Four black stone fragments are inscribed with a late version of Ashurbanipal's annals; the pieces either come from the same slab or belong to the same inscription that was written over a series of slabs. The fragments probably come from Nineveh and may have lined the wall of an important room of a building on the citadel (perhaps the Ištar/Mullissu temple Emašmaš). The text, as far as it is preserved, contains descriptions of Ashurbanipal's building activities at Babylon, Borsippa, Cutha, and Nineveh, as well as his campaign against Uaiteʾ and the Arabs. The extant sections of the prologue are similar to those of text nos. 12 (Prism H), 13 (Prism J), and 23 (IIT), while the preserved parts of the military narration most closely parallel the contents of text no. 11 (Prism A). The inscription's approximate date of composition is ca. 642–640, that is, after text no. 11 and before text no. 12.
Access the composite text [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/rinap5/Q003721/] of Ashurbanipal 22.
Although none of the four fragments were discovered during systematic archaeological excavations, it is likely that the pieces all originate from Nineveh (Frame in Spar and Jursa, CTMMA 4 p. 274). This proposal is supported by the fact that the goddess Ištar is specifically named in the concluding formula (ii´ 1´), that R. Campbell Thompson found numerous stone wall slab fragments that were inscribed with a lengthy summary inscription of Ashurbanipal (text no. 23 [IIT]) in the vicinity of the Emašmaš temple, and that C.F. Lehmann-Haupt purchased one of the pieces (VA 4332) in Mosul.
The script is a mixture of Assyrian and contemporary Neo-Babylonian sign forms; this is typical for seventh-century Assyrian inscriptions written on stone. The inscription, like text no. 23 (IIT), was written in several columns. HMA 9-1773 i and HMA 9-1774 ii´ are tentatively regarded as the first and last columns of the inscription. VA 4332, HMA 9-1774 i´, and MMA 86.11.413 all belong to the penultimate column. It is less certain if HMA 9-1773 ii is part of the same column as VA 4332 (+) HMA 9-1774 i´ (+) MMA 86.11.413 or part of a column that preceded it. Provisionally, HMA 9-1773 ii is regarded as belonging to a different column of the text. If this proves true, then this monumental inscription was written on at least four columns of text. However, if HMA 9-1773 ii and VA 4332 (+) HMA 9-1774 i´ (+) MMA 86.11.413 are part of one and the same column, then the inscription would have originally contained three columns. As for the placement of fragment HMA 9-1774 (+) MMA 86.11.413, it probably comes from near the bottom of the slab since HMA 9-1774 ii´ preserves part of the concluding formula.
The contents of col. i are similar to text no. 12 (Prism H) i, text no. 13 (Prism J) ii, and text no. 23 (IIT) lines 37b–38a and 50b–63. Those of col. i´ partially duplicate (with significant deviation) text no. 11 (Prism A) viii 86–106 and ix 19–56. Most of the proposed restorations come from those four inscriptions.
The proposed date of composition (ca. 642–640) is based on similarities with the contents of texts nos. 11 (Prism A) and 12 (Prism H); the latter is definitively dated by Ashurbanipal's thirtieth regnal year (639). Because this inscription does not mention the rebuilding of the temple of Gula at Babylon, Esabad ("House of the Open Ear"), in its prologue, it is assumed here that it must have been composed before, or at the latest at the same time as, text no. 12, since inscriptions written after 639 all mention that accomplishment in their prologues; see text no. 13 (Prism J) ii 13´–14´ and text no. 23 (IIT) line 53. A date earlier than 639 may be supported by the fact that the military narration closely parallels the description of the Arab campaigns found in text no. 11 (Prism A). Given the poor state of preservation of this inscription and other extant late inscriptions of Ashurbanipal, this cannot be proven with any degree of certainty.
Numerous unsculpted limestone wall slabs discovered in and around the Ištar/Mullissu temple Emašmaš at Nineveh bear a lengthy inscription summarizing Ashurbanipal's many accomplishments on and off the battlefield. This poorly preserved text, of which there were at least four copies in antiquity, once lined the walls of room(s) of the temple of Nineveh's tutelary deity. Today, this important inscription is almost entirely known through R. Campbell Thompson's hand-drawn facsimiles, although one small piece of it has recently been discovered in the British Museum (London). The text, which is generally referred to in scholarly literature as the "Inscription from the Ištar Temple" ("IIT"), is one of the latest extant official texts of Ashurbanipal. Although the slabs were not dated, its approximate date of composition may have been around 638, about the same as text no. 13 (Prism J). Its terminus post quem is the rebuilding of the temple of Gula at Babylon, Esabad ("House of the Open Ear"), a project commemorated in the building report of text no. 12 (Prism H), an inscription definitively dated to Ashurbanipal's thirtieth regnal year (639). The text opens with a long dedication to the goddess Mullissu (the Ištar of Nineveh; lines 1–26), which is followed by a detailed summary of Ashurbanipal's many building activities in Assyria and Babylonia (lines 27–81); information is provided on construction at Aššur, Arbela, Babylon, Borsippa, Cutha, Dēr, Ḫarrān, Nineveh, and Tarbiṣu. The military narration (lines 82–161) summarizes victories on the battlefield, as well as the (voluntary) submission of distant foreign rulers, and the deaths of recalcitrant enemies and disloyal vassals; Ashurbanipal takes credit for the (untimely) fates of these enemies and explains that these men's deaths were the rewards that the gods had given to him for being pious. One of the more important pieces of information included in this text is a report of Assyria's skirmishes with the Cimmerian tribal leader Tugdammî, a man known as Lydgamis in classical sources (lines 146b–159a). Interestingly, this text (as well as text no. 13 [Prism J]) claims that this dangerous foe was not defeated in the heat of battle by Assyrian troops, but rather was injured by fire that fell from the sky (a lightning bolt?) and later died from some painful and deadly magical attack (beset upon him by Ashurbanipal's magicians in Nineveh). The building report, the central point of the inscription, records the rebuilding of the Ištar/Mullissu temple Emašmaš (lines 162–166a); the famous ninth-century Assyrian king Ashurnasirpal II is cited as a previous builder of that temple.
