The Reign of Nebuchadnezzar I in History and Historical Memory

“This is the first book-length study devoted to the reign of Nebuchadnezzar I, a Babylonian king of the late 12th century BC who is best known to students of ancient Mesopotamia for his recovery of the statue of the national god Marduk from its captivity in Elam. Nielsen achieves two feats of scholarship: he presents a lucid account of Nebuchadnezzar I and his times, and then traces his legacy right down to the Seleukid era, based on careful analysis of a wide range of cuneiform sources including literary texts. His investigation of historical and collective memory within the Mesopotamian cultural tradition represents a major contribution to ancient Near Eastern historiography.” Heather Baker, University of Toronto, Canada

Nebuchadnezzar I (r. 1125–1104 BCE) was one of the more significant and successful kings to rule Babylonia in the intervening period between the demise of the Kassite Dynasty in the twelfth century at the end of the Late Bronze Age and the emergence of a new, independent Babylonian monarchy in the last quarter of the seventh century. His dynamic reign saw Nebuchadnezzar active on both domestic and foreign fronts. He tended to the needs of the traditional cult sanctuaries and their associated priesthoods in the major cities throughout Babylonia and embarked on military campaigns against both Assyria in the north and Elam to the east. Yet later Babylonian tradition celebrated him for one achievement that was little noted in his own royal inscriptions: the return of the statue of Marduk, Babylon’s patron deity, from captivity in Elam. The Reign of Nebuchadnezzar I in History and Historical Memory reconstructs the history of Nebuchadnezzar I’s rule and, drawing upon theoretical treatments of historical and collective memory, examines how stories of his reign were intentionally utilized by later generations of Babylonian scholars and priests to create a historical memory that projected their collective identity and reflected Marduk’s rise to the place of primacy within the Babylonian pantheon in the first millennium BCE. It also explores how this historical memory was employed by the urban elite in discourses of power. Nebuchadnezzar I remained a viable symbol, though with diminishing effect, until at least the third century BCE, by which time his memory had almost entirely faded. This study is a valuable resource to students of the Ancient Near East and Nebuchadnezzar, but is also a fascinating exploration of memory creation and exploitation in the ancient world.

John P. Nielsen is Assistant Professor of History at Bradley University, Peoria, IL, USA. Studies in the History of the Ancient Near East Series editor: Greg Fisher Carleton University, Canada

Studies in the History of the Ancient Near East provides a global forum for works addressing the history and culture of the Ancient Near East, spanning a broad period from the foundation of civilisation in the region until the end of the Abbasid period. The series includes research monographs, edited works, collections developed from conferences and workshops, and volumes suitable for the university classroom.

Available titles : Being a Man Negotiating Ancient Constructs of Masculinity Edited by Ilona Zsolnay

“Losing One’s Head” in the Ancient Near East Interpretation and Meaning of Decapitation Rita Dolce

The Reign of Nebuchadnezzar I in History and Historical Memory John P. Nielsen

Discovering Babylon Rannfrid Thelle

For more information about this series, please visit: https://www.routledge. com/classicalstudies/series/HISTANE The Reign of Nebuchadnezzar I in History and Historical Memory

John P. Nielsen First published 2018 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2018 John P. Nielsen The right of John P. Nielsen to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice : Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record has been requested for this book ISBN: 978-1-138-12040-2 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-315-64826-2 (ebk)

Typeset in Sabon by Apex CoVantage, LLC For Mom and Dad Dawn and John Mark – Milli and Steve

Contents

List of figures x List of map xi List of tables xii Foreword – history, memory, and the past xiii Acknowledgments xx List of abbreviations xxii

PART I Writing history and recovering memory, sources and methodologies 1

1 Toward an understanding of the Babylonian memory of Nebuchadnezzar I 3 1.1 Nebuchadnezzar I 3 1.2 Nebuchadnezzar I and historical memory 6 1.3 Babylonian historical consciousness 11 1.4 Nebuchadnezzar I and historical memory: a prospectus 14

2 Nebuchadnezzar I: prior scholarship, historical sources, and chronology 22 2.1 Prior scholarship 22 2.2 Historical sources 25 2.3 Writing of the royal name 34 2.4 Chronology 37

PART II Nebuchadnezzar I and his times 47

3 The reign of Nebuchadnezzar I 49 3.1 The origins of the Second Dynasty of Isin 49 viii Contents 3.2 The reign of Nebuchadnezzar I 51 3.3 Conclusions 68

4 Nebuchadnezzar I’s successors 78 4.1 Enlil-nādin-apli 78 4.2 Marduk-nādin-aḫḫē 79 4.3 Marduk-šāpik-zēri 82 4.4 Conclusions 83

PART III Remembering Nebuchadnezzar I in the first millennium BCE 89

5 Esarhaddon and the return of Marduk in 668 BCE 91 5.1 Introduction 91 5.2 Ashurbanipal’s library and the Nebuchadnezzar I literary tablets 92 5.3 The past repeated: the departure and return of Marduk in the seventh century 94 5.4 Nebuchadnezzar I and the discourse at Esarhaddon’s court 104 5.5 Conclusions 114

6 Remembering Nebuchadnezzar I from the zenith of Babylonian power through the Seleucid era 126 6.1 Introduction 126 6.2 Nebuchadnezzar I in the Neo-Babylonian Empire 127 6.3 Nebuchadnezzar I in Achaemenid Babylonia 129 6.4 Nebuchadnezzar I in Hellenistic Babylonia 134 6.5 Conclusions 137

PART IV The making of memory and the making of meaning 147

7 Nebuchadnezzar I in the collective memory 149 7.1 The early first millennium BCE: crisis and continuity 149 7.2 The making of memory 151 7.3 Nebuchadnezzar I in collective memory 153 7.4 Conclusions 158 Contents ix 8 The elevation of Marduk: Nebuchadnezzar I as cultural formation 163 8.1 The creation of meaning 163 8.2 Syncretic thought 177 8.3 Conclusions 180

9 Intentional history in the early first millennium BCE 189 9.1 Introduction 189 9.2 Scholarly culture during the Second Dynasty of Isin 191 9.3 Babylonia from the tenth through the eighth centuries BCE 193 9.4 Intentional history 199 9.5 Conclusions 204

Index 213 Figures

3.1 The Šitti-Marduk kudurru 54 3.2 The Eriya stone tablet 63 4.1 Family tree of Ninurta-nādin-šumi’s descendants 79 7.1 The Sun-god Tablet of Nabû-apla-iddina 150 Map

0.1 The Ancient Near East during the reign Nebuchadnezzar I xxiv Tables

2.1 Writings of “Nebuchadnezzar I” 35 3.1 Kings of Babylon in the late second millennium BCE 50 Foreword – history, memory, and the past

As a history professor, it is inevitable that one will encounter certain popular quotations pertaining to the field. These usually appear taped to an office door on yellowed, typewritten paper or as a seemingly fresh and profound insight in the introduction to a student’s paper and have attained the status of maxims or even platitudes about the relevance of the field. Two such quotations come to mind:

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. George Santayana

The second quotation I have seen is from a play by William Faulkner. Though the quotation is not cited here,1 the reader may be familiar with it. The two short sentences succinctly express the enduring presence of the past in our present and question if the past really exists at a different temporal point from our own. In our present digital age we might even call these aphorisms memes. It is notable, however, that neither one of these quotations comes from a historian nor do they even include the word history . Rather, they reflect the com- monly held understanding of the word past as a synonym for history, that is, the sum of all time that has preceded the present. When a TV broadcaster commenting on some live event informs the audience that they are watching history in the making, nothing could be further from the truth (the process of making history is far less glamorous). What viewers are watching is the present, a present that will in an instant become the past. The popular usages of the word past as it appeared earlier, the ones conflated with the word history , only value select pasts because they are relevant to the present. These pasts might be forgotten and as a result repeated, or, more troubling, they may never actually go away. Implicit in these quotations is the existence of a useable past within the context of the present that does not encompass the entirety of chronological time that came before. The creation of this useable past, as will be seen in the chapters to come, is complex. It is a selective and negotiated process both in terms of which pasts are privileged and therefore remembered and preserved, and how those pasts are given meaning through xiv Foreword – history, memory, and the past interpretation. Importantly, the past itself cannot be made up. It has or, more accurately, had an objective reality when it was present. Multiple and potentially competing voices play a role in shaping such useable pasts, drawing upon both memory and the physical remains of the past such as artifacts and written materials, but they consistently serve the needs of the present and are maintained in such a way that they seem to reflect broad social consensus and therefore appear to be established as fact. As a result, those who reference these pasts often do so with the conviction that the past is absolute and unchanging, mistakenly equating the meanings that they have given to the past with the events to which these meanings have become attached. I am reminded of this popular use of the past whenever I drive north- bound on the Dan Ryan Expressway in Chicago. Off to the right, framed against the city’s impressive skyline, there is a large mural painted on one of the many warehouses that still stand near the canal. With American flags framing the far ends, the dates Dec. 7, 1941 and Sep. 11, 2001 flank a patriotic declaration, “America will not Forget!” The dates have and require no explanation. It is expected that viewers will know the significance of Pearl Harbor and 9–11 – twice America was attacked and twice Americans banded together to defeat a great evil – and those who do not know can be informed by those who do. That the majority of motorists passing the mural were not alive during World War II and therefore have no personal memory of Pearl Harbor is irrelevant. It has been maintained in the popular historical memory as an event that should not be forgotten, and so could be meaningfully and intentionally linked to the events of 9–11 to justify the war in Afghanistan, the second war in Iraq, and the more nebulous War on Terror. Importantly, this popular memory does not encompass the entirety of America’s past. Feb. 15, 1898 could just as easily have found a place on the mural, but in spite of calls at the time to “Remember the Maine!” the Spanish-American War and the events that preceded it have largely faded from the American historical memory. It is not even remembered as “the forgotten war.” The Korean War claims that distinction. Clearly, then, there are pasts that matter – the ones that would not even be past in Faulkner’s thinking – and pasts that do not matter – those that we can conveniently forget without any fear of repeating them in spite of Santayana’s warning. Furthermore, the pasts that matter are considered invi- olable because they happened. Barring the invention of the time machine, the past cannot be changed, and therefore we assume its meaning cannot be changed. To offer another personal anecdote as an illustration, I once sat next to a gentleman on a flight, who, upon learning that I was a historian, proceeded to tell me how he was a bit of a history buff himself and that he was descended from one of the signatories of South Carolina’s 1860 “Ordi- nance of Secession.” The Civil War, he assured me, was fought over states’ rights and not over slavery; he liked history, but he did not care much for revisionist historians who offered interpretations of the past that conflicted with the “correct” history he had learned. For him the unchangeable past Foreword – history, memory, and the past xv and the interpretation of its significance – the work of the historian – were one and the same. Throughout time, perspectives close to the one expressed by my flight companion have probably typified the way many societies have regarded their pasts. We are the ones who live in an era that is unique. Modern academic institutions support a population of professional historians who enjoy the luxury of pursuing lines of inquiry into the past that are not determined by popular interests or assumptions but instead by the questions of like- minded specialists. This is especially true for an Assyriologist, a scholar of the Ancient Near Eastern languages written with cuneiform script, in a society in which describing something as “ancient history” relegates it to complete irrelevance. Furthermore, ever since Leopold von Ranke’s 1824 exhortation to historians to describe the past “ wie es eigentlich gewesen” (“as it actually was”), historians have given considerable thought not just to history but also to historiography, that is, the methodologies for recovering the past for the purpose of writing history. Because the past is a place that no historian can actually visit, the approaches for critically evaluating and understanding evidence about the past are crucial to the historian. These methods have changed considerably. They have simultaneously shaped and have been shaped by developments in other disciplines in the humanities and social sciences over the course of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and continue to do so at the outset of the twenty-first. Just as the subjects that academic historians take up can be unfamiliar to a popular audience, so too the precision of language required for historiographical discussions has resulted in the creation of specialized jargon that has rendered much writing of academic history inaccessible to that same audience. Neither of these developments are necessarily bad things. From a humanistic standpoint, there is an inherent value in exploring unfamiliar histories in order to expand the breadth of human experience, and the recognition that human societies select the pasts that they remember and assign meanings to those pasts gives us greater agency in the writing of history. All pasts are ours, and no past is imposed upon us. At the same time, historical inquiry should also contribute to furthering intellectual projects and answer- ing broader questions. However, achieving these goals with our subject, the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar I, brings challenges of accessibility. How do we simultaneously address the specific concerns and interests of an informed, specialist audience of Assyriologists and the broader questions of scholars from other disciplines who share similar theoretical approaches and interests in historical memory, while also making the contents comprehensi- ble to an educated, generalist audience? Out of necessity, we will provide far more background information – not only on the reign of Nebuchadnezzar I, but also on historical events and cultural developments that contextualize his reign and his legacy – than would be required by an Assyriologist reading this work, though what follows will not be a straightforward narrative history. Furthermore, we intend to address those scholars interested in the role xvi Foreword – history, memory, and the past of historical memory within society and will be especially mindful of ancient historians who work on non-Mesopotamian topics, particularly those who work on the history of Classical antiquity. Such an undertaking brings with it both the challenges and advantages of writing on ancient history. It has been my experience that for many people, the task of understanding antiquity is conditioned by their van- tage point in time as it is shaped by our rapidly changing modern world. From such a removed perspective it is easy to regard antiquity as static, and there is a tendency to compress all of the ancient past into a singular past without an appreciation of the extensive period of time that we today classify as the ancient past. The passing of the years, however, was just as real then as it is for us today, and those who lived in antiquity had a past that they sought to make sense of in their own present. With this in mind, it is important to appreciate that a scribe at the city of Uruk who wrote the last tablet that we know of mentioning Nebuchadnezzar I during the Seleucid period (c. 244 BCE) was about as far removed in time from the king’s reign (1125–1104 BCE) as we are from William the Conqueror’s victory at Hastings in 1066. What makes Nebuchadnezzar I such an interesting subject is not just the events of his reign – these were significant, but stand out in part due to his successes during an era when Babylonia underwent prolonged periods of instability and weakness – but also the way they were regarded and remembered by both Babylonians and Assyrians over the millennium that would follow. As will be seen, Nebuchadnezzar’s legacy took on a variety of meanings, and these could be intentionally adapted as instruments for those who wished to further their own political and religious ambitions throughout Babylonia. The processes by which the memory of Nebuchadnezzar I was maintained and revived were probably varied, and exploring them affords us a chance to examine the rich intellectual culture of Babylonian and Assyrian scholars and their interactions with the monarchy. It also presents us with an opportunity to speculate on what knowledge and ideas about the past were preserved in the popular memory among the general population. What pasts were not even past for the people of Babylonia and what were the means – the ancient equivalents of large, publicly displayed murals along the Dan Ryan – of keeping those pasts in the present? How did popular memory of the past inform perceptions of events? How could these perceptions be used and shaped by the actions of both the ruling and scholarly classes, but also how did popular memory limit such manipulations? We opened with some contemporary examples of the past as it has been memorialized or preserved in our present. The South that Faulkner wrote about in the early twentieth century was less than a century removed from the American Civil War, and for some that past continues to be neither dead nor past. Similarly, the events of 9–11 and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that followed remain part of our national discourse, but it is yet to be seen if they will be remembered a century in the future. Nebuchadnezzar I, it is Foreword – history, memory, and the past xvii fair to say, has no such hold on us today. As chance would have it, his name is one of only a handful of Mesopotamian royal names that are not entirely unknown within contemporary society, but this familiarity with his name is to be attributed to the Biblical Nebuchadnezzar II (and even that name was not included with Sargon, Hammurabi, Ashurbanipal, and Gilgamesh in the refrain of a They Might Be Giants song that I occasionally hear my daughter singing to herself or playing on YouTube). For all intents and purposes Nebuchadnezzar I can be lumped into that sizeable subcategory of ancient history that modern society has classified as “irrelevant.” But this reality brings with it some advantages. For one thing, Nebuchadnezzar I is not fraught with ideological significance in ways that the Civil War, World War II, 9–11, or even some aspects of antiquity such as the Davidic kingdom in ancient Israel are today. As a result, we can explore the processes by which memory about the past was constructed without having to navigate mine- fields created by potentially sensitive topics. From a humanistic standpoint, we can also marvel at the sophistication with which humans who lived more than 2,000 years before our own time created and manipulated a sense of their past for their own interests and, as a result, see something of the nature of human society throughout history.

Overview of the book This foreword was written with the reader who has little or no theoretical background and for whom Nebuchadnezzar I is an unknown in mind. The goal has been to introduce some of the essential concepts while at the same time avoiding the requisite jargon and names of scholars who have written on salient aspects of memory studies and historiography. In the next two chapters that make up Part I of our study, we will delve into the jargon, presenting a working definition of historical memory that draws heavily on earlier theoretical models from sociology and historiography done on cultural memory, collective memory, history of mentalities, and intentional history. We will also introduce the figure of Nebuchadnezzar I, survey the primary and secondary sources related to him, and present an overview of the previous studies of his reign. In Part II we will concern ourselves with Nebuchadnezzar I and his times. This will be the portion of our study that could be best described as a traditional political history. We will begin with a brief history of Nebuchadnezzar I’s actual reign in Chapter 3, one that is reconstructed using the surviving primary sources. Chapter 4 will then present a similar overview of the reigns of the next three kings who followed him on the throne as members of his dynasty, known as the Second Dynasty of Isin, or Isin II Dynasty for short. Dynasty, in the Babylonian tradition, was defined more by locale and less by familial ties, but these three kings were his son, brother, and nephew in order. Furthermore, we will attempt to understand the general trends and range of events that characterized Nebuchadnezzar I’s reign. xviii Foreword – history, memory, and the past Part III will examine how Nebuchadnezzar I was remembered in the first millennium BCE. In Chapter 5 we break from the chronological order, jump- ing forward in time nearly five centuries to the seventh century BCE when Babylonia was under the control of the Assyrian Empire. Cuneiform tablets from this century provide us with the earliest examples of literary compositions about Nebuchadnezzar I. It is unlikely that their presence in this century was simply a matter of chance and preservation; their contents likely spoke to contemporary concerns. Nevertheless, they do not appear to have been composed during the seventh century, but instead reflect an established tradition, suggesting an earlier date of composition. Chapter 6 continues this line of inquiry by examining the relevance of literary-historical traditions surrounding Nebuchadnezzar I during the last half of the first millennium BCE, from the sixth century down to the last written attestation of Nebuchadnezzar I’s name on a cuneiform tablet from the third century BCE. The chapter begins with the memory of Nebuchadnezzar I during the Neo-Babylonian Empire when Babylonian power reached its zenith before turning to Babylonia under Persian rule. The Persian conquest of Babylon altered the political fortunes of Babylon, and it is possible that the memory of Nebuchadnezzar I appealed to a segment of the population that favored Babylonian independence. Such desires were never realized, and Babylon underwent a slow decline. The chapter concludes with an examination of the last vestiges of Nebuchadnezzar I’s legacy as they were remembered at the city of Uruk at the end of the first millennium BCE, a time when knowledge of Akkadian, the ancient language of Babylonia, and the even older cuneiform script with which it had been written, was gradually disappearing. Finally, in Part IV we return to the centuries between the end of Nebu- chadnezzar I’s reign at the end of the twelfth century BCE and the earliest available tablets preserving the literary-historical tradition about the king from the seventh century BCE. These compositions focus on the god Mar- duk, the patron deity of Babylon, and his relationship to the king, and our focus will be on the process by which a historical memory was created that accentuated Marduk and the piety of Nebuchadnezzar I. Chapter 7 begins by asking how the memory of Nebuchadnezzar I was first preserved in the collective memory in the eleventh century BCE, that is, the living memory of those who had been alive to witness Nebuchadnezzar I’s reign or could remember the testimony of those who had. As generations passed away, so too the informal living memory of Nebuchadnezzar I faded from the populace. Formal traditions, however, emerged and were preserved by enduring institutions, most importantly within the priesthood of Marduk. These formal memories are called cultural formations, and Chapter 8 will consider how and why they formed in the way they did and took on specific meanings around the figures of Nebuchadnezzar and Marduk. Finally in Chapter 9 we will examine how those cultural formations remained vital and relevant between the tenth and eighth centuries BCE. These centuries witnessed one of Babylon’s nadirs in terms of power, and in the face of new populations, Foreword – history, memory, and the past xix foreign rule, and even military conflicts with neighboring cities that historically had been under Babylon’s rule, Nebuchadnezzar I, as a cultural formation, was a useful figure for communicating an intentional history that argued for Babylon’s eternal primacy.

Note 1 The quote is regrettably not yet in the public domain. Acknowledgments

This book had its beginnings in the first quarter of my first year as a graduate student in Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations at the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Needing a third class to round out my schedule of Introduction to Akkadian and History of the Ancient Near East, J. A. Brinkman suggested I do an independent writing class with him. At that time he was finishing his entry on Nebuchadnezzar I for the Real- lexicon der Assyriologie, and so that king became a convenient subject for the class. Not only did my academic writing improve considerably under his tutelage, I also gained an appreciation for Nebuchadnezzar I’s place in Babylonian history. That appreciation developed over the course of my graduate studies and into my professional career. Nebuchadnezzar I became the topic of several conference papers, presentations, and book chapters over the years. I am grateful to Martin Bommas, Juliette Harrison, and Phoebe Roy for inviting me to participate in a conference on memory and urban religion in antiquity at Birmingham; to Laurie Pearce for bringing me to Berkeley to speak; to Caroline Waerzeggers and Jason Silverman for including me in their conference on memory in the Persian Empire at Leiden; and to Gojko Barjamovic and Eckart Frahm for combing their resources so I could speak at both Yale and Harvard and present what would become the basis for my book proposal. Additionally, I should express my gratitude to Gershon Galil for including my paper in the proceedings from the conference hosted at Haifa on the culture and history of the Near East in the twelfth to tenth centuries BCE. All of these presentations, discussions, and peer-review processes shaped my thinking and honed my arguments, and the fruits of these many processes can be found herein. Writing a book requires the time and resources afforded by an academic position. I couldn’t have done any of this if my amazing colleagues in Brad- ley University’s history department hadn’t given me the opportunity to join them. I also must express my thanks to those who had a direct hand in this book. Greg Fisher accepted this monograph for the series and Elizabeth Risch has shepherded it to publication. Tom Urban and the staff at the Ori- ental Institute Publications office provided me with assistance as I prepared Acknowledgments xxi images for the book. Alan Lenzi, Jonathan Tenney, Seth Richardson, and Jennifer Finn have all read at least portions of draft manuscripts and have offered helpful comments and critiques as well as their encouragement. My father, John Mark, and wife, Rachel, also read the manuscript, and their feedback helped me make it more accessible to an educated, non-specialist audience. Their efforts should not necessarily be understood as endorse- ments of all of my ideas, and any mistakes found herein are entirely my responsibility. Finally, I wish to dedicate this work to Mom and Dad, both my parents and my mother- and father-in-law. My parents raised me in a small town in Nebraska, but one that was home to Dana College, a small, liberal-arts college that unfortunately closed its doors in 2010. The presence of the college certainly broadened my horizons. My father and grandfather were both on the faculty at Dana, and many of my friends also had parents associated with the college. Attending lectures, plays, readings, and concerts on campus was part of my upbringing. In fact, I can trace my love of antiquity to seeing the Porta Nigra in Trier as a three year old when traveling with my parents, who had received a grant to study children’s theater in Denmark. For all of this I am grateful. Since I grew up in this environment, my parents couldn’t look askance at my decision to pursue Assyriology and insist that I get a degree in business administration. Thank you! And my wife’s parents were equally supportive. This book is about memory, and it is sad but fitting that, being unable to dedicate it to them in person, I have to dedicate it to their memory. They were wonderfully welcoming in- laws whose home offered a much needed retreat on many occasions, great travel companions for me and my wife on several journeys, and fantastic grandparents. I can easily imagine how each of them would have responded to seeing their names on the dedication page, and the thought makes me smile.

John P. Nielsen Peoria, IL, USA 2017 Abbreviations

ABC A. K. Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles . TCS 5. Locust Valley, New York: J.J. Augustin, 1975. ADOG Abhandlungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft AfO Archiv für Orientforschung AnOr Analecta Orientalia AOAT Alter Orient und Altes Testament AoF Altorientalische Forschungen ARRIM Annual Review of the Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia Project AS Assyriological Studies Bagh. Mitt. Baghdader Mitteilungen BBSt L. W. King, Babylonian Boundary Stones and Memorial Tablets in the British Museum BiOr Bibliotheca Orientalis BSOAS Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies CDOG Colloquien der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft CH Code of Hammurabi GMTR Guides to the Mesopotamian Textual Record Hinke Kudurru W. J. Hinke, Selected Babylonian Kudurru Inscriptions , No. 5 p. 21–27 JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society JCS Journal of Cuneiform Studies JEOL Jaarbericht van het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Genootschap “Ex Oriente Lux” JESHO Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies MHE Mesopotamian History and Environment MSKH Materials and Studies for Kassite History MVAG Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatisch-Aegyptischen Gesellschaft NABU Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires OLA Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta Abbreviations xxiii Or. Orientalia PIHANS Publications de l’Institut historique-archéologique néerlnadais de Stamboul RA Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale RIMA Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia Assyrian Periods RIMB Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia Babylonian Periods RIME Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia Early Periods RINAP The Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period RlA Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie SAA State Archives of Assyria SAACT State Archives of Assyria Cuneiform Texts SAAS State Archives of Assyria Studies SAOC Studies in Ancient Oriental Society TCS Texts from Cuneiform Sources UET Ur Excavations Texts UF Ugarit-Forschungen UVB Vorläufiger Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Uruk-Warka WO Die Welt des Orients WVDOG Wissenschaftlische Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft ZA Zeitschrift für Assyriologie DŪR-ŠARRUKĒN

NINEVEH ARBA’IL NIMRUD ASSYRIA

Khabur River Khabur ĪDU AŠŠUR Lower Zab River NUZI

Tigris River

e v

Irrēya i R

Diyala River

m Euphrates River i a h d A

Zagros

SIPPAR Ulāya River Mountains CUTHA DĒR ELAM BABYLON KISH BORSIPPA SUSA DILBAT NIPPUR

BABYLONIA ISIN

Karkeh River URUK LARSA

Detail Map of Mesopotamia UR

0 125 Miles 0 200 Kilometers Sealand Conic Projection

Map 0.1 The Ancient Near East during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar I Part I Writing history and recovering memory, sources and methodologies

1 Toward an understanding of the Babylonian memory of Nebuchadnezzar I

1.1 Nebuchadnezzar I In an unknown year in the final quarter of the twelfth century BCE, the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar I was faced with a dilemma. He had marched his army from Babylon to Sippar and then east to the confluence of the Diyala and Tigris Rivers where he had then proceeded upriver along the course of the Diyala until turning southeast to follow the contours of the Zagros Mountains to the city of Dēr in eastern Babylonia (see Map).1 Along the way his army’s numbers had swelled with reinforcements as the chieftains of the various Kassite tribes loyal to him that inhabited the region flocked to his banner. Now in the sweltering heat of the summer month of Du’ūzu, he was contemplating the final phase of his campaign. His objective was the kingdom of Elam with its capital at Susa, but this was not the first time he had attempted such an assault. A previous campaign led by Nebuchadnezzar I had been cut short when disease had ravaged his army. Weakened and facing an advancing Elamite force on that earlier occasion, Nebuchadnezzar I had been compelled to withdraw from his position on the Uqnû River to the safety of the city of Kār-Dūr-Apil-Sîn. 2 Having been turned back once before, he must have been determined not to fail again. Victory for Nebuchadnezzar promised an end to a war with Elam that he had inherited from previous kings. A generation earlier, the Elamite king, Kudur-naḫḫunte, having asserted claims to the Babylonian throne based on descent in his maternal line from a Kassite king of Babylonia, 3 had ravaged the cities of northern Babylonia, sacking Nippur, Borsippa, and Babylon and in the process bringing to an end the Kassite Dynasty that had ruled over Babylonia for nearly four centuries. The dynasty’s last king, Enlil- nādin-aḫi, had been taken prisoner by Kudur-naḫḫunte, but this act paled in comparison to the greater indignity inflicted upon Babylon: the theft of the cult statue of the god Marduk, Babylon’s patron deity, and its removal by Kudur-naḫḫunte to Elam.4 More than the capture of their king, the loss of the Marduk statue would have dealt a severe blow to the Babylonian psyche. To the Babylonian mind, the statue’s absence meant that Marduk himself had departed Babylon and therefore his divine protection had gone from the 4 Writing history and recovering memory land. Furthermore, the loss of the statue was made all the more conspicuous in the eyes of the Babylonians because it prevented the proper observation of Marduk’s cultic rites, most critically the public celebration of the ak ītu festival at Babylon. This occasion marked the beginning of the Babylonian New Year in the month of Nisannu in the spring and featured the parading of Marduk’s statue through the streets of Babylon on the eighth day to the ak ītu house located outside the city walls and then back once again on the eleventh day to his newly cleansed and purified temple, the Esagil.5 The king played a crucial and visible role in these ceremonies. The critical events of the akītu festival occurred when the king grasped the hand of Marduk and led him in procession back to the Esagil. Then, within the sanctuary of the Esagil, he made pronouncements and swore oaths before Marduk and the priest of Marduk that confirmed and renewed his kingship for the year to come. 6 The proper observation of the ak ītu festival was so critical to the ideology of Babylonian kingship that a new king’s first regnal year was not recorded as having begun with his accession to the throne, but rather with his first participation in the ak ītu festival. As devastating as the loss of Marduk to Elam was, the Babylonians had been powerless to avenge it. In the wake of Kudur-naḫḫunte’s campaign, Babylonia did not come under Elamite rule, but a power vacuum was created in which a new dynasty emerged at the city of Isin in southern Babylo- nia well beyond the reach of Elamite raids. 7 The early kings of this Second Dynasty of Isin that succeeded the Kassite Dynasty had been able to assert gradual control over Babylonia, but it was only with Nebuchadnezzar I’s accession to the throne in 1125 as the fourth king of the dynasty that Baby- lonian power was sufficiently restored to avenge the earlier defeats at the hands of the Elamites. Having arrived at Dēr, Nebuchadnezzar’s march into Elamite territory promised considerable challenges. The Elamites posed a clear threat, but the greater danger to Nebuchadnezzar was the harsh conditions his army would encounter as they advanced southeast toward Susa. Summer temperatures in the region today can climb above 50º Celsius (120º Fahrenheit), and the Elamites were in control of the water sources along the route. 8 A strike into Elam at this time would have appeared foolhardy and therefore would have been unexpected; the one advantage Nebuchadnezzar had was surprise. Launching his raid into enemy territory, Nebuchadnezzar was able to reach the Ulāya River before the Elamites could muster a response. There the Elamite king, Ḫulteludiš-Inšušinak, drew up an army in order to halt his advance.9 The harsh conditions of the march must have left Nebuchadnez- zar’s men thirsty and exhausted as the Elamites offered battle, and it may be that Ḫulteludiš-Inšušinak was able to press his advantage at the outset. In the heat and dust of the fight, however, one man distinguished himself: Šitti-Marduk, the chief of the Kassite tribe of Bīt-Karziabku. From his position on the right flank of Nebuchadnezzar’s army, Šitti-Marduk made a decisive chariot charge into the Elamite ranks. With the tide of battle turned, The Babylonian memory of Nebuchadnezzar I 5 Nebuchadnezzar I vanquished Ḫulteludiš-Inšušinak, who was never to be heard from again.10 Nebuchadnezzar I then followed up the victory by marching on Susa where he beheld the statue of Marduk,11 the god to whom he had been devoted and whose absence had caused him so much personal vexation. 12 Taking Marduk by the hand, he set about making plans for his march back to Babylon. In advance of his return, Nebuchadnezzar sent word to the people of Babylon informing them of his victory over the Elamites and instructing them to make preparations for Marduk’s re-entry into the Esagil. 13 A wave of euphoria must have met Nebuchadnezzar’s triumphant march into Babylon, and Marduk’s reinstallation upon his dais within the Esagil signified a restoration of the proper divine order. With the war won, the joy of the occasion lingered and inspired hymns and literary compositions that celebrated the piety of Nebuchadnezzar I and, more importantly, the supremacy of Marduk. The notion that Marduk was the king of the gods was not without antecedents, but in the aftermath of Nebuchadnezzar’s victory this theological position received official sanc- tion, and Marduk was elevated to the head of the Babylonian pantheon, replacing the god Enlil, whose home was the venerable city of Nippur and who had held that status for over a millennium. Nebuchadnezzar I’s place within the political history of Babylonia is notable, but the ideological trans- formations that occurred made the reign of Nebuchadnezzar I a significant turning point both for Marduk and for the history of Babylonian religion.14 That is what happened. Or at least that is how a historian might recon- struct the events of Nebuchadnezzar I’s reign and assign to them significance based on the admittedly sparse but varied historical records that survive. Such a reconstruction draws not only on the contents of those sources but also makes significant inferences and assumptions based on their contents, blurring the line between primary and secondary sources for Nebuchadne- zzar I’s reign, and highlighting both the historiographical challenges that confront those attempting to write histories of the ancient Middle East and the contemporary biases that shape their efforts. The narrative that emerges from such a maximalist approach to the evidence is certainly appealing, evoking as it does within its emplotment a Nebuchadnezzar I who was both a brilliant military tactician determined to punish the Elamites for their past offenses and a pious monarch who longed for Marduk’s return to Babylon. This character is certainly present in the cuneiform sources, but one docu- ment from Nebuchadnezzar’s own reign notwithstanding,15 the compositions that depicted the monarch in this light are found only on tablets of a much later date. The earliest of these are found on tablets from Assyria and Babylonia that date to the seventh century BCE, nearly five centuries after Nebuchadnezzar I’s reign, and the latest reference to the king comes from the southern Babylonian city of Uruk from a tablet that dates to the time when the Macedonian-Greek Seleucid Dynasty, successors to Alexander the Great’s conquest of Asia, ruled Babylonia.16 Incredibly, some memory of Nebuchadnezzar I’s legacy endured for almost 1,000 years after his reign 6 Writing history and recovering memory had ended. Of further interest is the reality that the event that was most celebrated in many of the later texts, Marduk’s return to Babylon and Marduk’s agency in bringing about that event, received a single mention – and then only in passing – in contemporary compositions from Nebuchadnezzar I’s own reign.17 Such a discrepancy between the contents of the contemporary sources and the literary texts found on later tablets could be overcome with the simple explanation that the later tablets contained copies of much older compositions that date to Nebuchadnezzar I’s reign. This explanation, however, assumes a slavish copying and recopying of tablets by scribes whose adherence to tradition left them devoid of any inspiration. Such a perspective smacks of the worst form of Orientalism – Babylonian culture, though conservative, was not static – and denies Babylonian intellectual culture its own agency and an ability to interact with its past as it was preserved in traditions of historical memory in order to craft new and innovative responses to its circumstances in its present.

