A Nineveh version of the annals that is similar to text no. 7 (Prism Kh) is known from five or six fragmentary, ten-sided clay prisms. In addition to some alterations in the military report — including the reordering of the reports of Ashurbanipal's first war against the Elamite king Ummanaldašu (Ḫumban-ḫaltaš III) and his skirmishes with various Arab groups — this inscription includes a brief description of the defeat and capture of the Arabian queen Adiya. The building report states that Ashurbanipal rebuilt and widened Nineveh's wall, just like he did in text no. 4 (Prism D). The best preserved exemplar (ex. 1) was inscribed sometime during the post-canonical eponymy of Nabû-nādin-aḫi, governor of Kār-Shalmaneser (probably 646). Although the month (and day) that the prism was written are completely missing, it is assumed that this recension of the annals was issued shortly after that of text no. 7 (Prism Kh). This suggestion is based on the editorial changes in the descriptions of Ashurbanipal's victories, including the addition of the account of Adiya's capture into the narrative of the events in Arabia of this text. In more recent scholarly publications (starting in 1996), this inscription is occasionally referred to as "Prism G."
Access the composite text [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/rinap5/Q003707/] or the score [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/scores/Q003707/] of Ashurbanipal 08.
Like the previous two inscriptions, copies of this text were inscribed on large ten-sided clay prisms. This edition of Ashurbanipal's annals was first correctly identified by R. Borger (BIWA pp. 130–131). He gave it the designation "Prism G"; this newly-assigned designation should not be confused with T. Bauer's "Prism G" (= K 1703; Asb. [1933] p. 28), which is actually an exemplar of text no. 6 ([Prism C] ex. 3b). M. Cogan and H. Tadmor (Orientalia NS 50 [1981] pp. 229–240) assigned A 8111 (+) BM 134436 (ex. 1) as an exemplar of their "Prism K" (= Bauer's "Prism G"), but as Borger has already confirmed, those fragments are actually pieces of this text's principal exemplar (ex. 1). For further information on the classification of K 1703, see the commentary of text no. 6 (Prism C) and Borger, BIWA pp. 126 and 130–131.
A careful re-examination of the contents of this inscription and text nos. 6 (Prism C) and 7 (Prism Kh), reveals that the military narration of this text most closely parallels that of text no. 7, but with a few minor and major alterations; these were recently noted by J. Novotny (SAOC 62 pp. 130–132). The more notable textual alterations are: (1) the scholar(s) responsible for this edition added one line to the description of the torture of Mannu-kî-aḫḫē and Nabû-uṣalli in Arbela, as well as expanding the statement about the Gambulian ruler Dunānu's execution in Nineveh (vii 1´´–9´´); (2) this text provides some additional information on why the Elamite king Tammarītu was deposed (viii 23´´b–32´´); (3) this version of Ashurbanipal's annals adds a short passage stating that the Arabian queen Adiya was defeated and captured (ix 1´´–6´´); and (4) the order of the reports of the first war against the Elamite king Ummanaldasu (Humban-ḫaltaš III) and the Arabian campaigns were switched by placing the former after the latter.
With respect to ex. 1, the majority of its fragments come from the lower half of the prism, especially A 8011 (+) A 8104 (+) A 8137 since the base is partially preserved. A 7982 + A 7985 + A 8012 + A 8107 + A 8117 + A 8151 + A 8162 appears to have been part of the upper half or middle of the object, as suggested by the estimated lacuna between the various fragments; the sizes of the gaps are based on the line counts of the better preserved text nos. 6 (Prism C) and 7 (Prism Kh). After examining both BM 134436 and A 8111 of ex. 1, the authors (especially Novotny) are less certain about the proposed non-physical join. Nevertheless, both pieces are tentatively regarded here as belonging together. Most of the text of A 8107, what little is preserved, is unreadable. Because its contents cannot be identified or firmly placed within the inscription, this piece is not included in the edition. Note that all of the ex. 1 fragments remain unjoined in the Oriental Institute (Chicago); gluing them together would not only be very problematic, but also impractical and would likely further damage the pieces.
Ex. 2 also comes from the lower portion of a large prism; this is certain because its base is partially preserved. Although ex. 3 does not duplicate ex. 1, this piece clearly does not come from the same object since the space between its columns is too wide and since the lines of col. i´ are written askew, at an angle of approximately 9–11 degrees.
In general, the lineation and master text follow ex. 1. When possible, the restorations are generally based on text nos. 6 (Prism C) and 7 (Prism Kh) 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) and 10 (Prism T). Scores of vii 40´–51´, viii 15´´–29´´, viii 1´´´–22´´´, and x 1´–16´ are provided on Oracc. The few attested orthographic variants are noted at the back of the book.
