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 score [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/scores/Q003710/score] of Ashurbanipal 11
Access Ashurbanipal 11 [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/rinap5/Q003710/]
For further details on this inscription, click here [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/rinap5/rinap51textintroductions/prismspart2texts813/index.html#asbash11]
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 score [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/scores/Q003712/score] of Ashurbanipal 13
Access Ashurbanipal 13 [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/rinap5/Q003712/]
For further details on this inscription, click here [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/rinap5/rinap51textintroductions/prismspart2texts813/index.html#asbash13]
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 score [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/scores/Q003714/score] of Ashurbanipal 15
Access Ashurbanipal 15 [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/rinap5/Q003714/]
For further details on this inscription, click here [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/rinap5/rinap51textintroductions/prismspart3texts1420/index.html#asbash15]
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 score [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/scores/Q003719/score] of Ashurbanipal 20
Access Ashurbanipal 20 [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/rinap5/Q003719/]
For further details on this inscription, click here [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/rinap5/rinap51textintroductions/prismspart3texts1420/index.html#asbash20]
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 score [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/scores/Q003722/score] of Ashurbanipal 23
Access Ashurbanipal 23 [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/rinap5/Q003722/]
For further details on this inscription, click here [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/rinap5/rinap51textintroductions/undecoratedwallslabstexts2223/index.html#asbash23]
Numerous limestone slabs discovered in and around the courtyard of the Ezida ("True House") temple at Nineveh bear an inscription stating that Ashurbanipal enlarged the courtyard of Nabû's temple. R. Campbell Thompson reports that he found more than eighty complete exemplars, as well as countless fragmentary exemplars. The king also boasts that he had former Elamite kings (Ummanigaš, Tammarītu, Paʾê, and Ummanaldašu) hitched to his processional carriage; in text nos. 11 (Prism A) and 23 (IIT), these kings, along with a captured Arabian leader, pulled Ashurbanipal up to the main gate of Emašmaš, the temple of Ištar/Mullissu, during an akītu-festival. The slabs are not dated. However, the terminus post quem for the text's composition is the capture of Ummanaldašu (Ḫumban-ḫaltaš III), which took place between the composition of text nos. 9 (Prism F; 645) and 11 (Prism A; 644, 643, or 642). Scholars often refer to this text as the "Nabû Inscription."
Access the score [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/scores/Q003758/score] of Ashurbanipal 59
Access Ashurbanipal 59 [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/rinap5/Q003758/]
For further details on this inscription, click here [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/rinap5/rinap51textintroductions/pavingstonestexts5960/index.html#asbash59]
More inscribed limestone slabs were found in and around the ruins of the Ištar/Mullissu temple at Nineveh. These paving stones, however, record the enlargement of the courtyard of Emašmaš. Just like the previous inscription, this text also mentions that Ashurbanipal used deposed Elamite kings in lieu of horses to pull his processional carriage. Although the slabs do not bear a date, their terminus post quem can be established: The latest dateable event is the capture of the Elamite king Ummmanaldašu (Ḫumban-ḫaltaš III), which took place some time between 645 and ca. 642. This inscription is generally referred to as the "Mullissu Inscription" in scholarly publications.
Access the score [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/scores/Q003759/score] of Ashurbanipal 60
Access Ashurbanipal 60 [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/rinap5/Q003759/]
For further details on this inscription, click here [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/rinap5/rinap51textintroductions/pavingstonestexts5960/index.html#asbash60]
At least nine stone vessels, one from Aššur and the rest presumably from Nineveh, are inscribed with a short proprietary label of Ashurbanipal. Because none of the inscriptions are fully intact, it is impossible to know with certainty if the text included only Esarhaddon or both Esarhaddon and Sennacherib in the king's genealogy; see the commentary for details.
Access the score [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/scores/Q003767/score] of Ashurbanipal 68
Access Ashurbanipal 68 [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/rinap5/Q003767/]
For further details on this inscription, click here [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/rinap5/rinap51textintroductions/stonevesselstexts6870/index.html#asbash68]
A flat-based, double-rimmed stone bowl from Nineveh bears the end of a short proprietary inscription of a descendant of Sennacherib. Although the attribution is not certain (see the commentary), the text is included here arbitrarily as a certain text of Ashurbanipal following the suggestion of I. Finkel and J.E. Reade (in Searight, Assyrian Stone Vessels p. 53). Three other small vessel fragments may be inscribed with this same inscription; they are, however, too fragmentary to be certain if they duplicate this text or contain some other late Neo-Assyrian inscription.
Access the score [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/scores/Q003768/score] of Ashurbanipal 69
Access Ashurbanipal 69 [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/rinap5/Q003768/]
For further details on this inscription, click here [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/rinap5/rinap51textintroductions/stonevesselstexts6870/index.html#asbash69]
Jamie Novotny & Joshua Jeffers
Jamie Novotny & Joshua Jeffers, 'Information on Ashurbanipal Scores, Part 2', RINAP Scores, The RINAP Scores sub-project of the RINAP Project, 2023 [http://oracc.org/rinap/scores/ashurbanipalscores/part2/]