sign in sign up
<<
Home , Ashurbanipal, Elam, Erra (god), Lydia (satrapy), Rassam cylinder, Sennacherib

ORIENT Volume 49, 2014

The Author of Prism A (Rassam): An Inquiry into his Plan and Purpose, with a note on his Persona

Mordechai Cogan

The Society for Near Eastern Studies in Japan (NIPPON ORIENTO GAKKAI) The Author of Ashurbanipal Prism A (Rassam): An Inquiry into his Plan and Purpose, with a note on his Persona

Mordechai Cogan*

Prism A (Rassam) is the last of the six editions of the royal annals of Ashurbanipal prepared in the 640s. Of all the extant texts from this king’s reign, it presents the longest and fullest account. The author of Prism A made use of materials from the preceding editions and, as was the common practice, added reports of events to the account given in Prism F two years earlier. Among the characteristics of Prism A are: (1) An increased number of campaign reports; (2) Reworking of previous reports using literary manipulations, and in some cases, corrected data; (3) Emphasis upon the endorsement given to the monarch by all of the gods, expressed in reports of prophetic messages and ; (4) Increased mention of the adê-treaties as the rationale behind divine punishment of rebels. Prism A’s thoroughly rewritten presentation of the royal achievements was undertaken in the twenty- fifth year of Ashurbanipal’s reign. The author of Prism A reshaped the earlier image of Ashurbanipal, and as its campaigns reports and final scene proved, the entire world lay at the feet of the Assyrian monarch. And it may just be that the initiator and inspiration behind this grand literary project was Ashurbanipal himself, who saw himself as a most literate monarch. Keywords: Ashurbanipal, Prism A (), Assyrian royal annals, literary editing and revisions

I. Introduction Assyrian royal annals are, by all accounts, the hallmark of Assyrian literature, and the absence of similar inscriptions in the Babylonian corpus confirms this judgment. There is considerable agreement that the Assyrian annals are, in essence, “dedicatory inscriptions,” a classification that stems from the observation that annals regularly conclude with a section that relates, in varying lengths, the completion of a construction project undertaken by the king.1 This classification, however, does not give sufficient consideration to the development of the annals into an independent genre, from short dedicatory texts to inscriptions that included lengthy reports of royal achievements in the hunt and battle. The development can be seen to have begun in the late second millennium BCE, and by the mid-ninth century, the annals clearly had evolved and become an established and distinct genre.2 The late annal inscriptions comprised anywhere from six to ten columns of text, of which only the last column was devoted to the building project. These literary creations had moved well beyond dedicatory purposes, and the annal texts from the reign of Ashurbanipal truly rank as full-fledged historiographical-ideological compositions in

*Professor Emeritus, Department of History of the Jewish People, The Hebrew University of 1 Renger 1980-1983; cf. Grayson 1980a; also Reiner 1985, 18: “the last seventy lines relate the king’s building activities on the crown prince’s residence, the occasion for the inscription.” 2 In this regard, see the remarks of Tadmor 1997, 327-328.

Vol. XLIX 2014 69 Part I: Literary Analysis of Assyrian Royal Inscriptions their own right.3 The earliest edition of the Ashurbanipal annals, Prism E, dates to the first decade of his reign, ca. 663; this edition was followed a decade and a half later by Prisms B and D, in 649-648; Prisms C and K (Borger’s Prism G), 647-646; Prism F, 645; Prism A, 643; and Prism H, 639.4 The hiatus of close to fifteen years between editions E and B, during which it seems that no annal texts were composed, has still to be explained, but when annal writing resumed at the beginning of the king’s third decade, it did so with vigor, for in the 640s, at least six editions of the annals were written. Prism A (or “Rassam”) has survived in its entirety, making it the last complete annal text from the reign of Ashurbanipal and, for that matter, of all Assyrian annal writing. Prism A’s text comprises 1301 lines written on decagonal prisms. Nine of its ten columns are devoted to the king’s military achievements (1180 lines), with a half-column introduction and a half-column building report that relates the extensive renovations of the bīt ridûti, the House of Succession. A’s introductory passage is based on the one in Prism F,5 with some minor reworking. Similarly, the building report in A is essentially the same one that had been given two-three years earlier in Prism F. One can already see that it was something other than the need to mark a new construction that motivated the writing of Prism A. In order to suggest the purpose of this remarkable text, in what follows, Prism A will be set alongside the earlier annal editions, in order to uncover the compositional technique of its author and his goals. The reports on the military achievements of Ashurbanipal are the heart of the text. The manner of reporting these campaigns had been standardized in Prism B and consisted of a unique combination of elements found in the inscriptions of the king’s father and grandfather.6 From and , the scribe-author of B adopted the numbering of the campaigns by girru, literally, “march, way.” However, unlike the earlier usage, in which some semblance of chronology was retained, in the Ashurbanipal annals this numbering by girru – first girru, second girru, third girru, etc. – is by no means chronological; the girru order is mostly a geographical ordering7 that surveys events by moving from the far southwest () northwards along the Mediterranean coast () to , then to the east to mountainous areas of and , south to and , and ends with the Arab tribes in the desert reaches in the east and west. The non-chronological aspect of this numbering is further proven by the movement of certain campaigns either up or down the numerical ladder in the various editions of the annals. For example, the second campaign to Egypt in Prisms B and D was the first campaign in Prism F. Girru numbers were simply a convenience for separating campaigns, nothing else, though they did convey the sense of an unbroken series of military endeavors. Furthermore, not all campaign reports were included in every edition. For example, a report could appear – as did the first Egyptian campaign in Prism B – then disappear – as it did from Prism F – and then reappear a few years later in Prism A; or a campaign could be left out altogether, as was the

3 The term “annals” was given to these inscriptions during the early days of in the late nineteenth century, though later study has shown that it is a misnomer that does not reflect either their structure or contents of these texts. 4 The order and dates follow Cogan – Tadmor 1977; cf., too, Grayson 1980b. For a different presentation, see Borger Asb., in the introductions to each edition. 5 On the short literary additions in Prism A, see Borger Asb., 256, notes 1-7. 6 See the general remarks of Grayson 1980a, 245. 7 In this aspect, the usage resembles the summary inscriptions that survey a king’s reign by geographical area.

70 ORIENT The Author of Ashurbanipal Prism A (Rassam): An Inquiry into his Plan and Purpose, with a note on his Persona case with the Qirbit campaign that is not found in the editions written after Prism C. Moreover, and most importantly, the re-use of a report from an early edition in a later one often involved revision of the early edition.8 Now from the general to the specific: What are the characteristics of Prism A’s campaign reports?