In addition to the five certain exemplars, there are numerous other prism fragments that might bear copies of this inscription. One of these (A 8128) is edited here as ex. 1*. Because the contents of col. i´ are not preserved in text no. 6 (Prism C), but partially duplicate the preserved text of ex. 3, that fragment is edited here rather than with that earlier version of Ashurbanipal's annals. In addition, text no. 3 (Prism B) exs. 138*–144*, text no. 4 (Prism D) ex. 13, and text no. 6 (Prism C) exs. 1*–16* may be exemplars of this inscription, rather than some (earlier or later) inscription. For further details, see the catalogue of those texts.
The inscription generally referred to as "Prism F" ("Prism Aa" in earlier literature) is one of the best known and most cited versions of Ashurbanipal's annals. This text is presently attested on two nearly complete clay prisms and approximately two hundred fragments of clay prisms and vertical cylinders discovered at Nineveh and Aššur; the latter object type is not otherwise attested as a medium for Assyrian royal inscriptions (see the commentary for details). The king's scribe(s) responsible for the composition of this inscription reworked the contents of all of the earlier reports of the military campaigns, greatly abridging the contents of those passages; moreover, for the first time (as far as it is possible to tell), entire campaign accounts were omitted (see below). In addition, the lengthy prologue that had been used for many inscriptions during the previous three years (648–646) was abandoned in favor of a shorter introduction that solely provided details about Ashurbanipal's nomination as heir designate of Assyria and his royal training in the House of Succession; for example, compare i 1–33 of this inscription to text no. 6 (Prism C) i 1´–ii 3´ and text no. 7 (Prism Kh) i 1–101´. The reworked and updated military narration was divided into six campaign reports. These are: (1) the second Egyptian campaign, during which Tanutamon was defeated and Thebes was thoroughly plundered; (2) the forcing of Baʾalu of Tyre into submission, along with the voluntary submission of several Anatolian and Levantine rulers (including Gyges); (3) the conquest of several important Mannean cities, which brought about a coup against their ruler Aḫšēri; (4) the defeat and beheading of the Elamite king Teumman, the capture of the Gambulian capital Ša-pī-Bēl, and the violent dethronements of Ummanigaš (Ḫumban-nikaš II) and Tammarītu in Elam; and (5–6) the two wars against Ummanaldašu (Ḫumban-ḫaltaš III) of Elam, during the second of which the Elamite royal city Susa was looted and destroyed. Accounts of the first Egyptian campaign (against Taharqa), the conquest of the city Qirbit, the war against Urtaku of Elam, the Šamaš-šuma-ukīn rebellion, and the battles against various Arabian rulers were not included in the narrative. With regard to the second war against Ummanaldašu (the fifth Elamite campaign; probably 646), Ashurbanipal states that he brought out of Susa a statue of the goddess Nanāya — along with numerous other royal and divine objects looted from Babylonia or sent there as bribes by former kings of Babylon, including his own brother Šamaš-šuma-ukīn — returned her to her rightful place in Uruk, and (re)installed her in her temple Eḫiliana ("House of the Luxuriance of Heaven"). Nanāya is reported to have resided in Elam 1,635 years, which would imply that her statue had been carried off during the Old Akkadian period. The revamped prologue, which borrows some of its material from texts composed during Ashurbanipal's first decade as king (including text nos. 1 [Prism E₁] and 2 [Prism E₂]), directly ties into the focus of the building report: the construction of a replacement House of Succession at Nineveh. In addition to providing numerous details about the new palace, including the construction of a Syrian-style portico (a bīt-ḫilāni), Ashurbanipal claims to have created a botanical garden, just as his father Esarhaddon and his grandfather Sennacherib had done when they had built palaces. Numerous exemplars (including exs. 1–2) are dated to the post-canonical eponymy of Nabû-šar-aḫḫēšu, governor of Samaria (probably 645). As far as the dates are preserved, the prisms and cylinders were inscribed during the second to fifth months of the year (from Ayyāru to Abu).
Access the composite text [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/rinap5/Q003708/] or the score [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/scores/Q003708/] of Ashurbanipal 09.