1.2 Nebuchadnezzar I and historical memory While there is enough evidence from the primary and secondary source material to write a short, chapter-length treatment of Nebuchadnezzar I’s twenty-two years on the throne, such an undertaking would only replicate previous scholarship, even with the availability of new evidence. Rather, our interest is drawn not just to that king’s reign, but also to the many ways his legacy was interpreted, utilized, and perpetuated within the contexts of the common perspectives and shared past that defined cuneiform culture as it existed in southern Mesopotamia and in the Babylonian historical memory as it endured over the course of the first millennium BCE. Broadly conceived, cuneiform culture had its antecedents in prehistory in the Ubaid civilization that emerged in the sixth millennium and continued until its last vestiges died out under the Parthians in the first century CE.18 Nebuchadnezzar I can be situated within this 5,000-year timespan at the end of the second millennium CE when Babylonia was undergoing one of the low points in its history. He was a significant figure who ruled early in the transitional period between the collapse of the Kassite Dynasty and the rise of Assyria during the ninth and eighth centuries. The Kassite Dynasty ruled Babylonia for approximately four centuries, longer than any other Babylonian dynasty, and oversaw its emergence as one of a handful of Late Bronze Age kingdoms – the others being the Egyptian New Kingdom, the Hittites in Anatolia, and consecutively the Mitanni kingdom and the Middle Assyrian kingdom in northern Mesopotamia – that contended for power in the Ancient Near East.19 By contrast, the Neo-Assyrian Empire of the first millennium BCE was the first in a succession of Iron Age empires that would dominate the entire Near East. Such an undertaking can be enriched by examining how the millennia- old legacy of cuneiform culture that preceded Nebuchadnezzar’s accession The Babylonian memory of Nebuchadnezzar I 7 shaped the hermeneutic framework from which meanings were attached to the events of his reign both at the time and in the centuries that followed. These meanings drew on much older tropes and contributed to the creation of a historical memory of Nebuchadnezzar I’s reign that became part of the stream of cuneiform culture in the first millennium BCE and in turn could be drawn upon discursively to impart meaning to events that occurred during that millennium. The historical memory of Nebuchadnezzar I was perpetuated through the cultural desire to preserve – or the belief that such preservation had occurred – not just texts, but also monumental space. Textual traditions became canonized within scholarly traditions. Space too was subject to a desire for permanence. Mesopotamian monarchs strove to adhere to the examples of the past and to maintain the traditional layouts of temples and processional ways. These impulses had the potential to foster the non- textual memory of Nebuchadnezzar I as the ideas present in the canonical tradition found expression through oral tradition, architecture, and public spectacle. This desire favored continuity over change, but also left room for innovation, so long as it was presented as being consistent with or a renewal of past practices. Historical memory, as it is conceptualized here, is being introduced as a critical term that can encompass the broad range of approaches that utilize memory, identity, and historiography to understand how societies have con- strued and utilized their pasts. Beginning with the sociologist Maurice Hal- bwachs’s concept of “collective memory,” consideration has been given to the processes by which a group preserves and transmits knowledge essential to its identity to the next generation in order to perpetuate itself over time.20 Halbwachs had been a protégé of Émile Durkheim, but unlike his mentor, Halbwachs was more open to interdisciplinary exchange and cooperation. His appointment after World War I to the faculty of the University of Stras- bourg brought him into contact with the young historians Lucien Febvre and Marc Bloch, who were at that time beginning to formulate their vision of social and intellectual history that would be at the foundation of the Annales school of historiography.21 Halbwachs’s service on the editorial board of the journal founded by Febvre and Bloch, Annales d’histoire économique et sociale , to which he also contributed, brought a sociological dimension to the journal’s mission.22 His ideas about the role of collective memory within society were an antecedent to and component of later Annalistes ’ concern with what became known as the history of mentalities ( mentalités ),23 that is, the shared mindset or worldview present within a society, which is itself considered here to be significant to historical memory. Jan and Aleida Assmann further developed Halbwachs’s ideas in important ways by distinguishing between “communicative” and “cultural” forms of collective memory. The former embodies the informal, oral transmission of memory across generations and has a horizon of recall of past events that is limited by human mortality. Communicative memory rarely extends further than eighty years back in time and at most a century, the expected 8 Writing history and recovering memory duration of three or four overlapping generations. Because of its informal nature, communicative memory within society is never fixed in time, but moves forward as one generation passes and a new one comes of age.24 By contrast, a society’s cultural memory fixes events in time and attributes to them special significance. Unlike communicative memory, which is informal, cultural memory is preserved and disseminated institutionally through formal acts and objects such as texts, rites, and monuments, things that the Assmanns called “cultural formations,” as well as through specialists who are accorded authority as bearers of memory within the society.25 This concept of cultural memory allowed the Assmanns to depart from Halbwachs’s dichotomous beliefs about the function of collective memory in pre-modern society and the effects of modernity, specifically that the shift from collective memory in modernity to objectivized culture – the range of physical objects and practices that the Assmanns defined as cultural formations – marks the transformation of mémoire into histoire .26 This critique can like- wise be extended to Pierre Nora’s otherwise very useful concept of lieux de mémoire or “sites of memory,” which Nora considers to be exclusively modern phenomena.27 Nora’s notion that pre-modern societies possessed only a common knowledge of national memory simplified and romanti- cized the ways in which ancient societies could conceive of their past and failed to acknowledge that there existed in antiquity sophisticated social groups that intentionally acted to shape how the past was remembered for their own purposes. Consequently, the Assmanns’ understanding of cultural memory allows for the incorporation of Halbwachs’s and Nora’s ideas into our concept of historical memory in antiquity, most notably the importance of cultural memory to the development and concretion of a society’s collective identity as well as its conceptions of the “other” or alterity. An additional critique of Halbwachs that has been raised by Barbara A. Misztal is that his understanding of cultural memory lacks explanatory power and is overly deterministic. Misztal has pointed out that for Halb- wachs, independent individual memory was an illusion. The individual is capable of remembering, but the way he or she remembers is conditioned by and can only exist within the conceptual structures that underlie his or her society’s collective memory. Such an attitude toward the individual assumes that collective identity is stable and precedes memory, thereby subordinat- ing all living memories held by individuals and smaller groups to the vision imposed by the dominant social entity. The outcome of this understanding is that collective memory and therefore social identity are perceived as frozen and incapable of historical change.28 This privileging of the dominant power in the creation of collective memory is essential to Hobsbawm’s assertion that the ruling class invents traditions – itself an important consideration for our discussions – that are claimed to be rooted in the distant past in order to legitimize the exercise of power. Misztal does not dismiss Halbwachs or Hobsbawm, but prefers to bring greater nuance to their ideas by drawing upon intellectual traditions that originated with Foucault and that view The Babylonian memory of Nebuchadnezzar I 9 collective memory as a discursive process in which there is a dialectical tension between dominant ideologies and popular memories originating from below.29 Within this tension exist the dynamics by which collective memory is formed and reformed, the potential for historical change, and an elimina- tion of the potentially deterministic aspects of collective memory. While the Assmanns’ work facilitates the application of Halbwachs to our understanding of Babylonian cultural memory in the first millennium BCE, Misztal’s elaborations on Halbwachs lend greater sophistication. The concretions of identity described by the Assmanns would have been a complex process in Babylonia in the first millennium BCE given that the society at that time was far from homogenous. The title “King of Babylon” was held by Babylonians, Chaldeans, Assyrians, Persians, or Macedonian Greeks throughout the centuries, and the cities and countryside were populated with a mixture of Babylonians, Arameans, Chaldeans, as well as many other distinct ethnic groups. 30 However, if there was one segment of the population that tended toward homogeneity, it was the endogamous network of families that made up the urban gentry throughout Babylonia.31 Members of these families composed the upper strata of the temples and city governance and were initiated into the more rarified circles of scribal education, making them custodians of Babylonia’s scholarly traditions. 32 In spite of the many differences that existed within the broader society, what mattered from the perspective of the urban gentry was that all segments of the society were willing to play their assigned parts in the maintenance of a cultural memory that centered on the cities of Babylonia in a process that reified the respective identities of the ruler or ruling group, the urban gentry, and the greater populace. Importantly, this process of reification was not static. For one thing, in spite of their shared cultural outlook, members of the urban gentry often retained a specific allegiance to their home cities, and there always existed the potential for factional divisions within any city. For another, ultimate power resided with the king, who only rarely came from the ranks of the urban gentry and who was a foreigner during many periods, even maintain- ing his court outside Babylonia at different times. At this point, Mistztal’s insistence that dialectical tensions exist between various groups within a society that shape discourses of power and inform memory formation is crucial for our application of cultural memory. If those processes of reification that benefitted the urban gentry were to remain relevant, the prevailing cultural memory always had to be modified to give meaning to events as they unfolded over the years. In this way cultural memory can be historicized; it is inherently conservative, but it does change with the passage of time and therefore has to be understood historically. As shall be seen in the following chapters, Babylonian cultural memory – including those aspects that drew upon Nebuchadnezzar I’s legacy – united the king, the urban gentry, and the non-elite urban and rural populations and also changed as the makeup of these segments of society evolved. As the willingness of the monarch to cultivate the support of the Babylonian urban gentry by conforming to their 10 Writing history and recovering memory worldview declined over time and as the importance of Babylon and other ancient Mesopotamian cities diminished, the cultural memory of the dwin- dling urban gentry who remained became less and less relevant. In spite of the potential for cultural memory to unite Babylonian society, not all elements of that society would have shared equally in its production or in the ways it was manipulated as historical memory through transmission and perpetuation, though for the historical memory to be meaningful, all elements of the society would necessarily have had some engagement in all aspects. This engagement would have produced multiple discourses that attempted to make sense of the past, some of which can still be accessed due to their having been committed to writing in antiquity. Admittedly such an understanding potentially devalues the role of the non-literate populace and oral traditions while privileging the voices of both the monarch and the scribal class who were able to generate texts that survive to this day, but it should be acknowledged that this highly restricted segment of the population enjoyed greater access to those materials – that is, the cultural formations – that preserved the cultural memory of the past as well as greater agency in shaping the dominant narrative about the past as historical memory in response to the immediate events of their present. The perpetuation of Nebuchadnezzar I’s legacy in literature and in other cultural formations by the elite classes fits into this shaping of the dominant narrative. It should be viewed as having been part of what Hans-Joachim Gehrke has called “intentional history” (intentional Geschichte). Gehrke has employed this term within the context of ancient Greece to describe the processes by which the Greeks utilized the past to formulate a self-definition of their communities in their present through recognized genres that shaped their senses of identity and alterity. 33 Mutatis mutandis ,34 this concept is applicable within the contexts of first-millennium Babylonia where it is possible to identify multiple discourses about the past, including those involving Nebuchadnezzar I, that drew upon traditional themes and were expressed in established textual genres to assert the primacy of Babylon as the royal city and the place of Marduk as the king of the gods. This intentional history had to be consistent with a shared, commemorated framework of the past established within a broader Babylonian cultural memory. Pure invention of the past on the part of the elite was practically impossible – this is in agreement with Misztal’s assertion that individual living memory and shared traditions about the past maintained by non-dominant segments of the society created dialectics in tension with the dominant discourse – but there was room for innovation and reinterpretation.35 In this way the generation of intentional histories informed and shaped the shared collective and cultural memory. Intentional history introduces an explicitly historical component to the concept of collective memory. It recognizes that collective memory may emerge organically within a society, but that elements are also shaped intentionally by privileged discourses for specific purposes. Consequently, it is an interpretation that makes sense of the past in the present and not in actuality The Babylonian memory of Nebuchadnezzar I 11 the past, making it history. These elements of agency and interpretation on the part of dominant social elements have prompted us to adopt the term “historical memory” to describe the tradition, as it survives, that preserved the memory of Nebuchadnezzar I, and to understand this historical memory as a product of “collective” and “cultural memory” utilized in the creation of intentional histories. With this understanding in mind, it is possible to speak of Nebuchadnez- zar I within the context of a historical memory shaped by the intentional efforts of a broad cross-section of the more powerful cultural entities active in Babylonia during the first millennium that helped define both Babylonian identity and alterity with respect to that identity. For Babylon, Marduk, and the Esagil temple to be understood as the supreme city, god, and temple respectively, they necessarily had to be envisioned as being at the center of a network of other cities, gods, and temples that were understood to occupy subordinate positions. For those who shared in this conceptualization, from the city of Sippar in the north to Ur in the south, this broader network constituted what Benedict Anderson has called an “imagined community” whose members “will never know most of their fellow members, meet them or even hear of them.”36 Such an imagined community is vital to Anderson’s vision of the modern nation-state, but by his own admission it is not exclu- sive to modern nationalism. Other scholars such as Steven Grosby, Anthony Smith, and Aviel Roshwald are more willing to apply the term “nationalism” to antiquity but distinguish modern nationalism from primordialist or perennialist understandings of the term. 37

1.3 Babylonian historical consciousness Historical memory can also be distinguished from cultural memory in that it treats the knowledge of the past that is passed down in the form of cultural memory not only as something received but also as a tool for recovering, reconstructing, and reinterpreting that past. For these processes to be possible there has to have existed a consciousness of a historical past that could be accessed and interpreted. As a subject of such a consciousness, Nebuchad- nezzar I was not unique in the Ancient Near East, but he was one of only a handful of kings whose legacy was remembered and celebrated among the hundreds of Mesopotamian monarchs who claimed to have been kings of Babylonia or Assyria or of one of the smaller city-states that existed in that region over roughly three millennia.38 Some of these kings, such as the famous Early Dynastic king of Uruk, Gilgamesh, were semi-legendary figures and were understood to have lived in the very distant past, though not so far back in time that his reign was believed to have occurred before the flood when civilization and kingship were first bestowed upon humanity by the gods. In fact, Gilgamesh was celebrated precisely because it was believed that he had gained knowledge from that earlier time when the apkallu s , the primeval sages of the gods, had provided humankind with the wisdom that 12 Writing history and recovering memory was foundational to human civilization.39 Importantly, it was believed that his primordial past was not entirely beyond the reach of human knowledge. Ashurbanipal could claim in the seventh century BCE to have examined inscriptions from “before the flood,”40 and one of the more prominent families at Uruk in the first millennium BCE, the Sîn-leqe-unninnī family, claimed descent from the ummannû , or chief scholar, who was held within tradition to have served Gilgamesh and was the author of the Epic of Gilgamesh as it survived in its canonical form.41 In contrast to the preserved knowledge about a king such as Gilgamesh, scribal familiarity with other kings, such as Nebuchadnezzar I, could argu- ably be characterized as historical. While it is true that history, as it was developed and practiced in ancient Greece, was unknown in Mesopotamia, there are examples of Mesopotamians casting an inquisitive and critical eye on the past. Certainly, Babylonian and Assyrian scholars did not seek secu- lar explanations for past human events in the manner of a Herodotus or Thucydides, but within their writings can be found plenty of examples of both their enthusiasm for antiquarianism and their willingness to make use of that tradition for their own persuasive or explanatory purposes. Tablets bearing copies of royal inscriptions of earlier kings and colophons identifying the scribe who made the copies survive from many periods and make it evident that scribes sought out and valued objects and inscriptions that reinforced a sense of continuity with the past and that provided them with examples for understanding the present.42 Scribes attached to the royal court produced detailed annals and chronicles and were capable of sophisticated, if not always accurate, works of chronological reconstruction using the written resources at their disposal. While a real sense of curiosity may have engendered these antiquarian interests, these pursuits also had immense practical value. The knowledge about the past that scholars possessed could be put to use to further their own interests in their interactions with the king or could serve the purposes of the king. As Natalie Naomi May wrote with regard to Ashurbanipal’s incorporation of imagery from the Sumerian Ur III Empire, which preceded his own rule by more than one thousand years, “the immediate aim of all these antiquarian activities was establishing the legitimacy of various political claims through historical or quasi-historical precedent.”43 Knowledge of the past was even applicable to the future. Divination was the queen of the sciences among Mesopotamian scholars, and those skilled in the arts of extispicy or astrology were well positioned to enjoy the ear of the king. 44 From their contents it is apparent that composers and compilers of predictive literature such as omens and prophecies examined knowledge of the past and celebrated historical or legendary figures with the deeply held Mes- opotamian belief that there was a causative link between the heavens, the natural world, and human events.45 The origins of Mesopotamian historical consciousness, however, may not have stemmed from esoteric training in divination but rather may have been The Babylonian memory of Nebuchadnezzar I 13 rooted in those mundane techniques that scribes used for dating and record keeping, skills that were necessary for the complex royal and institutional bureaucracies that underpinned the state. From the third millennium until the mid-second millennium BCE, years in southern Mesopotamia were not numbered but rather named for the occurrence of a significant event.46 This changed during the Kassite Dynasty in Babylonia in the latter part of the second millennium when regnal years first began appearing on tablets along- side the more traditional year names and then replaced them altogether. 47 In Assyria, years were distinguished by eponyms, 48 each one being named for an official at the Assyrian court in much the same way that the Romans dated by consular eponyms. All of these dating methods required or facili- tated the creation and maintenance of accurate lists – year-name lists, king lists, and eponym lists – in order to preserve a record of the sequence of years and calculate the passage of time. It was not until the Seleucid period that the practice of numbering years continuously by an era came into use.49 One benefit of these year lists was that they provided scribes with a chronological framework in which to place the materials from the past and in which new creations referencing the past could be situated. Throughout the Mesopotamian past, kings were keen to dedicate religious paraphernalia or install other monuments within the temple, and these often bore inscriptions commemorating the act. These pieces often remained objects of great interest centuries later for both kings and scribes alike; in many cases the original item no longer exists today but is known from tablets that survive on which scribes made copies of inscriptions found on the original object. 50 Further- more, it was a common practice for kings to inter inscriptions within the foundations of buildings they conducted work on, and it was not unusual for royal workmen to turn up ancient foundation deposits put in place by earlier kings while they were engaged in restoration projects on temples, palaces, and other monumental structures.51 The discovery of such objects could elicit comment in the royal inscriptions by kings eager to associate themselves with their ancient forbearers. In some cases it is apparent that the previous king was envisioned as having ruled in a nebulous past. Ninurta- kudurrī-uṣur, the eighth-century governor of Sūḫu whose autonomy may have led him to entertain royal aspirations,52 claimed in his inscriptions to be descended from Hammurabi, who ruled nearly a thousand years earlier, call- ing the famous king “a king who preceded me,”53 with no attempt to express the amount of time that separated their tenures. The Persian emperor Cyrus the Great used identical language in his famous cylinder, describing Ashur- banipal, whose reign had only concluded less than a century before Cyrus assumed kingship at Babylon, as “a king who preceded me,” after the discovery of an inscription that had belonged to Ashurbanipal during his rebuilding of Babylon. 54 However, in other cases it is apparent that an effort was made to determine just how much time had elapsed.55 During his renovations on the temple of Aššur in 679 BCE, Esarhaddon was able to identify by name previous kings who had performed work on the building, stretching back 14 Writing history and recovering memory in time to some of the earliest kings of Assyria. Presumably he did this with the aid of foundation deposits discovered during the process that revealed to him that Ušpia had first built the temple and that Erišum later rebuilt it. One hundred twenty-six years then passed before Šamšī-Adad I carried out new renovations, and then 434 years later the temple was destroyed by fire, necessitating Shalmaneser I’s rebuilding of it. Five hundred eighty years later, Esarhaddon undertook his own restorations.56 The durations of time between kings, though not matching modern chronological reconstruc- tions, were not an arbitrary invention of Esarhaddon’s scribes but probably resulted from their ability to consult king lists and eponym lists.57 These are only a few examples, but such efforts demonstrate that for at least a segment of the population, primarily the ruling and priestly or scholarly classes, the past, as it could be reconstructed beyond the limits of what could be recalled through living memory, was not entirely abstract and nebulous but rather knowable with the aid of evidence. The historical consciousness these classes possessed bestowed upon them considerable authority in determining how the past was understood and in shaping the collective memory, an important component of intentional history and historical memory.

1.4 Nebuchadnezzar I and historical memory: a prospectus As one of the more important and successful kings to have held the Bab- ylonian throne during the lengthy interval between the collapse of the Kassite Dynasty in the twelfth century and the establishment of the Neo- Babylonian Dynasty in 626 BCE, Nebuchadnezzar I is certainly deserving of close scholarly attention. There is not a pressing need for a new political history of Nebuchadnezzar I’s reign, and for that matter, in spite of the comparative richness of historical sources, there is not sufficient material to merit a monograph-length treatment of the period during which he was on the throne. What is warranted is a comprehensive evaluation of both the events of Nebuchadnezzar I’s reign and the manner in which those events became the basis for a legacy that was utilized over successive centuries. There are passages within the primary sources from Nebuchadnezzar’s time that corroborate some aspects of the narratives that appear in the later literary compositions. Nevertheless, there are noticeable differences in tone and content that distinguish the primary material from the secondary sources. These differences are key to understanding how the figure of Nebuchad- nezzar I took on symbolic value within multiple discourses of power and authority between the urban gentry and non-urban or non-elite elements of Babylonian society as well as between those same urban gentry and the monarch, who only rarely came from that same social stratum and who, depending on historical period, was frequently a foreigner. How and why later Babylonians chose to commemorate Nebuchadnezzar I and the means by which they utilized that memory to advance their contemporary interests have ramifications for our understanding of Babylonia in the late second The Babylonian memory of Nebuchadnezzar I 15 and first millennium, the modes of historiographical thought employed in the Ancient Near East, and how those modes were used to shape and project the identity of the urban gentry and intellectual class in Babylonia to the broader population and to both native and non-native ruling powers.

Notes 1 The Šitti-Marduk kudurru reports that Nebuchadnezzar I launched his attack against Elam from Dēr (BBSt 6 i 14–15 [= G. Frame, Rulers of Babylonia: From the Second Dynasty of Isin to the End of Assyrian Domination (1157–612 BC)], RIMB 2 [Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1995], B.2.4.11, and S. Paulus, Die babylonischen Kudurru-Inschriften von der kassitischen bis zur frühneubabylonischen Zeit: Untersucht unter besonderer Berücksichtigung gesellschafts- und rechtshistorischer Fragestellungen, AOAT 51 [Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2014], NKU I 2). There is no record of the route Nebuchadnezzar took to get to Dēr, but the logistical constraints of moving an army overland meant that he probably followed the one reconstructed for the Neo-Assyrian period in S. Parpola and M. Porter, The Helsinki Atlas of the Near East in the Neo-Assyrian Period (Hel- sinki: The Casco Bay Assyriological Institute and The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2001), 10–11. 2 G. Frame, RIMB 2, B.2.4.6 r. 9-r. 24 (= B. Foster, Before the Muses: An Anthology of Akkadian Literature , 3rd ed. [Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 2005], 381–382). 3 J. van Dijk, “Die dynastischen Heiraten zwischen Kassiten und Elamern: eine verhängnisvolle Politik,” Or . 55 (1986): 159–170 and B. Foster, Before the Muses , 370–371. 4 G. Frame, RIMB 2, B.2.4.6:3’–13’ (= Foster, Before the Muses , 381–382). 5 Reconstruction of the ak ītu festival at Babylon is reliant on the work of M. Cohen, The Cultic Calendars of the Ancient Near East (Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 1993), 439, B. Pongratz-Leisten, Ina Šulmi Īrub: Die kulttopographische und ideologische Programmatik der akītu-Prozession in Babylonien und Assyr- ien im I. Jahrtausend v. Chr ., Baghdader Forschungen 16 (Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 1994), 40–41 and 87–90, and J. Bidmead, The Akītu Festival: Religious Continuity and Royal Legitimation in Mesopotamia , Gor- gias Dissertations Near Eastern Studies 2 (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2002), 88–101. 6 B. Pongratz-Leisten, Ina Šulmi Īrub, 106–107 and 109–111 and J. Bidmead, The Akītu Festival , 77–86. 7 J. Brinkman, A Political History of Post-Kassite Babylonia: 1158–722 B.C ., AnOr 43 (Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1968), 89–91. 8 BBSt 6 i 19 (= G. Frame, RIMB 2, B.2.4.11 and S. Paulus, K udurru-Inschriften , NKU I 2). 9 BBSt 6 i 28–29 (= G. Frame, RIMB 2, B.2.4.11 and S. Paulus, Kudurru-Inschriften , NKU I 2). 10 BBSt 6 i 25–43 (= G. Frame, RIMB 2, B.2.4.11 and S. Paulus, Kudurru-Inschriften , NKU I 2). 11 G. Frame, RIMB 2, B.2.4.7:23–26 (= B. Foster, Before the Muses , 386–387). 12 G. Frame, RIMB 2, B.2.4.5:1–10 (= B. Foster, Before the Muses , 385). 13 G. Frame, RIMB 2, B.2.4.7 (= B. Foster, Before the Muses , 386–387). 14 W. G. Lambert, “The Reign of Nebuchadnezzar I: A Turning Point in the History of Ancient Mesopotamian Religion,” in The Seed of Wisdom: Essays in Honour of T.J. Meek , ed. W. S. McCullough (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1964), 3–13. 15 BBSt 6 (= G. Frame, RIMB 2, B.2.4.11 and S. Paulus, Kudurru-Inschriften , NKU I 2). 16 Writing history and recovering memory 16 J. Van Dijk, “Die Tontafeln aus dem r ēš- Heiligtum,” UVB 18 (1962): 43–61, A. Lenzi, “The Uruk List of Kings and Sages and Late Mesopotamian Scholarship,” Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions 8 (2008): 137–169, and W. G. Lam- bert, “A Catalogue of Texts and Authors,” JCS 16 (1962): 59–77. 17 BBSt 24 (= S. Paulus, Kudurru-Inschriften , NKU I 3). 18 J. Postgate, Early Mesopotamia: Society and Economy at the Dawn of History (London: Routledge, 1992), 23–25 with prior bibliography. The last dateable cuneiform tablet was written in 79–80 CE (H. Hunger and T. de Jong, “Almanac W22340a From Uruk: The Latest Datable Cuneiform Tablet,” ZA 104 [2014]: 82 and 192–193). M. Geller has argued that cuneiform literacy could have per- sisted into the third century CE (“The Last Wedge,” ZA 87 [1997]: 43–95), though A. Westenholz has laid out a strong argument for why cuneiform literacy could not have long survived the first century CE (“The Graeco-Babyloniaca Once Again,” ZA 97 [2007]: 292–309). 19 J. Brinkman, “Kassiten/Kaššû,” RlA 5 (1980), 466–469. 20 M. Halbwachs, On Collective History , trans. Lewis A. Coser (Chicago: Univer- sity of Chicago Press, 1992). 21 L. Coser, “Introduction,” in On Collective Memory , by M. Halbwachs, 5–6. 22 L. Coser, “Introduction,” in On Collective Memory , by M. Halbwachs, 11. 23 G. Huppert, “The Annales Experiment,” in Companion to Historiography , ed. M. Bentley (London: Routledge, 1997), 878–879. 24 J. Assmann, “Collective Memory and Cultural Identity,” New German Critique 65 (1995): 127. 25 J. Assmann, “Collective Memory,”130–133. 26 J. Assmann, “Collective Memory,” 128. 27 P. Nora, “Between Memory and History: Les Lieux de Memorie,” Representa- tions 26 (1989): 7–24. 28 B. Misztal, Theories of Social Remembering , Theorizing Society (Maidenhead and Philadelphia: Open University Press, 2003), 55. 29 B. Misztal, Theories of Social Remembering , 50–74. 30 Overviews of the makeup of the Babylonian population in the first half of the first millennium include G. Frame, Babylonia 689–627 B.C.: A Political History, PIHANS 69 (Leiden: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut, 1992), 32–51; S. Cole, Nippur in Late Assyrian Times c. 755–612 BC , SAAS 4 (Hel- sinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 1996), 23–44. 31 For the practice of endogamy among the elite families of Babylonia see C. Waer- zeggers, “Endogomy in Mesopotamia in the Neo-Babylonian Period,” in Mining the Archives: Festschrift for Christopher Walker on the Occasion of His 60th Birthday , ed. C. Wunsch (Dresden: ISLET, 2002), 319–342. For the restrictions on entry into the priesthood based on birth within these endogamous families see C. Waerzeggers with a contribution by M. Jursa, “On the Initiation of Baby- lonian Priests,” Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 14 (2008): 1–38. 32 P.-A. Beaulieu, “Late Babylonian Intellectual Life,” in The Babylonian World , ed. G. Leick (New York and London: Routledge, 2007), 473–484. 33 L. Foxhall and N. Luraghi, “Introduction,” in Intentional History: Spinning Time in Ancient Greece , eds. L. Foxhall, H.-J. Gehrke, and N. Luraghi (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 2010), 1–14. 34 The Babylonian city and the Greek polis were two very different polities. For one thing, cities such as Babylon or Uruk were larger and had greater populations than a city such as Athens in the first millennium BCE in addition to being much older. Kingship was a defining feature of the Babylonian political order but absent at Athens and most other poleis in the Classical period. Nevertheless, even if we set aside T. Jacobsen’s vision of proto-democracy in The Babylonian memory of Nebuchadnezzar I 17 early Mesopotamia (“Primitive Democracy in Ancient Mesopotamia,” JNES 2 [1943]: 159–172), there existed in the first millennium a tradition of city assem- blies that allowed for at least restricted civic involvement in local affairs and contributed to a sense of civic identity (G. Barjamovic, “Civic Institutions and Self-Government in Southern Mesopotamia in the Mid-First Millennium BC,” in Assyria and Beyond: Studies Presented to Mogens Trolle Larsen , ed. J. G. Derck- sen, PIHANS 100 [Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 2004], 47–98). Furthermore, although residents of Babylonian cities did not maintain a self-perception predicated on belief in a common ancestor – a feature of com- munal self-perception within the polis (H.-J. Gehrke, “Greek Representations of the Past,” in Intentional History , 17) – the leading citizens of many Babylonian cities had begun to conceive of themselves as members of ancestral groups with close affinities to their respective communities in the second quarter of the first millennium (J. Nielsen, Sons and Descendants: A Social History of Kin Groups and Family Names in the Early Neo-Babylonian Period, 747–626 B.C ., Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 43 [Leiden: Brill, 2010]). 35 B. Misztal makes this point especially well in her modifications of Hobsbawm’s ideas about invented tradition. She introduces an emphasis on the role that voices from below have in the creation of tradition while retaining much that is essential to Hobsbawm, writing that “(t)he growing recognition of the weak- nesses of this approach (to invented tradition) is, however, accompanied by an increased comprehension that the essence of tradition is always to confer the legitimacy of continuity on what is in practice always changing; that there is no such thing as a completely pure tradition; that the appeal to the past has always been selective and often part of demagogy, and therefore traditions always incorporate power, whether they are constructed in deliberate ways or not. Such a new understanding led to the development of a more moderate version of the presentist approach. This modified restatement of the dominant ideology thesis, moreover, has further enhanced our understanding of how we remember.” (Theories of Social Remembering , 61.) 36 B. Anderson, Imagined Communities , rev. ed. (London: Verso, 2006), 5–7. 37 S. Grosby, Biblical Ideas of Nationality (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2002); A. Smith, The Antiquity of Nations (Cambridge: Polity, 2004); and A. Roshwald, The Endurance of Nationalism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006). 38 For a summary of notable kings memorialized in Mesopotamian tradition and prior bibliography see M. Frazer, “Nazi-Maruttaš in Later Mesopotamian Tradi- tion,” KASKAL 10 (2013): 187 n. 3. 39 A. George, The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic: Introduction, Critical Edition and Cuneiform Text , vol. 1 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 445–446. 40 A. Livingstone, “Ashurbanipal: Literate or Not?” ZA 97 (2007): 100. 41 P.-A. Beaulieu, ““The Descendants of Sîn-lēqi-unninni,” in Assyriologica et Semitica: Festschrift für Joachim Oelsner anläßlich seines 65. Geburtstages am 18. Februar 1997 , eds. J. Marzahan et al., AOAT 252 (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2000), 3–5 and A. George, The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic: Introduction, Critical Edition and Cuneiform Texts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 28–33. 42 A notable example are the two large tablets excavated at Nippur (CBS 13972 and Ni 3200) on which several inscriptions attributed to the founder of the Akkadian Empire, Sargon the Great (r. 2334–2279), were copied by a Babylo- nian scribe during the second quarter of the second millennium BCE. The scribe did not identify himself in the colophons, but he did dutifully note where the inscriptions appeared on the various objects he was examining (D. Frayne, RIME 2 E.2.1.1 passim with prior bibliography). An example more pertinent to Nebu- chadnezzar I’s time is a copy made by a scribe named Nabû-šumu-līšir at Bor- sippa in 633 BCE of a building inscription set up by Nebuchadnezzar’s nephew, 18 Writing history and recovering memory Marduk-šāpik-zēri (r. 1081–1069), to commemorate his restoration of the Ezida temple there (G. Frame, RIMB 2, B.2.7.2). 43 N. May, “ ‘I Read the Inscriptions From Before the Flood . . .’ Neo-Sumerian Influ- ences in Ashurbanipal’s Royal Self-Image,” in Time and History in the Ancient Near East, eds. L. Feliu et al. (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013), 199. 44 K. Radner, “Royal Decision Making: Kings, Magnates, and Scholars,” in The Oxford Handbook of Cuneiform Culture, eds. K. Radner and E. Robson (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 361–370. 45 J.-J. Glassner, Mesopotamian Chronicles , Writing From the Ancient World 19 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004), 17–18, 20–21. 46 The first systematic collection of year names can be found in A. Ungnad, “Daten- listen,” RlA 2 (1938), 131–196. An extensive database of Mesopotamian year names titled “Mesopotamian Year Names: Neo-Sumerian and Old Babylonian Date Formulae” has been compiled by M. Sigrist and P. Damerow and can be accessed at http://cdli.ucla.edu/tools/yearnames/yn_index.html. 47 J. Brinkman, A Catalogue of Cuneiform Sources Pertaining to Specific Mon- archs of the Kassite Dynasty , MSKH 1 (Chicago: The Oriental Institute, 1976), 402–403. 48 A. Millard, The Eponyms of the Assyrian Empire 910–612 BC , SAAS 2 (Hel- sinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 1994), 1–3. 49 T. Boiy, “Dating Methods During the Early Hellenistic Period,” JCS 52 (2000): 117. 50 See n. 44 earlier in the chapter. 51 R. Ellis, Foundation Deposits in Ancient Mesopotamia , Yale Near Eastern Researches 2 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968), 153–168. 52 J. Brinkman, “Ninurta-kudurrī-uṣur,” RlA 9 (2001), 526. 53 G. Frame, RIMB 2, S.0.1002.10:31–32. 54 P. Michalowski, “The Cyrus Cylinder,” in The Ancient Near East: Historical Sources in Translation , ed. M. Chavalas (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2006), 429. 55 A summary of many of these calculations can be found in J.-J. Glassner, Mesopo- tamian Chronicles , 7–8. 56 E. Leichty, The Royal Inscriptions of Esarhaddon, King of Assyria (680–669 BC) , The Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period 4 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011), 57 iii 16–41. The importance placed on foundation inscriptions is highlighted in the conclusion to his inscription in which he describes how he interred his own inscriptions for future kings, his descendants, and implores them to read his inscriptions before returning them to their place with the proper offerings (vii 35–viii 15). 57 N. Na’aman, “Statements of Time-Spans by Babylonian and Assyrian Kings,” Iraq 46 (1984): 115–116 and 118–119.