II. Increased number of campaigns A’s author did not adopt the manner of Prism F, the edition that immediately preceded his own by two years. Prism F had made serious cuts in the number of campaign reports previously reported: Egypt was reduced from two campaigns to a single one, and the affairs in Qirbit, Media, Urartu, and against the tribes were omitted altogether, while Gambulu was subsumed under Elam. F’s author chose to concentrate on the various stages of the struggle with Elam and it was the first edition to report the capture, destruction and despoiling of . The line count clearly reflects this focus. Of the 379 lines given over to military reports in Prism F, 282 lines, that is 75%, were devoted to Elamite affairs.9 The same can be said of Prism T, which though, strictly speaking, is not an annal text; T was written in the same year as Prism F, but differs from F and the other annals by reporting in brief only one campaign, that to Elam. The affinity of Prism T to the annals is in its introduction, which, like annals Prism C, presents Ashurbanipal as master builder of temples. Prism A rejected both F’s skewing of events and T’s image of the king, and returned to the earlier editions, choosing B and C as his models. Much material was taken over from these editions, which was augmented by reports of events that had occurred during the two years after the composition of Prism F. Thus, in A, Egypt once again became two campaigns; Babylon, for the first time, was designated as a numbered campaign, though still intertwined with Elamite matters; and all the Arab affairs were collected into a single, numbered report. Not to be overlooked was some trimming of reports: A omitted the reports on early campaigns against Qirbit and Urartu, as well as B’s first Elamite war.

III. Reworking of reports Examination of Prism A’s handling of the older reports taken over from previous editions reveals that A’s author did not slavishly copy the texts of his models. For sure, a preponderance of sentences are replicas of ones that appeared in the earlier editions, but at the same time, there are many that are not. I am not referring to occasional verbal or nominal exchanges of single words or phrases that one finds in most copies of the royal inscriptions, e.g., ušēbila/ ūbila (F i 66); ittakil ana ṭēm ramānišu/ ittakil ana emūq ramānišu (B i 56/C ii 22, A i 57); aḫu kēnu/ aḫu nakri (B vii 50, C viii 40, F iii 15/ A iv 6); scribe-copyists made such exchanges even within copies of a single edition.10 Rather, I focus attention on several large blocks of material that were revised by the author of Prism A.

8 See Cogan – Tadmor 1977, 85, Table 1. 9 Note that although Prism F gave the fullest history of relations between and Elam, F did not include Prism B’s “sixth campaign” (also given in Prism C) against Urtaku. 10 See my discussion in Cogan 2005.

Vol. XLIX 2014 71 Part I: Literary Analysis of Assyrian Royal Inscriptions

1. Literary revision Example 1: Phoenician and Anatolian Kingdoms The events concerning the kingdom of Tyre appear in all editions beginning with Prism B. Prism B and C included a few lines that described actions taken against the coastal areas opposite the island city of Tyre (B ii 44–52; C iii 73–82), which were later largely omitted from F and A (A ii 52–55; F i 59–62). All editions report Tyre’s submission and the transfer of royal personages were sent to Ashurbanipal, likely held as hostages for the good behavior of the city; only Prism A names the Tyrian prince Aḫimilki as being hostage, whom Ashurbanipal released and sent home (A ii 56–62). Once Tyre surrendered, the siege restrictions were removed, again reported only in B and C (B ii 62–64; C iii 91–94). Following this, Prism B, C and F report that the kings of Arvad, , and Ḫilakku surrendered voluntarily and sent royal hostages. Prism A included this information, but separated the three kingdoms into individual reports, utilizing almost identical terms in each case. Thus Prisms B, C, F:

Iakinlû šar māt Aruada (F+: āšib qabal tâmtim) Mugallu šar māt Tabala Sandišarme Ḫilakkāya ša ana šarrāni abbēya lā kanšū iknušū ana nīrīya mārāte ṣīt libbišunu itti nudunnê ma’di (only B and C: u tirḫati ma’assi ma’di) ana epēš abrakkūti ana Ninua ubilunimma unaššiqū šēpêya eli Mugalli sīsê rabûti maddattu šattišamma ukīn ṣēruššu (B ii 71–81; C iii 102–114; F i 70–77)

Yakinlu, king of Arvad (F adds: who dwells in the midst of the sea), Mugallu, king of Tabal, Sandisharme of Ḫilakku, who had not been submissive to the kings, my ancestors, submitted to my yoke. Their daughters, their offspring, with great gifts (only B and C: and great bride-payments) to be stewardesses to they sent to me and kissed my feet. On Mugallu, I imposed large horses as yearly tribute.

Compare to this Prism A’s revised account:

Iakinlû šar māt Aruada āšib qabal tâmtim ša ana šarrāni abbēya lā kanšu iknuša ana nīrīya mārassu itti nudunnê ma’adi ana epēš abrakkūti ana Ninua ubilamma unaššiq(a) šēpêya Mugallu šar māt Tabali ša itti šarrāni abbēya idbubu dāṣāti binti ṣīt libbišu itti tirḫati ma’assi ana epēš abrakkūti ana Ninua ubilamma unaššiq šēpêya eli Mugalli sisê rabûti mandattu šattišamma ukīn ṣērišu Sandašarme Ḫilakkāya ša ana šarrāni abbēya lā iknušu

72 ORIENT The Author of Ashurbanipal Prism A (Rassam): An Inquiry into his Plan and Purpose, with a note on his Persona lā išūṭu abšānšun mārtu ṣīt libbišu itti nudunnê ma’adi ana epēš abrakkūti ana Ninua ubilamma unaššiq šēpêya (A ii 63–80)

Yakinlu, king of Arvad, who dwells in the midst of the sea, who was not submissive to the kings, my ancestors, submitted to my yoke, his daughter with great gifts to be a stewardess to Nineveh, he sent to me and kissed my feet. Mugallu, king of Tabal, who against the kings, my ancestors, spoke treacherous (words), his daughter, his offspring, with a great bride-payment to be a stewardess to Nineveh, he sent to me and kissed my feet. I imposed on Mugallu large horses as yearly tribute. Sandasharme of Ḫilakku, who had not submitted to the kings, my ancestors, had not pulled their yoke, his daughter, his offspring, with a great gift to be stewardess to Nineveh, he sent to me and kissed my feet.