Copies of this inscription, just like text nos. 6 (Prism C) and 11 (Prism A), were discovered at Nineveh and Aššur. Most of the certain exemplars are written on six-, seven-, and eight-sided clay prisms; the best known copy (ex. 1, the "Louvre Prism") is a hexagon. However, fifteen copies (exs. 7, 29, 32, 35–36, 57, 96, 146–147, 154, 160–161, 164, 172, and 204) are found on (hollow) vertical cylinders, an unusual medium for Assyrian royal inscriptions that perfectly blends the format of the prism with that of the horizontal cylinder; that format is presently only attested for this text. Like prisms, the basic shape of the vertical cylinders was created using a coil technique. R. Borger (BIWA 4o-Heft p. 87) did not regard ex. 36 (A 8022) as a proper cylinder, stating: "Oberfläche stark gewölbt, obwohl kein richtiger Zylinder." This assessment is not correct and A 8022, in the authors' opinion, should be regarded as a vertical cylinder. Why the medium did not catch on or why it was used in the first place cannot be answered at this time. Ex. 6 (BM 121008+) is a little unusual in shape: its ends (at least its bottom) are slightly tapered, giving the prism a slightly 'barrel' shape. Ex. 26 (BM 128231+) is also not a standard-shaped prism: its columns are slightly curved and its base is very rounded, so much so that this prism would not have been able to stand upright, as already noted by Borger (BIWA 4o-Heft p. 425). Note that the surfaces of the columns of text no. 4 (Prism D) ex. 17 are also slightly curved.
The three fragments published by V. Scheil (Prisme pp. 43–44 and 48, and pls. 6–7; = exs. 36, 44, and 48) in 1914 were classified by M. Streck (Asb. pp. CDLXXXI and 834–835) as "Prism F" in 1916. In 1933, when T. Bauer published his edition and copy of ex. 2 (Asb. pp. 3–8 and 30 and pls. 1–5), the inscription's designation was changed to "Prism Aa" since this version of the annals was regarded as a later, highly abbreviated recension of text no. 11 (Prism A). Later that same year, using numerous fragments in the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago that E. Chiera had purchased from a dealer in Mosul, A.C. Piepkorn (Asb. pp. IX, 3, and 8) was able to establish that Streck's "Prism F" was the same text as Bauer's "Prism Aa" "down to a few signs"; he even identified several sub-editions (which he labelled F, F₂, F₃, F₄, and F₅). A few years later, E. Weidner (AfO 13 [1939–41] pp. 207–210) correctly pointed out that Prism F was composed earlier than text no. 11 (Prism A), and not after it, as Bauer had thought. Weidner postulated that this inscription had been written about eight to ten years earlier than text no. 11 (Prism A). Most scholars today, however, generally think that not more than one to three years separate the two inscriptions; for details, see the Dating and Chronology section.
Compared to many of the extant prism inscriptions of this Assyrian king, most of which are badly damaged, this text appears to have an unusually large number of exemplars that contain significant textual variants; a few of these were first recognized by Piepkorn (Asb. pp. IX, 3 and 8). M. Cogan (JCS 29 [1977] pp. 97–107; JCS 35 [1983] p. 146) proposed that there were seven recensions of Prism F, including the main version. He labeled these F and F₂–F₇; these should not be confused with Piepkorn's similarly labeled F₂–F₅. All of the textual variants noted by Cogan occur in the prologue (i 1–33) and in the report of the second war againt the Elamite king Ummanaldašu (Ḫumban-ḫaltaš III) (iv 17–vi 21). F₂ is represented by exs. 17, 21, 26, 48, 144, and 156; F₃ by exs. 42, 47, 49, and 210; F₄ by exs. 2, 79, and 206; F₅ by exs. 32 and 98; F₆ by ex. 191; and F₇ by K 3404+ (a multi-column tablet edited in Part 2). However, J. Jeffers (ZA 108 [forthcoming]) provides a critical and thorough evaluation of Cogan's recensions of this text. He notes that Cogan omits numerous exemplars that belong as witnesses to more than one proposed "recension" group (particularly with his F₃ and F₄ categories), and that Cogan's assessment is hindered by the fact that he only evaluates the passages in Prism F containing a major departure from the master text without including several other places in the inscription in which smaller, but important textual variations occur. Jeffers shows that all of the passages attesting to significant variation from the master text are shared among a specific group of exemplars, and he argues that these exemplars represent a first version of Prism F that was then updated and expanded in order to create the final version of Prism F (as represented by the master text). Thus, the materials that are lacking in these exemplars are not "deletions" or "omissions" (as they are commonly described), rather they represent an original, shorter version of the inscription that was then edited into its final version. The exemplars he ascribes to this first version of Prism F are: 2, 10, 26, 34, 38, 47, 49–51, 79, 82, 142, 145, 149, 175, 206, 210–211, and possibly 46, 126, and 196. His discussion of these variants to the master text is found in the on-page notes.
