A fragment of a six-sided clay prism preserves part of a report describing a successful lion hunt and the celebration of a New Year's festival for the goddess Ištar in the vicinity of Arbela. The inscription to which this narrative belongs is generally thought to have been composed early in Ashurbanipal's reign, possibly around the same time as text nos. 1 (Prism E₁) and 2 (Prism E₂).
Access the composite text [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/rinap5/Q003713/] of Ashurbanipal 14.
In 1995, E. Weissert (in Parpola and Whiting, Assyria 1995 pp. 357–358) proposed that 82-5-22,2 and K 1821 (text no. 1 [Prism E₁] ex. 1) belonged to one and the same hexagonal prism, thus making this piece part of one of the primary exemplars of that poorly preserved, early inscription of Ashurbanipal. That conjectured non-physical join between the two fragments, however, is not accepted here since it seems unlikely that A 7920 + A 8138 and A 8130 (text no. 1 [Prism E₁] exs. 2–3), the other certain exemplars of Prism E₁, also contained a report of Ashurbanipal killing a pride of lions near Ištar's cult center Arbela. Therefore, 82-5-22,2 is edited separately in this volume. For details, see the commentary of text no. 1 (Prism E₁).
Two, or possibly three, prism fragments preserve a small portion of an early inscription of Ashurbanipal. Only parts of the prologue and the report of the first campaign to Egypt survive. The prologue, as far as it is preserved, records that Ashurbanipal undertook work on the Aššur temple at Aššur (Eḫursaggalkurkurra, "House of the Great Mountain of the Lands") and the temple of Marduk at Babylon (Esagil, "House whose Top is High"). Despite this inscription's fragmentary state, it is possible to situate the composition of the text sometime between 663 and 649, possibly before 655.
Access the composite text [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/rinap5/Q003714/] or score [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/scores/Q003714/] of Ashurbanipal 15.
Following E. Weissert and H.-U. Onasch (Orientalia NS 61 [1992] p. 73 n. 46) and J. Novotny (Orientalia NS 72 [2003] pp. 211–214), BM 128302+, 82-5-22,21, and BM 99326 are edited separately from text nos. 1 (Prism E₁) and 2 (Prism E₂) and, therefore, regarded as belonging to a hitherto yet unclassified edition of Ashurbanipal's annals, one composed sometime between 663 and 649. The scant evidence is as follows: (1) BM 128302+ comes from an eight-sided prism, rather than from a six- or seven-sided prism; and (2) the fifty talents of zaḫalû-metal used to greatly enlarge the elevated dais of the god Marduk at Babylon is assumed to have originated from the Egyptian booty that was brought to Nineveh after the conquest and sack of Thebes in 664. With regard to the large amount of silver-alloy used at Babylon, Novotny, following a proposal of Onasch (ÄAT 27/1 p. 80 n. 386, and pp. 156–158 and 161), suggested that the zaḫalû-metal came from the two metal obelisks looted from Thebes after the second Egyptian campaign and, therefore, proposed that the inscription(s) to which 82-5-22,21 and BM 128302+ belong cannot be one of the E prisms given that the terminus ante quem for those two texts is the sack of Thebes. For further details, see Novotny, Orientalia NS 72 (2003) pp. 211–214.
The inscription is reconstructed here as a tall octagonal prism. Based on ex. 2, it is assumed here that col. i and about half of col. ii contained the prologue of the text and that the report of the first Egyptian campaign began somewhere in the middle of col. ii. Based on the conjectured available space, the prologue of this inscription probably only contained accounts of the completion of the Aššur temple at Aššur, the decoration of the holy rooms of Esagil at Babylon, the construction of an ornate canopy, and the enlargement of Marduk's raised dais with brick cast of zaḫalû-metal. Because there does not seem to been enough room to include reports of the refurbishment of the pleasure bed of Marduk and Zarpanītu and the construction of a new chariot for Marduk, which were sent to Babylon in 655 and 654, this inscription may have been composed earlier than those two events.
