UNIVERSITÀ CA’ FOSCARI VENEZIA

KASKAL Rivista di storia, ambienti e culture del Vicino Oriente Antico

Volume 11

2014

LoGisma editore Firenze

UNIVERSITÀ CA’ FOSCARI VENEZIA

KASKAL Rivista di storia, ambienti e culture del Vicino Oriente Antico

Volume 11 _ 2014

Direzione _ Editorial Board

Stefano de Martino, Frederick Mario Fales, Giovanni Battista Lanfranchi, Lucio Milano, Simonetta Ponchia

Consiglio scientifico _ Scientific Board Yoram Cohen, Stefano de Martino, Frederick Mario Fales, Francis Joannès, Michael Jursa, Giovanni Battista Lanfranchi, Cécile Michel, Lucio Milano, Simonetta Ponchia, Michael Roaf, Jack M. Sasson

Segreteria Scientifica _ Scientific Secretary Paola Corò

Composizione _ Typesetting Stefania Ermidoro

Editore _ Publisher LoGisma editore – Via Zufolana, 4 – I-50039 Vicchio (Firenze) www.logisma.it

Stampa _ Print Press Service Srl – Via Curzio Malaparte, 23 – I-50145 Firenze

Distribuzione _ Distribution Orders can be either addressed to the publisher, or to:

Casalini Libri s.p.a. _ Via B. da Maiano 3 _ I-50014 Fiesole (Firenze) http://www.casalini.it

All articles published in this journal were submitted to peer review.

ISBN 978-88-97530-53-4 ISSN 1971-8608

Stampato nel febbraio 2015

KASKAL Rivista di storia, ambienti e culture del Vicino Oriente Antico

Volume 11 (2014)

THE SÎN-ŠARRA-IŠKUN STONE BLOCK INSCRIPTION IN THE AŠŠUR SITE MUSEUM: A REVISED EDITION AND NOTES ON THE NABÛ TEMPLE AT AŠŠUR

Jamie Novotny

K. Kessler recently published a new inscription of the late Neo-Assyrian king Sîn-šarra-iškun that was housed in the Aššur Site Museum until 1987.1 The text, which records this king’s construction of the Nabû temple at Aššur, is inscribed on a stone block whose surface is worn in places. In poor lighting and less-than-ideal conditions for a proper scientific examination of a cuneiform text, Kessler made a quick, provisional (not-to-scale) copy of this sixteen-line inscription, as well as taking a few photographs.2 Kessler’s edition, which he prepared from his on-the-spot copy, is generally good. However, there are several passages where the transliteration can be improved by comparing its contents to those of other known inscriptions of Sîn-šarra-iškun from Aššur commemorating work on the Nabû temple there.3 Instead of simply noting these alternate readings, the author thought it best to present a new edition of this important Sîn-šarra-iškun inscription, as well as to say a few words about this king’s work on the temple Egidrukalamasumu (“House that bestows the scepter of the land”).4 Revised readings in the edition are indicated in bold. 1. Kessler 2011-2012, 39-43. For information on the known inscriptions of this Assyrian king, see in

particular Novotny – Van Buylaere 2009, 215-219. For a catalogue and information on the provenances of the texts of Sîn-šarra-iškun, see the Appendix to the present article. I would like to thank the National Endowment for the Humanities for funding the Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period (RINAP) Project. I would also like to express my gratitude to Professor Grant Frame (director of the RINAP Project) for reviewing this manuscript. His time and care are greatly appreciated. Any errors or omissions are solely the responsibility of the author.

2. See Kessler 2011/2012, 40 for the poor conditions under which he made the copy. 3. See, for example, Donbaz – Grayson 1984, 58 §J nos. 236-248; and Meinhold 2009, 445-466 n. 16. The

latter text is often referred to as “Sîn-šarra-iškun Cylinder A” in scholarly literature. 4. The temple’s ceremonial name is not mentioned in Sîn-šarra-iškun’s inscriptions, but appears in the

Götteradressbuch; see George 1992, 178 n. 20 line 158. This name is shared with the Nabû of the ~arû temple at Babylon.