The arrangement of text, as well as the number of lines of each column, varies significantly between the numerous exemplars. Because exs. 1 and 2 are fairly complete, the master text is generally based on those two exemplars. The line count in cols. i and iii differs marginally from earlier editions, including Borger's (BIWA pp. 14–76); for details, see the concordance of line numbers at the back of the book. A complete score of the text, including the exemplars of uncertain attribution (see below), is presented on Oracc. The many orthographic variants that appear in this text are listed 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. Forty-one of those are edited here as exs. 1*–41*. Exs. 1*–3* could also be exemplars of text nos. 10 (Prism T) or 11 (Prism A); and exs. 4*–41* might be inscribed with copies of text no. 11 (Prism A). Four other prism fragments might contain this text; these are edited as text no. 3 (Prism B) exs. 143*–146*. For further details, see the catalogue of that text. Exs. 1*–41*, despite their uncertain attribution to this inscription, are included in the score and their minor (orthographic) variants are noted with this text.
One nearly complete clay prism and fragments of several other prisms discovered at Nineveh are all inscribed with an inscription of Ashurbanipal recording some of his building activities in Assyria and Babylonia, information about his second war against the Elamite king Ummanaldašu (Ḫumban-ḫaltaš III), including the return of Nanāya to her temple in Uruk, and the rebuilding of one of the akītu-houses (New Year's temples) at Nineveh. Unlike the previous inscription (text no. 9 [Prism F]), this text's prologue utilized the temple-building prologues of several earlier inscriptions (text nos. 5–8), but with some omissions, abbreviations, and additions. The most notable changes are: (1) the passages describing how the gods endowed Ashurbanipal with extraordinary intelligence and how he completed temples begun by his father Esarhaddon were omitted: (2) the report describing the wealth of abundance during Ashurbanipal's reign was significantly abbreviated; (3) a ten-word account of the reconstruction of Edimgalkalama ("House, Great Bond of the Land"), the temple of Great Anu (Ištarān) at Dēr, was added; and (4) the building report of text no. 5 (Prism I), which records the construction of the Sîn-Šamaš temple at Nineveh, was incorporated. The sole report of Ashurbanipal's victories on the battlefield included in this inscription, an account of his fifth Elamite campaign, is a greatly abbreviated version of the report that had been composed anew for text no. 9 (Prism F). Apart from the mention of Nanāya returning to her temple Eḫiliana ("House of the Luxuriance of Heaven"), no reference is made to the vindictive destruction and plundering of Susa. The building report states that Ashurbanipal had one of the akītu-houses of Ištar/Mullissu at Nineveh rebuilt and lavishly decorated; the New Year's temple in question was the one that was inside the citadel and that had been last renovated by his great grandfather Sargon II, and not Ešaḫulezenzagmukam ("House of Joy and Gladness for the Festival of the Beginning of the Year"), the entirely new akītu-house that his grandfather Sennacherib had starting building outside the city wall, just north of the Nergal Gate. Two exemplars (exs. 1–2) bear dates stating that they were inscribed in the post-canonical eponymy of Nabû-šar-aḫḫēšu, governor of Samaria (probably 645), during the fifth (Abu) and sixth (Ulūlu) months of the year. This inscription is commonly referred to by scholars as "Prism T[hompson]."
Access the composite text [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/rinap5/Q003709/] or the score [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/scores/Q003709/] of Ashurbanipal 10.
The inscription's principal exemplar (ex. 1, the so-called "Thompson Prism") appears to have been broken in antiquity, possibly before reaching its intended destination, one of the akītu-houses of the goddess Ištar/Mullissu at Nineveh (the one in the citadel renovated by Sargon II). Most of the fragments that make up BM 121006 were discovered beneath the floor of the southeast door of the Nabû temple (Ezida, "True House"), except for BM 127889, which comes from the palace of Ashurnasirpal II (Ap. B. 33), near the lower fall. Details on the two akītu-houses will appear in the introduction of Part 2; some information is provided in Frahm, NABU 2000 pp. 75–79 no. 66, and Grayson and Novotny, RINAP 3/1 p. 22. For details on the date with which exs. 1 and 2 were inscribed (the eponymy of Nabû-šar-aḫḫēšu, governor of Samaria), see the Dating and Chronology section of the book's introduction.
