´–52´´, x 1´–20´, 1´´–21´´, and 1´´´–28´´´; ex. 2 in i 1´, 56´–61´, ii 1´–7´, 19´–53´, iii 19´–38´, 72´–99´, iv 22´´–27´´, 36´´–84´´, v 30–56, 69–107, and vi 1´–20´; ex. 3 in vi 33´–38´, 7´´–22´´, vii 1´–23´, and viii 4´´´–21´´´; ex. 4 in vii 29´–34´; ex. 1* in i 62´–65´ and ii 59´–65´; ex. 4* in ii 54´–58´; ex. 8* in iii 104´–iv 1; ex. 9* in v 1–6 and 1´–2´; ex. 10* in vi 1´´–6´´; ex. 11* in vii 26–35; ex. 14* in ii 66´–72´; and ex. 16* in ii 7´´–19´. The column and line numbering of Borger's edition of Prism C in BIWA generally follows that of R.D. Freedman (St. Louis); see Borger, BIWA pp. 122–123. When possible, the restorations are generally based on text nos. 7 (Prism Kh) and 8 (Prism G) and, when they are not, they stem from text no. 3 (Prism B). In a few places, restorations have been made from text nos. 4 (Prism D), 5 (Prism I), 10 (Prism T), and 11 (Prism A). A complete score of the text, including the exemplars of uncertain attribution, is presented on Oracc. The numerous orthographic variants that appear in this text are listed in the critical apparatus. Moreover, because the lineation of the edition given here differs from that of Borger, a concordance of line numbers is given at the back of the book.
Numerous clay prism fragments discovered in the ruins of Ezida ("True House"), the Nabû temple at Kalḫu, bear an edition of Ashurbanipal's annals that mostly duplicates the contents of text no. 6 (Prism C). This text's prologue and most of its military narration, apart from one new campaign report, duplicate verbatim (with minor orthographic variants) those sections of the previous inscription (text no. 6). This Nimrud version of the annals records Ashurbanipal's first war against the Elamite king Ummanaldašu (Ḫumban-ḫaltaš III; probably in 647) and describes the renovation of (part of) Nabû's temple at Kalḫu; the early Neo-Assyrian king Adad-nārārī III (810–783) is named as a previous builder of Ezida. One exemplar (ex. 1) was inscribed in the post-canonical eponymy of Nabû-nādin-aḫi, governor of Kār-Shalmaneser (probably 646); for the date, see the introduction and the commentary of text no. 6 (Prism C). This text is sometimes referred to in previous scholarly literature as "Prism CKalach," "Prism CND," or "Prism K[alac]h"; it is designated "Prism Kh" in this volume.
Access the composite text [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/rinap5/Q003706/] or the score [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/scores/Q003706/] of Ashurbanipal 07.
Copies of this version of Ashurbanipal's annals were inscribed on tall ten-sided clay prisms. At present, it is unclear how many different exemplars of this text are extant. There could be as many as sixteen copies of it or as few as two or three. It is certain that the following exemplars do not come from the same object: exs. 1 and 2; exs. 1 and 4; exs. 1 and 6; exs. 1 and 7; exs. 1 and 15; exs. 2 and 9; exs. 3 and 5; exs. 3 and 10; exs. 3 and 11; exs. 4 and 12; exs. 6 and 14; exs. 9 and 11; and exs. 10 and 14. R. Borger (BIWA p. 129) rightly suggests that exs. 4 and 10–11 could be parts of one and the same prism since their script (same hand), color, and composition of clay are very similar. It is likely that ND 5526, an uninscribed fragment from the bottom of a prism (Knudsen, Iraq 29 [1967] p. 67), joins ex. 2. ND 4326 (ex. 13) was identified by G. Van Buylaere in the British Museum. The authors thank her for bringing this to their attention.