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 ii 1–10; ex. 2 in ii 11–21 and iii 1´–9´; and ex. 1* in i 1´–9´. The restorations are based on text nos. 1 (Prism E₁) and 2 (Prism E₂), as well as on K 2694 + K 3050 (L4; Novotny, SAACT 10 pp. 77–78 no. 18), the so-called "Large Egyptian Tablets" Inscription (Novotny, SAACT 10 pp. 81–83 no. 20), BM 134557 (Novotny, SAACT 10 p. 74 no. 14), and 81-2-4,212 (Bauer, Asb. pl. 57). A complete score of this badly damaged inscription is provided on Oracc.
A fragment of one column of a clay prism is inscribed with a version of Ashurbanipal's annals, perhaps an edition that was composed between the defeat and beheading of Teumman in 653 and the issuing of text no. 3 (Prism B) in Abu (V) 649. Of course, one cannot rule out the possibility that the text is part of a later summary inscription composed ca. 639–638. The extant contents include reports of Ashurbanipal's first and second Elamite campaigns; these military expeditions are treated here as a single narrative, rather than as separate accounts for the descriptions of the wars against Urtaku and his successor Teumman.
Access the composite text [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/rinap5/Q003715/] of Ashurbanipal 16.
As R. Borger (BIWA p. 198) has already pointed out, 66-5-19,1 does not belong to the same object as K 13440, which is edited in Part 2 among the tablet fragments of Ashurbanipal. 66-5-19,1 is not sufficiently preserved for one to determine how many columns the prism to which this fragment belongs had.
The extant contents are similar to text no. 3 (Prism B) iv 53–79 and v 3–12 and to later inscriptions duplicating those passages. The reports of Ashurbanipal's first and second Elamite campaigns in this inscription, as far as they are preserved, are much shorter than they are in text no. 3 (Prism B). In addition, the campaigns are not separated by a horizontal ruling; one expects a ruling between lines 16´–17´. It is unclear from the textual deviation, whether this inscription was composed shortly after the events of the battle at Tīl-Tūba in 653, as J. Novotny (Orientalia NS 72 [2003] pp. 214–215) has tentatively suggested, or whether it was written sometime after the composition of text no. 3 (Prism B), perhaps around the time of text nos. 12 (Prism H) and 13 (Prism J), ca. 639–638. Perhaps, 66-5-19,1 is an exemplar of text no. 13 (Prism J), as tentatively proposed by Borger (BIWA p. 198), or possibly of text no. 20.
A small fragment of a clay prism is inscribed with a text recording the rebuilding of Duku ("Pure Mound"), the seat of the god Marduk as Lugaldimmeranki at Babylon. The final five lines of the military narration are preserved and that section of the inscription concluded with Ummanaldašu (Ḫumban-ḫaltaš III), a son of a certain Atta-metu, ascending the throne of Elam after his immediate processor Indabibi was violently deposed. The inscription, which was presumably intended to be placed in Duku, may have been composed around the same time as text no. 6 (Prism C), probably in 647; it was certainly written after the end of the Šamaš-šuma-ukīn rebellion, presumably when Ashurbanipal had to make repairs to Duku. The inscription is occasionally (and wrongly) referred to as "Prism H" (see below for details).
Access the composite text [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/rinap5/Q003716/] of Ashurbanipal 17.