Jamie Novotny

160

Transliteration 1. a-na-ku md30-LUGAL-iš-kun 2. MAN GAL MAN KAL MAN ŠÚ MAN KUR aš-šurki 3. A maš-šur- DÙ-A MAN ŠÚ MAN KUR aš-{šur}[ki] 4. A maš-šur-PAP-AŠ MAN ŠÚ MAN KUR aš-š[urki] 5. A m30-PAP.MEŠ-SU MAN ŠÚ MAN KUR AŠ 6. [Š]À.[BAL].BAL mLUGAL-GI.NA MAN ŠÚ MAN KUR AŠ 7. [GÌR.NÍTA K]Á.DINGIRki MAN KUR EME.GI7 u {URI}k[i] 8. ina [SAG] {LUGAL}-ti-ia šá AN.ŠÁR {dEN? d}MUATI 9. d[iš-tar?\]a-biš ú-{še-šib-u-in}-ni 10. ina GIŠ.G[U.ZA A]D DÙ-ia É {dAG} [šá] 11. q[é-r]eb bal-til šá ul-{tú} UD.MEŠ SUD.MEŠ 12. la? ma?-al?-du ke?-e-mu-u {ni-du-tú} 13. ul-tú UŠ8-šú a-di gaba-dib-bi-šú ar-#ip 14. ú-šak-lil dAG dPAPNUN qé-reb-{šú?} 15. ú-še-rib-ma ú-{šar?-ma?}-a 16. pa-[ra]k? da-ra-a-ti Translation

1–7) I, Sîn-šarra-iškun, great king, mighty king, king of the world, king of Assyria; son of Aššurbanipal, king of the world, king of Assyria; son of Esarhaddon, king of the world, king of Ass[yria]; (5) son of Sennacherib, king of the world, king of Assyria; [de]s[cende]nt of Sargon (II), king of the world, king of Assyria, [governor of B]abylon, king of the land of Sumer and Akkad:

8–14a) At [the beginning of] my [king]ship, when the deities Aššur, Bēl (Marduk), Nabû, (and) [Ištar] graciously made me sit (10) on the th[rone of the fa]ther who engendered me: in place of an empty lot, I built the temple of the god Nabû [that is] i[nsi]de Baltil (Aššur), which had not been created (lit: born) from distant days, from its foundations to its crenellations (and) I completed (it).

14b–16) I brought the god Nabû and the goddess Tašmētu inside it and placed (them) on (their) eternal da[is]es.

Comments

Line 3: aš-{šur}[ki] “Assyria”; or possibly just aš-{šur}. Line 4: aš-š[ur ki] “Ass[yria]”; or possibly just aš-š[ur]. Line 8: ina [SAG] {LUGAL}-ti-ia “at [the beginning of] my [king]ship”. Kessler has ina [L]U[GAL]-ti-

ia “during my [ki]n[g]ship”. His transliteration matches the space shown in his copy. According to the published photographs, there is space at the beginning of the line for rēšu (SAG) “beginning” and šarrūtu ({LUGAL}-ti-ia). In addition, the author can see traces of the LUGAL sign. Based on other inscriptions of Sîn-šarra-iškun, especially those from Aššur, one expects ina rēš šarrūtīya, not ina šarrūtīya. See, for example, Donbaz – Grayson 1984, 58 §J line 5; and Meinhold 2009, 452 n. 16 line 31.

AN.ŠÁR “(the god) Aššur”: Kessler has dIM “the god Adad”. Aššur is the deity who usually

The Sîn-šarra-iškun Inscription in the Aššur Site Museum: A Revised Edition

161

begins the list of gods and goddesses in the inscriptions of Sîn-šarra-iškun. In addition, Adad is not mentioned in the lists of deities in the extant texts of this king. See, for example, Meinhold 2009, 452-453 lines 31-32.

Lines 10-11: É {dAG} [šá] / q[é-r]eb bal-til “the temple of the god Nabû [that is] i[nsi]de Baltil (Aššur)”. Kessler has É dAG / q[é-reb] ŠÀ bal-til “the temple of the god Nabû (that is) in[side] the middle of Baltil (Aššur)”. According to the published photographs, there is insufficient space for both the KAL and ŠÀ signs at the beginning of line 11 and the traces of the sign immediately before bal-til appear to be a damaged KAL sign (read here as reb). The author’s proposed reading is also based on other texts of this king from Aššur, which have bīt Nabû ša qereb Baltil; bīt Nabû qereb libbi Baltil is not attested. See Donbaz – Grayson 1984, 58 §J line 7; and Meinhold 2009, 453 n. 16 line 41.