Regarding Arvad, all editions treat the later developments in this island kingdom: when Yakinlu died, his sons came to Nineveh to have Ashurbanipal arbitrate the issue of the succession to throne of Arvad. Prisms B, C, F named the three sons – Aziba’al, Abiba’al, Aduniba’al (B ii 82–92; C iii 115–128; F i 78–ii 9). Prism A “corrected” the report: there were ten Arvadite princes who sought the kingship – Aziba’al, Abiba’al, Aduniba’al, Shapaṭiba’al, Budiba’al, ’alyashubu, Ba’alḫanunu, Ba’almaluku, Abimilki, Aḫimilki (A ii 81–94).

Example 2: Gyges of The relations between Lydia and Assyria were reported in the earliest inscriptions of Ashurbanipal and in all succeeding ones;11 in most instances, the description resembles a picture painted on a broad canvas in full color. In brief, the report told of the arrival in Nineveh of a Lydian envoy, who spoke an unintelligible language; he related the of Gyges, king of Lydia, to whom the god had appeared, instructing him to submit to Ashurbanipal in order to overcome his enemies. And indeed, on becoming an Assyrian vassal, Gyges succeeded in fending off his Cimmerian attackers. This story appeared in the early annal editions, Prisms E1 and E2; was condensed in the dedicatory text (HT) without any loss of message; and was later taken over in Prisms B, D, C and F in a somewhat shortened form.12 Only in Prism A were significant changes introduced into the narrative. The changes were both literary and factual. Thus, for example, A’s author created a poetic verse when speaking of the arrival of the Lydian envoy. Whereas the preceding editions only had a single prosaic line:

ūmu šutta annīta ēmuru rakbûšu išpura ana ša’āl šulmeya (B ii 97–98; C iv 6–7; F ii 14–15; A ii 100–101)

On the (very) day he had this dream, he dispatched his rider (rakbûšu) to inquire of my well-being;

Prism A added a second line:

ūmu šutta annīta ēmuru rakbûšu išpura ana ša’āl šulmeya

11 This section follows the conclusions reached in the work by Cogan – Tadmor 1977. 12 For details, see Cogan – Tadmor 1977, 75-76.

Vol. XLIX 2014 73 Part I: Literary Analysis of Assyrian Royal Inscriptions

šuttu annītu ša ēmuru ina qāt mār šiprišu išpuramma ušannâ iâti (A ii 102-103)

On the (very) day he had this dream, he dispatched his rider (rakbûšu) to inquire of my well-being. Through his messenger (mār šiprišu), he sent to relate to me the dream that he had.

Yet, strictly speaking, this extra line was not a wholly new creation. Prism A’s author utilized both of the earliest annal texts, Prism E1 and E2; in E1 (v 1–2), the envoy was called “a rider” (rakbû), and in E2 (vi 2'), the term was “messenger” (mār šipri). Prism A combined the two into a new parallel verse. Furthermore, A’s author reinserted a line from the early Prism E texts that presented the words seen by Gyges in his night vision: šēpē rubûtišu ṣabatma ina zikir šumišu kušud nakrēka (A ii 98-99), “Lay hold of his princely feet! By invoking his name, conquer your enemies!” This served as the introduction of the theme that appears in the continuation of the Gyges story, which A was the first to report. rakbûšu ša ana ša’āl šulmeya kayān ištanappara ušaršâ baṭiltu aššu ša amāt dAššur ili bāniya lā iṣṣuru ana emūq ramānišu ittakilma igpuš libbu emūqīšu ana kitri Tušamilki šar māt Muṣur ša iṣlû nīr bēlūtiya išpurma anāku ašmēma uṣalli dAššur u dIštar pān nakrēšu pagaršu linnadīma liššûni eṣmētīšu kî ša ana dAššur amḫuru išlimma pān nakrēšu pagaršu innadīma iššûni eṣmētīšu Gimirrāya ša ina nibīt šumiya šapalšu ikbusū itbûnimma ispunū gimir mātišu arkišu māršu ūšib ina kussîšu epšēt lemutti ša ina nīš qātēya ilāni tikliya ina pān abi bānišu ušaprikū ina qāt mār šiprišu išpuramma iṣbata šēpē šarrūtiya umma šarru ša ilu īdûšu atta abū’a tārurma lemuttu iššakin ina pānišu iâti ardu pāliḫka kurbannima lašūṭa abšānka (A ii 111-125)

The riders that he constantly sent to inquire of my well-being broke off. I was informed that he had become unfaithful to the word of Ashur, the god, my begetter, and that he trusted in his own strength; he had become proud. He had sent troops to aid Psammetichus, king of Egypt, who had thrown off my yoke. I prayed to Ashur and Ishtar: “Let his corpse be cast before his enemy; his bones carried off (i.e., scattered about).” That which I implored of Ashur, came about. Before his enemies his corpse was cast; his bones were carried off. The , whom he had defeated by invoking my name, rose up and swept over his entire land. After his demise, his son inherited his throne. (As a result of) the harsh treatment which the gods, my confidence, had given his father, his begetter – in response to my prayer – he sent his messenger, laid hold of my royal feet and said: “You are the king singled out by god. You cursed my father and so, misfortune befell him. Unto me, your reverent servant, be gracious, so that I may bear your yoke.”

Because he had allied himself with Egypt, an enemy of Assyria, Gyges was punished by divine judgment in terms that are taken from the repertoire of treaty curses.13 His son and heir astutely

13 Cf. SAA II, no. 6, lines 481-484.

74 ORIENT The Author of Ashurbanipal Prism A (Rassam): An Inquiry into his Plan and Purpose, with a note on his Persona observed what had befallen his father and submitted to Ashurbanipal. These additions in Prism A updated the report on events on the Lydian front that was last edited in Prism B. Historically, it seems that Lydia had broken with Assyria in the mid-650s, that is, prior to Prism B, but neither Prism B nor any of the following editions prior to A reported the bad faith exhibited by Gyges. Now that Gyges had died and good relations between Lydia and Assyria had been reinstated, Prism A could give the full account.