BM 127994 was discovered at Nineveh by R. Campbell Thompson. Because its script is contemporary Babylonian, A.R. Millard (Iraq 30 [1968] p. 109) regarded the fragment as an exemplar of text no. 12 (Prism H). P. Gerardi (Assurbanipal's Elamite Campaigns p. 114 n. 247) suggested that the fragment belonged to col. v of that summary inscription. However, this cannot be the case, as already pointed out by R. Borger (BIWA p. 193), since the main building report of text no. 12 (Prism H) would have described the rebuilding of the Gula temple Esabad ("House of the Open Ear") at Babylon; although that passage is now missing, it would have appeared in col. viii of that inscription. Because text no. 12 (Prism H) described the restoration of a temple other than Duku, Borger proposed that BM 127994 be regarded as a different recension of Prism H. However, because the principal exemplar of text no. 12 (Prism H) was inscribed during the thirtieth regnal year of Ashurbanipal (639) and because that summary inscription included events that took place long after Ummanaldašu ascended the Elamite throne, BM 127994 cannot be regarded as a Prism H exemplar. Therefore, this fragment must come from an edition of Ashurbanipal's annals or summary inscriptions that was written not long after the siege of Babylon ended in 648, perhaps as early as 647. Apart from its script, the text written on BM 127994, as far as it is preserved, has little in common with text no. 12 (Prism H). At this time, no new text designation had been assigned to this inscription.
A piece of a clay prism, now comprising two fragments, bears an edition of Ashurbanipal's annals. Only small portions of the reports of the second and third Elamite campaigns are preserved.
Access the composite text [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/rinap5/Q003717/] of Ashurbanipal 18.
BM 121080 and BM 121108 were joined by J.E. Reade. The prism from which this fragment originates appears to have originally had ten columns. The surfaces of both preserved columns are very badly damaged and few signs can be read with certainty. The fragment was cleaned at the request of R. Borger, but it made little difference in improving the legibility of the inscription.
A clay prism fragment with a badly effaced surface preserves part of a report describing Ashurbanipal's victory over the Elamite king Teumman at Tīl-Tūba in 653. Because there is significant deviation in the text, it is certain that the piece is not an exemplar of text nos. 3 (Prism B), 4 (Prism D), 6 (Prism C), or 7 (Prism Kh); there is a slight possibility that the fragment could be an exemplar of text no. 8 (Prism G).
Access the composite text [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/rinap5/Q003718/] of Ashurbanipal 19.
The contents correspond to text no. 3 (Prism B) vii 20–30 and later inscriptions more or less duplicating that passage, but with deviation in lines 1´–3´, 12´, and 15´.
Two clay prism fragments may be inscribed with the same edition of Ashurbanipal's summary inscriptions or annals. Because part of a report of the looting of the Elamite city Susa and the return of the Babylonian goddess Nanāya to her temple in Uruk is preserved in col. ii´, it is certain that the inscription was composed sometime after the second war against Ummanaldašu (Ḫumban-ḫaltaš III) in 646. Because that account is shorter than those found in text nos. 9 (Prism F) and 11 (Prism A), it is assumed here that the inscription written on these two prisms was composed later than both of those inscriptions, perhaps even as late as ca. 638 (see below).
Access the composite text [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/rinap5/Q003719/] or score [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/scores/Q003719/] of Ashurbanipal 20.
T. Bauer (IWA pp. 29–30) wrongly suggested that the prism to which ex. 1 belongs originally had six columns. As correctly pointed out by R. Borger (BIWA p. 197), the prism was probably a decagon. For the contents of col. ii´, compare for example text no. 11 (Prism A) vi 70–74, 107–109, and 122–123. A partial score is provided on Oracc.
As for the date of composition, this is less certain. Borger (ibid.) suggests that the inscription was composed late in Ashurbanipal's reign — presumably after text nos. 9 (Prism F; 645) and 11 (Prism A; 644, 643, or 642) — and tentatively proposes that it could be an exemplar of text no. 13 (Prism J). This suggestion is plausible, however, since the exemplars attributed to that inscription do not preserve an account of Ashurbanipal's fifth Elamite campaign, this reasonable suggestion cannot be proven with any certainty. Therefore, it is best to edit this inscription separately.
Jamie Novotny & Joshua Jeffers
Jamie Novotny & Joshua Jeffers, 'Inscriptions on Prisms, Part 3 (text nos. 14-18)', 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/prismspart3texts1420/]