Nos. 86 and 87 are gifts by Sennacherib for two temples that he built: one for the Akitu Temple of the steppe that he built in (or rather outside) Assur[[51]] and the other for the Temple of Zababa and Babu that he built in Assur.[[52]] Although votive in nature, the two gifts amount to the "start-up crews" for the temples. The structure of these texts has been discussed above (p. XXV), but it needs to be pointed out that neither of these texts is likely to be in its final format: no. 86 because it lacks the seal impression mentioned in the superscription but has no colophon identifying it as a copy and has a line erased; no. 87 because of the large gap on the obverse, the erasure in the total number of persons dedicated, and the incomprehensible remarks in r. 14, which may be the scribe's note to himself.
No. 86 is a witnessed document, in itself unusual among royal inscriptions. The witnesses are high officials of state (including the Minister of Justice and the Grand Vizier and his deputy) and officials and functionaries of the Aššur Temple. The date is given as the 22nd year of Sennacherib, which could be 684 or 683 depending on whether his first year was reckoned as 705 or 704.[[53]]
No. 90, an inscription of Assurbanipal not included in NARGD, was characterized by Postgate as a curious text.[[54]] Although the subject of the text is the votive donation of a village and its fields and orchards to the god Sin of Elumu,[[55]] the narrative of the text does indeed have some curious aspects. While the text has the normal elements of Assurbanipal's votive inscriptions, being written in literary Babylonian and beginning with an incipit to the deity and continuing with a narrative of the king's accomplishments followed by a prayer to the deity and ending with curses of a more or less standard nature, the overall impact of the inscription is not that of an ordinary ex-voto gift. Postgate described the text as a "draft ... for a grant of a village ... probably intended for a stele";[[56]] that the text is not that of the stela is indicated by the fact that the details of the village are not specified. Whether the text was a draft or an edited copy of the stela text, the inscription is a report to the god Sin on a gift that had temporarily gone astray, probably involving some reference to the king of Assyria as detective, combined with a rededication of the gift. That it is in fact a votive donation is shown by the fact that the curses are directed against anyone who tries to take the property away from Sin.
Unfortunately, the tablet is broken approximately in half along its vertical axis so that no more than half of each line is preserved thereby making it difficult to establish a continuous context. Our interpretation of the text differs from that of Postgate, who came to the conclusion that a grant had been made to Il-yabi who had subsequently committed some crime so that the grant was taken away and given to someone else.[[57]] In our reconstruction, it was Il-yabi who made the original votive gift of a village to the god Sin,[[58]] setting up a stela to commemorate the donation (ll. 6-9). Later on he changed his mind, stole the stela, and appropriated the village property to himself (10-11). Sin found out about this deception and informed Assurbanipal, perhaps through a vision or oracle, but more likely, although probably not stated in the text, through an informer (12-13). Assurbanipal was apparently able to recover the stela, which he says he read (perhaps another reference to the monarch's claim to literacy) and thereafter, following the command of Sin, made a new stela and dedicated the village to Sin anew in his own name (14-19). The rest of the text contains a prayer to Sin to accept the gift and grant various blessings in return (20-r.4), and curses against anyone who would alienate the property from Sin or (alter, destroy, or) carry off the new stela (r.5-13). The fate of Il-yabi is not mentioned in the preserved portion of the text, but it cannot have been pleasant.
The clue to this interpretation is in the references to the stelae. The old stela first occurs in the preserved part of the text in line 14. But here it is already referred to as "that stela" (NA4.NA.RÚ.A šu-a-tú), implying that it had been mentioned earlier. The most likely place for it to have been introduced was in connection with the original votive donation, and it seems equally likely that the stela was the object of the theft in line 11. This reconstruction is bolstered by the parallel use of the new stela on which the gift was recorded anew and curses were directed against anyone who interfered with it.
It would seem, then, that the avaricious Il-yabi thought that by removing the stela on which the gift of the village to Sin was recorded he would be free to recover the donated property for himself. But he reckoned without the long arm of Assurbanipal, who having found out about the fraud (probably from one of the functionaries of the Sin Temple in Elumu), was able to recover the original stela and reinstate the gift while at the same time doubtless meting out a suitable punishment to Il-yabi.[[59]] Thus, rather than being just another record of a votive gift, this text would seem to be one of the earliest detective stories in the form of a royal inscription.
Another text that requires some comment is no. 91, a document from Huzirina that has been characterized here as a memorandum, principally because it lacks any of the terminology and the do ut des motif usually associated with votive gifts.[[60]] As such, it is more likely to be an administrative text than an actual votive gift, and any connection with the king is only assumed. Stylistically it has a great deal in common with SAA 11 153 (even though this latter text does make use of the terminology of votive gifts) and it might have been more appropriate to include it in SAA 7 or SAA 11. As these volumes were limited to texts from Nineveh, however, this was not possible. The text does mention land near the end, but in a context too damaged to be reconstructed.
51 Cf. Luckenbill Senn., pp. 134-43.
52 See H. Gaiter. ARRIM 2 (1983) 1-2.
53 Cf. SAAS 2, p. 71.
54 Or 42 (1973) 441.
55 A town in the vicinity of Carchemish, see TCAE. pp. 360-62.
56 Ibid., p. 2.
57 Ibid.
58 That such large-scale gifts by private individuals are not unheard of is shown by nos. 96 and 98.
59 One is reminded of the stipulations in nos. 1, 5 and 71 to the effect that the king himself will punish anyone who gives the granted property elsewhere and the property will return to the temple of Aššur.
60 These, however, may have been in the badly damaged sections at the beginning, the end, or on the left edge.
61 Excluding the schedules (see above, pp. XIII-XIV).
Laura Kataja & Robert Whiting
Laura Kataja & Robert Whiting, 'Royal Gifts', Grants, Decres and Gifts of the Neo-Assyrian Period, SAA 12. Original publication: Helsinki, Helsinki University Press, 1995; online contents: SAAo/SAA12 Project, a sub-project of MOCCI, 2020 [http://oracc.org/saao/saa12/votiveandothergifts/royalgifts/]