Like text no. 5 (Prism I), copies of this inscription of Ashurbanipal were written on pentagonal and hexagonal prisms. As one expects, the arrangement of text, as well as the number of lines of each column, varies between the exemplars. The master text generally follows ex. 1 (the "Thompson Prism"), with help from the other exemplars or from text nos. 5 (Prism I), 6 (Prism C), 7 (Prism Kh), and 9 (Prism F). A score of the text is presented on Oracc and the minor (orthographic) variants are listed at the back of the book. The few attested major variants, including one in the building report of ex. 18, are mentioned in the on-page notes, along with other comments about the editorial history of Ashurbanipal's annals and summary inscriptions.
Ex. 1* is a small prism fragment that could belong to a text of either Ashurbanipal or Sennacherib, though the lineation fits best with this inscription of Ashurbanipal. A few 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. 9 (Prism F) exs. 1*–3*. For further details, see the catalogues and commentaries of those inscriptions.
The most famous and frequently cited inscription of Ashurbanipal is the annals edition that is generally designated in scholarly publications as "Prism A" or the "Rassam Prism" (the latter specifically referring to ex. 1). This text is the longest extant late Neo-Assyrian inscription (ca. 1,300 lines) and, at present, is inscribed on two damaged, but mostly complete, ten-sided clay prisms and approximately one hundred and eighty prism fragments. The scribe(s) responsible for its composition not only made full use of the contents of earlier inscriptions — especially text nos. 6 (Prism C), 7 (Prism Kh), and 9 (Prism F) — but also wrote out a great deal of new material, even for accounts of the king's earliest campaigns. Unlike text no. 9, this version of the annals included reports of every campaign led by the king or one of his eunuchs, at least those that had been deemed worthy of recording in official texts. In addition to the events described in the military narration of text nos. 1–4 and 6–10, this inscription recorded significant achievements that had taken place after (or perhaps even simultaneous with) the fifth Elamite campaign, including the voluntary submission of the Elamite king Paʾe, the capture of the fugitive Elamite ruler Ummanaldašu (Ḫumban-ḫaltaš III), and the successful expedition against the Arabs, during which the troublemakers Uaiteʾ, Abī-Yateʾ, and Aya-ammu were taken captive, brought back to Assyria, and punished; the Urarṭian king Ištar-dūrī (Sarduri III) is also reported to have made friendly overtures by sending gifts and cordial letters. Ashurbanipal had his (team of) scribe(s) also include a few details about an akītu-festival (New Year's celebration) held at Nineveh: He states that he had three Elamite kings (Tammarītu, Paʾe, and Ummanaldašu) and one Arabian leader (Uaiteʾ) hitched up like horses to his processional carriage and had them pull it to the main gateway of temple of Ištar/Mullissu (Emašmaš). The inscription's prologue and building report respectively concern themselves with Ashurbanipal's appointment as Esarhaddon's successor in Assyria and the construction of a new House of Succession at Nineveh, which he transformed into his own palace. The text's composer(s) reworked and expanded material in both passages that had been composed anew for text no. 9 (Prism F). A few new details are provided about Ashurbanipal's efforts to build himself a new royal residence: Workmen used wagons that had been brought back as plunder from Elam to transport bricks and several unnamed Arabian kings are said to have served as common laborers. Four exemplars (exs. 1–4) preserve dates and at least three of them were inscribed in the post-canonical eponymy of Šamaš-daʾʾinanni, governor of Akkad/Babylon, during the first (Nisannu), second (Ayyāru), and sixth (Ulūlu) months of the year. It is uncertain, however, if Šamaš-daʾʾinanni's eponymy immediately followed that of Nabû-šar-aḫḫēšu or whether it was separated from it by one or two years; thus, "Prism A" could have been written on clay prisms during either 644, 643, or 642.
Access the composite text [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/rinap5/Q003710/] or the score [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/scores/Q003710/] of Ashurbanipal 11.
Although this inscription has several exemplars that contain textual variants, especially in the description of the construction of the king's new palace at Nineveh, there are significantly fewer variants attested for this text than for text no. 9 (Prism F). Even when variants are attested, these alterations are relatively minor. The non-orthographic variants are noted in the on-page notes; as usual, the plethora of orthographic variants are listed at the back of the book. A full score of the inscription is presented on Oracc.
The identification of the House of Succession (bīt ridûti) with the North Palace stems from W.K. Loftus' (1854) and H. Rassam's (1878) discovery of two nearly perfect prisms in the ruins of that poorly preserved royal residence. Ex. 1 (the so-called "Rassam Cylinder") was transported to the British Museum (London) more or less undamaged, but ex. 2 (which is also known as "Cylinder A") broke into numerous fragments en route to London; a considerable portion of that exemplar has been lost. For details on the discovery of these two large ten-sided prisms, see, for example, Rassam, Asshur pp. 33–34 and 221; G. Smith, Records of the Past 1 p. 57; G. Smith, 3 R p. 7; and Borger, BIWA pp. 1–3.