Line 12: la? ma?-al?-du ke?-e-mu-u {ni-du-tú} “which had not been created (lit: born), in place of an empty lot”. Kessler’s reading of the line cannot be confirmed from the published photographs, especially the KI sign. It is possible that that la? ma?-al?-du could be read as la? <im>-ma?-al?-du (scribal error) or as la?-ma?-al?-du (crasis; lā immadu → lāmmaldu); immaldu, but not maldu, is attested in Assyrian texts (see below). The author is not aware of any other examples of temples being born or not born in Neo-Assyrian sources, especially royal inscriptions, and, if read correctly, would be unique to this text. This “birth” tradition of the Nabû temple may be related to or influenced by that of the “birth” of the statues of Marduk and his entourage in Aššur’s temple at Ashur during the reign of Esarhaddon; see, for example, Leichty 2011, 108 Esarhaddon 48 lines 87-88a: dEN GAŠAN-ia5 dbe-let-KÁ.DINGIR.RAki dé-a dDI.KU5 DINGIR.MEŠ GAL.MEŠ qé-reb é-šár-ra É za-ri-šú-nu ke-niš im-ma-al-du-ma iš-mu-~u gat-tu “The deities Bēl, Bēltīya, Bēlet-Bābili, Ea, (and) Mandānu, the great gods, were truly created (lit: born) in Ešarra, the temple of their progenitor, and they grew beautiful in form”. Alternatively, one could tentatively read the beginning of line 12 as x x x-du x e-mu-u {ni-du-tú} “… it became an empty lot”.

Lines 14-15: dAG dPAPNUN qé-reb-{šú?} / ú-še-rib-ma “I brought the god Nabû and the goddess Tašmētu inside it and”. Kessler has dAG dPAPNUN DAM KAL / ú-še-rib-ma “I brought the god Nabû and the goddess Tašmētu, the powerful wife, inside and”. The new reading is based on the traces visible in the published photograph. Moreover, qerebšu ušēribma is attested in the known inscriptions of Sîn-šarra-iškun from Aššur, whereas ~irtu dannatu is not. See Meinhold 2009, 455 line 63.

Lines 15–16: ú-{šar?-ma?}-a / pa-[ra]k? da-ra-a-ti “I placed (them) on (their) eternal da[is]es”. Kessler has ú-tir-ra-a PA ina da-ra-a-ti “I brought back (his) scepter for eternity”. The author’s reading is based on the traces visible in the published photograph. The traces of the MA sign in line 15 are not clear on the photograph. The reading pa-[ra]k? cannot be confirmed from the published photographs since that line is cut off on them. The phrase ušarmâ parak dārâti is attested in late Neo-Assyrian royal inscriptions, whereas ~a\\u ina dārâti is unparalleled. See, for example, Borger 1996, 138 Prism C i 22 and Prism T i 20. The more frequently used, nearly identical, ušarme parak dārâti is attested in other inscriptions of Sîn-šarra-iškun from Aššur. See Meinhold 2009, 455 line 64.

Jamie Novotny

162

Notes on the Nabû Temple

The extant archaeological remains of the Ištar and Nabû temples at Aššur appear to support the statement in this sixteen-line stone block inscription that Sîn-šarra-iškun constructed an entirely new temple for Nabû.5 Sîn-šarra-iškun Cylinder A lines 41b–59, however, give the impression that this Assyrian king rebuilt the temple since that inscription records that: (1) Šalmaneser (I), Aššur-rēšī-iši (I), and Adad-nārāri (III) were previous builders; (2) Nabû and Tašmētu were residing in the Ištar temple because their temple no longer existed; and (3) Sîn-šarra-iškun had Nabû’s temple built upon its former plan.6 The passage in question reads:

“At that time, the temple of the god Nabû that is inside Ba[ltil (Aššur) (which) Ša]lmaneser (I), the one who (re)built the temple of the god Aššur, built became dilapidated; and (then) Aššur-rēši-iši (I), son of Mu[takkil-Nusku, (re)built (it and)] it became dilapidated (again); and (then) Adad-nārārī (III), son of Šamšī-Adad (V), (45) (re)built (it) and it be[came dilapidated and o]ld. It fell into disrepair [for a] long [ti]me and it (eventually) became like the ground (itself). The god Na[bû] (and) the goddess Tašmētu took up residence [in the temple of] the Assyrian [Ištar] and (there) they received strewn offerings. Kings, [my ancestors] who came be[fore me], (50) did not think about (re)building that temple; they did not pay (it any) attention. I, Sîn-šarra-iškun, king of the world, king of Assyria, the one who reveres the great gods, the one who is assiduous towards their places (of worship), (55) conceived in my heart to (re)build that temple and my mind urged me (to do it). [O]n its old plan, [(on) its] former [site, in a favorab]le [month], (on) an auspicious day, through the craft of the incantation priest, [I laid its foundations] with limestone, [a (strong) mountain stone, and …]. I built (and) completed (it) from its foundations to its crenellations”.7

5. See Andrae 1935, 2, 4, 120, 122-124, and pls. 6-7; Bär 2003, 11-13; Heinrich 1982, 256-257 and 277-278;

and Meinhold 2009, 46-47. 6. Meinhold 2009, 453-454 n. 16 lines 41b-59. 7. See fn. 6.