Bibliography Anderson, B. Imagined Communities , revised ed. London: Verso, 2006. Assmann, J. “Collective Memory and Cultural Identity.” New German Critique 65 (1995): 125–133. Barjamovic, G. “Civic Institutions and Self-Government in Southern Mesopotamia in the Mid-First Millennium BC.” In Assyria and Beyond: Studies Presented to Mogens Trolle Larsen, edited by J. G. Dercksen, 47–98. PIHANS 100. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 2004. Beaulieu, P.-A. “The Descendants of Sîn-lēqi-unninni.” In Assyriologica et Semitica: Festschrift für Joachim Oelsner anläßlich seines 65. Geburtstages am 18. Februar The Babylonian memory of Nebuchadnezzar I 19 1997 , edited by J. Marzahan, H. Neumann, and A. Fuchs, 1–16. AOAT 252. Mün- ster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2000. ———. “Late Babylonian Intellectual Life.” In The Babylonian World , edited by G. Leick, 473–484. New York and London: Routledge, 2007. Bidmead, J. The Akītu Festival: Religious Continuity and Royal Legitimation in Mes- opotamia . Gorgias Dissertations Near Eastern Studies 2. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2002. Boiy, T. “Dating Methods During the Early Hellenistic Period.” JCS 52 (2000): 115–121. Brinkman, J. A. A Catalogue of Cuneiform Sources Pertaining to Specific Monarchs of the Kassite Dynasty . MSKH 1. Chicago: The Oriental Institute, 1976. ———. “Kassiten/Kaššû.” In Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie. Band 5. Ia . . . – Kizzuwatna , edited by D. O. Edzard, 183–189. Ber- lin: Walter de Gruyter, 1980. ———. “Ninurta-kudurrī-uṣur.” In Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasi- atischen Archäologie. Band 9. 7./8. Lieferung: Ninlil-Nuzi, edited by D. O. Edzard, 525–526. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2001. ———. A Political History of Post-Kassite Babylonia: 1158–722 B.C. Analecta Ori- entalia: Commentationes Scientificae de Rebus Orientis Antiqui 43. Rome: Ponti- ficium Institutum Biblicum, 1968. Cohen, M. E. The Cultic Calendars of the Ancient Near East. Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 1993. Cole, S. W. Nippur in Late Assyrian Times c. 755–612 BC. SAAS 4. Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 1996. Coser, L. A. “Introduction.” In On Collective History, translated by L. A. Coser. Chi- cago: University of Chicago Press, 1992. Ellis, R. S. Foundation Deposits in Ancient Mesopotamia . Yale Near Eastern Researches 2. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968. Foster, B. R. Before the Muses: An Anthology of Akkadian Literature , 3rd. ed. Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 2005. Foxhall, L. and N. Luraghi. “Introduction.” In Intentional History: Spinning Time in Ancient Greece , edited by L. Foxhall, H.-J. Gehrke, and N. Luraghi, 1–14. Stutt- gart: Franz Steiner, 2010. Frame, G. Babylonia 689–627 B.C.: A Political History. PIHANS 69. Leiden: Ned- erlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut, 1992. ———. Rulers of Babylonia: From the Second Dynasty of Isin to the End of Assyrian Domination (1157–612 BC) . RIMB 2. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1995. Frayne, D. R. Sargonic and Gutian Periods (2334–2113 BC). RIME 2. Toronto: Uni- versity of Toronto Press, 1993. Frazer, M. “Nazi-Maruttaš in Later Mesopotamian Tradition.” KASKAL 10 (2013): 187–220. Gehrke, H.-J. “Greek Representations of the Past.” In Intentional History: Spin- ning Time in Ancient Greece, edited by L. Foxhall, H.-J. Gehrke, and N. Luraghi, 15–34. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 2010. Geller, M. J. “The Last Wedge.” ZA 87 (1997): 43–95. George, A. R. The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic: Introduction, Critical Edition and Cuneiform Texts , 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. Glassner, J.-J. Mesopotamian Chronicles . Writings From the Ancient World 19. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004. 20 Writing history and recovering memory Grosby, S. Biblical Ideas of Nationality . Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2002. Halbwachs, M. On Collective History , translated by L. A. Coser. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992. Huppert, G. “The Annales Experiment.” In Companion to Historiography , edited by M. Bently, 873–888. London: Routledge, 1997. Jacobsen, T. “Primitive Democracy in Ancient Mesopotamia.” JNES 2 (1943): 159–172. Lambert, W. G. “A Catalogue of Texts and Authors.” JCS 16 (1962): 59–77. ———. “The Reign of Nebuchadnezzar I: A Turning Point in the History of Ancient Mesopotamian Religion.” In The Seed of Wisdom: Essays in Honour of T.J. Meek, edited by W. S. McCullough, 3–13. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1964. Leichty, E. The Royal Inscriptions of Esarhaddon, King of Assyria (680–669 BC) . The Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period 4. Winona Lake, IN: Eisen- brauns, 2011. Lenzi, A. “The Uruk List of Kings and Sages and Late Mesopotamian Scholarship.” Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions 8 (2008): 137–169. Livingstone, A. “Ashurbanipal: Literate or Not?” ZA 97 (2007): 98–118. May, N. “ ‘I Read the Inscriptions From Before the Flood . . .’ Neo-Sumerian Influ- ences in Ashurbanipal’s Royal Self-Image.” In Time and History in the Ancient Near East , Proceedings of the 56th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale at Barcelona 26–30 July 2010 , edited by L. Feliu, J. Llop, A. Millet Albà, and J. Sanmartín, 199–210. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013. Michalowski, P. “The Cyrus Cylinder.” In The Ancient Near East: Historical Sources in Translation, edited by M. Chavalas, 426–430. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2006. Millard, A. The Eponyms of the Assyrian Empire 910–612 BC . SAAS 2. Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 1994. Misztal, B. Theories of Social Remembering . Theorizing Society. Maidenhead and Philadelphia: Open University Press, 2003. Na’aman, N. “Statements of Time-Spans by Babylonian and Assyrian Kings.” Iraq 46 (1984): 115–123. Nielsen, J. P. Sons and Descendants: A Social History of Kin Groups and Family Names in the Early Neo-Babylonian Period, 747–626 B.C. Culture & History of the Ancient Near East 43. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Nora, P. “Between Memory and History: Les Lieux de Memorie.” Representations 26 (1989): 7–24. Parpola, S. and M. P. Porter. The Helsinki Atlas of the Near East in the Neo-Assyrian Period . Helsinki: The Casco Bay Assyriological Instituyte and The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2001. Paulus, S. Die babylonischen Kudurru-Inschriften von der kassitischen bis zur frü hneubabylonischen Zeit: Untersucht unter besonderer Berücksichtigung gesellschafts- und rechtshistorischer Fragestellungen. AOAT 51. Münster: Ugarit- Verlag, 2014. Pongratz-Leisten, B. ina shulmi irub: Die kulttopographische und ideologische Pro- grammatik der akitu-Prozession in Babylonien und Assyrien im I. Jahrtausend v. Chr . Baghdader Forschungen 16. Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 1994. Postgate, J. N. Early Mesopotamia: Society and Economy at the Dawn of History. London: Routledge, 1992. The Babylonian memory of Nebuchadnezzar I 21 Radner, K. “Royal Decision-Making: Kings, Magnates, and Scholars.” In The Oxford Handbook of Cuneiform Culture, edited by K. Radner and E. Robson, 358–379. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. Roshwald, A. The Endurance of Nationalism . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Sigrist, M. and P. Damerow. “Mesopotamian Year Names: Neo-Sumerian and Old Babylonian Date Formulae.” Last Modified September 25, 2001. Accessed Septem- ber 6, 2017. http://cdli.ucla.edu/tools/yearnames/yn_index.html Smith, A. D. The Antiquity of Nations . Cambridge: Polity, 2004. Ungnad, A. “Datenlisten.” In Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie. Band 2. Ber – Ezur , edited by E. Ebeling and B. Meissner, 131–196. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1938. Van Dijk, J. “Die dynastischen Heiraten zwischen Kassiten und Elamern: eine ver- hängnisvolle Politik.” Or . 55 (1986), 159–170. ———. “Die Tontafeln aus dem r ēš- Heiligtum.” UVB 18 (1962), 43–61. Waerzeggers, C. “Endogomy in Mesopotamia in the Neo-Babylonian Period.” In Mining the Archives: Festschrift for Christopher Walker on the Occasion of His 60th Birthday , edited by Cornelia Wunsch, 319–342. Dresden: ISLET, 2002. ——— with a contribution by M. Jursa. “On the Initiation of Babylonian Priests.” Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 14 (2008): 1–38. Westenholz, A. “The Graeco-Babyloniaca Once Again.” ZA 97 (2007): 262–313.