R. Borger (BIWA p. 323) edits K 1706F, K 1706G, K 1706I, and K 1706K as independent fragments. However, J. Jeffers was able to join K 1706I and K 1706K to ex. 2; the former at x 48´–50´ of the exemplar [= x 105–106 of the master text], and the latter at i 6´´´–8´´´ [= i 74–76 of the master text]. Furthermore, given that so many of the fragments containing the identification "K 1706" belong with ex. 2, the fragments K 1706F and K 1706G are tentatively edited with ex. 2 as well.
The small prism fragment K 14981 is edited with this text (ii 9–14) as ex. 1*, though its contents also parallel text no. 2 (Prism E₂) v 11–12, text no. 6 (Prism C) iii 1´–5´, and text no. 7 (Prism Kh) ii 55´´–60´´ (cf. the Large Egyptian Tablets Inscription obv. 58´–63´ [Novotny, SAACT 10 pp. 82–83 no. 20]); thus, it may belong to one of those inscriptions instead. Exs. 178–179 and 1* were identified by E. Jiménez in the British Museum. The authors thank him for bringing them to their attention.
Numerous other prism fragments may be inscribed with copies of this text, rather than some other (earlier) version of Ashurbanipal's annals. These are edited as text no. 3 (Prism B) exs. 138*–144* and 147*, text no. 6 (Prism C) exs. 12*–16*, and text no. 9 (Prism F) exs. 1*–41*. For further details, see the catalogues and commentaries of those inscriptions.
For some details about a few non-standard sign forms used by Ashurbanipal's scribes — especially the SAR, BÀD, and NUNDUM signs in ex. 1 — see Borger, BIWA pp. 1–2. Following the model of earlier RINAP and RIM publications, the edition and score of this text does not differentiate between normal SAR signs (those starting with three horizontal wedges) and those written using the EZEN sign (which starts with two horizontal wedges), the BÀD sign when it begins with three horizontal wedges (rather than with two), the NUNDUM sign (KA×NUN) when it is written using the SU₆ sign (KA×SA), and the normal DU₆ sign when it is written as DUL (which omits the winkelhaken). Those interested in these minor paleographic variants (where they occur and in which exemplars), can consult Borger, BIWA pp. 14–76 (and passim in the microfiches).
As mentioned in the Dating and Chronology section of the book's introduction, as well as in the introduction to this text (see above), there is no scholarly consensus on when Šamaš-daʾʾinanni, governor of Akkad/Babylon, was eponym. For further details, along with the relevant bibliographical information, see the introduction.
Three fragmentary clay prisms, at least two of which were discovered at Babylon, are inscribed with a text of Ashurbanipal summarizing his achievements on and off the battlefield during his first three decades as king, as well as other relevant information, including which distant foreign rulers voluntarily sent payment to Assyria. The badly damaged prologue, as far as it is preserved, recorded several of Ashurbanipal's building projects at Babylon (Esagil, "House whose Top is High"), Borsippa (Ezida, "True House"), and Cutha (Emeslam, "House, Warrior of the Netherworld"); it presumably also included accounts of construction in other cities, perhaps Arbela, Aššur, Dēr, Ḫarrān, Nineveh, and Tarbiṣu. The extant sections of the military narration record: (1) the sack of the Egyptian city Thebes; (2) the forcing of Baʾalu of Tyre into submission; (3) the receipt of tribute from Mannea after the coup that had brought about the death of its ruler Aḫšēri; (4) the war against Urtaku of Elam; (4) the appointment of Ummanigaš (Ḫumban-nikaš II) and his brother Tammarītu as king of Elam and ruler of the city Ḫidalu, respectively, following the defeat of Teumman at Tīl-Tūba; and (5) the receipt of audience gifts or (back) payments from rulers whose names and places of origin are completely broken away, from Cyrus of Parsumaš (Persia), and from Pislumê of Ḫudimiri. Although the building report is missing, it is certain from the concluding formulae that it described the rebuilding of the temple of the goddess Gula at Babylon, Esabad ("House of the Open Ear"); for descriptions of this project, see text no. 13 (Prism J) ii 13´–14´ and text no. 23 (IIT) line 53. Copies of this inscription, which is sometimes called "Prism H" in Assyriological literature, were intended for Babylon and, therefore, its script is contemporary Neo-Babylonian and it is dated in the Babylonian fashion (by regnal year). Its best preserved exemplar (ex. 1) was inscribed near the beginning of the second month (Ayyāru) of Ashurbanipal's thirtieth regnal year (639).