2. Full and correct information Scattered throughout Prism A are a number of very detailed lists. Example 1: Ashurbanipal conducted two campaigns in Egypt, in 667 and 665, during which Assyria’s western vassals were mobilized to accompany his army south to the Nile Valley. In Prism C, the names of these twenty-two vassal kings are given (C ii 38-59);14 Prism A’s author chose a short manner of presentation and rather than listing all twenty-two kings, he simply gave their number (A i 68-69). On the other hand, he did enter a full expanded list of the twenty Egyptian kings and governors, who had been ousted by (A i 96-109), while in Prism C only six names were given (C ii 85-90). Example 2: In the Elamite campaign reports, Prism A followed Prism F and gave the full list of names of: (1) Twenty-five (or twenty-nine) cities destroyed while fighting Ummanaldasi (F iv 1-12 // A v 43-58); (2) Eleven cities taken during a second engagement with Ummanaldasi (F iv 29-40 // A v 77-89); (3) Nineteen Elamite divinities, whose images and treasures were taken captive from Susa (F v 21-33 // A vi 30-4715). Example 3: Another opportunity for the author of Prism A to display his predilection for lists can be found in the report of the military actions against the Arab tribes in western reaches of the north Arabian Desert. In this case, the author had no annal forerunners to lean on; his campaign report was new to the annal tradition. He drew from the Letter to the god Ashur, written a year earlier.16 The actions against the Arab tribes – led by Abiyate’ and Ayamu – are recounted as a three-staged operation that is written in the “itinerary style,” a genre of reporting that most likely stems from administrative circles.17 These itinerary reports included the date on which the army’s march began, the route followed from station to station, noting the distance between each station, as well as a brief description of the area traversed and its end at the overnight encampment (A viii 96-119; viii 120-ix 8; ix 9-24). Itineraries or “journey accounts” do appear occasionally in Assyrian royal inscriptions, but the Arab itinerary in Prism A is the first one used in the Ashurbanipal annals. At the same time, one should note that in a few instances, Prism A forwent a list that had appeared in an earlier edition. For example, in the campaign against Aḫsheri of Mannai as given in Prism B and C, “eight strong cities and small ones” were taken and their names are listed (B iii 34-36// C iv 44-46); F and A omit their number and names altogether (F ii 25-26 // A ii 129-

14 This list was not lifted en bloc from Esarhaddon inscriptions, as is sometimes suggested (e.g., Onasch 1994, 150; Borger Asb., 18 seems similarly inclined); it is an updated version from the early days of Ashurbanipal (cf. Cogan 1974, 68, especially n. 17). 15 Prism A glossed the name of the god Sapak with: “whose divinity the kings of Elam constantly feared” (A vi 36-37). 16 On the Letter to the god Ashur, see Ephʻal 1982, 48-49, 51-52; Weippert 1973, 74-85. 17 See the analysis of this genre by Baruchi-Unna 2009, 11-136, especially 123-130.

Vol. XLIX 2014 75 Part I: Literary Analysis of Assyrian Royal Inscriptions

130).18 Beyond lists, there were also other ways that Prism A’s author found to display his erudition. For example, within the report of the conquest of the royal Elamite city of Bit-Imbi, he inserted the note that this city was, in fact, the second Bit-Imbi; the “first one” had been captured by his grandfather Sennacherib and was later rebuilt (A iv 126-132). The author also corrected a number of identifications, e.g., he noted that Tanuttamani (Tašdamane) was the son of Shabaku (A ii 22) and not Taharqa’s sister, as given in other editions (B ii 11; C iii 29); as regards the Elamite Imbappi, Prism A declared that he was son-in-law of Ummanaldasi and his position was administrator (qīpu) of Bit-Imbi (A v 1-2), rather than “chief bowman, entrusted with the defense of Bit-Imbi” (F iii 53-54). With reference to the return from Elam of the statue of the goddess to her temple in , Prism A inserted the date of the ceremony, the first day of the month Kislev (A vi 122).19

IV. The source and nature of divine help The theme of divine help to the monarch is so frequent in the Assyrian annals that it would hardly seem worthy of special note; the god Ashur commissions (ina qibīt Aššur) and inspires confidence (ina tukulti Aššur) in the king, and in many instances, Ashur was joined by one or two other gods, or simply, by the “great gods” (ilāni rabûti), in overseeing the victory. Yet in this commonplace matter, Prism A demonstrably stands apart from all the other editions in its preference for an extended god-list in place of the available shorter locutions. Prism A preferred to invoke all the major gods: “Ashur, , Shamash, Adad, , , Ishtar of Nineveh, Sharrat Kidmuri, Ishtar of Arbela, , , Nusku.”20 I noted thirteen instances in which extended lists of all twelve gods replaced the shorter ones of three, seven, nine or ten gods. But Prism A’s author went beyond invoking all the gods by name; he presented them as active on behalf of the king. Thus, e.g., he reworked the description of the demise of Shamash- shumu-ukin given in the earlier Prism C, which told of the king’s hostile brother planning murderous acts against Assyria and speaking slanderously against the god Ashur, who threw him into the fire (C ix 24-28). Prism A credited all twelve gods as being responsible in bringing about this “blazing” punishment (A iv 46-52), which befell Shamash-shumu-ukin because he had broken with Ashurbanipal, behaving disloyally and repaying good with wrongdoing (A iv ii 70- 113; cf. C vii 120-129). One should not overlook other adjustments. For example, in the opening line to Prism A, the author asserted that Ashur, as well as Sin, had selected Ashurbanipal for kingship (A i 3), whereas

18 Prism A i 118 does not repeat the names of the rebel Egyptian kings given just a few lines earlier, while Prism C ii 105-106 includes three names. 19 M. Stol suggests that there may have been a regular festival on this date; see Stol, s.v. “Nanea,” DDD, 2nd edition, 614. On the question of the alternate date in Prism A of the succession ceremony held by Esarhaddon, see my remarks in Cogan 1977, 102, n. 23; Cogan 1983, and otherwise Borger Asb., 15. 20 A i 13-17; i 41-43; ii 127-129 (so earlier F ii 23-24); iii 12-14 (B iii 87-88 [9 gods], F ii 42-43 [10 gods]); iii 29-31 (F ii 55-56 [10 gods]; B v 80-81 [3 gods]); iv 46-48; vi 126-128 (F vi 12-14 [10 gods]); viii 19-22 (B viii 41-42 [7 gods]; C x 51-54 [12 gods, replaces Nergal with Gira]); viii 52-55; viiii 73-76; ix 61-64 (B viii 28-29 [7 gods]); ix 97- 100; x 33-36). At A x 60-62, the name Bēlet parṣi, Lady of divine power, is added after that of Ishtar of Arbela; it had appeared in F vi 31, and seems to be an appellation of that goddess and not another god. In only one case was a short list inexplicably used (A ii 38, where F ii 48-49 refers 10 gods).