References 1 J. Brinkman, A Political History of Post-Kassite Babylonia, 1158–722 B.C ., AnOr 43 (Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1968), 90–148. 2 J. Brinkman, “Isin, B. II. Dynastie,” RlA 5 (1980), 183–189 and “Nebukadne- zar I,” RlA 9 (1999), 192–194. 3 G. Frame, Rulers of Babylonia From the Second Dynasty of Isin to the End of the Assyrian Domination (1157–612 BC), RIMB 2 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1995), 5–69. 4 B. Foster, Before the Muses: An Anthology of Akkadian Literature , 3rd ed. (Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 2005), 369–391. 5 S. Paulus, Die babylonischen Kudurru-Inschriften von der kassitischen bis zur frü hneubabylonischen Zeit: Untersucht unter besonderer Berü cksichtigung gesellschafts- und rechtshistorischer Fragestellungen , AOAT 51 (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2014), 491–520. 6 J. Brinkman, “Babylonian Royal Land Grants, Memorials of Financial Interest, and Invocation of the Divine,” JESHO 49 (2006): 39–43. 7 W. Lambert, “The Reign of Nebuchadnezzar I: A Turning Point in the History of Ancient Mesopotamian Religion,” in The Seed of Wisdom: Essays in Honour of T.J. Meek, ed. W. S. McCullough (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1964), 3–13. 8 A. Schmidt, “Gedanken über die Entwicklung der Religion auf Grund der babylonischen Quellen,” MVAG 16/3 (1911): 66–71. Lambert makes note of Schmidt’s assertion that Marduk rose to prominence around 1200 BCE in his review of W. Sommerfeld, “Studies in Marduk,” BSOAS 47 (1984): 1. 9 W. Sommerfeld, Der Aufstieg Marduks. Die Stellung Marduks in der babylonischen Religion des zweiten Jahrtausends v. Chr., AOAT 213 (Kevelaer and Neukirchen-Vluyn: Verlag Butzon & Bercker and Nerkirchener Verlag, 1982). 10 Sommerfeld, Der Augstieg Marduks , 160–189 and 203–214. 11 W. Lambert, Babylonian Creation Myths, Mesopotamian Civilizations 16 (Win- ona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013), 248–277. 12 W. Lambert, “The Reign of Nebuchadnezzar I,” 6 and 10–11 and Babylonian Creation Myths , 274. 13 T. Oshima, Babylonian Prayers to Marduk , Orientalische Religionen in der Antike 7 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011). 14 Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1960), 63–91 and T. Oshima The Babylonian Theodicy , SAACT 9 (Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2013) and Babylonian Poems of Pious Sufferers, Orientalische Religionen in der Antike 14 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014). 15 J. van Dijk, “Die Tontafeln aus dem rēš- Heiligtum,” in UVB 18, ADOG 7 (Ber- lin: Gebr. Mann Verlag, 1962), 43–61, A. Lenzi, “The Uruk List of Kings and Sages and Late Mesopotamian Scholarship,” Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions 8 (2008): 137–169, and W. G. Lambert, “A Catalogue of Texts and Authors,” JCS 16 (1962): 59–77. 16 For a discussion of genre as it can be applied to Akkadian literature see T. Long- man III, Fictional Akkadian Autobiography: A Generic and Comparative Study (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1991), 3–21. 17 J. Brinkman, PKB , 325–329 provides brief descriptions and bibliography for the chronological, contemporary, and later sources available to him. The texts classified as royal inscriptions by Grant Frame in RIMB 2, which include many of the literary-historical texts, are also accompanied by short introductions and bibliography. 18 See n. 6 earlier in the chapter. 19 G. Frame, Rulers of Babylonia , RIMB 2, 3–4 and prior bibliography in n. 3. 20 V. Donbaz, “Assur Collections Housed in Istanbul: General Outlines,” in Acts of the IIIrd International Congress of Hittitology: Çorum, September 16–22, 1996, eds. Sedat Alp and Aygül Süel (Ankara: Uyum Ajans, 1998), 183. 21 E. Zomer, “Enmity Against Samsuditana,” in Proceedings of the 59th Rencon- tre Assyriologique Internationale, Ghent , July 15–19, 2013 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, forthcoming). 22 Approximately five centuries separate Gulkišar from Nebuchadnezzar I if the Middle Chronology dates for Samsu-ditāna are accepted. However, in all probability the Middle Chronology needs to be lowered by no more than a century (see n. 59 later in the chapter). Nevertheless, even if the chronology is lowered, the kudurru still deals with a claim that was centuries old. 23 According to J. Brinkman, PKB , 104–105, it is likely that there were two Kassite kings with the name Burna-Buriaš, the king who appeared in the Amarna correspondence, Burna-Buriaš II, and an earlier king of that name, Burna-Buriaš I. Brinkman assigns this reference to Burna-Buriaš II but allows for the possibility that it alludes to an ealier Burna-Buriaš (PKB , 117). 24 Two Kassite kings had the name Kurigalzu. The one mentioned in this text is likely the latter king of that name and son of Burna-Buriaš II (Brinkman, PKB , 205). 25 O. Pedersén, Archive und Bibliotheken in Babylon: Die Tontafeln der Grabung Robert Koldeweys 1899–1917, Abhandlungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 25 (Berlin: Saarländische Druckerei und Verlag, 2005), 219, N13 (26). 26 Y. Bloch, “A Letter of Nebuchadnezzar I to the Babylonians: Literary and Histor- ical Considerations,” in “Now it Happened in Those Days” Studies in Biblical, Assyrian, and Other Ancient Near Eastern Historiography Presented to Morde- chai Cogan on his 75 th Birthday, eds. A. Baruchi-Unna et al. (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2017), 493–523. 27 The author does not know the condition of the copy found in the Sippar Temple Library as described by F. Al-Rawi and A. George in “Tablets from the Sippar Library II, Tablet II of the Babylonian Creation Epic,” Iraq 52 (1990): 149 n. 1. 28 C. Walker, “Babylonian Chronicle 25: A Chronicle of the Kassite and Isin II Dynasties,” in Zikir šumim: Assyriological Studies Presented to F. R. Kraus on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, eds. G. van Driel et al. (Leiden: Brill, 1982), 398–417. 29 J.-J. Glassner, Mesopotamian Chronicles, Writings From the Ancient World 19 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004), No. 46: 19–21. 30 Y. Bloch, “Assyro-Babylonian Conflicts in the Reign of Aššur-rēš-iši I: The Con- tribution of Administrative Documents to History-Writing,” in The Ancient Near East in the 12th–10th Centuries BCE: Culture and History, eds. G. Galil et al., AOAT 392 (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2012), 70–78. 31 P.-A. Beaulieu, The Reign of Nabonidus, King of Babylon 556–539 B.C ., Yale Near Eastern Researches 10 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), 128–130 and J.-J. Glassner, Mesopotamian Chronicles , No. 53 ii 2’–16’. 32 This text has been most recently treated by A. Lenzi, “The Uruk List of Kings and Sages and Late Mesopotamian Scholarship,” Journal of Ancient Near East- ern Religion 8 (2008): 137–169. 33 A. Lenzi, “The Uruk List of Kings and Sages,” 143 n. 18. 34 P.-A. Beaulieu, The Reign of Nabonidus , 130–132. 35 The astrologer Ištar-šuma-ēreš could write of one of his reports to the Assyrian king that šumu anniu lā ša iškārima šû šâ pî ummâni šû, “This omen is not from the Series; it is from the mouth of a master scholar” (H. Hunger, Astrological Reports to Assyrian Kings, SAA 10 [Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1992], No. 8 r. 1–2), with the confidence that such a citation was equivalent in authority to a canonical omen series. 36 For the phrase ša pî ummâni in commentaries and omen texts see E. Frahm, Babylonian and Assyrian Text Commentaries. Origins of Interpretation, GMTR 5 (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2011), 42–45 and U. Koch, Mesopotamian Divina- tion Texts: Conversing With the Gods, Sources From the First Millennium BCE , GMTR 7 (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2015), 31–36 and 150. 37 J.-J Glassner, Mesopotamian Chronicles , No. 10 A ii 1’’–13’’ (= Grayson, ABC No. 21 ii 1’–13’). 38 The Synchronistic King List was treated by A. Grayson in “Königslisten und Chroniken,” RlA 6 (1980), 116–122. A revised reading of the portion of the list that featured Nebuchadnezzar I can be found in F. Chen, “A Revised Reconstruc- tion of Col. II of the Synchronistic King List (A. 117 / Ass. 14616 c),” NABU 2016/22. 39 A. L. Oppenheim, “Mesopotamia in the Early History of Alchemy,” RA 60 (1966): 31–32, colophon (Bab. K. 713). 40 The copy from Nineveh, K 3353+8708+13678, bears a colophon identifying it as a copy of an orginal from Babylon (ll. 17’–19’). R. Borger, “Gott Marduk und Gott-König Šulgi als Propheten,” BiOr 28 (1971): 13. For the context of the copy from Assur, Ass. 13348 ek, see O. Pedersén, Archives in the City of Assur: A Survey of the Material From the German Excavations , Part II, Studia Semitica Upsaliensia 8 (Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1986), 76. 41 R. Borger, “Gott Marduk und Gott-König Šulgi als Propheten,” 21–22. 42 M. Neujahr, Predicting the Past in the Ancient Near East: Mantic Historiography in Ancient Mesopotamia, Judah, and the Mediterranean World , Brown Judaic Studies 354 (Providence: Brown University, 2012), 41 notes this feature of the text and draws a comparison to the Cruciform Monument of Maništušu, a composition that purports to have been commissioned in the late third millennium by the Akkadian king to commemorate his rich endowment to the temple of Šamaš but is widely believed to have been in reality a Neo-Babylonian forgery set up to create a precedent for such royal gift. Neujahr dismisses the possibility that the Marduk Prophecy was a pious fraud, pointing out that the amounts described in the offering list consisting of foodstuffs and a sheep and fattened calf were insignificant when compared to the 100 mina of gold and two talents of silver that Maništušu was said to have donated. Nevertheless, it should be noted that two priests of Šamaš from Sippar went through considerable pains in the ninth century to “find” the cult image of Šamaš in order to revive and secure for themselves the regular food offerings and gifts of garments necessary for the functioning of the cult (BBSt 36). The regular offerings that were their due are more similar to the food offerings described in the Marduk Prophecy than the lavish endowment described in the Cruciform Monument. 43 S. Dalley, “Statues of Marduk and the Date of Enūma Eliš,” AoF 24 (1997): 170 and B. Foster, Before the Muses , 388 both follow Borger. Additional scholars who favor a composition during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar I are listed in B. Doak, “Remembering the Future, Predicting the Past,” in Splendide Mendax: Rethinking Fakes and Forgeries in Classical, Late Antique, and Early Christian Literature , eds. E. Cueva and J. Martínez (Barkhuis: Groningen, 2016), 27. 44 M. Neujahr, Predicting the Past in the Ancient Near East , 40. 45 B. Foster, Before the Muses , 369 and prior bibliography in n. 1. 46 These include Sargon of Akkad, Sargon I, Merodach-baladan I, and the first four Assyrian kings named Shalmaneser. 47 J. Brinkman, PKB , 104 n. 565 provides a list of the various writings of the royal name in contemporary and later texts, but Brinkman did not offer any comment on the implications these different writings could have with regard to the possibility that later texts were copies of texts first composed during Nebuchad- nezzar I’s reign. 48 G. Frame, RIMB 2 B.2.4.3 commentary. 49 G. Frame, RIMB 2 B.2.4.5:15 and BBSt 6 i 10 (= G. Frame, RIMB 2 B.2.4.11 and Paulus, Kudurru-Inschriften , NKU I 2). 50 J. Brinkman, PKB , 289–290. 51 The name Nebuchadnezzar does not appear in the texts from Kassite Nippur indexed by Monika Hölscher, but neither of the two names that featured the element kudurru , Kudur(ri)-Enlil and Šamaš-kudur, expressed that term with a logographic writing; instead the scribes employed phonetic writings including the writing ku-dúr-ri , which was also used in writing A of Nebuchadnezzar (M. Hölscher, Die Personennamen der kassitenzeitlichen Texte aus Nippur , Imgula 1 (Münster: Rhema-Verlag, 1996), 126 and 203). 52 For Ninurta-kudurrī-uṣur I’s name see Frame, RIMB 2 B.4.2.1001:1 and S. Paulus, Kudurru-Inschriften , 623–624, NMA 1 i 1.6.8.24. For writings of the personal name Nabû-kudurrī-uṣur see J. Nielsen, Personal Names in Early Neo- Babylonian Legal and Administrative Tablets , 747–626 B.C.E ., NISABA 29 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2015), 237–238. There are only two examples of the very common name Kudurru having been written phonetically as ku- dúr-ru in VAS 1 37 iv 11 and AnOr 9 13: 27. For all the examples see Nielsen, Personal Names , 179–182. 53 J. Brinkman, PKB , 37–43. 54 J. Brinkman, PKB , 68–77. J.-J. Glassner, Mesopotamian Chronicles , No. 9: B1 56’ (= Millard, The Eponyms of the Assyrian Empire 910–612 BC, SAAS 2 (Hel- sinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 1994), 41 and 58). 55 Grayson, ABC , 163–164, No. 21: ii 2’–13’ (=J.-J. Glassner, Mesopotamian Chronicles , No. 10: 1”–13”). 56 Hinke Kudurru ii 4–5. 57 Contrast this with the specific mentions of Nebuchadnezzar I having defeated the Lullubû, Amorite lands, and Kassites in BBSt 6 i 9–10 (= G. Frame, RIMB 2 B.2.4.11 and Paulus, Kudurru-Inschriften , NKU I 2). 58 Y. Bloch, “Middle Assyrian Lunar Calendar and Chronology,” in Living the Lunar Calendar , eds. J. Ben-Dov et al. (Oxford: Oxbow, 2012), 47–48 and J. Jef- fers, “The Nonintercalated Lunar Calendar of the Middle Assyrian Period,” JCS 69 (2017): 189. 59 Y. Bloch, “Setting the Dates: Re-evaluation of the Chronology of Babylonia in the 14th–11th Centuries B.C.E. and Its Implications for the Reigns of Ramesses II and Ḫattušili III,” UF 42 (2010): 69. 60 The work done in H. Gasche et al., Dating the Fall of Babylon: A Reappraisal of Second-Millennium Chronology (A Joint Ghent-Chicago-Harvard Project), Mesopotamian History and Environment. Series II: Memoirs 4 (Ghent and Chi- cago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1998) added momentum to calls to lower the established Middle Chronology. However, evidence from den- drochronology published in S. Manning et al., “Anatolian Tree Rings and a New Chronology for East Mediterranean Bronze-Iron Ages,” Science 294 (2001): 2532–2535 suggests that the Middle Chronology or a slightly lowered Middle Chronology remains viable, while a Low or Ultra-Low Chronology is much less likely. 61 J. Brinkman, “Mesopotamian Chronology of the Historical Period,” in A. Leo Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead Civilization , rev. ed. (Chi- cago: University of Chicago, 1977), 335–348. 1 J. Brinkman, A Political History of Post-Kassite Babylonia, 1158–722 B.C., AnOr 43 (Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1968), 90–93. 2 Y. Bloch, “Solving the Problems of the Assyrian King List: Toward a Precise Recon- struction of the Middle Assyrian Chronology. Parts I–II,” Journal of Ancient Civili- zations 25 (2010): 76–77 and n. 54. 3 J. Brinkman, PKB , 96–97. The land sale was recorded on a diorite tablet – thought to have been excavated at Babylon (J. Reade, “Babylonian Boundary Stones and Comparable Monuments in the British Museum,” Annual Review of the Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia Project 5 [1987]: 49) – on which the contents of a slightly damaged clay original were inscribed (BBSt 30 = S. Paulus, Die babylonischen Kudurru-Inschriften von der kassitischen bis zur frühneubabylonischen Zeit: Untersucht unter besonderer Berü cksichtigung gesellschafts- und rechtshistorischer Fragestellungen , AOAT 51 [Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2014], IMB 1). For a brief discussion of the tablet and previous bibliography see J. Brinkman, “Babylonian Royal Land Grants, Memorials of Financial Interest, and Invoca- tion of the Divine,” JESHO 49 (2006): 15 and n. 55. 4 J.-J. Glassner, Mesopotamian Chronicles, Writings From the Ancient World 19 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004), No. 14 iv 7–17 (=A. Grayson, ABC , Assyrian Chronicle Fragment 3). 5 Y. Bloch, “Assyro-Babylonian Conflicts in the Reign of Aššur-rēša-iši I: The Contribution of Administrative Documents to History-Writing,” in The Ancient Near East in the 12th–10th Centuries BCE: Culture and History, Proceedings of the International Conference held at the University of Haifa, 2–5 May, 2010, eds. G. Galil et al. (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2012), 61–70. 6 Marduk-nādin-aḫḫē’s forces presumably were the objective of a campaign launched by Tiglath-pileser I that was mentioned in a Babylonian chronicle (J.-J. Glassner, Mesopotamian Chronicles, No. 46:22–26 = C. Walker, “Babylonian Chronicle 25: A Chronicle of the Kassite and Isin II Dynasties,” in Zikir Šumim. Assyriological Studies Presented to F. R. Kraus on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday , eds. G. van Driel et al. [Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1982], 398–417). Tiglath- pileser I, himself, describes his victorious engagements with Marduk-nādin-aḫḫē and his burning of that king’s palaces at Babylon in his own royal inscriptions from Assur (A. Grayson, Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC I (1114–859 BC) , RIMA 2 [Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1991], A.0.87.4:44–51) and Nineveh (A. Grayson, RIMA 2, A.0.87.10:45–53). In spite of Tiglath-pileser’s boasts, he does not appear to have been the sole aggressor in this conflict; the Assyrian king Sennacherib (r. 704–681) would later claim that he returned statues of gods to the Assyrian city of Ekallātum that Marduk-nādin- aḫḫē had brought to Babylon after a campaign that he had conducted against Assyria during the time of Tiglath-pileser I (A. Grayson and J. Novotny, The Royal Inscriptions of Sennacherib, King of Assyria (704–681 BC) , RINAP 3/2 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2014), No. 223:48b–50a). 7 J.-J. Glassner, Mesopotamian Chronicles , No. 46 (= C. Walker, “Babylonian Chroni- cle 25,” 398–417). 8 Y. Bloch, “Assyro-Babylonian Conflicts in the Reign of Aššur-rēša-iši I,” 70–78. 9 To be discussed below. 10 BRM 1 1 and 1a. 11 Nebuchadnezzar is called kāšid māt amurrī , “conqueror of the land of the Amor- ites,” in the opening of the Šitti-Marduk kudurru (BBSt 6 i 10 [= G. Frame, RIMB 2 B.2.4.11 and S. Paulus, Kudurru-Inschriften , NKU I 2]). The term “Amorite” was probably used as a deliberate anachronism, referring as it does to the tribal groups that disrupted the Ur III Dynasty from the northwest in the early second millennium and then, after the collapse of that dynasty, founded several local dynasties throughout southern Mesopotamia at cities such as Isin, Larsa, and, most notably, Babylon from whence Hammurabi eventually emerged. 12 The author first made this argument in J. Nielsen, “Nebuchadnezzar I’s Eastern Front,” in The Ancient Near East in the 12th–10th Centuries BCE: Culture and History, eds. G. Galil et al. AOAT 392 (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2012), 401–411. What follows is a revision and expansion of this original argument utilizing evidence that had not been published at the time of that article as well as evidence from material that remains unpublished. 13 J.-J. Glassner, Mesopotamian Chronicles , No. 10 (= A. Grayson, ABC , No. 21). 14 J.-J. Glassner, Mesopotamian Chronicles, No. 14 iv 17–20 (= A. Grayson, ABC , Assyrian Chronicle Fragment 3). 15 According to the conventional chronology, the end of Aššur-rēša-iši I’s reign overlapped with the first eleven years of Nebuchadnezzar I’s reign but only the first seven years of Nebuchadnezzar I’s reign according to the modified chronology proposed in Y. Bloch, “Assyro-Babylonian Conflicts in the Reign of Aššur- rēša-iši I,” 56. 16 J.-J. Glassner, Mesopotamian Chronicles, No. 10 ii 1’’ (= A. Grayson, ABC , 162, 157–170, No. 21 ii 1’). The names of the kings who negotiated the peace are lost due to a break. On the basis of previous lines, it is apparent that Aššur-rēša-iši I was the Assyrian king; it is also possible that Nebuchadnezzar I was the Babylo- nian king. 17 J. Brinkman, PKB , 111. 18 W. van Soldt, “The Location of Idu,” NABU (2008/55). 19 The tablet in question, A 1471, was described by V. Donbaz in “Assur Collec- tions Housed in Istanbul: General Outlines,” in Acts of the IIIrd International Congress of Hittitology: Çorum, September 16–22, 1996, eds. Sedat Alp and Aygül Süel (Ankara: Uyum Ajans, 1998), 183. Y. Bloch argues that it is more rea- sonable to date this tablet to Tiglath-pileser I than it is to date it to Aššur-rēša-iši I in “Assyro-Babylonian Conflicts in the Reign of Aššur-rēša-iši I,” 74 n. 79. 20 Y. Bloch suggests that Nebuchadnezzar achieved this new peace with Tiglath- pileser I only after having been defeated by Aššur-rēša-iši and then began his war with Elam (“Assyro-Babylonian Conflicts,” 77). This is possible, but it would mean that Nebuchadnezzar, having broken the previous peace agreement, felt sufficiently confident in his new relationship with Assyria negotiated in the aftermath of a defeat to the Assyrians to leave his flank exposed while he pursued eastward campaigns against the Elamites. Given the Assyrian aversion to admit- ting defeat in the Synchronistic Chronicle, it seems more likely that the outcome of the war with Assyria was more favorable to Babylonia. 21 BBSt 6 i 9–10 (= G. Frame, RIMB 2 2.4.11 and S. Paulus, Kudurru-Inschriften , NKU I 2). 22 The Lullubû feature most notably in the famous Victory Stele of Narām-Sîn, now housed in the Louvre, which depicts that Akkadian king leading his army up into the Zagros Mountains against the Lullubû in the late third millennium (P. Amiet, L’art d’Agade au musée du Louvre [Paris: Éditions des Musées nationaux, 1976], 29–32). 23 H. Klengel, “Lullu(bum),” RlA 7 (1988), 164–168. 24 The name of Simbar-Šipak (r. 1025–1008) and that of his possible son, Kaššû- nādin-aḫi (r. 1007–1005) – the first and third kings respectively of the Second Sealand Dynasty – indicate that both men had Kassite identities (J. Brinkman, PKB , 150–157 and 249). The Bāzi Dynasty (1004–985) was a Kassite dynasty (J. Brinkman, PKB , 157–160 and 251). 25 J. Brinkman, “Kassiten/Kaššû,” RlA 5 (1980), 471. 26 C. Walker and D. Collon, “Hormuzd Rassam’s Excavations for the British Museum at Sippar in 1881–1882,” in Tell ed-Der III: Soundings at Abu Ḥabbah (Sippar) , ed. L. de Meyer (Leuven: Peeters, 1980), 101 and 112. 27 BBSt 6 ii 23 (= S. Paulus, Kudurru-Inschriften , NKU I 2). 28 BBSt 6 ii 36–31 (= S. Paulus, Kudurru-Inschriften , NKU I 2). 29 J. Reade, “Kassites and Assyrians in Iran,” Iran 16 (1978): 137. 30 BBSt 6 i 44–50 (= S. Paulus, Kudurru-Inschriften , NKU I 2). 31 MDP 6: 44–45 (= S. Paulus, Kudurru-Inschriften , MŠ 7) and W. Lambert, “Another Boundary Stone of Merodachbaladan I,” AfO 52 (2011): 15–21 (= S. Paulus, Kudurru-Inschriften , MAI I 9). For the location of Burrutaš and Irrēya, see K. Nashef, Dir Orts- und Gewässernamen der mittelbabylonischen und mittelassyrischen Zeit, Répertoire Géographique des Textes Cunéiformes 5 (Wies- baden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 1982), 75 and 138. 32 For the location of Tiriqan on the Ṭaban, a tributary of the Diyala River, see K. Nashef, Dir Orts- und Gewässernamen der mittelbabylonischen und mittelassyrischen Zeit , 262 and 322. 33 J. Brinkman, A Catalogue of Cuneiform Sources Pertaining to Specific Monarchs of the Kassite Dynasty , MSKH 1 (Chicago: The Oriental Institute, 1976), 89–94. 34 W. Lambert, “Another Boundary Stone,” AfO 52 (2011): 15–21 (= S. Paulus, Kudurru-Inschriften , MAI I 9). 35 J. Brinkman, PKB , 88–90. 36 J.-J. Glassner, Mesopotamian Chronicles , No. 10 ii 9–12 (= A. Grayson, ABC , No. 21). 37 BBSt 9 iv a 3 (= Paulus, Kudurru-Inschriften , NMA 1 v 3). 38 These men were Illatu-šuma-ukīn (M. Weszeli, “A New Boundary Stone of the Reign of Nabû-mukīn-apli,” RA 104 [2010]: 108, rev. iii 4 [= S. Paulus, Kudurru- Inschriften , NMA 3]) and Šuqamuna-apla-iddina (BBSt 9 iv b 2–3 [= S. Paulus, NMA 1 vi 2–3]). For the office of šākin ṭēmi see Brinkman, PKB , 307–309 and Paulus, 110–111 and 255. There was to varying degrees a tendency for offices to be controlled for varying durations of time by specific kin-based or familial groups. Approximately thirty years prior to a member of the Bīt-Karziabku tribe holding the office, a member of the Bīt-Tunamisaḫ tribe had been the šākin ṭēmi māti during the reign of Ninurta-kudurrī-uṣur I according to an older witness list inscribed on BBSt 9 top 19–20 (= S. Paulus, Kudurru-Inschriften , NMA 1 i 19–20). By 963, Nabû-mukīn-apli’s sixteenth year, a descendant of Tunamisaḫ appeared in a witness list on a kudurru with a title of sukkallu (M. Weszeli, RA 104 [2010/1]: 108 iii 3 [= S. Paulus, Kudurru-Inschriften , NMA 3]), a higher- ranking office that conventionally preceded the šākin ṭēmi māti in such lists (Brinkman PKB , 302 and Paulus, Kudurru-Inschriften , 105–109), followed by Illatu-šuma-ukīn descendant of Karziabku as š ākin ṭēmi māti. Six years later, a different Šuqamuna-apla-iddina descendant of Karziabku held the office. Roughly a century later, in Nabû-apla-iddina’s twentieth year, the office of š ākin ṭēmi māti was held by a son or descendant of Tamba-šaddar (BBSt 28 rev. 23 = S. Paulus, Kudurru-Inschriften , NAI 1); the office of š ākin ṭēmi was held by a different man with the same patronym eleven years later (BBSt 36 vi 22–23 = S. Paulus, Kudurru-Inschriften , NAI 3). 39 K. Kessler, “Namar/Namri,” RlA 9 (1998), 91–92. 40 References to Namar at Ebla are more likely to be equated with a town of Nawar shown to have existed in the Habur region (D. Oates, “Excavations at Tell Brak 1985–86, Iraq 49 [1987]: 188 and N. Illingworth, “Inscriptions From Tell Brak 1986,” Iraq 50 [1988]: 105 No. 24:1–3). 41 J. Eidem and J. Læssøe, The Shemshara Archives 1: The Letters (Copenhagen: Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab, 2002), No. 69: 28’. 42 The tablet in question allocates “2 uzu udu.níta” for the “gar kur na-mar .” I would like to thank J. S. Tenney for this reference. 43 S. Paulus, Kudurru-Inschriften , MNA 1 (= Caillou Michaux Kudurru). 44 S. Paulus, Kudurru-Inschriften , 155. Originally an occupational title during the Kassite Dynasty, the sakrumaš had become a military official by the time of Nebuchadnezzar I associated with horses and chariotry (Brinkman PKB , 305– 307 and Paulus, Kudurru-Inschriften , 113–114). The members of Bīt-Ḫabban who held the office during Nabû-apla-iddina’s reign are Aḫa-erība (BBSt 28 r. 21 [= S. Paulus, Kudurru-Inschriften , NAI 1]), Anu-rabû-salim (BBSt 29 ii 11–12 [= NAI 2 r. i 11–12]), and Marduk-šuma-ukīn (BBSt 36 vi 18–19 [= NAI 3 r. vi 18–19]). Nergal-apla-uṣur held the office in VAS 1 57 ii 5–7 (= S. Paulus, Kudurru-Inschriften , U 23), which J. Brinkman and S. Daley, “A Royal Kudurru from the Reign of Aššur-nādin-šumi,” ZA 78 (1988): 98 assigned to the years between 871 and 851 based on the titles, and U. Seidl, Die babylonischen Kudurru-Reliefs: Symbole mesopotamischer Gottheiten, OBO 87 (Freiburg and Göttingen: Universitätsverlag Freiburg and Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 1989), 277 dated to Nabû-apla-iddina on stylistic grounds (K. Slanski, The Babylonian Entitlement narû s [kudurru s ]: A Study in their Form and Function , ASOR Books 9 [Boston: American School of Oriental Research, 2003], 301 and 304 n. 19). 45 S. Paulus, Kudurru-Inschriften , NKU I 4. 46 S. Paulus, Kudurru-Inschriften , NKU I 4 i 8–ii 14. 47 S. Paulus, Kudurru-Inschriften , NKU I 4 ii 15–23. 48 A. Grayson, RIMA 2, A.0.99.4:13’–20’. 49 A. Grayson, Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC II (858–754 BC) , RIMA 3 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1996), A.0.102.14:93b–95. 50 A. Grayson, RIMA 3, A.0.102.14:110b – 126a. This campaign is also mentioned in the Assyrian Eponym Chronicles. J.-J. Glassner, Mesopotamian Chronicles, No. 9: 8’ (= A. Millard, The Eponyms of the Assyrian Empire, 910–612 BC SAAS 2 [Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 1994], 29). 51 A. Grayson, RIMA 3 A.0.103.1 iv 37–45. 52 J.-J. Glassner, Mesopotamian Chronicles , No. 9: 21’.45’.71’–72’.78’ (= A. Mil- lard, Eponyms , 35–43). 53 H. Tadmor, The Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III King of Assyria: Critical Edition, with Introductions, Translations, and Commentary (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1994), St. I B:5’–14’ (= H. Tadmor, S. Yamada, and J. Novotny, The Royal Inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III (744–727 BC) and Shalmaneser V (726–722 BC), Kings of Assyria , RINAP 1 [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011], Tiglath-pileser III 35 i 1’–14’) and Summ. 7:29–37 (= RINAP 1, Tiglath-pileser III 47:29–37). 54 Lie, Sar., 20:116. Lie restores Namri and Bīt-Ḫabban earlier in the inscription in 4:[9]. 55 BBSt 6 i 50 (= S. Paulus, Kudurru-Inschriften , NKU I 2). 56 BBSt 24 (= S. Paulus, Kudurru-Inschriften , NKU I 3). 57 BBSt 24: 11–12 (= S. Paulus, Kudurru-Inschriften , NKU I 3). 58 For the location of Ḫuṣṣu in Bīt-Sîn-ašarēd see Paulus, Kudurru-Inschriften , 190. 59 S. Paulus points out that narrative interjections that provide background for the texts on kudurrus, while useful, are not as revealing as they might otherwise be because these insertions are secondary to the purposes of the kudurrus (Kudurru-Inschriften , 53–56). 60 BBSt 24: 15–30 (= S. Paulus, Kudurru-Inschriften , NKU I 3). 61 A. Kuhrt, The Ancient Near East c. 3000–300 BC (London: Routledge, 1995), 375–376 and M. Van De Mieroop, A History of the Ancient Near East ca. 3000– 323 BC (Oxford: Blackwell, 2004), 161 and 177. 62 G. Frame, “Ulai, Ulaja A. River,” RlA 14 (2014), 302–303. 63 CAD Š/II, s.v. ši ḫṭu A mng. 1c. 64 P. Harper and P. Amiet, “The Mesopotamian Presence,” in The Royal City of Susa: Ancient Near Eastern Treasures in the Louvre, eds. P. Harper et al. (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1992), 159–182. 65 The Elamites did not reappear in Babylonian affairs again until 814 when Elamite troops came to the aid of the Babylonian king Marduk-balāssu-iqbi at Dūr-Papsukkal against Assyrian forces led by Šamši-Adad V (M. Waters, A Sur- vey of Neo-Elamite History, SAAS 12 [Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2000], 10–11). 66 D. Potts, The Archaeology of Elam: Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State , Cambridge World Archeology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 252–255. 67 G. Frame, RIMB 2 B.3.1.1. 68 UET 4 143:11 and 13. 69 While carrying out work at Ur, Nabonidus claimed to have found a stele set up by Nebuchadnezzar I that depicted the entu -priestess (YOS 1 45 I 29–33). For more on this event see section 5.2. later in the book. 70 G. Selz, “Enlil und Nippur nach prasargonischen Quellen,” in Nippur at the Centennial , ed. M. Ellis (Philadelphia: University Museum, 1992), 189–225. 71 M. Gibson, “Patterns of Occupation at Nippur,” in Nippur at the Centennial, 42–48. 72 G. Frame, RIMB 2 B.2.4.2. 73 A fragmentary tablet with a literary composition – one of several dealing with Kudur-naḫḫunte’s attack on Babylonia that had been known as the Kedor-Laomer Texts – describes the Elamite king’s destruction of Nippur (B. Foster, Before the Muses: An Anthology of Akkadian Literature, 3rd ed. [Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 2005], 371–374). 74 Hinke Kudurru, p. 116. 75 Hinke Kudurru ii 4–5 (= S. Paulus, Kudurru-Inschriften , NKU I). 76 Hinke Kudurru i 3–4 (= S. Paulus, Kudurru-Inschriften , NKU I). 77 Hinke Kudurru iv 5–6 (= S. Paulus, Kudurru-Inschriften , NKU I). 78 C. Walker and D. Collon, “Hormuzd Rassam’s Excavations for the British Museum at Sippar in 1881–1882,” in Tell ed-Der III: Soundings at Abu Ḥabbah (Sippar) , ed. L. de Meyer (Leuven: Peeters, 1980), 101 and 112; J. Reade, “Baby- lonian Boundary Stones and Comparable Monuments in the British Museum,” ARRIM 5 (1987): 48; and K. Slanski, The Babylonian Entitlement narû s (kudurrus), ASOR Books 9 (Boston: American School of Oriental Research, 2003), 75. 79 G. Frame, RIMB 2 2.4.11 i 12. 80 V. Hurowitz, “Some Literary Observations on the Šitti-Marduk Kudurru (BBSt. 6),” ZA 82 (1992): 39–59. 81 G. Frame, RIMB 2 B.2.4.1. 82 A. George, House Most High: The Temples of Ancient Mesopotamia, Mesopota- mian Civilizations 5 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1993), 111. 83 G. Frame, RIMB 2 B.2.4.1 i 1–2. Restorations follow G. Frame. 84 W. Lambert points out that in Old Babylonian inscriptions, Marduk was the recipi- ent of several elevated titles. Dominion over the people was ascribed to Marduk, and he was great “among the gods,” but he did not rule over the gods (“The Reign of Nebuchadnezzar I: A Turning Point in the History of Ancient Mesopotamian Reli- gion,” in The Seed of Wisdom: Essays in Honour of T. J. Meek, ed. W. S. McCullough [Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1964], 7–8). 85 G. Frame, RIMB 2 B.2.4.1 i 7-iv 11. 86 Nabopolassar’s use of Nebuchdanezzar I’s memory at Ur is discussed later. 1 J. Brinkman, A Political History of Post-Kassite Babylonia, 1158–722 B.C., AnOr 43 (Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1968), 116–135. 2 J. Assmann, “Collective Memory and Cultural Identity,” New German Critique 65 (1995): 127. 3 The numbers in parentheses indicate the order in which they reigned as part of the Second Dynasty of Isin. 4 S. Paulus, Kudurru-Inschriften , ENAp 1 and BBSt 11 (= S. Paulus, Kudurru- Inschriften , ENAp 2). 5 For a discussion of this source see section 1.2.2.a earlier in the book. 6 J.-J. Glassner, Mesopotamian Chronicles , No. 46:19–20 (= C. Walker, “Babylo- nian Chronicle 25: A Chronicle of the Kassite and Isin II Dynasties,” in Zikir Šumim. Assyriological Studies Presented to F. R. Kraus on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday , eds. G. van Driel et al. (Leiden: Brill, 1982), 402. 7 G. Frame, RIMB 2 B.2.5.1. 8 J.-J. Glassner, Mesopotamian Chronicles , No. 46:22–26 (= C. Walker, “Babylo- nian Chronicle 25,” 402). Y. Bloch, “Assyro-Babylonian Conflicts in the Reign of Aššur-rēš-iši I: The Contribution of Administrative Documents to History- Writing,” in The Ancient Near East in the 12th–10th Centuries BCE: Culture and History , eds. G. Galil et al., AOAT 392 (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2012), 70–78. 9 Y. Bloch has dated this event to Tukultī-Ninurta’s eighteenth year in “The Order of Eponyms in the Reign of Tukultī-Ninurta I,” Or . 79 (2010): 9–15. This would have been the year 1226 in Brinkman’s chronology but 1224 following Bloch’s shortening of the chronology in “Middle Assyrian Lunar Calendar and Chro- nology,” in Living the Lunar Calendar, eds. J. Ben-Dov et al. (Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2012), 45. 10 A. Grayson, Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC I (1114–859 BC), RIMA 2 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1991), A.0.87.4:44–5 and A.0.87.10:45–53. These episodes were also described in the Synchronistic Chron- icle (= J.-J. Glassner, Mesopotamian Chronicles , No. 10 ii 14’’–21’’). 11 Or 1086 if we follow Y. Bloch’s lowered chronology in “Assyro-Babylonian Con- flicts,” 56. See below. 12 BBSt 8 i 1–28 (= S. Paulus, Kudurru-Inschriften , MNA 3). 13 For the location of Irrēya, see S. Paulus, Kudurru-Inschriften , 192. 14 A. Grayson and J. Novotny, The Royal Inscriptions of Sennacherib, King of Assyria (704–681 BC), RINAP 3/1 and 3/2 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012 and 2014), Nos. 24 vi 1’–6’ and 223:48b–50a. 15 J. Brinkman, PKB , 124–130. 16 Y. Bloch, “Assyro-Babylonian Conflicts,” 78. 