Access the composite text [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/rinap5/Q003711/] of Ashurbanipal 12.
On the basis of their script (contemporary Neo-Babylonian), T. Bauer (Asb. p. 28) designated exs. 1 and 2 as "Prism H₁" and "Prism H₂" respectively. Both eight-sided prisms come from Babylon and are now in the Eșki Șark Eserleri Müzesi of the Arkeoloji Müzerleri (Istanbul). The latter is presently known from excavation photo K 714 and E. Weidner's copy (AfO 7 [1931–32] p. 3); its museum and excavation numbers are not, however, known. A third exemplar was later identified by R. Borger (AfO 19 [1959–60] p. 153) and M. Cogan and H. Tadmor (JCS 40 [1988] p. 92) in the collections of the Musée d'Art et d'Histoire (Geneva) and the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago (Chicago); the provenance of that piece may have been Nineveh, rather than Babylon, since the Oriental Institute fragment (A 8105) was purchased by E. Chiera from a dealer in Mosul along with numerous other prism fragments of Sennacherib, Esarhaddon, and Ashurbanipal. A.R. Millard (Iraq 30 [1968] pp. 106–110) suggested that a handful of fragments written in Neo-Assyrian script and found at Nineveh also bore copies of this text. However, as already noted by Borger (HKL 2 p. 200 and BIWA p. 189), those pieces are actually exemplars of a different inscription (text no. 13 [Prism J]) and, therefore, are edited there. A fourth fragment (BM 127994) was regarded as an exemplar of Prism H since its script was contemporary Neo-Babylonian; see, for example, Borger, BIWA p. 193. Following J. Novotny (Orientalia NS 74 [2005] p. 365 n. 20), BM 127994 is regarded as belonging to a hitherto unclassified inscription, one that was composed shortly after the conclusion of the Šamaš-šuma-ukīn rebellion and, therefore, is not included here, but edited as text no. 17; for further details, see the commentary of that inscription.
The master text is a conflation of the exemplars, each of which preserves the top or base of its respective prism. Ex. 1 preserves the bottom portion of cols. i–iii and viii, ex. 3 the top portion of cols. iii–vi, and ex. 2 the bottom portion of cols. v–vii. The division of the inscription into columns appears to vary between the exemplars. Although the contents of col. iv of the master text start at the beginning of col. ii´ of ex. 2, they do not directly follow the contents at the end of col. iii of the master text, which is the end of col. iv´ of ex. 1. As a result, a lacuna is placed at the beginning of col. iv. Moreover, it is unknown if the contents at the beginning of col. vi taken from the top of col. iv´ of ex. 3 directly follows those at the end of col. v, which is taken from the bottom of col. i´ of ex. 2, given that the signs in those columns cannot be deciphered. Thus, there might be an overlap or lacuna in the contents at the end of col. v and the beginning of col. vi of the master text. No score of the text is provided on Oracc.
Fragments of four clay prisms from Nineveh and one from Babylon are inscribed with one of the latest dateable inscriptions of Ashurbanipal. Although there is little or no overlap between the Assyrian and Babylonian pieces, these five pieces are generally treated together as one text; it is often designated as "Prism J" in scholarly publications. Whether or not all five of these fragments are actually inscribed with the same inscription cannot be confirmed given the poor state of preservation of the pieces. Even if the prologues and military narrations were identical, it is possible that the Nineveh fragments may have recorded a different building enterprise than the one discovered at Babylon. However, one cannot rule out the possibility that the Assyrian pieces also described in their building reports the rebuilding or renovation of the akītu-house of divine supremacy at Babylon since a few of Esarhaddon's Babylon inscriptions were discovered at Nineveh and were written in Neo-Assyrian script. With regard to the Nineveh recension of this text, parts of the prologue and military narration are preserved. Passages record work on Ashurbanipal's building projects at Babylon (Esagil, "House whose Top is High"; and Esabad, "House of the Open Ear") and Borsippa (Ezida, "True House"), the submission of Baʾalu of Tyre, the payment of tribute by the Mannean ruler Uallî, and the failed attempts by the Cimmerian ruler Tugdammî (Lygdamis in classical sources) to invade Assyria are preserved. The report describing Assyria's dealings with the Cimmerians is a little unusual since Ashurbanipal claims that their tribal leader was injured by fire that fell from the sky (a lightning bolt?), rather than being defeated in battle, and that Tugdammî died sometime later as a result of a remote magical attack; a similar account is found in text no. 23 (IIT) lines 141b–159a. As for the Babylon recension, parts of the last eleven lines of the military narration are preserved, as well as parts of the first six lines of the building report, which describes the construction of Babylon's akītu-house (New Year's temple). The report of military matters ends with a statement about Ashurbanipal giving praise to his divine patrons; a similar statement appears in text no. 23 (IIT) lines 159b–161. Although none of the exemplars preserves a date, this text was written later than text no. 12 (Prism H) since it records that Ashurbanipal completed the rebuilding of the temple of Gula at Babylon (Esabad) and, therefore, it was likely written on prisms no earlier than Ashurbanipal's thirty-first regnal year (638).