76 ORIENT The Author of Ashurbanipal Prism A (Rassam): An Inquiry into his Plan and Purpose, with a note on his Persona in Prism F, only Sin had acted on his behalf (F i 3). That the gods stood firmly behind the king was communicated to him in various ways. Dream messages and extispicy are occasionally mentioned in the early annals,21 while Prism A, in marked distinction, credited prophecy, especially ancient prophecy, as the impetus for action.

1. Prophecies The first of two examples of prophecy comes in the context of Ashurbanipal’s wars with the Manneans, mountain-dwelling tribes to the east and northeast of Assyria.22 The campaign against Aḫsheri, king of the Manneans, is related in all editions as a rout of the enemy, with the Assyrian army recovering many border cities that had previously been lost to Mannea. As a result, Aḫsheri fled his capital, but following the continued Assyrian advance, he lost his life in a revolt. Prisms B, C, F told the story in the following manner:

Aḫšeri lā pāliḫ bēlūtiya Aššur u Ištar imnûšu ina qātē ardānišu nišē mātišu siḫu elišu ušabšû ina sūq ālišu iddû pagaršu (B iii 82-85, C iv 91-94, F ii 38-40)

Aḫsheri, who did not revere my lordship, Ashur and Ishtar delivered him into the hands of his servants. The people of his land instigated a revolt against him; they threw his body in the city square.

Prism A added a prophetic aspect to this insurrection:

Aḫšeri lā pāliḫ bēlūtiya ina amāt Ištar āšibat Arba-ilu ša ultu rēši taqbû umma anāku mītūtu Aḫšeri šar māt Mannaya kī ša aqbû eppuš ina qātē ardānišu tamnūšuma nišē mātišu siḫu elišu ušabšû ina sūq ālišu šalamtašu iddû indaššarū pagaršu (A iii 4-9)

Aḫsheri, who did not revere my lordship, by the word of Ishtar, who dwells in Arbela, which she had spoken in earlier times23: “I will bring about the death of Aḫsheri, king of the Manneans, as I have spoken.” She delivered him into the hands of his servants. The people of his land instigated a revolt against him; they threw his body in the city square and abandoned his corpse.

More striking is the ancient prophecy associated with the return of the statue of the goddess Nanaya from Elam after 1635 years that Prism A’s author took over wholly from Prism F. Current thought asserted that in the remote past, the goddess had selected Ashurbanipal for the kingship of Assyria and assigned him the task of restoring Nanaya to her abode in Uruk. This was accomplished during the sack of Susa in the course of the war against the Elamite king Ummanaldasi.24

Nanaya ša 1635 šanāti tašbusuma talliku tušibu qereb māt Elamti ašar lā simātiša u ina ūmēšuma šī u ilāni abbêša tabbû šumī ana bēlūt mātāti tayyarat ilūtiša tušadgila pānua umma Aššur-bāni-apli ultu qereb māt Elamti lemneti ušēṣânnima ušērabanni qereb Eanna amāt qibīt ilūtišun ša ultu ūmē rūqūti iqbû enenna ukallimû nišē arkūti qātē ilūtiša rabûti atmuḫ ḫarrānu išertu ša ulluṣ libbi taṣbata ana Eanna ina araḫ Kislimu ūmu 1 qereb Uruk ušēribšima ina Eḫilianna ša tarammu ušarmēši parak dārāti (F v 72-vi 11; A vi 107-124; cf. T v 9-32)

21 See Baruchi-Unna 2009, 305-313. 22 Grayson (CAH III/2, 146) dates these battles to ca. 660. 23 In the introduction to Prisms F i 3 and A i 3, the phrase “in distant days” (ina ūmē rūqūti) refers to Ashurbanipal’s being called to kingship while still in mother’s womb; to distinguish this pre-natal announcement from the Aḫsheri prophecy, Prism A uses the phrase “earlier times” here. 24 This episode, as well as the two following ones discussed ahead, were subjected to a thorough literary analysis by Baruchi-Unna 2009, 262-274.

Vol. XLIX 2014 77 Part I: Literary Analysis of Assyrian Royal Inscriptions

The goddess Nanaya, who had been angry for 1635 years, and who had gone and dwelt in Elam, a place not suitable for her, now, in these days, when she and the gods, her fathers, named me for the rulership of the lands,25 she entrusted to me the return of her divinity, with the words: “Ashurbanipal shall bring me out of wicked Elam (and) shall bring me into (the temple) Eanna.” The spoken word of their divinities, which they had uttered in days of the remote (past), they now revealed unto the people of later days. The hand of her great divinity I grasped and she took the straight road to Eanna with joyful heart. In the month of Kislev, the first day,26 I brought her into Uruk (Erech) and had her to take her place on an eternal pedestal in (the shrine) Eḫilianna, which she loves.

2. Dreams Dream reports are not a regular feature of royal inscriptions; in fact, they do not appear in any royal inscription before those of Ashurbanipal, and it was Prism A that made the most of them. The first report of a dream is that of Gyges, which appeared in the early Prism E and was repeated in all annal editions down to the extended description in Prism A (discussed above). A second dream report, that of a temple attendant prior to the impending battle against , king of Elam, was recounted in Prisms B (v 49-76) and C (vi 49-78), but not in Prism A because the entire Teumman episode was deleted from edition A. A third dream, unique to Prism A is inserted just prior to sixth campaign directed against Babylon; the king learns of his upcoming victory from a young man who dreamt that he saw the inscription on the pedestal of the god Sin:

ša itti Aššur-bāni-apli šar māt Aššur ikpudū lemnutu epušū ṣēlūtu mūtu lemnu ašarrakšunūti ina patri ḫanti miqit Gira ḫušaḫḫi lipit uqatâ napšassun (A iii 118-127)

Whoever plots evil against Ashurbanipal, king of Assyria, and is hostile towards him, I will mete out to them a terrible death; their lives will end by a quick dagger, hunger, fire.

And indeed, Shamash-shumu-ukin met a fiery end and his fellow rebels succumbed to deaths as predicted (A iv 41-85). The fourth and final dream report associated with the battles against the Elamite king Ummanaldasi is particularly creative. Prism F reported, in a single line, that in hot pursuit of the Elamite army, the Assyrian troops crossed the river Idide to continue the battle. išten ūme šina ūme ul uqi pān arke ul adgul ina ūmišuma ēbir nāra (F iv 46-47)

I did not wait one day, nor a second day; I did not look forward or backward. On that very day I crossed the river.