17 A transliteration and translation of the tablet (A. 1123) and a discussion of its significance for our understanding of Tiglath-pileser I’s war with Babylonia are published in J. Llop, “Die persönlichen Gründe Tiglat-Pilesers I., Babylonien anzugreifen,” Or . 72 (2003): 204–210. 18 The Assyrians did not number their years by regnal years or by an era but instead named their years eponymously after officials in the same way that the Romans named their years for the consuls who served. 19 A. Grayson, RIMA 2 A.0.87.4:49. 20 H. Freydank, Beitr äge zur mittelassyrischen Chronologie und Geschichte , Schriften zur Geschichte und Kultur des alten Orients 21 (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1991), 83–88. 21 Y. Bloch, “Assyro-Babylonian,” 56. 22 Sennacherib captured and sacked Babylon in 689. Had Marduk-nādin-aḫḫē’s removal of the idols occurred 418 years earlier, as Sennacherib claimed, then the former king’s capture of Ekallātum would have occurred in 1107, a date that fits neither Brinkman nor Bloch’s chronologies. It is possible that the scribe was cal- culating the elapsed time from the date of composition and not from the date of Sennacherib’s sack. If this was the case, then only Sennacherib’s final year, 681, would work, and only if Marduk-nādin-aḫḫē had seized Ekallātum in 1099, his first year on the throne according to Brinkman’s chronology. 23 J. Brinkman, PKB , 120–122. 24 TuM 5 44. 25 G. Frame, RIMB 2 B.2.6.1 and 2. 26 D. Frayne, Old Babylonian Period (2003–1595 BC), RIME 4 (Toronto: Univer- sity of Toronto Press, 1990), E.4.2.8.3 ex. 12. 27 R. Ellis, Foundation Deposits in Ancient Mesopotamia , Yale Near Eastern Researches 2 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968), 114–115. 28 J. Brinkman, PKB , 129–130. 29 J.-J. Glassner, Mesopotamian Chronicles , No. 15:2’–9’ (= Grayson, ABC , Assyr- ian Chronicle Fragment 4:2–9). 30 J.-J. Glassner, Mesopotamian Chronicles , 282–283 No. 46:27–28 (= C. Walker, “Babylonian Chronicle 25,” 402). 31 J.-J. Glassner, Mesopotamian Chronicles , No. 10 A ii 25’’–37’’ (= Grayson, ABC , No. 21 ii 25’–37’). 32 G. Frame, RIMB 2 B.2.7.1. 33 G. Frame, RIMB 2 B.2.7.2. 34 G. Frame, RIMB 2 B.2.7.2001. 35 UET 4 143:15. 36 S. Paulus, Kudurru-Inschriften , MNA 5 iv’ 2’. 37 BBSt 7 ii 25 (= Paulus, Kudurru-Inschriften , MNA 2) and Paulus, Kudurru- Inschriften , MŠZ 1 ii 18. 38 J. Tenney, “The Elevation of Marduk Revisited: Festivals and Sacrifices at Nip- pur During the High Kassite Period,” JCS (2016): 153–180. 1 This chapter includes reworked sections from the author’s essay “Marduk’s Return: Assyrian Imperial Propaganda, Babylonian Cultural Memory, and the ak ītu Festival of 667 BC,” in Memory and Urban Religion in the Ancient World , eds. Martin Bommas et al. (London: Bloomsbury, 2012), 3–32. 2 J. Assmann, “Collective Memory and Cultural Identity,” New German Critique 65 (1995): 125–133. 3 These events were in turn part of protracted efforts on the part of Assyria to control Babylonia and specifically Babylon that had begun in the ninth century but never proved entirely effective. G. Frame, “Babylon: Assyria’s Problem and Assyria’s Prize,” Journal of the Canadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies 3 (2008): 21–31. 4 J. Russell, Sennacherib’s Palace Without Rival at Nineveh (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991), 36–39. 5 O. Pedersén, Archives and Libraries of the Ancient Near East (Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 1998), 158–163. The compositions that were part of the Kuyunjik collection are: “Nebuchadnezzar and Marduk” (G. Frame, RIMB 2 B.2.4.5), “The War with Elam” (RIMB 2 B.2.4.6), and “The Nebuchadnezzar Bilingual” (RIMB 2 B.2.4.8–9). The first two of these are only known from tablets found at Kuyunjik, though a colophon on the tablet containing “Nebuchadnezzar and Marduk” identifies it as a copy of a tablet from Babylon. Examples of “The Nebuchadnezzar Bilingual” from Kuyunjik have colophons identifying them as having come from the palace of Ashurbanipal. Additionally, one tablet containing the Marduk Prophecy was also excavated at Kuyunjik. 6 A. Fuchs, “Sargon II,” RlA 12 (2009), 59–60. 7 J. Reade, “Archaeology and the Kuyunjik Archives,” in Cuneiform Archives and Libraries, ed. K. Veenhof, PIHANS 57 (Leiden: Nederlands Historisch- Archaeologisch Instituut in het Nabije Oosten, 1986), 213–222. 8 S. Parpola, “The Royal Archives of Nineveh,” in Cuneiform Archives and Librar- ies, ed. K. Veenhof, PIHANS 57 (Leiden: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut in het Nabije Oosten, 1986), 234. 9 G. Frame and A. George, “The Royal Libraries of Nineveh: New Evidence for King Ashurbanipal’s Tablet Collecting,” Iraq 67 (2005): 265–284. 10 Records from early in 647 attest to the process of accession of these Babylonian tablets into Ashurbanipal’s collection (S. Parpola, “Assyrian Library Records,” JNES 42 [1983]: 11). 11 The issue of Ashurbanipal’s literacy has been discussed in A. Livingstone, “Ashur- banipal: Literate or Not?” ZA 97 (2007): 98–118 with prior bibliography. 12 An excellent overview of the relationship between the Neo-Assyrian king and his scholars with prior bibliography can be found in K. Radner, “Royal Decision-Making: Kings, Magnates, and Scholars,” in The Oxford Handbook of Cuneiform Culture , eds. K. Radner and E. Robson (Oxford: Oxford Univer- sity Press, 2011), 361–370. 13 E. Frahm, “Royal Hermeneutics: Observations on the Commentaries From Ashurbanipal’s Libraries at Nineveh,” Iraq 66 (2004): 49–50. 14 A. Leo Oppenheim suggested that Mesopotamian intellectuals enjoyed significant freedom of movement in the first millennium in “The Position of the Intellectual in Mesopotamian Society,” Daedalus 104 (1975): 41–44. Further discussion and additional evidence for such intellectual interactions can be found in J.-J. Glassner, “Des dieux, des scribes, et des savants: Circulation des idées et transmission des écrits en Mésopotamie,” Annales – Histoire, Sciences Sociales 60 (2005): 483–506; J. Nielsen, “Trading on Knowledge: The Iddin- Papsukkal Kin Group in Southern Babylonia in the Seventh and 6th Centu- ries B.C.,” Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions 9 (2009): 171–182; P.-A. Beaulieu, “The Afterlife of Assyrian Scholarship in Hellenistic Babylonia,” in Gazing on the Deep: Ancient Near Eastern and Other Studies in Honor of Tzvi Abusch , eds. J. Stackert et al. (Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 2010), 1–18; and E. Frahm, “Headhunter, Bücherdiebe und wanernde Gelehrte: Anmerkungen zum altorientalischen Wissentransfer im 1. Jahrtausund v. Chr,” in Wissenkultur im Alten Orient: Weltanschauung, Wissenschaften, Techniken, Technologien , ed. H. Neumann, 15–30, CDOG 4. (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2012). 15 G. Frame, Babylonia 689–627 B.C.: A Political History , PIHANS 69 (Leiden: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut, 1992), 104 and n. 8. 16 The Assyrian proclivity for depicting their harsh treatment of their foes in art and literature is well known. A. Fuchs suggests that some of these depictions are more hyperbole than reality in “Assyrian at War: Strategy and Conduct,” in The Oxford Handbook of Cuneiform Culture, eds. K. Radner and E. Robson (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 380–401. Regardless, we have to assume that the capture of Babylon involved violence against both people and property. The level of destruction may not have matched Sennacherib’s descriptions, but his willingness to have the destruction of temples and gods described in his inscriptions is indicative of his desire to do damage to the city. 17 The possibility that Sennacherib had to deal with tumultuous conditions throughout the empire that led to the revolt in Babylonia is discussed in J. Brinkman, Prelude to Empire, Occasional Publications of the Babylonian Fund 7 (University of Pennsylvania Museum: Philadelphia, 1984), 55. 18 Marduk-zākir-šumi II was a member of a prominent Babylonian family, but his inability to keep the crown was typical for men of such pedigree between 747 and 626 when either Assyrians or Chaldeans tended to hold the throne. J. Nielsen, Sons and Descendants: A Social History of Kin Groups and Family Names in the Early Neo-Babylonian Period, 747–626 BC , Culture & History of the Ancient Near East 43 (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 28–31. 19 Brinkman, Prelude to Empire , 60–61. 20 Brinkman, Prelude to Empire , 67 and E. Frahm, Einleitung in die Sanherib- Inschriften , Archiv für Orientforschung Beiheft 26 (Vienna: Instituts für Orien- talistik der Universitat Wien, 1997), 3. The fate of Aššur-nādin-šumi was still a concern when Šamaš-šuma-ukīn was crown prince at Babylon. In a letter to his father, Esarhaddon, he included the contents of a report that he received from two men at Babylon and a third from Borsippa pertaining to disloyal scholars who had made a pact with the people who had betrayed Aššur-nādin-šumi to the Elamites (M. Luukko and G. Van Buylaere, The Political Correspondence of Esarhaddon , SAA 16 [Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 2002], No. 21). 21 J.-J. Glassner, Mesopotamian Chronicles, Writings From the Ancient World 19 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004), No. 16 iii 22–24 (= A. Grayson, ABC , No 1). 22 A. Grayson and J. Novotny, The Royal Inscriptions of Sennacherib, King of Assyria (704–681 BC) , RINAP 3/2 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2014), No. 223: 43b–48a. 23 The Araḫtu was the name given to the west branch of the Euphrates River that flowed through Babylon. By the first millennium, shifts in the course of the river had made it the primary branch, the older branch, which flowed through Nippur and Kish to the east, having become diminished and less navigable (A. George, Babylonian Topographical Texts, OLA 40 [Leuven: Peeters Press, 1992], 351). 24 Grayson and Novotny, RINAP 3/2 No. 223: 50b–54a. 25 Grayson and Novotny, RINAP 3/2 No. 168: 36b–41. 26 S. Dalley raises such doubts in “The Language of Destruction,” Bagh. Mitt . 36 (2005): 276. G. Frame ( Babylonia 689–627 B.C.: A Political History, PIHANS 69 [Leiden: Nederlands Historisch Archaeologisch Instituut, 1992], 55–56) acknowledges there is little archaeological evidence for Sennacherib’s destruction but points to findings from the Merkes quarter of Babylon in which a level of scattered construction in the Middle Babylonian-Assyrian stratum was built atop layers of sand, clay, and ash and a level containing more substantial houses. Evidence for more prosperous habitation was found above the level of scattered construction (O. Reuther, Die Innenstadt von Babylon (Merkes), WVDOG 47 [Osnabruck: Otto Zeller Verlag, 1926], 21–25 and 60–64). 27 G. Frame, Babylonia 689–627 B.C ., 68. Esarhaddon’s royal inscriptions state that he rebuilt the Esagil, the Etemenanki (the ziggurat), the processional way, and the city walls at Babylon (E. Leichty, The Royal Inscriptions of Esarhad- don, King of Assyria (680–669 BC) , RINAP 4 [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011], passim), actions confirmed by the several inscribed or stamped bricks bearing variant dedications commemorating his actions there (G. Frame, RIMB 2 B.6.32.2–9). 28 Sennacherib claims to have destroyed the temples and ziggurat in Grayson and Novotny, RINAP 3/2 No. 24: vi 7’ – 16’. In No. 168:36b–39a he claims to have smashed Babylon’s gods in the course of his destructive acts. However, it was his soldiers who destroyed the gods in No. 223: 48. 29 Grayson and Novotny, RINAP 3/2 No. 223: 49b–50a. These statues were not unique as objects that Sennacherib used to give historical context to his victory. A clay tablet from Nineveh provides a copy of the inscriptions on a lapis lazuli seal that passed back and forth between Babylonia and Assyria (Grayson, RIMA 1 A.0.78.28). Originally bearing the royal seal of the Kassite Dynasty king Šagarakti-Šuriaš (r. 1245–1233), it was taken as booty by Tukultī-Ninurta I (r. 1243–1207), who added an inscription stating as much but then returned to Babylonia, only to be recaptured by Sennacherib 600 years later by his own reckoning. 30 E. Frahm, Einleitung in die Sanherib-Inschriften , 282–288. 31 Grayson and Novotny, RINAP 3/2 No. 168:44b–47. Sennacherib claimed that the location of the original akītu house outside the city walls had been forgotten in the distant past, necessitating the observation of the festival entirely within the city (Ibid., 29b–30a). Conveniently, the new temple allowed Sen- nacherib to celebrate the ak ītu festival in the same manner as it was observed at Babylon with the god proceeding out from and back into the city. Significantly, modern archaeology has not corroborated Sennacherib’s claim; no traces of an older structure were discovered beneath Sennacherib’s akītu house (G. van Driel, The Cult of Aššur, Studia Semitica Neerlandica 13 [Assen: Van Gorcum, 1969], 57–58). A description of the excavated ak ītu house of Sennacherib by Walter Andrae can be found in A. Haller and W. Andrae, Die Heiligtümer des Gottes Assur und der Sin-Šamaš-Tempel in Assur , WVDOG 67 (Berlin: Verlag Gebr. Mann, 1955), 74–76. 32 B. Pongratz-Leisten, Religion and Ideology in Assyria, Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Records 6 (Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, 2015), 416. 33 M. Cohen, The Cultic Calendars of the Ancient Near East (Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 1993), 417–420. The ritual text in question, KAR 135+, does not preserve the name of the ritual being performed, but Cohen argues (ibid., 418) that the acts described in the text are consistent with the performance of the ak ītu . 34 B. Pongratz-Leisten, Ina Šulmi Īrub: Die kulttopographische und ideologische Programmatik der akītu-Prozession in Babylonien und Assyrien im I. Jahrtausend v. Chr., Baghdader Forschungen 16 (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1994), 115–132. 35 B. Pongratz-Leisten, Religion and Ideology in Assyria , 417–421. 36 H. Tadmor, “Part II: The Historical Background,” in H. Tadmor, B. Landsberger, and S. Parpola, “The Sin of Sargon and Sennacherib’s Last Will,” State Archives of Assyria Bulletin 3/1 (1989): 29–30 and A. Livingstone, Court Poetry and Lit- erary Miscellanea, SAA 3 (Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1989), xvii. The antecedents of this conceptualization of Aššur may stretch back to the reign of Tukultī-Ninurta I (r. 1243–1207). The earliest attestation of the writing is on an inscribed bead from that king’s reign (K. Deller, “Assyrische Königsinschriften auf “Perlen”,” NABU 1987/101). However, this writing appears to have been unique at this time, making it difficult to associate it with any later theological perspectives (E. Frahm, Einleitung in die Sanherib-Inschriften , 283). 37 Grayson and Novotny, RINAP 3/2 No. 223:1. 38 E. Frahm, Babylonian and Assyrian Text Commentaries , 354 acknowledges that the “The Marduk Ordeal” lacks a date of composition. A summary of possible dates with prior bibliography can be found in G. Vera Chamaza, Die Omnipo- tenz Aššurs: Entwicklungen in der Aššur-Theologie unter den Sargoniden Sar- gon II., Senherib und Asarhaddon, AOAT 295 (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2002), 160–164, who argues that it was composed during Sennacherib’s reign. 39 A. Livingstone, SAA 3 34 and 35. 40 E. Frahm, Bab ylonian and Assyrian Text Commentaries , 352–353. 41 A. Annus, “The Marduk Ordeal and Two Babylonian Omens,” NABU (2010/85). 42 E. Frahm, Babylonian and Assyrian Text Commentaries , 354 n. 1683. 43 See below, nn. 58 and 59. 44 This understanding is reliant on L. R. Siddall’s interpretation of the ambiguous designation given to Sennacherib and Aššur-nādin-šumi in Babylonian King List A as belonging to the dynasty of ḪA-BI GAL. Siddall proposes a reading of palî ha-pí rabî , which translates to “of an evil (or wretched) dynasty.” NABU 2013/12. 45 J.-J. Glassner, Mesopotamian Chronicles, No. 18:31–33 (= A. Grayson, ABC , No. 14) and J.-J. Glassner, Mesopotamian Chronicles , No. 20:1–4 (= A. Gray- son, ABC , No. 16). 46 J.-J. Glassner, Mesopotamian Chronicles, No. 16 iii 28 (= A. Grayson, ABC , No. 1). 47 J.-J. Glassner, Mesopotamian Chronicles , No. 16 (A. Grayson, ABC , No. 1), which purports to be the first tablet in a series, ends with the accession of Šamaš-šuma-ukīn (668); the final lines of Glassner, No. 18 (= ABC , No. 14) are broken, but the last date is the first year of Šamaš-šuma-ukīn; the accession year of Nabopolassar (626) was the last date recorded in Glassner, No. 20 (= ABC , No. 16). 48 A. Grayson, “Königslisten und Chroniken, Akkadisch,” RlA 6 (1980), 101. For a discussion of the Ptolemaic Canon’s significance, origins, and transmission see L. Depuydt, “ ‘More Valuable than all Gold’: Ptolemey’s Royal Canon and Babylonian Chronology,” JCS 47 (1995): 97–117. 49 S. Parpola, “The Murder of Sennacherib,” in Death in Mesopotamia, Mesopo- tamia 8, ed. B. Alster (Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1980), 171–182. 50 S. Parpola’s proposal that Esarhaddon suffered from the autoimmune disease lupus (Letters From Assyrian Scholars to the Kings of Esarhaddon and Assur- banipal, Part II: Commentary and Appendices, AOAT 5/2 [1983], 230–236) has been questioned and strongly critiqued in K.-H. Leven, “ ‘At Times these Ancient Facts Seem to Lie Before Me like a Patient on a Hospital Bed’ – Retrospective Diagnosis and Ancient Medical History,” in Magic and Rational- ity in Ancient Near Eastern and Graeco-Roman Medicine , Studies in Ancient Medicine 27, eds. H. Horstmannshoff et al. (Boston: Brill, 2004), 380–382. However, not knowing the modern identity of the disease that afflicted Esar- haddon takes nothing away from the clear discomfort it caused him as the sources assembled by Parpola demonstrate. 51 K. Radner, “The Trials of Esarhaddon,” ISIMU: Revista sobre Oriente Prox- imo y Egypto en la antiguedad 6 (2003): 165–184. 52 E. Leichty, “Esarhaddon, King of Assyria,” in Civilization of the Ancient Near East, Volume 2: History and Culture, ed. J. Sasson (New York: Scribner, 1995), 957. 53 E. Leichty, RINAP 4 104 iii 19b–31 and passim. The significance of the basket-carrying ritual is discussed in B. Porter, “Ritual and Politics in Assyria: Neo-Assyrian Kanephoric Stelai for Babylonia,” Hesperia Supplements 33 (2004): 265. 54 G. Frame, Babylonia 689–627 B.C ., 93–96. 55 S. Parpola and K. Watanabe, Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths, SAA 2 (Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1988), No. 6. For recent discussions of the ideological power of the Neo-Assyrian adê oath within the empire see M. Fales, “After Ta‘yinat: The New Status of Esarhaddon’s adê for Assyrian Political History,” RA 106 (2012): 133–158 and J. Lauinger, “The Neo-Assyrian adê : Treaty, Oath, or Something Else?” Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 19 (2013): 99–115. 56 P. Machinist rejects the notion that there was a clear divide between pro- and anti-Babylonian factions among the Assyrians, pointing out that neither did Sennacherib reject all things Babylonian, nor did Esarhaddon repudiate Sen- nacherib’s deeds (“The Assyrians and Their Babylonian Problem: Some Reflec- tions,” Wissenschaftskolleg zu Berlin Jahrbuch (1984/85): 358–359). 57 J. Scurlock, “Marduk and His Enemies: City Rivalries in Southern Mesopota- mia,” in Organization, Representation, and Symbols of Power in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the 54th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale at Würzburg, 20–25 July 2008 , eds. G. Wilhem (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012), 371. 58 F. Reynolds, The Babylonian Correspondence of Esarhaddon , SAA 18 (Hel- sinki: Helsinki University Press, 2003), No. 124: 9-r. 7. 59 G. Frame, Babylonia 689–627 B.C ., 79–80. 60 G. Frame, Babylonia 689–627 B.C ., 65. 61 Hindering Tukultī-Ninurta in these efforts were frequent Elamite campaigns into Babylonia. S. Yamada, “Tukulti-Ninurta I’s Rule Over Babylonia and Its Aftermath: A Historical Reconstruction,” Orient 38 [2003]: 161–162. 62 See section 8.1later in the book for a more detailed discussion of Tukultī- Ninurta I’s defeat of Babylonia and possible removal of the Marduk statue. 63 The sequence of events surrounding the conquest of Babylonia has been reconstructed most recently by S. Jakob, “Sag mir quando, sag mir wann . . .,” in Time and History in the Ancient Near East , eds. L. Feliu et al., CRRA 56 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013), 509–523. It was after the conquest of Babylon that Tukultī-Ninurta I probably began to incorporate the traditional Babylonian titles “King of Sumer and Akkad” and “King of Karduniaš (i.e., Babylonia)” into his titular according to B. Cifola, “The Titles of Tukulti-Ninurta I after the Baby- lonian Campaign: A Re-evaluation,” in From the Upper Sea to the Lower Sea , ed. G. Frame, PIHANS 101 (Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 2004), 12. However, Babylonian traditions that looked back on his reign were less than positive in spite of his claims to kingship and parallel Babylonian perspectives on Sennacherib’s own rule (S. Yamada, “Tukulti-Ninurta I’s Rule Over Babylonia and Its Aftermath,” 162–163). 64 P. Machinist, “The Assyrians and their Babylonian Problem: Some Reflections,” 361–362. 65 G. Frame, “Babylonia: Assyria’s Problem and Assyria’s Prize,” 22–23. 66 J. Brinkman, Prelude to Empire , 43 and 53. 67 F. Soares, “The Titles ‘King of Sumer and Akkad’ and ‘King of Karduniaš,’ and the Assyro-Babylonian Relationship During the Sargonid Period,” Rosetta (2017): 24–25 with prior bibliography. 68 The occasions of their participation were noted in the Assyrian Eponym Chron- icles (A. Millard, The Eponyms of the Assyrian Empire 910–612 BC , SAAS 2 [Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 1994], 59–60). 69 G. Frame, Babylonia 689–627 B.C ., 64–65. 70 E. Leichty, RINAP 4 i 18b–33 and passim. 71 J. Brinkman, “Through a Glass Darkly: Esarhaddon’s Retrospects on the Down- fall of Babylon,” JAOS 103 (1983): 35–42 and J.-J. Glassner, Mesopotamian Chronicles, 23–25. 72 E. Leichty, RINAP 4 104 ii 2b–9a and note to lines ii 6–7 and passim. 73 E. Leichty, RINAP 4 61:36’–37’a. 74 Sennacherib did claim to have fashioned the image of Aššur and the great gods during the course of his building projects (Grayson and Novotney, RINAP 3/2 159:7, 168:3.57, 169:2, 170:2–3, 171:2–3, 174–1–2, 178:2, 181:2–3, 186:2, 191:5–6, 195:3, 196:1, 198:2–3, 199:1–2, 200:1–2, 202:1–2, 205:2, and 223:55). However, Marduk is never included in those inscriptions that elaborate by naming those gods (Ibid., 158:15’–16’, 166:2–3, 172:203, 173–2–7. 175:2–8, 190:3–4, and 193:5–6). 75 G. Frame, RIMB 2 B.6.32 and B.6.33, passim . 76 G. Frame, RIMB 2 B.6.32.2:36–44, B.6.32.6:7–10, and B.6.32.14:23–27. 77 A. Livingstone, SAA 3 33. 78 A. Weaver, “The ‘Sin of Sargon’ and Esarhaddon’s Reconception of Sennacherib: A Study in Divine Will, Human Politics and Royal Ideology,” Iraq 66 (2004): 61–66. 79 T. Frymer-Kensky, “The Tribulations of Marduk: The So-Called ‘Marduk Ordeal Text’,” JAOS 103 (1983): 139–141. E. Frahm rejects Frymer-Kensky’s position that Marduk was vindicated at the end of the ordeal (E. Frahm, Baby- lonian and Assyrian Text Commentaries , 352 n. 1677). 80 K. Radner, “Royal Decision-Making,” 361–363. 81 H. Baker, “Nabû-mušēṣi,” in The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, vol. 2/II, ed. H. Baker (Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2001), 847–848 n. 6. The report is not dated, but Nabû-mušēṣi’s career has been dated to the end of Esarhaddon’s reign and the beginning of Ashurbanipal’s based on astronomical phenomena described in his reports. 82 H. Hunger, Astrological Reports to Assyrian Kings , SAA 8 (Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1992), No 158:9-r. 5. 83 E. Frahm, Babylonian and Assyrian Text Commentaries. Origins of Interpreta- tion, GMTR 5 (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2011), 44–45 and A. Lenzi, “Mesopota- mian Scholarship: Kassite to Late Babylonian Periods,” Journal of Ancient Near Eastern History 2 (2015): 155–156 with prior bibliography. 84 J. Nielsen, Sons and Descendants , 28–29. 85 Grayson and Novotny, RINAP 3/2 146:10–14 and 147:10–14. 86 E. Leichty, RINAP 4 113:8b–12. 87 See Chapter 2, sections 2.2.2.d, e, and g. 88 There is a lacuna at the end of the tablet where a colophon may once have been inscribed. 89 G. Frame, RIMB 2 B.2.4.8:23–24. 90 See Chapter 3, section 3.2.1. 91 T. Longman points to similarities shared with the “Cuthean Legend of Narām- Sîn,” a composition dating to the Old Babylonian that was known at Nineveh in Fictional Akkadian Autobiography: A Generic and Comparative Study (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1991), 194–195. 92 Nabû-mušēṣi did just that in H. Hunger, SAA 8 147 r. 2–8 when he cited a canonical protasis and apodosis and then cited a different apodosis for the same protasis from a non-canonical omen series. Although the apodoses he quoted in SAA 8 158 are slightly different – the canonical apodosis concerns the flaring up of a star, and not a meteor, with a tail like a scorpion (l. 1–2) – it must have been similar enough to the apodosis in “When Nebuchadnezzar (I) Smashed Elam” to merit the latter’s inclusion. 93 H. Hunger, SAA 8, xvii and S. Liebermann, “Canonical and Official Cunei- form Texts: Towards an Understanding of Assurbanipal’s Personal Table Col- lection,” in Festschrift Moran , eds. W. Moran et al. (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990), 327. 94 See Chapter 2, section 2.2.3.a. 95 M. de Jong Ellis called these compositions “literary predictive texts,” pointing out that they lacked the oral origins of true oracles or prophecies (“Observa- tions on Mesopotamian Oracles and Prophetic Texts: Literary and Historio- graphic Considerations,” JCS 41 [1989]: 156–157). 96 R. Biggs, “The Babylonian Prophecies and the Astrological Traditions of Meso- potamia,” JCS 37 (1985): 87–88. 97 B. Foster, Before the Muses: An Anthology of Akkadian Literature , 3rd ed. (Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 2005), 388. 98 P.-A. Beaulieu has made a similar argument about “The Uruk Prophecy” from Hellenistic Uruk, proposing that Nebuchadnezzar II (604–562) was being held up as a model to Antiochus II (261–246) for how a king should treat the city of Uruk (“The Historical Background of the Uruk Prophecy,” in Tablet and Scroll: Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William W. Hallo , eds. M. Cohen et al. [Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 1993], 49). 99 R. Borger, “Gott Marduk und Gott-König als Propheten,” BiOr 28 (1971): 13 ll. iv 17’–19’. 100 The tablet, Ass. 13348ek, has an index number that O. Pedersén points out is incompatible with its excavation number. Nevertheless, he assigns it to the house of the exorcists on the basis of a companion text in the collection and the likelihood that the index number is correct ( Archives and Libraries in the City of Assur: A Survey of the Material From the German Excavations, Part II, Studia Semitica Upsaliensia 8 [Uppsala, 1986], 75–76). 101 See Chapter 4, section 4.2. 102 O. Pedersén, Archives and Libraries , 56. 103 Such elements were still at large in Babylonia. A letter from Šamaš-šuma-ukīn to Esarhaddon includes an excerpt from a letter sent to him informing him about conspirators who had made common cause with men who had betrayed Aššur-nādin-šumi to the Elamites in 694 (M. Luukko and G. Van Buylaere, The Political Correspondence of Esarhaddon, SAA 16 [Helsinki: Helsinki Univer- sity Press, 2002], No. 21:9-r. 8). 104 B. Pongratz-Leisten, “Drama,” Encyclopedia of the Bible and its Reception 6 (2013): 1158. 105 Letters sent to Ashurbanipal reveal that Šamaš-šuma-ukīn used the performance of public rituals such as the setting out of Marduk in procession (F. Reynolds, SAA 18 174) and the locking of the city’s gates against Assyria (SAA 18 164:6’–13’) to address the assembled Babylonians. P. Machinist summarizes that the Assyrian capacity to communicate their sovereignty through non-written media included visual display as well as oral communication in “Assyrians on Assyria in the First Millennium B.C.,” in Anfänge politischen Denkens in der Antike, eds. K. Raaflaub et al., Schriften des Historischen Kollegs Kollo- quien 24 (Munich: R. Oldenbourg, 1993), 98–102. 106 A. Lenzi, “Advertising Secrecy, Creating Power in Ancient Mesopotamia: How Scholars Used Secrecy in Scribal Education to Bolster and Perpetuate their Social Prestige and Power,” Antiguo Oriente 11 (2013): 13–42 and S. Richard- son, “Introduction: Scholarship and Inquiry in the Ancient Near East,” Journal of Ancient Near Eastern History 2 (2015): 96–98. 1 J.-J. Glassner, Mesopotamian Chronicles, Writings From the Ancient World 19 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004), No. 21:14–15 (= Grayson, ABC , No. 2). 2 P.-A. Beaulieu, “The Fourth Year of Hostilities in the Land,” Bagh. Mitt . 28 (1997): 385–386. 3 J. Brinkman, “Nabopolassar,” RlA 9 (1998), 14. 4 J.-J. Glassner, Mesopotamian Chronicles , No. 22:42–45 (= Grayson, ABC , No. 3). 5 J.-J. Glassner, Mesopotamian Chronicles , No. 22:58–75 (= Grayson, ABC , No. 3). 6 J.-J. Glassner, Mesopotamian Chronicles, No. 23:5–26 (= Grayson, ABC , No. 4). 7 J.-J. Glassner, Mesopotamian Chronicles, No. 24:9–10 (= Grayson, ABC , No. 5). 8 This section and the section that follows on Achmaenid Babylonia revise and expand upon arguments the author first made in J. Nielsen, “I Overwhelmed the King of Elam: Remembering Nebuchadnezzar I in Persian Babylonia,” in Politi- cal Memory in and After the Persian Empire, eds. J. Silvermann and C. Waerzeg- gers, Ancient Near East Monographs 13 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2015), 53–73. 9 G. Frame, “A Bilingual Inscription of Nebuchadnezzar I,” in Corolla Toronto- nensis: Studies in Honour of Ronald Morton Smith , eds. E. Robbins and S. San- dahl (Toronto: TSAR, 1994), 69. 10 J. Nielsen, Personal Names in Early Neo-Babylonian Legal and Administrative Tablets, 747–626 B.C.E ., Nisaba 29 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2015), 237–238. 11 G. Frame, The Archive of Mušēzib-Marduk, Son of Kiribtu and Descendant of Sîn-nāṣir:A Landowner and Property Developer at Uruk in the Seventh Century BC , Babylonische Archive 5 (Dresden: Islet, 2013), No. 25: 21. 12 G. Frame, The Archive of Mušēzib-Marduk, 196 n. 21 with prior bibliography. Attestations of this man can be found in Babylonian legal and administrative tablets (J. Nielsen, Personal Names, 179 n. 5) and the Assyrian royal correspondence (H. Baker, “Kudurru,” in PNAE 2/I, 633–634 n. 20). 13 M. Jursa, “Die Söhne Kudurrus und die Herkunft der neubabylonischen Dynas- tie,” RA 101 (2007): 125–136. 14 P.-A. Beaulieu, “Nabopolassar and the Antiquity of Babylon,” in Hayim Tadmor and Miriam Tadmor Volume, eds. I. Eph’al et al., Eretz-Israel 27 (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2003), 1–9. 15 A summary of Nebuchadnezzar II’s building activities with additional bibliography can be found in R. Czichon, “Nebukadnezar II. B. Archäologisch,” RlA 9 (1999), 201–206. 16 Not only did Nebuchadnezzar II’s palace within Babylon give pride of place to Esagil and Etemenanki, he also stressed the secondary status of the palace in his own building inscriptions. P.-A. Beaulieu, “Nebuchadnezzar’s Babylon as World Capital,” Journal of the Canadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies 3 (2008): 9. 17 The probability that Nebuchadnezzar II’s scribes imitated the style and phrase- ology of Nebuchadnezzar I’s inscriptions was noted in Hinke Kudurru, pp. 124–125. Nabopolassar and Nebuchadnezzar II’s scribes did use archaic sign forms (R. Da Riva, The Neo-Babylonian Royal Inscriptions, GMTR 4 [Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2008], 84–88), and the decision to write “kudurru” phonetically, as in the writing d na-bi-um-ku-du-úr-ri-ú- ṣu-úr (R. Da Riva, “Nebuchadnezzar II’s Prism (EŞ 7834): A New Edition,” ZA 103 [2013]: 222, C34 i 1), approxi- mated but did not match the preferred writing of the name in the late second millennium BCE (see section 2.3 earlier in the book). 18 A. Kuhrt, The Ancient Near East c. 3000–330 BC , vol. 2 (London and New York: Routledge, 1995), 597. 19 P.-A. Beaulieu, “Nabonidus the Mad King: A Reconsideration of His Steles from Harran and Babylon,” in Representations of Political Power: Case Histories from Times of Change and Dissolving Order in the Ancient Near East , eds. M. Heinz and M. Feldman (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 137–139. 20 Paul-Alain Beaulieu, The Reign of Nabonidus, King of Babylon 556–539 B.C ., Yale Near Eastern Researches 10 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), 127–132. There is nothing from Nebuchadnezzar I’s own inscriptions that indicate that he installed an entu -priestess at Ur, but we do know that both he and his brother were active patrons of the cult at Ur, so such an act on Nebuchadnezzar I’s part is conceivable (see sections 3.2.2 and 3.3 earlier in the book). 21 This resistance would not have constituted direct opposition to Nabonidus’s reign on the part of Esagil’s administration. As Michael Jursa has pointed out, these men would have been reliant on Nabonidus for their appointments (“The Transition of Babylonia From the Neo-Babylonian Empire to Achaemenid Rule,” in Regime Change in the Ancient Near East and Egypt: From Sargon of Agade to Saddam Hussein , ed. H. Crawford, Proceedings of the British Academy 136 [Oxford: Oxford University Press], 76–77). They would, however, have wanted to use their cultic expertise to sway the king to their position. Their inability to do so might have led to some dissatisfaction that could have filtered down to the temple rank and file whom Jursa believes shaped the anti-Nabonidus propaganda that emerged after Cyrus’s victory (ibid., 77 n.7). 22 J. Nielsen, “I Overwhelmed the King of Elam,” 63–64. 23 J.-J. Glassner, Mesopotamian Chronicles , No. 25:16’–20’ (= Grayson, ABC No. 5 r. 16–20). 24 A study of both the physical remains of a portion of this defensive system as well as textual references to the wall in Akkadian and later Classical sources can be found in Jeremy A. Black et al., Ḥabl aṣ -Ṣa ḫr 1983–1985: Nebuchadnezzar II’s Cross-Country Wall North of Sippar , Mesopotamian History and Environment Series 1, Northern Akkad Project Reports 1 (Ghent: University of Ghent, 1987). 25 R. Da Riva, “Just Another Brick in the Median Wall,” Aramazd: Armenian Jour- nal of Near Eastern Studies 5 (2010): 55–65. 26 P. Briant, From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire , trans. P. Daniels (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2002), 33–34 and 40–43. 27 J. Nielsen, “I Overwhelmed the King of Elam,” 67–68. 28 Herodotus, The History, trans. D. Grene (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987), 119–120, I 190–191. 29 P. Michalowski, “The Cyrus Cylinder,” in The Ancient Near East: Historical Sources in Translation , ed. M. Chavalas (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2006), 428. 30 A. Kuhrt, “The Cyrus Cylinder and Achaemenid Imperial Policy,” Journal of the Study of the Old Testament 25 (1983): 83–97. 31 David S. Vanderhooft, The Neo-Babylonian Empire and Babylon in the Latter Prophets , Harvard Semitic Monographs 59 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999), 53. 32 P. Michalowski, “Biography of a Sentence: Assurbanipal, Nabonidus, and Cyrus,” in Extraction and Control: Studies in Honor of Matthew W. Stolper , eds. M. Kozuh et al., SAOC 68 (Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 2014), 203–204. 