Access the composite text [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/rinap5/Q003712/] or the score [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/scores/Q003712/] of Ashurbanipal 13.
A.R. Millard (Iraq 30 [1968] pp. 106–110) classified several prism fragments that had been discovered at Nineveh (exs. 1–2 and 4) as exemplars of text no. 12 (Prism H), despite the fact that their script was Assyrian, and not contemporary Neo-Babylonian. R. Borger (HKL 2 p. 200 and BIWA p. 189) correctly reclassified them as exemplars of a different inscription (this text ["Prism J"]), and also identified several other copies of this poorly preserved text, including one found at Babylon (ex. 5). Because the extant text of the exemplars from Nineveh and Babylon do not significantly overlap one another and because the building report of the Nineveh fragments is not preserved, this inscription is provisionally regarded as having two separate recensions: J-N[ineveh] and J-B[abylon]. As already shown in Borger, BIWA p. 197, it is unclear if viii 44–45 (ex. 1) actually overlap with viii 1´–2´ (ex. 5); one expects that they should since viii 1–43 and viii 3´–11´ are similar to text no. 23 (IIT) lines 138–158a and lines 159b–161, respectively. Despite the fact that there may be two recensions of this inscription, all of the pieces associated with Borger's "Prism J" are tentatively edited together as a single text.
The proposed non-physical join between 83-1-18,600 and BM 123425 (ex. 2) was made on the basis of the script (same hand), color, and composition of the clay, as well as the curvature of the reverse side; the surface of both fragments is extremely worn. The Nineveh copies of the text, as far as they are preserved, appear to have been inscribed on eight-sided clay prisms. Borger (BIWA p. 193) suggests ex. 1 could have originally had nine columns; note, however, that no nonagon of Ashurbanipal or of any other late Neo-Assyrian king is presently known. As pointed out by J. Novotny (Orientalia NS 74 [2005] p. 369), the height of the prism to which ex. 3 belongs appears to have been significantly taller than those of exs. 1 and 2, assuming that all three fragments are actually inscribed with one and the same text. The evidence stems from that fact that ex. 3 ii contains military narration (the campaign to Mannea), while ex. 1 ii and ex. 2 ii both contain passages describing Ashurbanipal's building activities at Babylon and Borsippa. Moreover, ex. 2 iii preserves descriptions of the aftermath of the submission of Baʾalu of Tyre and of Iakīn-Lû of Arwad voluntarily sending tribute, military narration that always precedes reports of Ashurbanipal's war against Aḫšēri, which is partially extant in ex. 3 ii. Alternatively, the distribution of text in ex. 3 could indicate that it is not an exemplar of this text (Prism J), but rather a copy of a hitherto unclassified prism inscription of Ashurbanipal (for example, text no. 20, assuming that it is also a separate inscription; see the commentary of that text for further information). Nevertheless, ex. 3 is tentatively regarded here as an exemplar of Prism J.
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 1–37, ii 15´–30´, vii 1´–3´, and viii 16–45; ex. 2 in ii 1´–14´ and iii 1´–13´; ex. 3 in i 38–43 and iii 1´´–9´´; ex. 4 in viii 1–15; and ex. 5 in viii 1´–17´. The division of the material into columns i–iii is based on ex. 2, while column viii is based on ex. 4. When possible, restorations are generally based on text nos. 12 (Prism H) and 23 (IIT) and, when they are not, they stem from text no. 11 (Prism A). A score of the inscription is provided on Oracc. The few attested orthographic variants are noted at the back of the book.
Jamie Novotny & Joshua Jeffers
Jamie Novotny & Joshua Jeffers, 'Inscriptions on Prisms, Part 2 (text nos. 8-13)', RINAP 5: The Royal Inscriptions of Ashurbanipal, Aššur-etel-ilāni, and Sîn-šarra-iškun, The RINAP/RINAP 5 Project, a sub-project of MOCCI, 2019 [http://oracc.org/rinap/rinap5/rinap51textintroductions/prismspart2texts813/]