Prism A corrected the F account on this point. According to A:

ṣābeya nāru Idide agû šamru ēmurūma iplaḫū nēbarte Ištar āšibat Arba-ilu ina šāt mūši ana ṣābeya šutta ušabrīma kīam iqbīšunūti umma anāku allak ina maḫar Aššur-bāni-apli šarru ša ibnâ qātāya eli šutti annīti ṣābeya irḫuṣūma nāru Idide ēbirū šalmeš (A v 95-103)

My troops saw the river Idide, a furious flood, and they were afraid to cross (it). Ishtar of Arbela appeared at night to my troops in a dream and thus spoke to them: “I go before Ashurbanipal, the king that my hands fashioned.” My troops trusted this dream and they crossed the Idide safely.

What the camp dream interpreter (šā’ilu) would have advised when asked about a single dream

25 The clause referring to the action of Nanaya and the gods does not appear in all the manuscripts of edition F; see note in Borger Asb., 57, to A vi 110. 26 The date does not appear in editions F and T.

78 ORIENT The Author of Ashurbanipal Prism A (Rassam): An Inquiry into his Plan and Purpose, with a note on his Persona perceived at one and the same time by a vast group of persons, I do not know.27 But, then, is this circumstance less reasonable than the appearance of the god Ashur in a dream to the king of Lydia? Dreams are vehicles for communicating the will of the gods, in which daily reality could be suspended, and the author of Prism A exploited many occasions to affirm this lesson.

V. Adê treaties and curses The authors of the annals employed a number of fixed literary formulas in justifying the initiation of a military campaign against an enemy, among them: “He forgot the good I (the Assyrian king) did for him”; “He did not send his messenger to inquire of my welfare”; “He neglected/ violated the treaty (adê) with me/I made with him.” This last rationale provided an opportunity for creative writing on the part of the scribes, inasmuch as the Assyrian adê regularly concluded with a list of curses that would befall the violator of the treaty. Thus, for example, in the Prism B report of the campaign against Uaiteʻ, son of Hazael, the Kedarite, who was guilty of most improper behavior, the Assyrian army defeated the Arab tribe and carried off rich spoils. The report continues with this description: sitti Aribi ša lapan kakkēya ipparšidū ušamqit Erra qardu sunqu ina birišunu iššakinma ana būrišunu ekulū šēre mārêšun arrati mala ina adêšun šaṭru ina pitti išimūšunūti Aššur Sîn Šamaš Bēl Nabû Ištar ša Ninua Ištar ša Arba-ilu ilāni rabûti bēlēya (B viii 23-30)

The rest of the Arabs who had fled before my weapons, the brave god Erra struck them down. Famine broke out among them and in their hunger, they ate the flesh of their children. The curses, as many as were written in their adê, Ashur, Sin, Shamash, Bel, Nabu, Ishtar of Nineveh, Ishtar of Arbela, the great gods, my lords, brought upon them suddenly.

These lines clearly echo the familiar treaty curse of a severe famine that leads to cannibalism.28 kī ša agurrutu annītu šalqatūni šēre ša māreša ina pīša šakinūni kī ḫanne šēru ša aḫḫēkunu mārêkunu mārâtekunu ana būrikunu lušākilûkunu (SAA 2, no. 6, p. 52, lines 547-550)

Just as this ewe is cut open and the flesh of its young is placed in its mouth, so may they make you eat in your hunger the flesh of your brothers, your sons, and your daughters.

Prism A’s author took the occasion to present a new version of this episode:

Uate’ adi ṣābešu ša adêya la iṣṣurū ša lapan kakkê Aššur bēliya ipparšidū innabtū maḫar Natnu ušamqissunūti Erra qardu sunqu ina birišunu iššakinma ana būrišunu ekulū šēre mārêšunu arrati mala ina adêšunu šaṭru ina pitti išimūšunūti Aššur Sîn Šamaš Adad Bēl Nabû Ištar ša Ninua Šarrat Kidmuri Ištar ša Arba-ilu Ninurta Nergal Nusku bakru suḫīru būru ḫurāpu ina muḫḫi sebîšu mušēniqāte īniqūma šizbu lā ušabbū karassun nišē māt Aribi ištēn ana ištēn išta’alū umma ina muḫḫi minê kī epšētu annītu lemnētu imḫurū Arubu umma aššu adê rabûti ša Aššur lā niṣṣurū niḫṭû ina ṭābat Aššur-bāni-apli šarri narām libbi (A ix 53-74)

Uaite’, together with his troops that had not kept my adê, who fled from the weapons of Ashur, my lord and escaped to Natnu, the brave god Erra struck them down. Famine broke out among them and in their hunger, they ate the flesh of their children. The curses, as many as were written in their adê, Ashur, Sin, Shamash, Adad, Bel, Nabu, Ishtar of Nineveh, Sharrat Kidmuri, Ishtar of Arbela, Ninurta, Nergal, Nusku, brought upon them suddenly. Camel foals, donkey foals, calves (and) lambs, sucked on seven mothers and could not satisfy their stomachs with milk. The residents of Arabia kept asking themselves: “What is the reason that such calamitous things have befallen Arabia?” (The answer):

27 See the comments on “double-dreams” by Oppenheim 1956, 209. 28 From Esarhaddon’s adê on the succession of Ashurbanipal, SAA II, no. 6, lines 547-550.

Vol. XLIX 2014 79 Part I: Literary Analysis of Assyrian Royal Inscriptions

“Because we did not uphold the great adê with Ashur and we sinned against the friendship of Ashurbanipal, the beloved of Enlil!”