33 P. Michalowski, “The Cyrus Cylinder,” 429. 34 P. Michalowski, “Biography of a Sentence,” 210. 35 M. Jursa et al., Aspects of the Economic History of Babylonia in the First Mil- lennium BC. Economic Geography, Economic Mentalities, Agriculture, the Use of Money and the Problem of Economic Growth , AOAT 377 (Münster: Ugarit- Verlag, 2010), 1–13. 36 W. Eilers, “Iran and Mesopotamia,” in The Cambridge History of Iran. Volume 3(1): The Seleucid, Parthian and Sasanian Periods , ed. E. Yarshater (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), 482 and M. Jursa et al., Aspects of the Eco- nomic History of Babylonia , 64–80. 37 L. Depuydt, “The Time of Death of Alexander the Great: 11 June 323 B.C. (-322), ca. 4:00–5:00 PM,” WO 28 (1997): 117–135. 38 A. Sachs and H. Hunger, Diaries from 652 B.C. to 262 B.C. Volume 1: Astro- nomical Diaries and Related Texts From Babylonia (Vienna: Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1998), No. -273:34’–36’. 39 R. van der Spek, “Cuneiform Documents on Parthian History: The Rahimesu Archive, Material for the Study of the Standard of Living,” Historia 122 (1998): 205–207. 40 M. Geller, “The Last Wedge,” ZA 87 (1997): 63. 41 J. Lorenz, Nebukadnezzar III/IV: Die politischen Wirren nach dem Tod Kamby- ses im Spiegel der Keilschrifttexte (Dresden: ISLET, 2008). The Akkadian version of the first Babylonian revolt on the Bisitun inscription provides a genealogy for Nidintu-Bēl that is distinct from that preserved in the Elamite and Old Persian versions (AA §15:31). Chul-Hyun Bae leaves the partially damaged signs between Nidintu-Bēl’s patronym and the writing za-za-ak-ku unrestored and follows E. von Voigtlander’s translation of zazakku as a title (C.-H. Bae, Compar ative Stud- ies of King Darius’s Bisitun Inscription [Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 2001], 107). However, Jü rgen Lorenz ( Nebukadnezzar III/IV, 13) understands zazakku as the family name, reading line 31 as m ni-din-tu -d en dumu -šú šám du-numun a m za-za-ak-ku . Lorenz acknowledges that the family name rarely appears in texts, noting a few attestations from Neo-Babylonian sources (Nebukadnezzar III/IV, 13 n. 57). To these may be added a three-tier genealogy (md en-šú-nu a-šú šá md ag- numun-dù dumu m za-zak-ku ) in YBC 11317:47, a tablet dated at Babylon in 648 (J. Nielsen, Personal Names , 403). 42 P.-A. Beaulieu examines the possibility that Nabonidus had a son named Nebu- chadnezzar, concluding that regardless of whether or not the claim had any basis in truth, no name could have carried more prestige for a Babylonian audience than Nebuchadnezzar (“An Episode in the Reign of the Babylonian Pretender Nebuchadnezzar IV,” in Extraction and Control: Studies in Honor of Matthew W. Stolper, eds. M. Kozuh et al., SAOC 68 [Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 2014], 18–19). 43 Beaulieu, “Episode,” 18 and 24–25. 44 C. Waerzeggers, “The Babylonian Revolts Against Xerxes and the ‘End of Archives’,” AfO 50 (2003/2004): 160–63. 45 This perspective draws inspiration from Nicolas Wiater’s adaptation of Benedict Anderson’s concept of “imagined community” in “Writing Roman History – Shaping Greek Identity: The Ideology of Historiography in Dionysius of Halicar- nassus,” in The Struggle for Identity: Greeks and their Past in the First Century BCE , eds. T. Schmitz and N. Wiater (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 2011), 61–62. While Anderson is associated with theorists who view nationalism as an exclusively modern phenomenon, the concept of “imagined community,” which he explored in Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, 2nd ed. (London: Verso, 2006), is potentially more fluid, as Ander- son himself admits on p. 6, and not specific to modernity. 46 BM 35404 = Sp 2,987, BM 34062 = Sp 1,158+Sp 2,962 , and BM 35496 = Sp 3,2. 47 B. Foster, Before the Muses , 369. 48 G. Frame, RIMB 2 2.4.7 (= B. Foster, Before the Muses, 386), see above, section 2.2.2.f. 49 Y. Bloch, “A Letter of Nebuchadnezzar I to the Babylonians: Literary and Histor- ical Considerations,” in “Now it Happened in Those Days” Studies in Biblical, Assyrian, and Other Ancient Near Eastern Historiography Presented to Morde- chai Cogan on his 75 th Birthday, eds. A. Baruchi-Unna et al. (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2017), 493–523. 50 O. Pedersén, Archive und Bibliotheken in Babylon: Die Tontafeln der Grabung Robert Koldeweys 1899–1917 , Abhandlungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 25 (Berlin: Saarländische Druckerei und Verlag, 2005), 219, N13 (26). The date of the unpublished Neo-Babylonian contract VAT 22110 found in the same context as B.2.4.7 (ibid., N13 [27]) is not known by the author. 51 O. Pedersén, Archive und Bibliotheken in Babylon , 225, N13 (225). 52 “Excavations in Iraq 1985–1986,” Iraq 49 (1987): 248–49. 53 T. Boiy, “The Reigns of the Seleucid Kings According to the Babylon King List,” JNES 70 (2011): 1–12. 54 P.-A. Beaulieu, “Nabû and Apollo: The Two Faces of Seleucid Religious Policy,” in Orient und Okzident in hellenistischer Zeit , eds. F. Hoffmann and K. Schmidt (Nürnberg: Verlag Patrick Brose, 2014), 13. 55 P. Kosmin, “Seeing Double in Seleucid Babylonia: Rereading the Borsippa Cylin- der of Antiochus I,” in Patterns of the Past: Epitēdeumata in Greek Tradition, eds. A. Moreano and R. Thomas (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 173–198. 56 P. Kosmin, “Seeing Double,” 180–188 and P.-A. Beauleiu, “Nabû and Apollo,” 13–30. 57 Ph. Clancier, “La Babylonie hellénistique. Aperçu d’histoire politique et culturelle,” Topoi 15 (2007): 38–41. 58 P. Kosmin, “Seeing Double,” 194. The use of debris from the Esagil, including bricks stamped with Nebuchadnezzar II’s building inscriptions, to build the Greek theater at Babylon may even have been an intentionally symbolic act according to L. Ristvet, “Between Ritual and Theatre: Political Performance in Seleucid Babylonia,” World Archaeology 46 (2014): 259–260. 59 I. Madreiter, “Antiochos the Great and the Robe of Nebuchadnezzar: Intercul- tural Transfer between Orientalism and Hellenocentrism,” in Cross-Cultural Studies in Near Eastern History and Literature , eds. S. Svärd and R. Rollinger, The Intellectual Heritage of the Ancient and Medieaval Near East 2 (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2016), 111–136. 60 P.-A. Beaulieu, “Berossus on Late Babylonian History,” in Oriental Studies 2006: Special Issue of Oriental Studies: A Collection of Papers on Ancient Civilazations of Western Asia, Asia Minor and North Africa , eds. Y. Gong and Y. Chen (Bei- jing: Peking University, 2007), 142–144. 61 P. Kosmin, “Seeing Double,” 191. 62 I. Madreiter, “Antiochos the Great and the Robe of Nebuchadnezzar,” 127–128. 63 See above, section 2.2.2.l. 64 A. Lenzi, “The Uruk List of Kings and Sages and Late Mesopotamian Scholar- ship,” Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions 8 (2008): 162–165. 65 A. Lenzi, “The Uruk List of Kings and Sages,” 138 and n. 3 with prior bibliography. 66 W. Henkelman, “The Birth of Gilgameš (Ael. NA XII.21). A Case-Study in Liter- ary Receptivity,” in Altertum und Mittelmeerraum: Die antike Welt diesseits und jenseits der Levante: Festschrift für Peter W. Haider zum 60. Geburtstag , eds. R. Rollinger and B. Truschnegg, Oriens et Occidens 12 (Munchen: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2006), 807–849. 67 P.-A. Beaulieu, “The Descendants of Sîn-lēqi-unninni,” in Assyriologica et Semitica: Festschrift für Joachim Oelsner anläßlich seines 65. Geburtstages am 18. Februar 1997, eds. J. Marzahan et al., AOAT 252 (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2000), 1–16 and J. Nielsen, Sons and Descendants: A Social History of Kin Groups and Family Names in the Early Neo-Babylonian Period, 747–626 BC, Culture & History of the Ancient Near East 43 (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 208–210. 68 Some of our most illuminating sources on the celebration of the ak ītu festival are Seleucid-era ritual texts from Uruk that describe observance at the Rēš temple of Anu at Uruk (M. Cohen, The Cultic Calendars of the Ancient Near East [Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 1993], 429–437). 1 BBSt 36 (= Paulus, Die babylonischen Kudurru-Inschriften von der kassitischen bis zur frühneubabylonischen Zeit: Untersucht unter besonderer Berücksichtigung gesellschafts- und rechtshistorischer Fragestellungen, AOAT 51 [Münster: Ugarit- Verlag, 2014], NAI 3). 2 J. Brinkman, A Political History of Post-Kassite Babylonia, 1158–722 B.C., AnOr 43 (Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1968), 135–144. 3 BBSt 36 iii 11–18 (= S. Paulus, Kudurru-Inschriften , NAI 3). 4 J. Brinkman, PKB , 150–155. 5 J. Brinkman, PKB , 156–157. 6 J. Brinkman, PKB , 160–162. 7 C. Woods, “The Sun-God Tablet of Nabû-apla-iddina Revisited,” JCS 56 (2004): 71. 8 Nabû-apla-iddina himself was the son and successor of Nabû-šuma-ukīn I (c. 899– 887), who founded a dynasty that lasted for four generations until the reign of his great-grandson Marduk-balāssu-iqbi, who was removed from power in 813 by the Assyrian king Šamšī-Adad V (J. Brinkman, PKB, 207–210 and “Marduk- balāssu-iqbi,” RlA 7 [1989], 376). As Brinkman has pointed out (“Nabû-šuma- ukīn I., II.,” RlA 9 [1998], 33), this dynasty constituted “chronologically the longest sequence of rulers within one family between the Kassite dynasty and the time of the Achaemenids.” 9 See section 2.2.2.a earlier in the book. 10 Gulkišar was the fifth king of the still enigmatic First Dynasty of the Sealand that began to control southern Babylonia after the First Dynasty of Babylon began to lose control of the south during the reign of Samsu-iluna. The synchronism between Gulkišar and Samsu-ditāna is based on a literary text that will be published by E. Zomer in “Enmity Against Samsuditana,” in Proceedings of the 59th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Ghent , July 15–19, 2013 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, forthcoming). The dynasty continued to dominate the region until the early kings of the Kassite Dynasty began to extend their control southward (J. Brinkman, “Meerland [Sealand],” RlA 8 [1993], 6–8). It is unclear how the length of 696 years separating Gulkišar from Nebuchadnezzar I was calculated, but by the standards of both the Middle and Low Chronologies, this amount of time is too great by two or three centuries respectively. 11 BE I/1 83 (= S. Paulus, Kudurru-Inschriften , ENAp 1). 12 See section 2.2.2.b earlier in the book. 13 At least two Kassite kings were named Burna-Buriaš, but the most notable king of that name ruled during the Amarna period (J. Brinkman, A Catalogue of the Cuneiform Sources Pertaining to Specific Monarchs of the Kassite Dynasty , MSKH 1 [Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago Press, 1976], 100) and would be the second of that name if there were only two. UET IV 143 does not specify which Burna-Buriaš is intended. Brinkman tentatively assigns this reference to the Amarna-era king but acknowledges that it might be a reference to an earlier king (J. Brinkman, MSKH 1, 117 E.3.11). 14 The inventory appears to order the kings chronologically. If the first king in the inventory is Burna-Buriaš II, then this king would be Kurigalzu II (J. Brinkman, MSKH 1, 242 Q.3.17). 15 See section 2.3 earlier in the book. 16 See section 2.2.2.c earlier in the book. 17 The text does not say the throne itself was returned. It may be that it had been destroyed but that ornaments from the original throne were returned and re-used on the new throne. 18 A. Poebel, The Second Dynasty of Isin According to a New King-List Tablet, AS 15 (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1955), 1–2. 19 A. Poebel, The Second Dynasty of Isin , 25–26. 20 V. Hurowitz, “Reading a Votive Inscription: Simbar-Shipak and the Ellification of Marduk,” RA 91 (1997): 42–43. 21 BE I/1 83 r. 14–20 (= S. Paulus, Kudurru-Inschriften , 521–524, ENAp 1). 22 G. Frame, Rulers of Babylonia: From the Second Dynasty of Isin to the End of Assyrian Domination (1157–612 BC), RIMB 2. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1995), B.3.1.1:1–6, 15. 23 G. Frame, RIMB 2 B.3.1.1:16, 25–27. 24 J. Brinkman, PKB, 153 n. 924. The epithet “Enlil of the gods” was used to describe Marduk in “The Nebuchadnezzar (I) Bilingual” (G. Frame, RIMB 2 B.2.4.8:32) and in a hymn to Marduk credited in an acrostic to Ashurbanipal (A. Livingstone, Court Poetry and Literary Miscellanea, SAA 3 [Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1989], No. 2 r. 10). 25 W. Sommerfeld, Der Aufstieg Marduks, Die Stellung Marduks in der babylonischen Religion des zweiten Jahrtausends v. Chr., AOAT 213 (Kevelaer and Neukirchen- Vluyn: Verlag Butzon & Bercker and Nerkirchener Verlag, 1982), 191–192. 26 Hinke Kudurru, p. 116, 123–124. 27 Hinke Kudurru, pp. 124–125. 28 G. Frame, RIMB 2 B.3.1.1:28–33. 29 A. Goetze, “An Inscription of Simbar-Šīḫu,” JCS 19 (1965): 125. The social organization and identities that underlay the use of family names were very likely present at Uruk prior to the seventh century, but the unambiguous use of family names at that city did not happen until the seventh century (J. Nielsen, Sons and Descendants , Culture & History of the Ancient Near East 43 [Leiden: Brill, 2011], 217–220). 30 V. Hurowitz, Divine Service and Its Rewards. Ideology and Poetics in the Hinke Kudurru , Ber-Sheeva Studies by the Department of Bible and Ancient Near East 10 (Beer-Sheva: Ben-Gurion Univeristy of the Negev Press, 1997), 16–17. 31 J. Brinkman, PKB , 151. 32 V. Hurowitz, “Reading a Votive Inscription,” 44–45. 33 C. Walker and D. Collon, “Hormuzd Rassam’s Excavations for the British Museum at Sippar in 1881–1882,” in Tell ed-Der III: Soundings at Abu Ḥabbah (Sippar), ed. L. de Meyer (Leuven: Peeters, 1980), 101 and 112; J. Reade, “Babylonian Boundary Stones and Comparable Monuments in the British Museum,” ARRIM 5 (1987): 48; and K. E. Slanski, The Babylonian Entitlement narûs (kudurrus), ASOR Books 9 (Boston: American School of Oriental Research, 2003), 75. 34 BBSt 4 (= S. Paulus, Kudurru-Inschriften , MŠ 2). 35 BBSt 9 (= S. Paulus, Kudurru-Inschriften , MŠZ 1). 36 L. de Meyer, Tell ed-Der III , Plan 3, Plan B. 37 J. Reade, “Rassam’s Babylonian Collection: The Excavations and the Archives,” in Catalogue of the Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum VI: Tablets from Sippar 1 , by E. Leichty (London: British Museum, 1986), xxxii. 38 J. Reade, “Rassam’s Babylonian Collection,” xxxv–xxxvi. 39 E. Leichty, Catalogue of the Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum VI: Tab- lets From Sippar 1 (London: British Museum, 1986), 131–173. The cylinders in question have copies of inscriptions published by S. Langdon in VAB 4 as Nbk 13, Nbk 16, Nbn 1, and Nbn 6. 1 J. Tenney, “The Elevation of Marduk Revisited: Festivals and Sacrifices at Nip- pur During the High Kassite Period,” JCS 68 (2016): 155. 2 N. Na’aman holds Nebuchadnezzar I up as one of several Near Eastern monarchs whose religious reforms he believed paralleled those made by the seventh- century Judean king Josiah at Jerusalem (“The King Leading Cult Reforms in his Kingdom: Josiah and Other Kings in the Ancient Near East,” Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 12 [2006]: 150–154). 3 W. Lambert, “Nebuchadnezzar I,” 10. 4 F. Braudel, The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II , trans. S. Reynolds (London: Fontana, [1949] 1975), 20–21. 5 “Within the public domain, not only the recording of the past but active re-working of the past is more likely to be transmitted if it happens in high-prestige, socially consensual institutions than if it happens at or beyond the edges of conventional organization.” M. Schudson, “Distortion in Collective Memory,” in Memory Dis- tortion, ed. D. Schacter (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995), 359. 6 This perspective is informed by Christoph Uehlinger’s position that Josiah’s reforms in Judah should be contextualized within the historical framework of cultural and political events that occurred over centuries and were shaped by developments in Egypt and Mesopotamia at the level of Fernand Braudel’s histoire conjoncturelle (“Was there a Cult Reform Under King Josiah? The Case for a Well-Grounded Minimum,” in Good Kings and Bad Kings , ed. L. Grabbe, Library of Hebrew Bible / Old Testament Studies 393 [London and New York: T&T Clark, 2005], 284–285). 7 J. Grondin, “What Is the Hermeneutical Circle?” in The Blackwell Companion to Hermeneutics, eds. N. Keane and C. Lawn (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2016), 299–305. 8 S. Flynn, YHWH Is King: The Development of Kingship in Ancient Israel , Vetus Testamentum Supplements 159 (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 91–118. 9 T. Oshima, “Another Attempt at Two Kassite Royal Inscriptions: The Agum- kakrime Inscription and the Inscription of Kurigalzu the Son of Kadashman- harbe,” Babel und Bibel 6 (2012): 225–226. 10 S. Paulus, “Foreigners under Foreign Rulers: The Case of Kassite Babylonia (2nd Half of the 2nd Millennium B.C.E.),” in The Foreigner and the Law: Perspec- tives From the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East, eds. R. Achenbach et al., Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschicht 16 (Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz Verlag, 2011), 4. 11 T. Oshima, “Another Attempt at Two Kassite Royal Inscriptions,” 227–229. 12 B. Foster, Before the Muses: An Anthology of Akkadian Literature, 3rd ed. (Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 2005), 391. 13 J. Brinkman, A Catalogue of Cuneiform Sources Pertaining to Specific Monarchs of the Kassite Dynasty, MSKH 1 (Chicago: Oriental Institute of Chicago, 1976), 95 and 97 and T. Oshima, “Another Attempt at Two Kassite Royal Inscriptions,” 232–233. 14 A. Grayson, Assyrian Rulers of the Third and Second Millenniua BC (to 1115 BC) , RIMA 1 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1987), A.0.78.1–42, 1001– 1011, and 2001. 15 For a recent translation of “The Tukultī-Ninurta Epic” see B. Foster, Before the Muses , 298–317. For a discussion of the epic and additional bibliography see P. Machinist, “Tukultī-Ninurta-Epos,” RlA 14, 180–181. 16 B. Foster, Before the Muses , 300–301. 17 B. Foster, Before the Muses , 315. 18 J.-J. Glassner, Mesopotamian Chronicles , Writings From the Ancient World 19 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004), No. 45 iv 3–6 (= A. Grayson, ABC , No. 22). 19 J.-J. Glassner, Mesopotamian Chronicles, No. 45 iv 12–13 and A. Grayson, “Ninurta- tukultī-Aššur,” RlA 9 (2001), 527. 20 A. George, “Marduk and the Cult of the gods of Nippur at Babylon,” Or . 66 (1997): 65–70. 21 C. Walker and M. Dick, The Induction of the Cult Image in Ancient Mesopota- mia: The Mesopotamian mīš pî Ritual , SAA Lit. Texts 1 (Helsinki: State Archives of Assyria Project, 2001). 22 J. Cooper, Reconstructing History From Ancient Inscriptions: The Lagash- Umma Border Conflict , Sources From the Ancient Near East 2/1 (Malibu: Undena, 1983) and I. Winter, “After the Battle is Over: The Stele of the Vultures and the Beginning of Historical Narrative in the Art of the Ancient Near East,” in Pictorial Narrative in Antiquity and the Middle Ages , eds. H. Kessler and M. Simpson, Studies in the History of Art 16 (Washington, DC: National Gallery of Art, 1985), 11–32. For a brief overview of the Early Dynastic period with prior bibliography see N. Brisch, “History and Chronology,” in The Sumerian World , ed. H. Crawford (London: Routledge, 2013), 116–120. 23 T. Jacobsen, The Sumerian King List, AS 11 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1939). 24 P. Steinkeller, “An Ur III Manuscript of the Sumerian King List,” in Literatur, Politik und Recht in Mesopotamien: Festschrift für Claus Wilcke, eds. W. Sal- laberger et al., Orientalia Biblica et Christiana 14 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2003), 267–292. 25 G. Marchesi, “The Sumerian King List and the Early History of Mesopotamia,” in ana turri gimilli: studi dedicati al Padre Werner R. Mayer, S.J. da amici e alievi, eds. M. Biga and M. Liverani, Quaderni di Vicinio Oriente 5 (Rome: Università di Roma “La Sapienza”, 2010), 233 with prior bibliography in n. 13. 26 P. Michalowski, “History as Charter: Some Observations on the Sumerian King List,” JAOS 103 (1983): 237–248. 27 CH i 1–26. 28 W. Lambert, “Nebuchadnezzar I,” 5–6. 29 W. Sommerfeld, Der Aufstieg Marduks: Die Stellung Marduks in der babylonischen Religion des zweiten Jahrtausends v. Chr., AOAT 213 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Verlag Butzon & Bercker, Neukirchener Verlag, 1982), 19–21. 30 For discussions of the generic classification or thematic grouping of Sumerian laments see P. Michalowski, The Lamentation over the Destruction of Sumer and Ur , Mesopotamian Civilizations 1 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1989), 4–8; S. Tinney, The Nippur Lament, Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund 16 (Philadelphia: University Museum, 1996), 11–25; and N. Samet, The Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur , Mesopotamian Civilizations 18 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2014), 12–13. For the suggestion that the Curse of Agade was an antecedent to the Sumerian city laments see Michalowski, 8–9. 31 N. Brisch provides insight into the innovative and dynamic role of court poetry within scribal circles in the Old Babylonian period in Tradition and the Poetics of Innovation: Sumerian Court Literature of the Larsa Dynasty (c. 2003–1763 BCE) , AOAT 339 (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2007), 115–120. 32 A. Löhnert, “Ipiq-Aja und die Klage über Ur,” JCS 63 (2011): 65–72. 33 S. Maul, “Eine babylonische Kultordnung für den ‘Klagesänger’ ( kalû ),” in Kul- turgeschichten: Altorientalistische Studien für Volkert Haas zum 65. Geburtstag, eds. T. Richter et al. (Saarbrücken: Saarbrücker Druckerei und Verlag, 2001), 255–257. 34 S. Dalley, “The Language of Destruction and its Interpretation,” Bagh. Mitt. 36 (2005): 277–278. 35 S. Richardson, “The Many Falls of Babylon and the Shape of Forgetting,” in Envisioning the Past Through Memories: How Memory Shaped Ancient Near Eastern Societies , ed. D. Nadali, Cultural Memory and History in Antiquity 3 (London: Bloomsbury, 2016), 113–114. 36 BBSt 24:11 (= Paulus, Kudurru-Inschriften , NKU I 3). 37 W. Sommerfeld, Der Aufstieg Marduks , 177. 38 M. Cohen, The Cultic Calendar of the Ancient Near East (Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 1993), 400–403. 39 M. Cohen, Festivals and Calendars of the Ancient Near East (Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 2015), 100. 40 M. Cohen, Festivals , 103 and n. 101. 41 M. Cohen, Festivals , 389–393. 42 M. Cohen, Festivals , 393. 43 If the campaign undergone at the behest of the priests of Eriya was the same as the one in which Šitti-Marduk played a pivotal role, then Marduk’s re-entry probably did not occur during the spring ak ītu at Babylon; the latter campaign was carried out in the summer. 44 M. Cohen, Festivals , 390. An Old Babylonian ritual tablet (BM 29638) describing Marduk’s entry in association with a boat may describe an aspect of the ak ītu festival, but N. Wasserman, who published the tablet, was understandably hesitant to interpret to propose that the ritual described was the akītu (“BM 29638: A New Ritual to Marduk From the Old Babylonian Period,” ZA 96 [2006]: 209–210). Nevertheless, the existence of a ritual in the late Old Babylo- nian period that featured Marduk’s entry is notable. 45 D. Charpin, “Histoire Politique du Proche-Orient amorrite (2002–1595),” in Mesopotamien: Die altbabylonische Zeit , Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 160/4 (Fri- bourg and Göttingen: Academic Press Fribourg and Vandenhoeck & Ruprect, 2004), 335–342. 46 H. Vedeler, “The Ideology of Rīm-Sîn II,” Journal of Ancient Near Eastern His- tory 2 (2015): 1–18. 47 H. Gasche, La Babylonie au 17e siècle avant notre ère: Approche Archaéologique, Problèmes et Perspectives, MHE, Series II, Memoirs 1 (Ghent: University of Ghent, 1989), 127–132. 48 D. Charpin, Le Clergé d’Ur au Siècles d’Hammurabi (XIX e –XVIIIe Siècles av. J.-C.) (Geneva and Paris: Librairie Droz, 1986), 403–415 and “Histoire Politique du Proche-Orient amorrite (2002–1595),” 343–346. 49 S. Richardson, “Trouble in the Countryside ana tarṣi Samsuditana: Militarism, Kassites, and the Fall of Babylon I,” in Ethnicity in Ancient Mesopotamia. Papers Read at the 48th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale. Leiden, 1–4 July 2002, ed. W. Van Soldt, PIHANS 102 (Leiden: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut in het Nabije Oosten, 2005), 282–286. 50 The date 1595 BCE is traditionally given to the fall of Babylon based on the Middle Chronology. 51 S. Paulus, “Foreigners Under Foreign Rulers,” 5 and prior bibliography in n. 42. 52 L. Sassmannshausen, “The Adaptation of the Kassites to the Babylonian Civi- lization,” in Languages and Cultures in Contact: At the Crossroads of Civili- zations in the Syro-Mesopotamian Realm , eds. K. Van Lerberghe and G. Voet, OLA 96 (Leuven: Peeters Press, 1999), 411–412 and R. Zadok, “Peoples From the Iranian Plateau in Babylonia During the Second Millennium BC,” Iran 25 (1987): 17–20. 53 J. Brinkman, “Kassiten / Kaššû,” RlA 5 (1980), 466. 54 M. Gibson, “Patterns of Occupation at Nippur,” in Nippur at the Centennial, ed. M. Ellis (Philadelphia: University Museum, 1992), 44–46 and “Nippur – Sacred City of Enlil, Supreme God of Sumer and Akkad,” Al-Rafidan 14 (1993): 8–9. 55 M. Cohen, Festivals , 394–395. 56 J. Tenney, “The Elevation of Marduk Revisited,” 158. 57 J. Tenney, “The Elevation of Marduk Revisited, 158 n. 27. 58 A. Annus, The God Ninurta in the Mythology and Royal Ideology of Ancient Mesopotamia, SAAS 14 (Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2002), 9–20. 59 W. Lambert, “Nebuchadnezzar I,” 8. 60 A. George, Babylonian Literary Texts in the Schøyen Collection, Cornell Uni- versity Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology 10 (Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 2009), 136–138. 61 See above, n. 54. 62 A. Annus, The God Ninurta , 32–33. 63 J. Tenney, “The Elevation of Marduk Revisited,” 160–161 and 178–180. 64 A. George, Babylonian Topographical Texts, OLA 40 (Leuven: Peeters, 1992), 349–350. 65 G. Frame, RIMB 2 B.2.8.1 and 1001. 66 G. Frame, RIMB 2 B.2.8.6. 67 A. Annus, The God Ninurta , 21–24. 68 M. Hundley, “Here a God, There a God: An Examination of the Divine in Ancient Mesopotamia,” AoF 40 (2013): 69–72. 69 W. Lambert, “Syncretism and Religious Controversy in Babylonia,” AoF 24 (1997): 158–159. 70 W. Lambert pointed out that Enlil, Anu, Ea, Sîn, Šamaš, Adad, and even Nabû were called “king” or “lord” of the gods in the available onomastica of Old Babylonian names in Babylonian Creation Myths, Mesopotamian Civilizations 16 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013), 261–261 and acknowledged that Marduk, along with other gods, was called “king of the gods” in personal names from Kassite Nippur as early as the reign of Kudur-Enlil (r. 1254–1246) (ibid., 270–271). As J. Tenney pointed out in The Elevation of Marduk Revisited , 161–162, Lambert downplayed the significance of this evidence to the status of Marduk during the Kassite Dynasty. 71 M. Hundley, Here a God, There a God , 98–101. 72 J.-J. Glassner, Mesopotamian Chronicles , No. 38 (A. Grayson, ABC , No. 19). 1 B. Foster, Before the Muses: An Anthology of Akkadian Literature , 3rd ed. (Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 2005), 880–911. 2 B. Foster, Akkadian Literature of the Late Period, GMTR 2 (Münster: Ugarit- Verlag, 2007), 65–67 and A. George, “The Poem of Erra and Ishum: A Baby- lonian Poet’s View of War,” in Warfare and Poetry in the Middle East, ed. H. Kennedy (London: I. B. Tauris, 2013), 47 with prior bibliography. 3 E. Frahm, Babylonian and Assyrian Text Commentaries. Origins and Interpre- tation , Guide to the Mesopotamian Textual Record 5 (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2011), 347–349. 4 J. Scurlock, “Marduk and His Enemies: City Rivalries in Southern Mesopotamia,” in Organization, Representation, and Symbols of Power in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the 54th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale at Würzburg, 20–25 July 2008, ed. G. Wilhem (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012), 369–376. 5 W. Lambert, “Ancestors, Authors, and Canonicity,” JCS 11 (1957): 1. 6 B. Foster, Before the Muses , 910. 7 A. Lenzi, “The Uruk List of Kings and Sages and Late Mesopotamian Scholar- ship,” Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions 8 (2008): 141–142, l. 13. 8 W. Lambert, “Ancestors, Authors, and Canonicity,” 5. 9 T. Oshima, The Babylonian Theodicy, SAACT 9 (Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2013), xv–xvi and prior bibliography in n. 31. 10 B. Foster, Before the Muses , 914–926. Given that the presumed author’s name expressed affinity for Esagil, Marduk’s temple in Babylon, it is likely that Mar- duk was the intended god whose blessings were sought. 11 T. Oshima, The Babylonian Theodicy , xxii–xxxiii. 12 W. Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1960), 14–17. 13 B. Foster, Before the Muses , 392–409 and A. Annus and A. Lenzi, Ludlul bēl nēmeqi: The Standard Babylonian Poem of the Righteous Sufferer, SAACT 7 (Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2010), xix–xxvi. 14 T. Oshima, The Babylonian Theodicy , xxxv. Not only did the king have to act with piety toward the gods, he also had to respect the rights and privileges of the citizens of Sippar, Nippur, and Babylon lest the gods punish him according to Advice to a Prince (B. Foster, Before the Muses , 867–869). 15 W. Lambert, “Ancestors, Authors, and Canonicity,” 1–14, 112. 16 See section 2.2.2.q earlier in the book. 17 For the trade and use of precious stones and glass imitations in the Near East see A. Oppenheim et al., Glass and Glassmaking in Ancient Mesopotamia: An Edition of the Cuneiform Texts Which Contain Instruction for Glassmakers With a Catalogue of Surviving Objects (Corning, NY: The Corning Museum of Glass, 1970), 9–15. 18 S. Parpola, Letter s From Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars, SAA 10 (Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1993), No. 100 r. 1–7. 19 E. Frahm, Babylonian and Assyrian Text Commentaries , 323–332. 20 Brinkman, PKB , 171–174. 21 J.-J. Glassner, Mesopotamian Chronicles , No. 10 iii 1–11 (= Grayson, ABC No. 21). 22 J. Brinkman, PKB , 204–213. 23 J. Brinkman, Prelude to Empire: Babylonian Society and Politics, 747–626 B.C., Occasional Publications of the Babylonian Fund 7 (Philadelphia: University Museum, 1984), 14 and n. 43. 24 J. Brinkman, Prelude , 19–20 and 22. 25 J. Brinkman, PKB , 238–239. 26 J. Brinkman, Prelude , 43. 27 J.-J. Glassner, Mesopotamian Chronicles, Writings From the Ancient World 19 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004), No. 9: B1 94’–95’ (=Millard, The Eponyms of the Assyrian Empire 910–612 BC, SAAS 2 [Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 1994], 45). 28 J. Brinkman, PKB , 243–244. 29 J. Brinkman, Prelude , 53. The event was recorded in both the Assyrian Eponym Chronicles (J.-J. Glassner, Mesopotamian Chronicles, No. 9: B3 15’ [=Millard, Eponyms , 47]) and the Babylonian Chronicle (J.-J. Glassner, Mesopotamian Chronicles , No. 17 ii 15’ [=Grayson, ABC No. 1 ii 1’]). 30 V. Sazanov, Die assyrische Königstitel und – Epitheta von den Anfängen bis zu Tukulti-Ninurta I. und seinen Nachfolgern , SAAS 25 (Helsinki: The Neo- Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2016), 63–100. 31 J. Brinkman, Prelude , 10. 32 This tendency is most evident in the inscriptions of Merodach-baladan II and Sargon II (Brinkman, Prelude , 47–48). 33 J.-J. Glassner, Mesopotamian Chronicles , No. 47:29’–31’ (= Grayson, ABC No. 24:11–13). 34 J. Nielsen and C. Waerzeggers, “Interactions between Temple, King and Local Elites: The ḫanšû Land Schemes in Babylonia (8th–6th Centuries BC),” in Dynamics of Production in the Ancient Near East 1300–500 BC, ed. J. Moreno Garcia (Oxford: Oxbow, 2016), 331–335. 35 G. Frame, RIMB 2 B.6.14.2001 i 15’b–21’. 36 S. Cole, Nippur in Late Assyrian Times, c. 755–612 BC , SAAS 4 (Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus, 1996), 51 and The Early Neo-Babylonian Gover- nor’s Archive from Nippur, Nippur IV , OIP 114 (Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1996), No. 33:24b–29a. 37 M. Luukko, The Correspondence of Tiglath-pileser III and Sargon II From Calah/Nimrud , SAA 19 (Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2012), No. 125 r. 17–22. 38 G. Frame, RIMB 2 B.6.14.2001. 39 G. Frame, RIMB 2, B.6.15.2001. 40 S. Cole, Nippur in Late Assyrian Times , 50 and The Early Neo-Babylonian Governor’s Archive , No. 33:1–20. 41 H. Tadmor and S. Yamada, The Royal Inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III (744– 727 BC) and Shalmaneser V (726–722 BC), Kings of Assyria , RINAP 1 (Win- ona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011), No. 24: 5–7. 42 J. Brinkman, Prelude , 52. 43 G. Frame, RIMB 2, B.6.31.11–12 and 15–18. 44 M. Dietrich, The Babylonian Correspondence of Sargon and Sennacherib, SAA 17 (Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 2003), xxv. 45 M. Dietrich, SAA 17 84:5’–11’ and 146:7’–11’. 46 A letter to Esarhaddon reminds the king of Nippur’s loyalty and asks that the king order the commander at Babylon to ensure that water be directed to Nippur (F. Reynolds, The Babylonian Correspondence of Esarhaddon , SAA 18 [Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 2003], No. 70 r. 10–22e). 47 J. Nielsen, “Cultural Encounters and Identity Formation Among the Urban Elite in Early Neo-Babylonian Society,” in Cultural Encounters in Near Eastern History, eds. M. Larsen and T. Hertel, CIFCON 4 (Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen Press, forthcoming), 8 and n. 31. 48 As discussed previously, Assyrian operations against tribal regions in Babylonia were accompanied by acts meant to cultivate the support of the urban elite. Merodach-baladan II succeeded in uniting Babylonia for much of his reign, but as Sargon II’s campaign in 710 and 709 progressed, Babylonian cities sub- mitted, and Merodach-baladan had to fall back on the support of his tribal base, the Arameans and Chaldeans becoming the chief target of Sargon’s mass deportations (J. Brinkman, Prelude , 50–52). 49 J.-J. Glassner, Mesopotamian Chronicles , 48. 50 J.-J. Glassner, Mesopotamian Chronicles, No. 9: B1 94’–95’ and B3 15’ (= Mil- lard, Eponyms , 45 and 47). 51 A. Lie, The Inscriptions of Sargon II, King of Assyria, Part I: The Annals: Trans- literated and Translated With Notes (Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuth- ner, 1929), 56–69 lines 384–386. 52 Streck Asb. 264 iii 5–6. 53 J.-J. Glassner, Mesopotamian Chronicles , No. 47:27’–33’ (=Grayson, ABC , No. 24:9–15). 54 J.-J. Glassner, Mesopotamian Chronicles , 48. 55 C. Waerzeggers, “The Babylonian Chronicles: Classification and Provenance,” JNES 71 (2012): 285–286. 56 J.-J. Glassner, Mesopotamian Chronicles, No. 47:10’–11’ (= Grayson, ABC , No. 24:12–13). 57 G. Frame, RIMB 2, B.3.1.1. 58 Grayson, ABC , 64. 59 J.-J. Glassner, Mesopotamian Chronicles, No. 20:9–27 (= Grayson, ABC , No. 16). 60 J. Brinkman, “The Babylonian Chronicle Revisited,” in Lingering Over Words: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Literature in Honor of William L. Moran, eds. T. Abusch et al. (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990), 91–92. 