Access the composite text [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/rinap5/Q003722/] or score [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/scores/Q003722/] of Ashurbanipal 23.
The script is a mixture of Assyrian and contemporary Neo-Babylonian sign forms; this is typical for seventh-century Assyrian inscriptions written on stone. Each line of text is separated by a horizontal ruling. The inscription is known from approximately one hundred limestone fragments (now comprising thirty-eight exemplars) that were discovered during the 1930–31 British Museum excavations of the Kuyunjik mound under the direction of R. Campbell Thompson. The exact findspots of the pieces are neither shown on any ground plan of Nineveh nor were they recorded in Campbell Thompson's excavation notes. However, it is stated that many of the fragments came "chiefly towards the S.E. side of the great foundation." Despite earlier claims that this inscription was set up in triplicate, A. Fuchs (in Borger, BIWA pp. 258–259) has shown through his score ("Partitur") transliteration that there were at least four exemplars of this double-column, monumental inscription. He tentatively estimated that each column of text may have been ca. 170 cm wide and that the total surface area of an individual exemplar may have been about 10 m2; the width of the slabs would have been almost 6 m. Based on the recent identification of one of the fragments in the collection of the British Museum (BM 139999a = Thompson, AAA 20 [1933] no. 59), these estimates may need to be adjusted slightly since the copies do not accurately represent the height or width of the individual pieces; Campbell Thompson tended to elongate the vertical spacing in his copies.
As Fuchs has already noted, there are many difficulties in providing a reliable edition of the so-called IIT text. This important text is almost entirely known from Campbell Thompson's published copies, which do not accurately represent the actual shape of the original objects and record only inscribed surfaces (damaged surfaces are not drawn or indicated). To make matters more difficult, the pieces are drawn at different scales and his composite texts are occasionally unclear in terms of what each exemplar actually contained; for example, the transition from "large main text" III to IV on Thompson, AAA 20 (1933) pls. XCIV–XCV is particularly confusing and extremely problematic. After copying and taking squeezes of the fragments, Campbell Thompson (AAA 20 [1933] p. 79 n. 1) states that the text was reburied: "Several reasons, including the fragmentary nature and the great weight of the numerous pieces, debarred both the Baghdad Museum and ourselves from moving it to a museum." One of the smaller fragments, however, was sent back to the British Museum (BM 139999a) after being copied. Because basic information about the various pieces is unknown or uncertain (for example, size and damaged surfaces), one must exercise caution when suggesting joins between fragments. Some or many proposed joins based on Campbell Thompson's imperfect and incomplete copies could easily be confirmed or rejected had the originals been available for first-hand study; since they are not, one can only conjecture at how the pieces actually fit together. Because Fuchs has already spent a great deal of time carefully piecing this inscription back together from Campbell Thompson's copies and since the authors have not found any evidence contrary to Fuchs' arrangement of the fragments, the text grouping (and their sigla) found in Borger, BIWA pp. 258–290 is followed here, with one minor change: the original of Thompson, AAA 20 (1933) no. 59 (BM 139999a) was used rather than its hand-drawn facsimile.
No exemplar is complete and the master line is a conflation of the various exemplars. When possible, preference is given to Campbell Thompson's "large main texts" (exs. 1–4) and ex. 9 (Fuchs' Group E). In his excellent score transliteration of the inscription, for practical reasons, Fuchs more or less followed the line count and divisions of Campbell Thompson's edition. In a few places, he had to add a few lines and in one case delete a few others; for details, see Borger, BIWA p. 259. Despite Fuchs' scholarly treatment, the edition here does not follow the lineation of his edition. Instead, the composite text divides the lines of the inscription differently and, as a result, the line numbering varies marginally from the editions of Fuchs and Campbell Thompson. The line count of this edition is based on the following exemplars: ex. 1 in lines 1–26; ex. 7 in lines 103–108; ex. 9 in lines 46–72, 90–102, 109–139, and 144–170; ex. 11 in lines 27–45; ex. 14 in lines 73–85; ex. 15 in lines 86–89; and ex. 17 in lines 171–183. The division of the contents of lines 140–143 is conjectural and provisionally based on ex. 9, which is badly damaged at this point. A concordance of line numbers is provided at the back of the book. A few details about the arrangement and reconstruction of this problematic text are included in the on-page notes. 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 Undecorated Wall Slabs (text nos. 22-23)', 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/undecoratedwallslabstexts2223/]