Following Borger, all of the prism fragments discovered at Kalḫu are considered here as belonging to one version of Ashurbanipal's annals. Because Borger thought that the prologue and military narration of this text and text no. 6 (Prism C) were identical, he designated this inscription as "Prism CKalach" (or "Prism CND"). However, J. Novotny's (SAOC 62 p. 128) recent examination of the original of K 1794+ (text no. 6 ex. 1) has proven that this was not the case since this version of the annals from Kalḫu contained a lengthy report of Ashurbanipal's fourth Elamite campaign, whereas that (earlier) text from Nineveh did not; for details, see the commentary of text no. 6 (Prism C). For this reason and because its building report records work on Nabû's temple Ezida, rather than the armory at Nineveh, this inscription has been assigned the new designation "Prism Kh"; "Prism K" has been intentionally avoided so that there is no confusion with A.C. Piepkorn's now-obsolete designation "Prism K" (which was used to describe K 1703, text no. 6 [Prism C] ex. 3b). A report of the first war against the Elamite king Ummanaldašu is recorded in this inscription for the first time. The prologue and military narration of this text most closely parallels those of text no. 8 (Prism G), which was also inscribed on prisms during the eponymy of Nabû-nādin-aḫi (probably 646). For details on the major differences between Prisms Kh and G, see the commentary of text no. 8, as well as Novotny, SAOC 62 pp. 130–132.
Providing a reliable edition of this inscription is hampered by the fact that over half of the published pieces are accessible only from the published copies of E.E. Knudsen (Iraq 29 [1967] pls. XIV–XXIX) and M. Mahmud and J. Black (Sumer 44 [1985–86] pp. 151–152 nos. 2–4) or from hand-written transliterations of Borger (BIWA 4o-Heft pp. 273–275). Because those fragments are housed in the collections of the Iraq Museum (Baghdad), it was not possible to examine them from the originals. Because Knudsen did not consistently reproduce the fragments at the same scale, it is not always possible to confirm with certainty the many proposed physical or non-physical joins. The Kalḫu pieces that are in "Deposit 1307" of the British Museum (London), however, were collated against the originals. Generally speaking, based on Novotny's examination of the fragments of this text now in the British Museum, Knudsen's copies are reasonably reliable, which bodes well for the pieces that he copied that ended up in Baghdad. Despite these obstacles, it is possible to produce a fairly accurate, modern edition of this text.
The arrangement of text, as well as the number of lines of each column, varies between the exemplars. No exemplar is complete and the master line is a conflation of the various exemplars. The line count of this edition is based on the following exemplars: ex. 1 in i 1´–49´, ii 1´–37´, 14´´–16´´, vi 4´´–22´´, 26´´–vii 14, 35´–viii 12, 91´–104´, 112´–ix 15, 1´–19´, 7´´–x 12, 1´–63´, 65´–85´, and 87´–90´; ex. 2 in i 50´–101´, ii 17´´–60´´, iii 5´´–24´´, iv 97´´–98´´, x 64´, and 86´; ex. 3 in iii 1´–46´, iv 3´´–35´´, iv 43´´–71´´, v 35–103, and vi 1´–46´; ex. 4 in iv 1´–12´, 77´´–96´´, v 1–34, 104–vi 21, 1´´–3´´, 23´´–25´´, and vii 15–45; ex. 5 in iv 72´´–74´´ and vii 19´–31´; ex. 6 in vii 1´–17´, viii 17´–89´, and ix 1´´–6´´; ex. 7 in i 1–6, viii 105´–111´, and x 13–17; ex. 8 in ii 1´´–11´´; ex. 9 in iii 25´´–35´´; ex. 10 in iv 1´´–2´´; ex. 11 in iii 1´´–4´´ and iv 36´´–40´´; ex. 12´ in iv 13´–26´; ex. 13 in viii 1´–16´; ex. 14 in vii 18´ and 32´–34´; and ex. 16 in x 21–27. The column and line numbering of Borger's edition of Prism Kh in BIWA generally follows that of R.D. Freedman (St. Louis); see Borger, BIWA pp. 122–123. When possible, the restorations are generally based on text nos. 6 (Prism C) and 8 (Prism G) and, when they are not, they stem from text no. 3 (Prism B). In a few places, restorations have been made from text nos. 4 (Prism D), 5 (Prism I), 10 (Prism T), and 11 (Prism A). A complete score is presented on Oracc and a list of minor (orthographic) variants is provided at the back of the book.
Jamie Novotny & Joshua Jeffers
Jamie Novotny & Joshua Jeffers, 'Inscriptions on Prisms, Part 1 (text nos. 1-7)', RINAP 5: The Royal Inscriptions of Ashurbanipal, Aššur-etel-ilāni, and Sîn-šarra-iškun, The RINAP/RINAP 5 Project, a sub-project of MOCCI, 2022 [http://oracc.org/rinap/rinap5/rinap51textintroductions/prismspart1texts17/]