61 J.-J. Glassner, Mesopotamian Chronicles , No. 19:22 (= Grayson, ABC , No. 15). 62 J.-J. Glassner, Mesopotamian Chronicles, No. 17 i 1’ (= Grayson, ABC , No. 1B). 63 J.-J. Glassner, Mesopotamian Chronicles, No. 51 ii 16–18 (= Grayson, ABC , No. 17). The festival described in lines ii 16–17 involved the chariot of Bēl and began on the third day of Addaru, the twelfth month, and ended in Nisannu. This observance did not occur in the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth years of the king’s reign and was probably not the akītu festival as A. Millard has argued in “Another Babylonian Chronicle Text,” Iraq 26 (1964): 23. The state- ment that Bēl did not go out in Nisannu of the king’s fifteenth year in line ii 18 is certainly a reference to the akītu festival. 64 J.-J. Glassner, Mesopotamian Chronicles , No. 16 iii 28 (=Grayson, ABC, No. 1). 65 J.-J. Glassner, Mesopotamian Chronicles , No. 20:1–4 (=Grayson, ABC, No. 16). 66 J.-J. Glassner, Mesopotamian Chronicles , No. 26 ii 5–12, 19–21, and 23–25 (=Grayson, ABC , No. 7). 67 T. Abusch, “Marduk,” in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible , 2nd ed., ed. K. van der Toor et al. (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 547. 68 T. Longman, Fictional Akkadian Autobiography: A Generic and Comparative Study (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1991), 79–83 and prior bibliography, most notably I. J. Gelb, “The Date of the Cruciform Monument of Maništušu,” JNES 8 (1949): 346–348, who argues for an Old Babylonian date of creation, and E. Sollberger, “The Cruciform Monument,” JEOL 20 (1968): 50–70, who argues for a Neo-Babylonian date. 69 M. Powell, “Narām-Sîn, Son of Sargon: Ancient History, Famous Names, and a Famous Babylonian Forgery,” ZA 81 (1991): 26. 70 M. Powell, “Narām-Sîn, Son of Sargon,” 20–21. 71 S. Paulus, Die babylonischen Kudurru-Inschriften von der kassitischen bis zur frühneubabylonischen Zeit: Untersucht unter besonderer Berü cksichtigung gesellschafts- und rechtshistorischer Fragestellungen , AOAT 51 (Münster: Ugarit- Verlag, 2014), Kḫ I 1. 72 J. Brinkman, “Dating YBC 2242, the Kadašman-Ḫarbe I Stone,” NABU 2015/18. 73 These two inscriptions are also treated in T. Longman, Fictional Akkadian Auto- biography, 83–94 along with the Cruciform Monument as examples of fictional autobiographies that featured a royal donation. Studies of both inscriptions have recently been published in T. Oshima, “Another Attempt at Two Kassite Royal Inscriptions: The Agum-kakrime Inscription and the Inscription of Kurigalzu the Son of Kadashmanharbe,” Babel und Bibel 6 (2012): 225–268. 74 T. Oshima, “Another Attempt at Two Kassite Royal Inscriptions,” 225–226 and 252. 75 M. Powell, “Narām-Sîn, Son of Sargon,” 21. For an overview of ongoing efforts of the Ebabbar priesthood to curry royal favor see G. Jonker, The Topography of Remembrance: The Dead, Tradition and Collective Memory in Mesopota- mia , Studies in the History of Religions 68 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1995), 159–174. 76 M. Powell doubted that the creators of the Cruciform Monument had an Old Akkadian royal inscription available for consultation (“Narām-Sîn, Son of Sar- gon,” 26–27), though T. Longman has pointed to the use of the phrase “This is no lie; it is truth” in both the Cruciform Monument and Old Akkadian royal inscriptions (Fictional Akkadian Autobiography , 81). 77 L. Foxhall and N. Luraghi, “Introduction,” in Intentional History: Spinning Time in Ancient Greece , eds. L. Foxhall, H.-J. Gehrke, and N. Luraghi (Stutt- gart: Franz Steiner, 2010), 1–14. 78 G. Frame, RIMB 2, B.2.4.7 r. 1–17. 79 See section 5.4.1 earlier in the book. 80 G. Frame, RIMB 2, B.2.4.5 (= B. Foster, Before the Muses , 385). 81 G. Frame, RIMB 2, B.2.4.6 (= B. Foster, Before the Muses , 381–383). 82 G. Frame, RIMB 2, B.2.4.8–9 (= B. Foster, Before the Muses , 376–380). 83 G. Frame, RIMB 2, B.2.4.10. 84 B. Foster, Before the Muses, 369–375 and G. Frame, RIMB 2, B.2.4.8–9 (= B. Foster, Before the Muses , 376–380). 85 B. Foster, Before the Muses , 375. 86 G. Frame, RIMB 2, B.3.1.1:25. 87 G. Frame, RIMB 2, B.2.4.6 r. 5–25 (=B. Foster, Before the Muses , 381–383). 88 J. Brinkman, PKB , 135–144 and J.-J. Glassner, Mesopotamian Chronicles , No. 46 (= C. Walker, “Babylonian Chronicle 25: A Chronicle of the Kassite and Isin II Dynasties,” in Zikir Šumim. Assyriological Studies Presented to F. R. Kraus on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, eds. G. van Driel et al. [Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1982], 398–417. 89 E. Frahm, “Counter-Texts, Commentaries, and Adaptations: Politically Moti- vated Responses to the Babylonian Epic of Creation in Mesopotamia, the Bibli- cal World, and Elsewhere,” in Conflict, Peace and Religion in the Ancient Near East , ed. A. Tsukimoto, Orient 45 (2010): 6. 90 G. Frame, RIMB 2, B.2.4.8:17–22. 91 B. Foster, Before the Muses , 887, ll 131–133. 92 See section 5.4.1 earlier in the book. 93 A. Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead Civilization, rev. ed. by E. Reiner (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977), 267–268. 94 W. Lambert, “Review of F. Gössmann, Das Era Epos,” AfO 18 (1957–58): 400. 95 E. Frahm, “Counter-Texts, Commentaries, and Adaptations,” 7. 96 P.-A. Beaulieu, “The Abduction of Ištar from the Eanna Temple: The Changing Memories of an Event,” in Proceedings of the XLVe Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Part I: Historiography in the Cuneiform World, eds. T. Abusch et al. (Bethesda, MS: CDL Press, 2001), 29–40 and E. Frahm, Babylonian and Assyrian Text Commentaries , 348. 97 For example, Adad-nādin-aḫḫē, a Hellenistic ruler in southern Mesopotamian, displayed statues of the late-third-millennium ruler of Lagaš, Gudea, in his palace and interred his own Aramaic building inscriptions with Gudea’s foundation deposits. Adad-nādin-aḫḫē apparently was incorporating elements of Mesopotamian antiquity into his own Hellenistic royal cult according to C. Sutter, “Gudea of Lagash: Iconoclasm or Tooth of Time?” in Iconoclasm and Text Destruction in the Ancient Near East and Beyond, eds. N. May, Oriental Institute Seminars 8 (Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chi- cago, 2012), 69. 98 H. Seyrig, R. Amy, and E. Will, Le temple de Bêl à Palmyre, 2 vols., Biblio- thèque Archéologieque et Historique 83 (Paris: Librairie orientaliste Paul Geu- thner, 1975). For a discussion of what motivated ISIS to engage in these acts of destruction, see E. Frahm, “Mutilated Mnemotopes: Why ISIS Destroys Cul- tural Heritage Sites in Iraq and Syria,” last modified December 3, 2015, www. eunic-online.eu/?q=content/mutilated-mnemotopes-0. 99 See Chapter 6 of this book, nn. 38–39. 100 J. Rubenstein, Nebuchadnezzar’s Dream: Crusade, Prophecy, History and Cru- sade (Oxford: Oxford University Press, forthcoming). 101 “The Nebuchadnezzar Bilingual” (G. Frame, RIMB 2, B.2.4.8–9 [= B. Foster, Before the Muses , 376–380]) epitomizes this theology, and it was expressed in other hymns to Marduk such as the one republished in T. Oshima, “A Forgot- ten Royal Hymn to Marduk and its Historical Background,” JANES 32 (2011): 107–116. The discussion of Marduk’s compassion and forgiveness on p. 114 is apt, and I agree that the historical context of the poem is Nebuchadnezzar’s war with Elam, though it does not necessarily follow that the hymn was composed during Nebuchadnezzar I’s reign. al-Rawi, F. N. H. and A. R. George. “Tablets From the Sippar Library: II. Tablet II of the Babylonian Creation Epic.” Iraq 52 (1990): 149–157. Beaulieu, P.-A. The Reign of Nabonidus, King of Babylon 556–539 B.C . Yale Near Eastern Researches 10. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989. Bloch, Y. “Assyro-Babylonian Conflicts in the Reigh of Aššur-Rēša-Iši I: The Contri- bution of Administratative Documents to History-Writing.” In The Ancient Near East in the 12th–10th Centuries BCE: Culture and History: Proceedings of the International Conference Held at the University of Haifa, 2–5 May , 2010 , edited by G. Galil, A. Gilboa, A. Maeir, and D. Kahn, 53–78. AOAT 392. Münster: Ugarit- Verlag, 2012. ———. “A Letter of Nebuchadnezzar I to the Babylonians: Literary and Historical Considerations.” In “Now it Happened in Those Days” Studies in Biblical, Assyr- ian, and Other Ancient Near Eastern Historiography Presented to Mordechai Cogan on his 75 th Birthday , edited by A. Baruchi-Unna, T. Forti, S. Ahituv, I. Eph’al, and J. Tigay, 493–523. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2017. ———. “Middle Assyrian Lunar Calendar and Chronology.” In Living the Lunar Calendar , edited by J. Ben-Dov, W. Horowitz, and J. M. Steele, 19–61. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2012. ———. “Setting the Dates: Re-evaluation of the Chronology of Babylonia in the 14th–11th Centuries B.C.E. and Its Implications for the Reigns of Ramesses II and Hattusili III.” UF 42 (2010): 41–95. Borger, R. “Gott Marduk und Gott-König Šulgi als Propheten.” BiOr 28 (1971): 3–24. Brinkman, J. A. “Babylonian Royal Land Grants, Memorials of Financial Interest, and Invocation of the Divine.” JESHO 49 (2006): 1–47. ———. “Isin. B. II. Dynastie.” In Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie. Band 5. Ia . . . – Kizzuwatna , edited by D. Edzard, 183–189. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1980. ———. “Mesopotamian Chronology of the Historical Period.” In Ancient Meso- potamia: Portrait of a Dead Civilization , rev. ed., edited by A. L. Oppenheim, 335–348. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1977. ———. “Nebukadnezar I.” In Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie. Band 9. 3./4. Lieferung: Nanše – ͩ NIM.NIM, edited by D. Edzard and B. Meissner, 192–194. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1999. ———. A Political History of Post-Kassite Babylonia: 1158–722 B.C. Analecta Ori- entalia: Commentationes Scientificae de Rebus Orientis Antiqui 43. Rome: Ponti- ficium Institutum Biblicum, 1968. Chen Fei. “A Revised Reconstruction of Col. II of the Synchronistic King List (A. 117 / Ass. 14616 c).” NABU (2016/22). Dalley, S. “Die Tontafeln aus dem r ēš- Heiligtum.” In UVB 18, edited by H. J. Lenzen, 43–61. ADOG 7. Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag, 1962. ———. “Statues of Marduk and the Date of Enūma Eliš.” AoF 24 (1997): 163–170. Doak, B. “Remembering the Future, Predicting the Past: Vaticinia ex eventu in the Historiographic Traditions of the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East.” In Splendide Mendax: Rethinking Fakes and Forgeries in Classical, Late Antique, and Early Christian Literature, edited by E. Cueva and J. Martínez, 23–53. Barkhuis: Groningen, 2016. Donbaz, V. “Assur Collection Housed in Istanbul: General Outlines.” In Acts of the IIIrd International Congress of Hittitology: Çorum, September 16–44, 1996: III. Uluslararasi Hititoloji Komgresi Bildirileri: Çorum 16–22 Eyül 1996 , edited by S. Alp and A. Süel, 177–188. International Congress of Hittitology 3. Ankara: Uyum Ajans, 1998. Foster, B. R. Before the Muses: An Anthology of Akkadian Literature, 3rd ed. Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 2005. Frahm, E. Babylonian and Assyrian Text Commentaries: Origins of Interpretation . GMTR 5. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2011. Frame, G. Rulers of Babylonia: From the Second Dynasty of Isin to the End of Assyrian Domination (1157–612 BC) . RIMB 2. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1995. Gasche, H., J. A. Armstrong, S. W. Cole, and V. G. Gurzadyan. Dating the Fall of Baby- lon: A Reappraisal of Second-Millennium Chronology (A Joint Ghent-Chicago- Harvard Project). Mesopotamian History and Environment. Series II: Memoirs 4. Ghent and Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1998. Glassner, J.-J. Mesopotamian Chronicles . Writings From the Ancient World 19. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004. Grayson, A. K. Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles. TCS 5. Locust Valley, NY: J.J. Augustin, 1975. ———. “Königslisten und Chroniken, B. Akkadisch.” In Reallexikon der Assyriol- ogie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie. Band 6. 1./2. Lieferung: Klagegesang- Königtum , edited by D. Edzard, 86–135. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1980. Hölscher, M. Die Personennamen der kassitenzeitlichen Texte aus Nippur. Imgula 1. Munster: Rhema-Verlag, 1996. Hunger, H. Astrological Reports to Assyrian Kings. SAA 10. Helsinki: Helsinki Uni- versity Press, 1992. Jeffers, J. “The Nonintercalated Lunar Calendar of the Middle Assyrian Period.” JCS 69 (2017): 151–191. Koch, U. S. Mesopotamian Divinations Texts: Conversing With the Gods. Sources From the First Millennium BCE . GMTR 7. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2015. Lambert, W. G. Babylonian Creation Myths . Mesopotamian Civilizations 16. Win- ona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013. ———. Babylonian Wisdom Literature . Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1960. ———. “A Catalogue of Texts and Authors.” JCS 16 (1962): 59–77. ———. “The Reign of Nebuchadnezzar I: A Turning Point in the History of Ancient Mesopotamian Religion.” In The Seed of Wisdom: Essays in Honour of T.J. Meek, edited by W. S. McCullough, 3–13. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1964. ———. “Studies in Marduk.” BSOAS 47 (1984): 1–9. Lenzi, A. “The Uruk List of Kings and Sages and Late Mesopotamian Scholarship.” Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions 8 (2008): 137–169. Longman III, T. Fictional Akkadian Autobiography: A Generic and Comparative Study . Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1991. Manning, S. W., B. Kromer, P. I. Kuniholm, and M. W. Newton. “Tree Rings and a New Chronology for East Mediterranean Bronze-Iron Ages.” Science 294 (2001): 2532–2535. Millard, A. The Eponyms of the Assyrian Empire 910–612 BC . SAAS 2. Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 1994. Neujahr, M. Predicting the Past in the Ancient Near East: Manic Historiography in Ancient Mesopotamia, Judah, and the Mediterranean World . Brown Judaic Studies 354. Providence: Brown University, 2012. Nielsen, J. P. Personal Names in Early Neo-Babylonian Legal and Administrative Tablets, 747–626 B.C.E . NISABA 29. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2015. Oppenheim, A. “Mesopotamia in the Early History of Alchemy.” RA (1966): 29–45. Oshima, T. Babylonian Poems of Pious Sufferers . Orientalische Religionen in der Antike 14. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. ———. Babylonian Prayers to Marduk . Orientalische Religionen in der Antike 7. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. ———. The Babylonian Theodicy. SAACT 9. Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2013. Paulus, S. Die babylonischen Kudurru-Inschriften von der kassitischen bis zur frü hneubabylonischen Zeit: Untersucht unter besonderer Berü cksichtigung gesellschafts- und rechtshistorischer Fragestellungen. AOAT 51. Münster: Ugarit- Verlag, 2014. Pedersén, O. Archive und Bibliotheken in Babylon: Die Tontafeln der Grabung Rob- ert Koldeweys 1899–1917. Abhandlungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 25. Berlin: Saarländische Druckerei und Verlag, 2005. ———. Archives and Libraries in the City of Assur: A Survey of the Material From the German Excavations, Part II . Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1986. Schmidt, A. “Gedanken über die Entwicklung der Religion auf Grund der babylonischen Quellen.” MVAG 16/3 (1911): 1–136. Sommerfeld, W. Der Aufstieg Marduks. Die Stellung Marduks in der babylonischen Religion des zweiten Jahrtausends v. Chr. AOAT 213. Kevelaer and Neukirchen- Vluyn: Verlag Butzon & Bercker and Nerkirchener Verlag, 1982. Walker, C. B. F. “Babylonian Chronicle 25: A Chronicle of the Kassite and Isin II Dynasties.” In Zikir Šumim. Assyriological Studies Presented to F. R. Kraus on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday , edited by F. R. Kraus, 398–417. Leiden: Brill, 1982. Zomer, E. “Enmity Against Samsuditana.” In Proceedings of the 59th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Ghent, July 15–19, 2013. Winona Lake, IN: Eisen- brauns, forthcoming. Amiet, P. L’art d’Agade au musée du Louvre. Paris: Éditions des Musées nationaux, 1976. Bloch, Y. “Assyro-Babylonian Conflicts in the Reign of Aššur-rēša-iši I: The Contri- bution of Administrative Documents to History-Writing.” In The Ancient Near East in the 12th–10th Centuries BCE: Culture and History. Proceedings of the International Conference held at the University of Haifa, 2–5 May , 2010 , edited by G. Galil, A. Gilboz, A. Maeir, and D. Kahn, 53–78. AOAT 392. Münster: Ugarit- Verlag, 2012. ———. “Solving the Problems of the Assyrian King List: Toward a Precise Recon- struction of the Middle Assyrian Chronology. Parts I–II.” Journal of Ancient Civi- lizations 25 (2010): 21–87. Brinkman, J. A. “Babylonian Royal Land Grants, Memorials of Financial Interest, and Invocation of the Divine.” JESHO 49 (2006): 1–47. ———. A Catalogue of Cuneiform Sources Pertaining to Specific Monarchs of the Kassite Dynasty . MSKH 1. Chicago: The Oriental Institute, 1976. ———. “Kassiten/Kaššû.” In Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie. Band 5. Ia . . . – Kizzuwatna , edited by D. Edzard, 464–473. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1980. ———. A Political History of Post-Kassite Babylonia: 1158–722 B.C. Analecta Ori- entalia: Commentationes Scientificae de Rebus Orientis Antiqui 43. Rome: Ponti- ficium Institutum Biblicum, 1968. ——— and S. Daley. “A Royal Kudurru From the Reign of Aššur-nādin-šumi.” ZA 78 (1988): 76–98. Donbaz, V. “Assur Collection Housed in Istanbul: General Outlines.” In Acts of the IIIrd International Congress of Hittitology: Çorum, September 16–44, 1996: III. Uluslararasi Hititoloji Komgresi Bildirileri: Çorum 16–22 Eyül 1996 , edited by S. Alp and A. Süel, 177–188. International Congress of Hittitology 3. Ankara: Uyum Ajans, 1998. Eidem, J. and J. Læssøe. The Shemshara Archives 1: The Letters. Copenhagen: Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab, 2002. Foster, B. R. Before the Muses: An Anthology of Akkadian Literature, 3rd ed. Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 2005. Frame, G. Rulers of Babylonia: From the Second Dynasty of Isin to the End of Assyrian Domination (1157–612 BC) . RIMB 2. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1995. ———. “Ulai, Ulaja A. River.” In Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie. Band 14. 3/4. Lieferung: Tukultī-Ninurta I. – Upur-kubak, edited by E. Ebeling and B. Meissner, 302–303. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2014. George, A. House Most High: The Temples of Ancient Mesopotamia. Mesopotamian Civilizations 5. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1993. Gibson, M. “Patterns of Occupation at Nippur.” In Nippur at the Centennial: Papers Read at the 35th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Philadelphia , 1988 , edited by M. deJong Ellis, 33–54. Philadelphia: The University Museum, 1992. Glassner, J.-J. Mesopotamian Chronicles . Writings From the Ancient World 19. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004. Grayson, A. K. Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles. TCS 5. Locust Valley, NY: J.J. Augustin, 1975. ———. Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC I (1114–859 BC). RIMA 2. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1991. ———. Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC II (858–754 BC) . RIMA 3. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1996. ——— and J. Novotny. The Royal Inscriptions of Sennacherib, King of Assyria (704– 681 BC), Part 2 . RINAP 3/2. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2014. Harper P. and P. Amiet. “The Mesopotamian Presence.” In The Royal City of Susa: Ancient Near Eastern Treasures in the Louvre , edited by P. Harper, J. Aruz, and F. Tallon, 159–182. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1992. Hurowitz, V. “Some Literary Observations on the Šitti-Marduk Kudurru (BBSt. 6).” ZA 82 (1992): 39–59. Kessler, K. “Namar/Namri.” In Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie. Band 9. 1./2. Lieferung: Nab-Nanše , edited by D. O. Edzard, 91–92. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1998. Klengel, H. “Lullu(bum).” In Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie. Band 7. 3./4. Lieferung: Luḫuzattija-Maltai , edited by D. O. Edzard, 164–168. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1988. Kuhrt, A. The Ancient Near East c. 3000–300 BC . London: Routledge, 1995. Lambert, W. “Another Boundary Stone of Merodachbaladan I.” AfO 52 (2011): 15–21. ———. “The Reign of Nebuchadnezzar I: A Turning Point in the History of Ancient Mesopotamian Religion.” In The Seed of Wisdom: Essays in Honour of T. J. Meek , edited by W. S. McCullough, 3–13. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1964. Millard, A. The Eponyms of the Assyrian Empire, 910–612 BC . SAAS 2. Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 1994. Nashef, K. Die Orts- und Gewässernamen der mittelbabylonischen und mittelassyrischen Zeit . Répertoire Géographique des Textes Cunéiformes 5. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 1982. Nielsen, J. “Nebuchadnezzar I’s Eastern Front.” In The Ancient Near East in the 12th – 10th Centuries BCE: Culture and History. Proceedings of the International Confer- ence held at the University of Haifa, 2–5 May , 2010, edited by G. Galil, A. Gilboz, A. Maeir, and D. Kahn, 413–423. AOAT 392. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2012. Oates, D. “Excavations at Tell Brak 1985–86.” Iraq 49 (1987): 175–191. Paulus, S. Die babylonischen Kudurru-Inschriften von der kassitischen bis zur frü hneubabylonischen Zeit: Untersucht unter besonderer Berücksichtigung gesellschafts- und rechtshistorischer Fragestellungen. AOAT 51. Münster: Ugarit- Verlag, 2014. Potts, D. The Archaeology of Elam: Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. Cambridge World Archeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Reade, J. “Babylonian Boundary Stones and Comparable Monuments in the British Museum.” Annual Review of the Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia Project 5 (1987): 47–51. ———. “Kassites and Assyrians in Iran.” Iran 16 (1978): 137. Seidl, U. Die babylonischen Kudurru-Reliefs: Symbole mesopotamischer Gottheiten . OBO 87. Freiburg and Göttingen: Universitätsverlag Freiburg and Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 1989. Selz, G. “Enlil und Nippur nach prasargonischen Quellen.” In Nippur at the Cen- tennial: Papers Read at the 35th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Phila- delphia , 1988 , edited by M. deJong Ellis, 189–226. Philadelphia: The University Museum, 1992. Slanski, K. E. The Babylonian Entitlement narûs (kudurrus): A Study in their Form and Function. ASOR Books 9. Boston: American School of Oriental Research, 2003. Tadmor, H. The Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III King of Assyria: Critical Edition, With Introductions, Translations, and Commentary . Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1994. ———, S. Yamada, and J. R. Novotny. The Royal Inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III (744–727 BC) and Shalmaneser V (726–722 BC), Kings of Assyria . The Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period 1. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011. Van De Mieroop, M. A History of the Ancient Near East ca. 3000–323 BC . Oxford: Blackwell, 2004. van Soldt, W. “The Location of Idu.” NABU (2008/55). Walker, C. B. F. “Babylonian Chronicle 25: A Chronicle of the Kassite and Isin II Dynasties.” In Zikir Šumim. Assyriological Studies Presented to F. R. Kraus on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, edited by G. van Driel, 398–417. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1982. ——— and D. Collon. “Hormuzd Rassam’s Excavations for the British Museum at Sippar in 1881–1882.” In Tell ed-Der III: Sounding at Abu Habbah (Sippar) , edited by L. de Meyer, 93–114. Leuven: Peeters, 1980. Waters, M. A Survey of Neo-Elamite History. SAAS 12. Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2000. Weszeli, M. “A New Boundary Stone of the Reign of Nabû-mukīn-apli.” RA 104 (2010): 99–130. Assmann, J. “Collective Memory and Cultural Identity.” New German Critique 65 (1995): 125–133. Bloch, Y. “Assyro-Babylonian Conflicts in the Reign of Aššur-rēša-iši I: The Contri- bution of Administrative Documents to History-Writing.” In The Ancient Near East in the 12th–10th Centuries BCE: Culture and History. Proceedings of the International Conference held at the University of Haifa, 2–5 May , 2010 , edited by G. Galil, A. Gilboz, A. Maeir, and D. Kahn, 53–78. AOAT 392. Münster: Ugarit- Verlag, 2012. ———. “Middle Assyrian Lunar Calendar and Chronology.” In Living the Lunar Calendar , edited by J. Ben-Dov, W. Horowitz, and J. Steele, 19–61. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2012. ———. “The Order of Eponyms in the Reign of Tukultī-Ninurta I.” Or . 79 (2010): 1–35. Brinkman, J. A. A Political History of Post-Kassite Babylonia: 1158–722 B.C . Ana- lecta Orientalia: Commentationes Scientificae de Rebus Orientis Antiqui 43. Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1968. Ellis, R. S. Foundation Deposits in Ancient Mesopotamia. Yale Near Eastern Researches 2. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968. Frame, G. Rulers of Babylonia: From the Second Dynasty of Isin to the End of Assyr- ian Domination (1157–612 BC) . RIMB 2. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1995. Frayne, D. R. Old Babylonian Period (2003–1595 BC). RIME 4. Toronoto: Univer- sity of Toronto Press, 1990. Freydank, H. Beiträge zur mittelassyrischen Chronologie und Geschichte . Schriften zur Geschichte und Kultur des alten Orients 21. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1991. Glassner, J.-J. Mesopotamian Chronicles . Writings From the Ancient World 19. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004. Grayson, A. K. Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles. TCS 5. Locust Valley, NY: J.J. Augustin, 1975. ———. Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC I (1114–859 BC) . RIMA 2. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1991. ——— and J. Novotny. The Royal Inscriptions of Sennacherib, King of Assyria (704– 681 BC), Part 2 . RINAP 3/2. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2014. Llop, J. “Die persönlichen Gründe Tiglat-Pilesers I., Babylonien anzugreifen.” Or . 72 (2003): 204–210. Paulus, S. Die babylonischen Kudurru-Inschriften von der kassitischen bis zur frü hneubabylonischen Zeit: Untersucht unter besonderer Berücksichtigung gesellschafts- und rechtshistorischer Fragestellungen. AOAT 51. Münster: Ugarit- Verlag, 2014. Tenney, J. “The Elevation of Marduk Revisited: Festivals and Sacrifices at Nippur During the High Kassite Period.” JCS (2016): 153–180. Walker, C. B. F. “Babylonian Chronicle 25: A Chronicle of the Kassite and Isin II Dynasties.” In Zikir Šumim. Assyriological Studies Presented to F. R. Kraus on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, edited by G. van Driel, 398–417. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1982. Annus, A. “The Marduk Ordeal and Two Babylonian Omens.” NABU (2010), No. 85. Assmann, J. “Collective Memory and Cultural Identity.” New German Critique 65 (1995): 125–133. Baker, H. D. “Nabû-mušēṣi.” In The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, vol. 2/II, edited by H. Baker, 847–848. Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2001. Beaulieu, P.-A. “The Afterlife of Assyrian Scholarship in Hellenistic Babylonia.” In Gazing on the Deep: Ancient Near Eastern and Other Studies in Honor of Tzvi Abusch , edited by J. Stackert et al., 1–18. Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 2010. ———. “The Historical Background of the Uruk Prophecy.” In The Tablet and Scroll: Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William W. Hallo, edited by M. Cohen, D. Snell, and D. Weisberg, 41–52. Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 1993. Biggs, R. D. “The Babylonian Prophecies and the Astrological Traditions of Mesopo- tamia.” JCS 37 (1985): 86–90. Brinkman, J. A. Prelude to Empire . Occasional Publications of the Babylonian Fund 7. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum, 1984. ———. “ ‘Through a Glass Darkly: Esarhaddon’s Retrospects on the Downfall of Babylon.’ Studies in Literature From the Ancient Near East, by Members of the American Oriental Society, Dedicated to Samuel Noah Kramer (Jan. – Mar., 1983).” JAOS 103 (1983): 35–42. Cifola, B. “The Titles of Tukulti-Ninurta I After the Babylonian Campaign: A Re- evaluation.” In From the Upper Sea to the Lower Sea: Studies on the History of Assyria and Babylonia in Honour of A. K. Grayson , edited by G. Frame, 7–15. PIHANS 101. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 2004. Cohen, M. E. The Cultic Calendars of the Ancient Near East. Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 1993. Dalley, S. “The Language of Destruction and Its Interpretation.” Bagh. Mitt . 36 (2005): 275–285. de Jong Ellis, M. “Observations on Mesopotamian Oracles and Prophetic Texts: Literary and Historiographic Considerations.” JCS 41 (1989): 127–186. Deller, K. “Assyrische Königsinschriften auf ‘Perlen’.” NABU (1987), No. 101. Depuydt, L. “ ‘More Valuable than All Gold’: Ptolemey’s Royal Canon and Babylo- nian Chronology.” JCS 47 (1995): 97–117. Fales, F. M. “After Ta‘yinat: The New Status of Esarhaddon’s adê for Assyrian Politi- cal History.” RA 106 (2012): 133–158. Foster, B. R. Before the Muses: An Anthology of Akkadian Literature, 3rd ed. Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 2005. Frahm, E. Babylonian and Assyrian Text Commentaries: Origins of Interpretation . GMTR 5. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2011. ———. Enleitung in die Sanherib-Inschriften. Archiv für Orientforschung Beiheft 26. Vienna: Instituts für Orientalistik der Universität Wien, 1997. ———. “Headhunter, Bücherdiebe und wanernde Gelehrte: Anmerkungen zum altorientalischen Wissentransfer im 1. Jahrtausund v. Chr.” In Wissenkultur im Alten Orient: Weltanschauung, Wissenschaften, Techniken, Technologien , edited by H. Neumann, 15–30. CDOG 4. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2012. ———. “Royal Hermeneutics: Observations on the Commentaries From Ashurbani- pal’s Libraries at Nineveh.” Iraq 66 (2004): 45–50. Frame, G. “Babylon: Assyria’s Problem and Assyria’s Prize.” Journal of the Canadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies 3 (2008): 21–31. ———. Babylonia 689–627 B.C.: A Political History. PIHANS 69. Leiden: Neder- lands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut, 1992. ———. Rulers of Babylonia: From the Second Dynasty of Isin to the End of Assyrian Domination (1157–612 BC) . RIMB 2. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1995. ——— and A. R. George. “The Royal Libraries of Nineveh: New Evidence for King Ashurbanipal’s Tablet Collecting.” Iraq 67 (2005): 265–284. Frymer-Kensky, T. “The Tribulations of Marduk: The So-Called ‘Marduk Ordeal Text’.” JAOS 103 (1983): 131–141. Fuchs, A. “Assyria at War: Strategy and Conduct.” In The Oxford Handbook of Cuneiform Culture, edited by K. Radner and E. Robson, 380–401. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. ———. “Sargon II.” In Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäol- ogie. Band 12. 1./2. Lieferung: Šamuḫa-Schild , edited by M. Streck, 51–61. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2009. George, A. R. Babylonian Topographical Texts . OLA 40. Leuven: Peeters Press, 1992. ———. “The Libraries of Nineveh: New Evidence for King Ashurbanipal’s Tablet Collecting.” Iraq 67 (2005): 265–284. Glassner, J.-J. “Des dieux, des scribes, et des savants: Circulation des idées et transmission des écrits en Mésopotamie.” Annales – Histoire, Sciences Sociales 60 (2005): 483–506. ———. Mesopotamian Chronicles . Writings From the Ancient World 19. Atlanta: Society for Biblical Literature, 2004. Grayson, A. K. Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles. TCS 5. Locust Valley, NY: J.J. Augustin, 1975. ———. “Königslisten und Chroniken.” In Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vordera- siatischen Archäologie. Band 6. 1./2. Lieferung: Klagegesang-Königtum, edited by D. Edzard, 77–135. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1980. ——— and J. Novotny. The Royal Inscriptions of Sennacherib, King of Assyria (704– 681 BC), Part 2 . RINAP 3/2. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2014. Haller, A. and W. Andrae. Die Heilligtumer des Gottes Assur und der Sin-Šamaš- Tempel in Assur . WVDOG 67. Berlin: Verlag Gerbr. Mann, 1955. Hunger, H. Astrological Reports to Assyrian Kings . SAA 8. Helsinki: Helsinki Uni- versity Press, 1992. Jakob, S. “ Sag mir quando, sag mir wann . . . .” In Time and History in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the 56th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale at Barcelona, 26–30 July 2010 , edited by L. Feliu, J. Llop, A. Millet Albà, and J. Sanmartín, 509–523. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013. Lauinger, J. “The Neo-Assyrian adê : Treaty, Oath, or Something Else?” Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 19 (2013): 99–115. Leichty, E. “Esarhaddon, King of Assyria.” In Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. Volume 2: History and Culture, edited by J. Sasson, 949–985. New York: Scribner, 1995. ———. The Royal Inscriptions of Esarhaddon, King of Assyria (680–669 BC) . RINAP 4. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011. Lenzi, A. “Advertising Secrecy, Creating Power in Ancient Mesopotamia: How Schol- ars Used Secrecy in Scribal Education to Bolster and Perpetuate their Social Pres- tige and Power.” Antiguo Oriente 11 (2013): 13–42. ———. “Mesopotamian Scholarship: Kassite to Late Babylonian Periods.” Journal of Ancient Near Eastern History 2 (2015): 145–201. Leven, K.-H. “ ‘At Times these Ancient Facts Seem to Lie Before Me Like a Patient on a Hospital Bed’ – Retrospective Diagnosis and Ancient Medical History.” In Magic and Rationality in Ancient Near Eastern and Graeco-Roman Medicine, edited by H. Horstmanshoff, M. Stol, and C. van Tilburg, 369–386. Studies in Ancient Medi- cine 27. Boston: Brill, 2004. Lieberman, S. J. “Canonical and Official Cuneiform Texts: Towards an Understand- ing of Assurbanipal’s Personal Table Collection.” In Lingering Over Words: Stud- ies in Near Eastern Literature in Honor of William L. Moran , edited by W. Moran et al., 305–336. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990. Livingstone, A. L. “Ashurbanipal: Literate or Not?” ZA 97 (2007): 98–118. ———. Court Poetry and Literary Miscellanea. SAA 3. Helsinki: University of Hel- sinki Press, 1989. Longman, T. Fictional Akkadian Autobiography: A Generic and Comparative Study . Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1991. Luukko, M. and G. Van Buylaere. The Political Correspondence of Esarhdaddon. SAA 16. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 2002. Machinist, P. “Assyrians on Assyria in the First Millennium B.C.” In Anfänge politischen Denkens in der Antike: Die nahöstlichen Kulturen und die Griechen, edited by K. Raaflaub and E. Muller-Luckner, 77–104. Schriften des Historischen Kollegs Kolloquien 24. Munchen: R. Oldenberg Verlag, 1993. ———. “The Assyrians and Their Babylonian Problem: Some Reflections.” Wissen- schaftskolleg zu Berlin. Jahrbuch (1984/85): 353–364. Millard, A. The Eponyms of the Assyrian Empire 910–612 BC . SAAS 2. Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 1994. Nielsen, J. P. “Marduk’s Return: Assyrian Imperial Propaganda, Babylonian Cultural Memory, and the akītu Festival of 667 BC.” In Memory and Urban Religion in the Ancient World , edited by Martin Bommas et al., 3–32. London: Bloomsbury, 2012. ——— and J. P. Nielsen. Sons and Descendants: A Social History of Kin Groups and Family Names in the Early Neo-Babylonian Period, 747–626 B.C . Culture & His- tory of the Ancient Near East 43. Leiden: Brill, 2010. ———. “Trading on Knowledge: The Iddin-Papsukkal Kin Group in Southern Baby- lonia in the Seventh and 6th Centuries B.C.” Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions 9 (2009): 171–182. Oppenheim, A. L. “The Position of the Intellectual in Mesopotamian Society.” Dae- dalus 104 (1975): 37–46. Parpola, S. “Assyrian Library Records.” JNES 42 (1983): 1–29. ———. Letters From Assyrian Scholars to the Kings Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal: Part II: Commentary and Appendices. AOAT 5/2. Kevelaer, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Verlag Butzon & Bercker, Neukirchener Verlag, 1983. ———. “The Murder of Sennacherib.” In Death in Mesopotamia, edited by B. Alster, 171–182. Mesopotamia 8. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1980. ———. “The Royal Archives of Nineveh.” In Cuneiform Archives and Libraries: Papers Read at the 30e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Leiden, 4–8 July 1983 , edited by K. Veenhof, 223–236. PIHANS 57. Leiden: Nederlands Historisch- Archaeologisch Instituut in het Nabije Oosten, 1986. ——— and K. Watanabe. Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths. Helsinki: Hel- sinki University Press, 1988. Pedersén, O. Archives and Libraries in the City of Assur. A Survey of the Material from the German Excavations, Part II . Studia Semitica Upsaliensia 8. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1986. ———. Archives and Libraries of the Ancient Near East. Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 1998. Pongratz-Leisten, B. “Drama.” In Encyclopedia for the Reception of the Bible. Vol- ume 6: Dabbesheth – Dreams and Dream Interpretations , edited by D. Allison Jr. et al., 1158–1162. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, 2013. ———. Ina Šulmi Īrub: Die kulttopographische und ideologische Programmatik der akītu-Prozession in Babylonien und Assyrien im I. Jahrtausend v. Chr . Baghdader Forschungen 16. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1994. ———. Religion and Ideology in Assyria . Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Records 6. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, 2015. Porter, B. N. “Ritual and Politics in Assyria: Neo-Assyrian Kanephoric Stelai for Babylonia.” Hesperia Supplements 33 (2004): 259–274. Radner, K. “Royal Decision-Making: Kings, Magnates, and Scholars.” In The Oxford Handbook of Cuneiform Culture, edited by K. Radner and E. Robson, 358–379. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. ———. “The Trials of Esarhaddon: The Conspiracy of 670 BC.” ISIMU: Revista sobre Oriente Proximo y Egypto en la antiguedad 6 (2003): 165–184. Reade, J. “Archaeology and the Kuyunjik Archives.” In Cuneiform Archives and Libraries: Papers Read at the 30e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Leiden, 4–8 July 1983 , edited by K. Veenhof, 213–222. PIHANS 57. Leiden: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut in het Nabije Oosten, 1986. Reuther, O. Die Innenstadt von Babylon (Merkes). WVDOG 47. Osnabruck: Otto Zeller Verlag, 1926. Reynolds, F. The Babylonian Correspondence of Esarhaddon . SAA 18. Helsinki: University of Helsinki Press, 2003. Richardson, S. “Introduction: Scholarship and Inquiry in the Ancient Near East.” Journal of Ancient Near Eastern History (2015): 91–107. Russell, J. M. Sennacherib’s Palace Without Rival at Nineveh. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991. Scurlock, J. A. “Marduk and His Enemies: City Rivalries in Southern Mesopotamia.” In Organization, Representation, and Symbols of Power in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the 54th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale at Würzburg, 20–25 July 2008 , edited by G. Wilhelm, 369–376. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012. Siddal, L. R. “ḪA-BI-(GAL) in Babylonian King List A: An Alternative Proposal.” NABU (2013), No. 12. Soares, F. “The Titles ‘King of Sumer and Akkad’ and ‘King of Karduniaš,’ and the Assyro-Babylonian Relationship During the Sargonid Period.” Rosetta (2017): 20–35. Tadmor, H. “ ‘Part II: The Historical Background.’ In H. Tadmor, B. Landsberger, and S. Parpola, ‘The Sin of Sargon and Sennacherib’s Last Will’.” State Archives of Assyria Bulletin 3/1 (1989): 23–32. Van Driel, G. The Cult of Aššur. Studia Semitica Neerlandica 13. Assen: Van Gor- cum, 1969. Vera Chamaza, G. W. Die Omnipotenz Aššurs: Entwicklungen in der Ašš – Theologie unter den Sargoniden Sargon II., Sanherib und Asarhaddon . AOAT 295. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2002. Weaver, A. M. “The ‘Sin of Sargon’ and Esarhaddon’s Reconception of Sennacherib: A Study in Divine Will, Human Politics and Royal Ideology.” Iraq 66 (2004): 61–66. Yamada, S. “Tukulti-Ninurta I’s Rule Over Babylonia and Its Aftermath: A Historical Reconstruction.” Orient 38 (2003): 153–177. Bae, C.-H. “Comparative Studies of King Darius’ Bisitun Inscription: A Thesis Pre- sented . . . to the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations in Par- tial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Subject of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations.” Harvard University, 2001. Beaulieu, P.-A. and P.-A. Beaulieu. “Berossus on Late Babylonian History.” In Ori- ental Studies 2006: Special Issue of Oriental Studies: A Collection of Papers on Ancient Civilazations of Western Asia, Asia Minor and North Africa , edited by Y. Gong and Y. Chen, 116–150. Beijing: Peking University, 2007. ———. “The Descendants of Sîn-lēqi-unninni.” In Assyriologica et Semitica: Fest- schrift für Joachim Oelsner anläßlich seines 65. Geburtstages am 18. Februar 1997 , edited by J. Marzahan, H. Neumann, and A. Fuchs, 1–16. AOAT 252. Mün- ster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2000. ———. “An Episode in the Reign of the Babylonian Pretender Nebuchadnezzar IV.” In Extraction and Control: Studies in Honor of Matthew W. Stolper, edited by M. Kozuh, W. Henkelman, C. Jones, and C. Woods, 17–26. SAOC 68. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the Univeristy of Chicago Press, 2014. ———. “The Fourth Year of Hostilities in the Land.” Bagh. Mitt. 28 (1997): 367–394. ———. “Nabonidus the Mad King: A Reconsideration of His Steles From Harran and Babylon.” In Representations of Political Power: Case Histories from Times of Change and Dissolving Order in the Ancient Near East , edited by M. Heinz and M. Feldman, 137–168. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007. ———. “Nabopolassar and the Antiquity of Babylon.” In Hayim Tadmor and Mir- iam Tadmor Volume, edited by I. Eph’al, A. Ben-Tor, and P. Machinist, 1–9. Eretz- Israel 27. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2003. ———. “Nabû and Apollo: The Two Faces of Seleucid Religious Policy.” In Orient und Okzident in hellenistischer Zeit: Beträge zur Tagung “Orient und Okzident – Antagonismus oder Konstrukt? Machtstrukturen, Ideologien und Kulturtransfer in hellenistischer Zeit” Würzburg 10. – 13. April 2008 , edited by F. Hoffmann and K. Schmidt, 13–30. Nuremburg: Verlag Patrick Brose, 2014. ———. “Nebuchadnezzar’s Babylon as World Capital.” Journal of the Canadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies 3 (2008): 5–12. ———. The Reign of Nabonidus, King of Babylon 556–539 B.C. Yale Near Eastern Researches 10. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989. Black, J. A. et al. Ḥabl aṣ -Ṣa ḫr 1983–1985: Nebuchadnezzar II’s Cross-Country Wall North of Sippar . Mesopotamian History and Environment Series 1, Northern Akkad Project Reports 1. Ghent: University of Ghent, 1987. Bloch, Y. “A Letter of Nebuchadnezzar I to the Babylonians: Literary and Histori- cal Considerations.” In “Now it Happened in Those Days” Studies in Biblical, Assyrian, and Other Ancient Near Eastern Historiography Presented to Morde- chai Cogan on his 75th Birthday, edited by A. Baruchi-Unna, T. Forti, S. Ahituv, I. Eph’al, and J. Tigay, 493–523. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2017. Boiy, T. “The Reigns of the Seleucid Kings According to the Babylon King List.” JNES 70 (2011): 1–12. Briant, P. From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire, translated by P. Daniels. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2002. Brinkman, J. A. “Nabopolassar.” In Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasi- atischen Archäologie. Band 9. 1./2. Lieferung: Nab – Nanše , edited by D. Edzard, 12–16. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1998. Clancier, P. “La Babylonie hellénistique. Aperçu d’histoire politique et culturelle.” Topoi 15 (2007): 21–74. Cohen, M. E. The Cultic Calendars of the Ancient Near East. Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 1993. Czichon, R. M. “Nebukadnezar II. B. Archäologisch.” In Reallexikon der Assyri- ologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie. Band 9. 3./4. Lieferung: Nanše-ͩ NIM. NIM , edited by D. Edzard and B. Meissner, 201–206. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1999. Da Riva, R. “Just Another Brick in the Median Wall.” Aramazd: Armenian Journal of Near Eastern Studies 5 (2010): 55–65. ———. “Nebuchadnezzar II’s Prism (EŞ 7834): A New Edition.” ZA 103 (2013): 196–229. ———. The Neo-Babylonian Royal Inscriptions: An Introduction . Guides to the Mesopotamian Textual Record 4. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2008. Depuydt, L. “The Time of Death of Alexander the Great: 11 June 323 B.C. (–322), ca. 4:00–5:00 PM.” WO 28 (1997): 117–135. Eilers, W. “Excavations in Iraq 1985–86.” Iraq 49 (1987): 231–251. ———. “Iran and Mesopotamia.” In The Cambridge History of Iran. Volume 3(1): The Seleucid, Parthian and Sasanian Periods , edited by E. Yarshater, 481–504. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983. Foster, B. R. Before the Muses: An Anthology of Akkadian Literature, 3rd ed. Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 2005. Frame, G. The Archive of Mušēzib-Marduk, Son of Kiribtu and Descendant of Sîn- nāṣir: A Landowner and Property Developer at Uruk in the Seventh Century BC . Babylonische Archive 5. Dresden: Islet, 2013. ———. “A Bilingual Inscription of Nebuchadnezzar I.” In Corolla Torontonensis: Studies in Honour of Ronald Morton Smith , edited by E. Robbins and S. Sandahl, 59–72. Toronto: TSAR, 1994. ———. Rulers of Babylonia: From the Second Dynasty of Isin to the End of Assyrian Domination (1157–612 BC) . RIMB 2. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1995. Geller, M. “The Last Wedge.” ZA 87 (1997): 43–95. Glassner, J.-J. Mesopotamian Chronicles . Writings From the Ancient World 19. Atlanta: Society for Biblical Literature, 2004. Grayson, A. K. Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles. TCS 5. Locust Valley, NY: J.J. Augustin, 1975. Henkelman, W. “The Birth of Gilgameš (Ael. NA XII.21). A Case-Study in Literary Receptivity.” In Altertum und Mittelmeerraum: Die antike Welt diesseits und jenseits der Levante: Festschrift für Peter W. Haider zum 60. Geburtstag , edited by R. Rollinger and B. Truschnegg, 807–849. Oriens et Occidens 12. Munchen: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2006. Herodotus. The History, translated by D. Grene. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987. Jursa, M. “Die Söhne Kudurrus und die Herkunft der neubabylonischen Dynastie.” RA 101 (2007): 125–136. ———. “The Transition of Babylonia from the Neo-Babylonian Empire to Achaeme- nid Rule.” In Regime Change in the Ancient Near East and Egypt: From Sargon of Agade to Saddam Hussein, edited by H. Crawford, 73–94. Proceedings of the British Academy 136. Oxford: The British Academy/Oxford University Press, 2007. Jursa, M., with J. Hackl et al. Aspects of the Economic History of Babylonia in the First Millennium BC. Economic Geography, Economic Mentalities, Agriculture, the Use of Money and the Problem of Economic Growth . AOAT 377. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2010. Kosmin, P. “Seeing Double in Seleucid Babylonia: Rereading the Borsippa Cylinder of Antiochus I.” In Patterns of the Past: Epitēdeumata in Greek Tradition, edited by A. Moreano and R. Thomas, 173–198. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. Kuhrt, A. The Ancient Near East c. 3000–330 BC . London and New York: Rout- ledge, 1995. ———. “The Cyrus Cylinder and Achaemenid Imperial Policy.” Journal of the Study of the Old Testament 25 (1983): 83–97. Lenzi, A. “The Uruk List of Kings and Sages and Late Mesopotamian Scholarship.” Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions 8 (2008): 137–169. Lorenz, J. Nebukadnezzar III/IV: Die politischen Wirren nach dem Tod Kambyses im Spiegel der Keilschrifttexte . Dresden: ISLET, 2008. Madreiter, I. “Antiochos the Great and the Robe of Nebuchadnezzar: Intercultural Transfer Between Orientalism and Hellenocentrism.” In Cross-Cultural Studies in Near Eastern History and Literature , edited by S. Svärd and R. Rollinger, 111– 136. The Intellectual Heritage of the Ancient and Mediaeval Near East 2. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2016. Michalowski, P. “Biography of a Sentence: Assurbanipal, Nabonidu, and Cyrus.” In Extraction and Control: Studies in Honor of Matthew W. Stolper , edited by M. Kozuh, W. Henkelman, C. Jones, and C. Woods, 203–210. SAOC 68. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the Univeristy of Chicago Press, 2014. ———. “The Cyrus Cylinder.” In The Ancient Near East: Historical Sources in Trans- lation , edited by M. Chavalas, 426–430. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2006. Nielsen, J. P. “I Overwhelmed the King of Elam: Remembering Nebuchadnezzar I in Persian Babylonia.” In Political Memory in and After the Persian Empire, edited by J. Silverman and C. Waerzeggers, 53–73. Ancient Near East Monographs 13. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2015. ———. Personal Names in Early Neo-Babylonian Legal and Administrative Tablets, 747–626 B.C.E . Nisaba 29. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2015. ———. Sons and Descendants: A Social History of Kin Groups and Family Names in the Early Neo-Babylonian Period, 747–626 BC . Culture & History of the Ancient Near East 43. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Pedersén, O. Archive und Bibliotheken in Babylon: Die Tontafeln der Grabung Rob- ert Koldeweys 1899–1917. Abhandlungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 25. Berlin: Saarländische Druckerei und Verlag, 2005. Ristvet, L. “Between Ritual and Theatre: Political Performance in Seleucid Babylo- nia.” World Archaeology 46 (2014): 256–269. Sachs, A. J. and H. Hunger. Diaries from 652 B.C. to 262 B.C., Volume1: Astronomi- cal Diaries and Related Texts From Babylonia . Vienna: Österreichischen Akad- emie der Wissenschaften, 1998. Spek, van der R. J. “Cuneiform Documents on Parthian History: The Rahimesu Archive, Materal for the Study of the Standard of Living.” Historia 122 (1998): 205–258. Vanderhooft, D. The Neo-Babylonian Empire and Babylon in the Latter Prophets . Harvard Semitic Monographs 59. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999. Waerzeggers, C. “The Babylonian Revolts Against Xerxes and the ‘End of Archives’.” AfO 50 (2003/2004): 150–173. Wiater, N. “Writing Roman History – Shaping Greek Identity: The Ideology of His- toriography in Dionysius of Halicarnassus.” In The Struggle for Identity: Greeks and their Past in the First Century BCE, edited by T. Schmitz and N. Wiater, 61–91. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 2011. Brinkman, J. A. A Catalogue of the Cuneiform Sources Pertaining to Specific Mon- archs of the Kassite Dynasty. MSKH 1. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the Univer- sity of Chicago, 1976. ———. “Kassiten/Kaššû.” In Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie. Band 5. Ia . . . – Kizzuwatna , edited by D. Edzard, 464–473. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1980. ———. “Marduk-balāssu-iqbi.” In Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasi- atischen Archäologie. Band 7. 5./6. Lieferung: Maltai-Masse und Gewichte, edited by D. Edzard, 376. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1989. ———. “Meerland (Sealand).” In Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie. Band 8. 1./2. Lieferung: Meek-Miete, edited by D. Edzard, 6–10. Ber- lin: Walter de Gruyter, 1993. ———. “Nabû-šuma-ukīn I., II.” In Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasi- atischen Archäologie. Band 9. 1./2. Lieferung: Nab-Nanše, edited by D. Edzard, 33–34. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1998. ———. A Political History of Post-Kassite Babylonia: 1158–722 B.C. Analecta Ori- entalia: Commentationes Scientificae de Rebus Orientis Antiqui 43. Rome: Ponti- ficium Institutum Biblicum, 1968. Frame, G. Rulers of Babylonia: From the Second Dynasty of Isin to the End of Assyrian Domination (1157–612 BC) . RIMB 2. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1995. Goetze, A. “An Inscription of Simbar-Šiḫu.” JCS 19 (1965): 121–135. Hurowitz, V. A. Divine Service and Its Rewards: Ideology and Poetics in the Hinke Kudurru. Ber-Sheeva Studies by the Department of Bible and Ancient Near East 10. Beer-Sheva: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press, 1997, 16–17. ———. “Reading a Votive Inscription: Simbar-Shipak and the Ellification of Mar- duk.” RA 91 (1997): 39–47. Leichty, E. Catalogue of the Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum VI: Tablets From Sippar 1 . London: British Museum, 1986. Livingstone, A. Court Poetry and Literary Miscellanea . SAA 3. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1989. Nielsen, J. P. Sons and Descendants: A Social History of Kin Groups and Family Names in the Early Neo-Babylonian Period, 747–626 BC . Culture & History of the Ancient Near East 43. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Paulus, S. Die babylonischen Kudurru-Inschriften von der kassitischen bis zur frü hneubabylonischen Zeit: Untersucht unter besonderer Berücksichtigung gesellschafts- und rechtshistorischer Fragestellungen. AOAT 51. Münster: Ugarit- Verlag, 2014. Poebel, A. The Second Dynasty of Isin According to a New King-List Tablet . AS 15. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1955. Reade, J. “Babylonian Boundary Stones and Comparable Monuments in the British Museum.” ARRIM 5 (1987): 47–52. ———. “Rassam’s Babylonian Collection: The Excavations and the Archives.” In Catalogue of the Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum VI: Tablets From Sip- par 1 , edited by E. Leichty, xiii–xxxvi. London: British Museum, 1986. Slanski, K. E. The Babylonian Entitlement Narûs (Kudurrus): A Study in Their Form and Function. ASOR Books 9. Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research, 2003. Sommerfeld, W. Der Aufstieg Marduks. Die Stellung Marduks in der babylonischen Religion des zweiten Jahrtausends v. Chr. AOAT 213. Kevelaer and Neukirchen- Vluyn: Verlag Butzon & Bercker and Nerkirchener Verlag, 1982. Walker, C. B. F. and D. Collon. “Hormuzd Rassam’s Excavations for the British Museum at Sippar in 1881–1882.” In Tell ed-Der III: Soundings at Abu Ḥabbah (Sippar) , edited by L. de Meyer, 93–114. Leuven: Peeters, 1980. Woods, C. “The Sun-God Tablet of Nabû-apla-iddina Revisited.” JCS 56 (2004): 23–103. Zomer, E. “Enmity Against Samsuditana.” In Proceedings of the 59th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Ghent, July 15–19, 2013. Winona Lake, IN: Eisen- brauns, forthcoming. Annus, A., The God Ninurta in the Mythology and Royal Ideology of Ancient Meso- potamia . SAAS 14. Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2002. Braudel, F. The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II, translated by S. Reynolds. London: Fontana, [1949] 1975. Brinkman, J. A. A Catalogue of Cuneiform Sources Pertaining to Specific Monarchs of the Kassite Dynasty. MSKH 1. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of Chicago, 1976. ———. “Kassiten/Kaššû.” In Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie. Band 5. Ia . . . – Kizzuwatna , edited by D. Edzard, 464–473. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1980. Brisch, N. M. “History and Chronology.” In The Sumerian World , edited by H. Crawford, 111–127. London: Routledge, 2013. ———. Tradition and the Poetics of Innovation: Sumerian Court Literature of the Larsa Dynasty (c. 2003–1763 BCE) . AOAT 339. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2007. Charpin, D. “Histoire Politique du Proche-Orient amorrite (2002–1595).” In Meso- potamien: Die altbabylonische Zeit , 25–480. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 160/4. Fribourg and Göttingen: Academic Press Fribourg and Vandenhoeck & Ruprect, 2004. ———. Le Clergé d’Ur au Siècles d’Hammurabi (XIXe –XVIIIe Siècles av. J.-C.). Geneva and Paris: Librairie Droz, 1986. Cohen, M. E. The Cultic Calendar of the Ancient Near East . Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 1993. ———. Festivals and Calendars of the Ancient Near East. Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 2015. Cooper, J. S. Reconstructing History From Ancient Inscriptions: The Lagash-Umma Border Conflict . Sources from the Ancient Near East 2/1. Malibu: Undena, 1983. Dalley, S. “The Language of Destruction and Its Interpretation.” Bagh. Mitt . 36 (2005): 275–285. Flynn, S. YHWH Is King: The Development of Kingship in Ancient Israel . Vetus Testamentum Supplements 159. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Foster, B. R. Before the Muses: An Anthology of Akkadian Literature, 3rd ed. Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 2005. Gasche, H. La Babylonie au 17e siècle avant notre ère: Approche Archaéologique, Problèmes et Perspectives . MHE, Series II, Memoirs 1. Ghent: University of Ghent, 1989. George, A. R. Babylonian Literary Texts in the Schøyen Collection. Cornell Univer- sity Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology 10. Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 2009. ———. Babylonian Topographical Texts . OLA 40. Leuven: Peeters, 1992. ———. “Marduk and the Cult of the Gods of Nippur at Babylon.” Or . 66 (1997): 65–70. Gibson, M. “Nippur – Sacred City of Enlil, Supreme God of Sumer and Akkad.” Al-Rafidan 14 (1993): 1–18. ———. “Patterns of Occupation at Nippur.” In Nippur at the Centennial: Papers Read at the 35th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Philadelphia, 1988, edited by M. Ellis, 33–54. Philadelphia: University Museum, 1992. Glassner, J.-J. Mesopotamian Chronicles . Writings From the Ancient World 19. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004. Grayson, A. K. Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles. TCS 5. Locust Valley, NY: J.J. Augustin, 1975. ———. Assyrian Rulers of the Third and Second Millennia BC (to 1115 BC). RIMA 1. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1987. ———. “Ninurta-tukulti-Aššur.” In Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasi- atischen Archäologie. Band 9. 7./8. Lieferung: Ninlil-Nuzi , edited by D. Edzard, 527. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2001. Grondin, J. “What Is the Hermeneutical Circle?” In The Blackwell Companion to Hermeneutics, edited by N. Keane and C. Lawn, 299–305. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2016. Hundley, M. B. “Here a God, There a God: An Examination of the Divine in Ancient Mesopotamia.” AoF 40 (2013): 68–107. Jacobsen, T. The Sumerian King List . AS 11. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1939. Lambert, W. G. Babylonian Creation Myths . Mesopotamian Civilizations 16. Win- ona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013. ———. “The Reign of Nebuchadnezzar I: A Turning Point in the History of Ancient Mesopotamian Religion.” In The Seed of Wisdom: Essays in Honour of T.J. Meek, edited by W. S. McCullough, 3–13. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1964. ———. “Syncretism and Religious Controversy in Babylonia.” AoF 24 (1997): 158–162. Löhnert, A. “Ipiq-Aja und die Klage über Ur.” JCS 63 (2011): 65–72. Machinist, P. “Tukultī-Ninurta-Epos.” In Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vordera- siatischen Archäologie. Band 14. Tukultī-Ninurta I – Upur-kubak, edited by E. Ebeling and B. Meissner, 180–181. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2014. Marchesi, G. “The Sumerian King List and the Early History of Mesopotamia.” In ana turri gimilli: studi dedicati al Padre Werner R. Mayer, S. J da amici e allievi , edited by M. Biga and M. Liverani, 231–248. Vicino Oriente Quaderno 5. Rome: Università di Roma << La Sapienza>>, 2010. Maul, S. M. “Eine neubabylinische Kultordnung fur den ‘Klagesanger’ (kalû).” In Kulturgeschichten: Altorientalische Studien für Völkert Haas zum 65. Geburtstag , edited by T. Richter, D. Prechel, and J. Klinger, 255–265. Saarbrücken: Saarbrücker Druckerei und Verlag, 2001. Michalowski, P. “History as Charter: Some Observations on the Sumerian King List.” JAOS 103 (1983): 237–248. ———. The Lamentation Over the Destruction of Sumer and Ur . Mesopotamian Civilizations 1. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1989. Na’aman, N. “The King Leading Cult Reforms in His Kingdom: Josiah and Other Kings in the Ancient Near East.” Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 12 (2006): 131–168. Oshima, T. “Another Attempt at Two Kassite Royal Inscriptions: The Agum-kakrime Inscription and the Inscription of Kurigalzu the Son of Kadashmanharbe.” Babel und Bibel 6 (2012): 225–268. Paulus, S. “Foreigners Under Foreign Rulers: The Case of Kassite Babylonia (2nd Half of the 2nd Millennium B.C.E.).” In The Foreigner and the Law: Perspectives From the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East , edited by R. Achenbach, R. Albertz, and J. Wöhrle, 1–15. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Bib- lische Rechtsgeschicht 16. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz Verlag, 2011. Richardson, S. “The Many Falls of Babylon and the Shape of Forgetting.” In Envi- sioning the Past Through Memories: How Memory Shaped Ancient Near Eastern Societies , edited by D. Nadali, 101–142. Cultural Memory and History in Antiq- uity 3. London: Bloomsbury, 2016. ———. “Trouble in the Countryside ana tarṣi Samsuditana: Militarism, Kassites, and the Fall of Babylon I.” In Ethnicity in Ancient Mesopotamia. Papers Read at the 48th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale. Leiden, 1–4 July 2002, edited by W. Van Soldt, 273–289. PIHANS 102. Leiden: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut in het Nabije Oosten, 2005. Samet, N. The Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur. Mesopotamian Civilizations 18. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2014. Sassmannshausen, L. “The Adaptation of Kassites to the Babylonian Civilization.” In Languages and Cultures in Contact: At the Crossroads of Civilizations in the Syro- Mesopotamian Realm. Proceedings of the 42th RAI , edited by K. Van Lerberghe and G. Voet, 409–424, OLA 96. Leuven: Peeters, 1999. Schudson, M. “Distortion in Collective Memory.” In Memory Distortion, edited by D. Schacter, 346–364. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995. Sommerfeld, W. Der Aufstieg Marduks. Die Stellung Marduks in der babylonischen Religion des zweiten Jahrtausends v. Chr. AOAT 213. Kevelaer and Neukirchen- Vluyn: Verlag Butzon & Bercker and Nerkirchener Verlag, 1982. Steinkeller, P. “An Ur III Manuscript of the Sumerian King List.” In Literatur, Politik und Recht in Mesopotamien: Festschrift für Claus Wilcke, edited by W. Sallaberger et al., 267–292. Orientalia Biblica et Christiana 14. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2003. Tenney, J. S. “The Elevation of Marduk Revisited: Festivals and Sacrifices at Nippur During the High Kassite Period.” JCS 68 (2016): 153–180. Tinney, S. The Nippur Lament . Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund 16. Philadelphia: University Museum, 1996. Uehlinger, C. “Was there a Cult Reform Under King Josiah? The Case for a Well- Grounded Minimum.” In Good Kings and Bad Kings, edited by L. Grabbe, 279– 316. Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 393. London and New York: T&T Clark, 2005. Vedeler, H. T. “The Ideology of Rīm-Sîn II.” Journal of Ancient Near Eastern History 2 (2015): 1–18. Walker, C. and M. Dick. The Induction of the Cult Image in Ancient Mesopotamia: The Mesopotamian mīš pî Ritual. SAA Lit. Texts 1. Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2001. Wasserman, N. “BM 29638: A New Ritual to Marduk From the Old Babylonian Period.” ZA 96 (2006): 200–211. Winter, I. “After the Battle Is Over: The Stele of the Vultures and the Beginning of Historical Narrative in the Art of the Ancient Near East.” In Pictorial Narrative in Antiquity and the Middle Ages , edited by H. Kessler and M. Simpson, 11–32. Studies in the History of Art 16. Washington, DC: National Gallery of Art, 1985. Zadok, R. “Peoples From the Iranian Plateau in Babylonia During the Second Mil- lennium BC. Iran 25 (1987): 1–26. Abusch, T. “Marduk.” In Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible , 2nd ed., edited by K. van der Toorn, B. Becking, and P. van der Horst, 543–549. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Annus, A. and A. Lenzi. Ludlul bēl nēmeqi: The Standard Babylonian Poem of the Righteous Sufferer . SAACT 7. Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2010. Brinkman, J. A. “The Babylonian Chronicle Revisited.” In Lingering over Words: Stud- ies in Ancient Near Eastern Literature in Honor of William L. Moran , edited by T. Abusch, J. Huehnergard, and P. Steinkeller, 73–104. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990. ———. “Dating YBC 2242, the Kadašman-Ḫarbe I Stone.” NABU (2015/18). Foster, B. R. Akkadian Literature of the Late Period . GMTR 2. Münster: Ugarit- Verlag, 2007. Frahm, E. Babylonian and Assyrian Text Commentaries: Origins and Interpretation . Guide to the Mesopotamian Textual Record 5. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2011. ———. “ ‘Counter-Texts, Commentaries, and Adaptations: Politically Motivated Responses to the Babylonian Epic of Creation in Mesopotamia, the Biblical World, and Elsewhere.’ In Conflict, Peace and Religion in the Ancient Near East, edited by A. Tsukimoto.” Orient 45 (2010): 3–33. ———. “Mutilated Mnemotopes: Why ISIS Destroys Cultural Heritage Sites in Iraq and Syria.” Last Modified December 3, 2015. www.eunic-online.eu/?q=content/ mutilated-mnemotopes-0 Gehrke, H.-J. “Greek Representations of the Past.” In Intentional History: Spin- ning Time in Ancient Greece, edited by L. Foxhall, H.-J. Gehrke, and N. Luraghi, 15–34. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 2010. Gelb, I. J. “The Date of the Cruciform Monument of Maništušu.” JNES 8 (1949): 346–348. George, A. R. “The Poem of Erra and Ishum: A Babylonian Poet’s View of War.” In Warfare and Poetry in the Middle East , edited by H. Kennedy, 39–71. London: I. B. Tauris, 2013. Glassner, J.-J. Mesopotamian Chronicles . Writings From the Ancient World 19. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004. Jonker, G. The Topography of Remembrance: The Dead, Tradition and Collective Memory in Mesopotamia. Studies in the History of Religions 68. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1995. Lambert, W. G. “Ancestors, Authors, and Canonicity.” JCS 11 (1957): 1–14, 112. ———. Babylonian Wisdom Literature . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1960. Lenzi, A. “The Uruk List of Kings and Sages and Late Mesopotamian Scholarship.” Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions 8 (2008): 137–169. Lie, A. G. The Inscriptions of Sargon II, King of Assyria. Part I: The Annals: Transliter- ated and Translated With Notes. Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1929. Longman III, T. Fictional Akkadian Autobiography: A Generic and Comparative Study . Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1991. Millard, A. “Another Babylonian Chronicle Text.” Iraq 26 (1964): 14–35. Nielsen, J. P. and C. Waerzeggers. “Interactions Between Temple, King and Local Elites: The ḫanšû Land Schemes in Babylonia (8th–6th Centuries BC).” In Dynam- ics of Production in the Ancient Near East 1300–500 BC, edited by J. C. Moreno Garcia, 331–344. Oxford: Oxbow, 2016. Oppenheim, A. L. Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead Civilization, revised edi- tions completed by E. Reiner. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977. ———, R. H. Brill, D. Barag, and A. von Saldern. Glass and Glassmaking in Ancient Mesopotamia: An Edition of the Cuneiform Texts Which Contain Instruction for Glassmakers With a Catalogue of Surviving Objects. Corning, NY: The Corning Museum of Glass, 1970. Oshima, T. “Another Attempt at Two Kassite Royal Inscriptions: The Agum-kakrime Inscription and the Inscription of Kurigalzu the Son of Kadashmanharbe.” Babel und Bibel 6 (2012): 225–268. ———. The Babylonian Theodicy. SAACT 9. Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Cor- pus Project, 2013. ———. “A Forgotten Royal Hymn to Marduk and Its Historical Background.” JANES 32 (2011): 107–116. Powell, M. A. “Narām-Sîn, Son of Sargon: Ancient History, Famous Names, and a Famous Babylonian Forgery.” ZA 81 (1991): 20–30. Reyolds, F. The Babylonian Correspondence of Esarhaddon. SAA 18. Helsinki: Hel- sinki University Press, 2003. Rubenstein, J. Nebuchadnezzar’s Dream: Crusade, Prophecy, History and Crusade. Oxford: Oxford University Press, forthcoming. Sazonov, V. Die assyrischen Königstitel und -Epitheta von den Anfängen bis zu Tukulti- Ninurta I. und seinen Nachfolgern. SAAS 25. Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2016. Scurlock, J. A. “Marduk and His Enemies: City Rivalries in Southern Mesopotamia.” In Organization, Representation, and Symbols of Power in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the 54th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale at Würzburg, 20–25 July 2008 , edited by G. Wilhelm, 369–376. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012. Seyrig, H., R. Amy, and E. Will. Le temple de Bêl à Palmyre , 2 vols. Bibliothèque Archéologieque et Historique 83. Paris: Librairie orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1975. Sollberger, E. “The Cruciform Monument.” JEOL 20 (1968): 50–70. Sutter, C. E. “Gudea of Lagash: Iconoclasm or Tooth of Time?” In Iconoclasm and Text Destruction in the Ancient Near East and Beyond, edited by N. May, 57–88. Oriental Institute Seminars 8. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 2012. Waerzeggers, C. “The Babylonian Chronicles: Classification and Provenance.” JNES 71 (2012): 285–298. Walker, C. B. F. “Babylonian Chronicle 25: A Chronicle of the Kassite and Isin II Dynasties.” In Zikir Šumim. Assyriological Studies Presented to F. R. Kraus on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday , edited by G. van Driel, 398–417. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1982.