In order to underscore the seriousness of breach of adê oaths, Prism A’s author did not content himself with the extended list of gods whose names were invoked in solemnizing the adê; he took over two passages from the Letter to the God Ashur. He added a line on hunger in the flocks – itself a curse known from traditional curse formulations29 – as well as the question-answer exchange that accounted for the catastrophe that had befallen the Arabs,30 and elaborated on the active role of several gods, specifically named, against Arab tribes.31

VI. Summary and Conclusions What can be learned about the author of Prism A and his purpose from the preceding discussion of the similarities and contrasts between Prism A and the early editions of the annals? As indicated above, Prism A closes with the dedication of the House of Succession (bīt ridûti), a fact that led to the suggestion that the question of the heir was an issue of great concern at the time of its appearance. Hayim Tadmor associated the renewal of the House of Succession with the prominence given in the introductory section of Prism A to the topic of Ashurbanipal’s elevation to the throne by divine sanction and he suggested that the complimentary nature of these two items forms the “ideological framework of the entire text.”32 Ashurbanipal, who had begun his reign in 669, was in his late fifties when the long and bitter wars with Babylon and Elam were concluded, and “the question of succession… must have worried him.”33 Erica Reiner put it a bit differently: “The rebuilding of the House of Administration that he [i.e., Ashurbanipal] was chosen to occupy in his father’s lifetime… serves him as the opportunity to insist on his own legitimate claim to the Assyrian throne.”34 This striking analysis, notwithstanding, there is no information that the king took any active steps concerning the succession at this time; the strife that broke out in Assyria seventeen years later when Ashurbanipal died might even suggest that question was unsettled and certainly contested, as it had been many times before among the Sargonids. That said, we should not forget Prism F and its view on this very subject; F had already proclaimed Ashurbanipal’s kingship as having been preordained (F i 4) and it was from Prism F that Prism A’s author took over this motif (A i 5). Moreover, both F and A commemorated the dedication of the same building, the House of Succession.35 Only two- three years separate these two prisms, and considering they have identical frameworks, it certainly seems that a solution had not been found to the succession issue, if indeed it existed.

29 Cf. the Fekherye inscription; Abou-Assaf – Bordreuil – Millard 1982, 14, lines 32-33. 30 Prism A ix 68-74. A similar self-condemnation appears in the mid-eighth century treaty between Ashur-nirari V and Mati-ilu, king of Arpad; see SAA II, no. 2, v: 14-15, and its echo reached as far as passages in the Hebrew that speak of violation of YHWH’s , most strikingly in Deut 29:20-28; cf., too, 1 Kgs 9:8-9; Jer 22:8-9. 31 Namely, (ix 7-78); Ishtar of Arbela (ix 79-80); Erra (ix 81-82); Ninurta (ix 83-85); Nusku (ix 86-89). 32 Tadmor 1983, 51; cf., similarly, Gerardi 1987, 205-206. 33 Tadmor 1983, 52. 34 Reiner 1985, 26. 35 One may conclude that there were no new or significant constructions that required commemoration between the years 645-643. This is unlike the situation in the years 649-648 when Prisms B and D were composed; they both have the same military reports, but commemorate two different constructions, B, the Review Palace (ēkal māšarti) of Nineveh (B viii 64); D, the wall of the city center (dūr qabal āli) of Nineveh (D viii 64).

80 ORIENT The Author of Ashurbanipal Prism A (Rassam): An Inquiry into his Plan and Purpose, with a note on his Persona

Accordingly, I suggest that the concerns and purpose of Prism A should be sought elsewhere. My proposal: Prism A’s author was dissatisfied with the earlier editions, or to express this positively, he intensely reworked the earlier editions in order to present a new exposition of the history of Ashurbanipal’s reign that in 643 had reached its twenty-fifth year. This suggestion emerges from the following considerations. With respect to the military reports, Prism A’s author made full use of preceding editions, but, at the same time, gave up on comprehensiveness; it is likely he felt that it was not possible to include reports on every campaign and so deleted what he considered minor engagements.36 In a number of the reports that he took over from previous editions, he made use of literary conventions to create new features; e.g., separating the submissions of the Phoenician and Anatolian kingdoms into individual segments; augmenting the number of sons of Yakinlu of Arvad by inflating their number typologically from three to ten. My estimate is that there is no new historical information behind these changes; rather they reflect the author’s individual style, developed through the poetic license made use of by the royal scribes who composed the annals. Following Mario Liverani’s lead when he spoke of the “ of variants,” these alterations were likely made to mark Prism A as the author’s own “creation.”37 At the same time, there are cases in which A’s re-editing was in response to events that had occurred since the immediately preceding edition of the annals. Take, for example, the Lydian affair. It seems that the scribes had put off reporting the falling-out with Lydia for over a decade, apparently because they were unable to tell of the punishment of the rebellious Gyges.38 Only with Lydia’s resubmission did A’s author write up a full account, adding a literary flourish at the beginning and the moral lesson learned by the repentant son of the sinner at its conclusion.39 As to the knowledge of past events displayed by Prism A’s author – if one may be allowed to speculate about personality traits solely on the basis of an ancient text – it would appear that he was eager to display his erudition. This he did in a number of instances by correcting details concerning foreign officials as had been given by earlier writers. Prism A’s author chose to include the names of twenty Egyptian kings, despite what must have been their strange-sounding foreignness. He also laid out in detail the itinerary of the Arabian campaign in the western desert. These items speak abundantly about the author’s somewhat pedantic tastes. Yet all is not praise for our author’s study of his sources, for in his treatment of the later Arab wars, he apparently erred. In his work-up of this campaign, he drew on the Letter to the god Ashur, but did not discern that the writer of that text had not distinguished between the two chieftains Uaite’ (Yauta’) son of Ḫazael and Uaite’ son of Birdāda; this error was carried over into Prism A.40 Moving on from the question of the author’s personality, I would like to draw attention to the forty-five lines (A x 6-50) that stand immediately after the ninth and last campaign report 36 It cannot be ruled out that the limitations of space set by the dimensions of the prism influenced him. 37 Liverani 1981, 230-231. 38 This apparently occurred in the mid-650s; see Cogan – Tadmor 1977, 84. 39 Delaying a report until its successful conclusion can also be observed with regard to Babylonian affairs. When Prism B was composed, the war against Babylon was in full operation, but this is only mentioned in passing in the Prism B report of the Elamite wars (B vii 7-9, 48-50); when Babylon was defeated a few years later, Prism C gave a full report of the affair. 40 See the discussion of this confusion by Ephʻal 1982, 146-147; cf., also, Weippert 1973, 48-49.

Vol. XLIX 2014 81 Part I: Literary Analysis of Assyrian Royal Inscriptions in Prism A, the Arab campaign, and before the beginning of the building section, which, in my assessment, lay bare the overall message and purpose of Prism A. These lines contain a number of short notes concerning several foreign royal personages. They relate that the Elamite king Ummanaldasi had finally been captured and brought to Nineveh where he joined two other imprisoned countrymen, Tammaritu and Pa’e, as well as the Arab king Uaite’;41 following this, there is one final report concerning the voluntary submission of Ishtarduri of Urartu to Ashurbanipal. At first glance, it seems that we are dealing with footnotes to earlier reports, last minute updates – as it were – before the close of the text. But this view can hardly be correct; for if my view of Prism A’s carefully ordered and considered presentation is correct, then these lines have another purpose. For one, it is evident that these notes had been left out of the preceding historical survey by design. This is seen by the fact that the capture of Ummanaldasi had already been reported in the Letter to the god Ashur,42 a composition that preceded Prism A by year or so and that A used extensively in composing his version of the Arab campaign. Therefore, it seems that the author of Prism A pieced these notes together in order to fashion a ceremonious conclusion to all nine military campaigns. It tells of the celebration at the House during which Ashurbanipal offered sacrifice to Mullissu, beloved wife of the god Ashur, and the four captive kings were publicly humiliated by being harnessed to the royal carriage that they dragged in procession before the king. This was the fate of all insubordinates. And in contrast to these misfortunates, the king of Urartu recognized the might of Ashurbanipal and continually sent his greetings, like a son to his father, proclaiming: lū šulmu ana šarri bēliya, “All hail to the king, my lord”; his rich gifts were signs of submission (A x 40–50). With this picture of the entire world at the king’s feet, Prism A’s author made clear that the promise of kingship with which he had opened his history had now found its grand fulfillment. Before concluding, I would like to put forward one further line of inquiry for consideration: the input of the king in the composition of the annal texts. According to his self-proclamation, Ashurbanipal was a literate person, having been schooled in the scribal arts – a claim that has come under modern scrutiny and been found to be basically reliable.43 In addition, there is evidence that the king took personal interest in the royal image that was portrayed in such matters as the wall reliefs and their accompanying epigraphs; the scribes tell us that these texts were “read out to the king,” ostensibly for his approval.44 For sure, the royal image would likely have undergone change from time to time in response to the changing political winds at court and abroad. Given that the royal annals was the major vehicle for fostering homage and loyalty to the king, their composition would have been of concern to Ashurbanipal, and if so, Prism A, likely reflects the image that Ashurbanipal himself sought to convey after a quarter-century on the throne, an image crafted so well by its creative scribe-author.45

41 An additional reference to victories over Elam and the Arabs appears in the building section, where A added to F that Elamite were used for hauling bricks during work on the bīt ridûti and Arab kings labored on its construction (A x 85-93). 42 Gottesbrief, vi 27-42’ (in Borger Asb., 82). 43 See Livingstone 2007. 44 See the collection of epigraphs on K 2674+ iv 2’ (in Borger Asb., 298); cf. my earlier remarks in Cogan 1991, 124, n. 12. 45 For the suggestion that the author was the ummânu, “‘a master’… the highest rank of a scholar of the scribal art,” see Tadmor 1997, 328.

82 ORIENT The Author of Ashurbanipal Prism A (Rassam): An Inquiry into his Plan and Purpose, with a note on his Persona

References Abbreviations follow R. D. Biggs et al. (eds.), 2010: The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, Vol. 20: U and W, Chicago, vii-xxix. Abou-Assaf, A. – P. Bordreuil – A. R. Millard 1982: La statue de Tell Fekherye, . Baruchi-Unna, A. 2009: Genres Meet: Itineraries, Prayers and Divine Messages in Assyrian Royal Inscriptions, PhD dissertation, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2009 (Hebrew). Cogan, M. 1974: Imperialism and Religion, Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series 19, Chico, Cal. Cogan, M., 1977: “Ashurbanipal Prism F: Notes on Scribal Techniques and Editorial Procedures,” JCS 29, 97–107. Cogan, M. 1983: “Ashurbanipal Prism F: Addition to Catalogue,” JCS 35, 146. Cogan, M. 1991: “A Plaidoyer in behalf of the Royal Scribes,” in M. Cogan and I. Eph‘al (eds.), Ah Assyria..., Studies in Assyrian History and Ancient Near Eastern Presented to Hayim Tadmor, Scripta Hierosolymitana 33, Jerusalem, 121-128. Cogan, M. 2005: “Some Text-Critical Issues in the from an Assyriological Perspective,” Textus 22, 1-20. Cogan, M. – Tadmor, H. 1977: “Gyges and Ashurbanipal. A Study in Literary Transmission,“ Or. 46, 65-85 (= Tadmor 2011, 379-404). Eph‘al, I. 1982: The Ancient Arabs, Jerusalem. Grayson, A. K. 1980a: “History and Historians of the Ancient : Assyria and Babylonia,” Or. 49, 140-194. Grayson, A. K. 1980b: “The Chronology of the Reign of Ashurbanipal,” ZA 70, 227-245. Gerardi, P. D. 1987: Assurbanipal’s Elamite Campaigns. A Literary and Political Study, Ann Arbor. Liverani, M. 1981: “The Critique of Variants and the Titulary of Sennacherib,ˮ in F. M. Fales (ed.), Assyrian Royal Inscriptions: New Horizons, Rome. Livingstone, A. 2007: “Ashurbanipal: literate or not?ˮ ZA 97, 98-118. Onasch, H.-U. 1994: Die Assyrischen Eroberungen Ägyptens, Ägypten und Alten Testament 27, Wiesbaden. Oppenheim, A. L. 1956: The Interpretation of Dreams in the , Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 46/3, Philadelphia, 179-373. Reiner, E., 1985: Your thwarts in pieces, Your mooring rope cut. Poetry from Babylonia and Assyria, Michigan Studies in Humanities 3, University of Michigan. Renger, J., 1980-1983: “Königsinschriften,” RLA 6, 71-73. Tadmor, H. 1983: “Autobiographical Apology in the Royal Assyrian Literature,” in H. Tadmor and M. Weinfeld (eds.), History, Historiography and Interpretation, Studies in Biblical and Literatures, Jerusalem, 36-57 (= Tadmor 2011, 63-85). Tadmor, H. 1997: “Propaganda, Literature, Historiography: Cracking the Code of the Assyrian Royal Inscriptions,” in S. Parpola and R. M. Whiting (eds.), Assyria 1995, Helsinki, 325-338 (= Tadmor 2011, 3-25). Tadmor, H. 2011: “With my many chariots I have gone up the heights of mountains”: Historical and Literary Studies on Ancient and Israel, M. Cogan (ed.), Jerusalem. Weippert, M. 1973: “Die Kämpfe des assyrischen Königs Assurbanipal gegen die Araber, Redaktionskritische Untersuchung des Berichts in Prism A,” WO 7, 39-85.

Vol. XLIX 2014 83