The Sîn-šarra-iškun Inscription in the Aššur Site Museum: A Revised Edition

163

Figure 1. Plan of the late Neo-Assyrian Nabû temple and the various, earlier incarnations

of the Ištar temple. Adapted from Bär 2003, 391 fig. 5. If both Sîn-šarra-iškun’s stone block inscription and the archaeological evidence point to

this Assyrian king constructing a new temple for Nabû at Aššur, then how can we explain the contradictory information recorded in the building report of Cylinder A? First, the cults of Nabû and Tašmētu were in the Ištar temple when Sîn-šarra-iškun became king. Given the high status of Nabû in Assyria during the seventh century, Sîn-šarra-iškun may have thought that it was strange that Nabû did not have his own temple at Aššur, especially when this deity had one at Calah and Nineveh.8 Surely, he was under the impression that a temple of this deity had once existed in the past. Why else would the cults of Nabû and Tašmētu have been in Ištar’s temple? Second, the king’s workmen may have confirmed the existence of earlier, long abandoned temples in the plot of land south of the Ištar temple when they began preparing the site of Nabû’s new temple.9 The inscriptions of previous builders were discovered in those ruins and 8. On the status of Nabû in Assyria, see, for example, Pomponio 1978, 77-97; Pomponio 1998, 19-20 §3.4;

Pongratz-Leisten 1994, 104-105; and Porter 1997, 253-260. 9. The Ištar temple that was in use during the reign of Sîn-šarra-iškun was the one that had been originally

constructed by Aššur-rēšī-iši I. The northern wall of the Nabû temple abutted the southern wall of that temple. The western part of Sîn-šarra-iškun’s Nabû temple is above Ištar Temples H, G, GF, E, D, and

Jamie Novotny

164

the names of those kings were brought to Sîn-šarra-iškun’s attention; Šalmaneser (I), Aššur-rēšī-iši (I), and Adad-nārāri (III) were among them. If Sîn-šarra-iškun’s Cylinder A inscriptions recorded the truth, there were no above-ground traces of those earlier temples. Since the Ištar temple immediately to the north of that area was still standing and in use, it may have been initially believed that the ruins beneath the surface of the ground belonged to a long abandoned Nabû temple, rather than those of earlier incarnations of Ištar’s temple. The discovery of these ruins, together with the fact that Nabû’s cult was located in Ištar’s temple, may have given rise to the idea that an earlier temple of Nabû had been so neglected that its structure had completely disappeared and that its divine occupants were forced to move next door, into the temple of Ištar. That version of the events leading up to Sîn-šarra-iškun constructing Nabû a new temple was incorporated into the building report of his Cylinder A inscription, along with the names of three previous builders. At some point during the project, it must have been discovered and made known to the king that the ruins beneath the plot of land on which he was building the Nabû temple actually belonged to earlier Ištar temples. Thus, the king’s scribes changed the information presented in (some) inscriptions commemorating work on this temple. The stone block inscription, assuming line 12 has been correctly read (see above), recorded the actual history of the Nabû temple: it had not previously existed, as archaeological evidence can attest to. This may also explain the absence of any reference to that temple becoming old and dilapidated in an inscription of Sîn-šarra-iškun’s written on numerous clay cones and the fact that that text does not name one (or more) previous builder(s).10 If this scenario proves to be true, then Sîn-šarra-iškun Cylinder A is probably earlier than this stone block inscription and the inscription written on clay cones.11 This is conjectural given the fact that the clay cone inscription says very little about the project itself.

At the time of its composition, the scribe(s) responsible for the composition of Cylinder A must have believed that there had been an earlier Nabû temple built at Aššur and that it had been so neglected by Sîn-šarra-iškun’s predecessors that nothing of its structure remained. Later on, when it was discovered that Nabû had not had an earlier temple at that site, Sîn-šarra-iškun’s scribes made some adjustments to his official inscriptions. In the block inscription, he recorded that the temple

the Ištar temple that was built by Tukultī-Ninurta I. See Figure 1. For details on these temples, see Andrae 1935, 15-118; Bär 2003; and Meinhold 2009, 15-46.

10. Donbaz – Grayson 1984, 58 §J line 7: “my heart urged me to build the temple of the god Nabû that is in Baltil (Aššur)”.

11. If the cone inscription proves to be later than Cylinder A, then S. Parpola’s ordering of the post-canonical eponyms of Sîn-šarra-iškun’s reign (see Radner 1998, XIX) would need to be revised since some copies of Cylinder A would have been written on clay prisms and cylinders several years after this king’s clay cone inscription. Two copies of the former text are dated to the eponymy of Bēl-a~u-u#ur and six copies of latter text are dated to that of Sa’ilu. See Meinhold 2009, 457 n. 16 line 87 exs. A and B; and Donbaz – Grayson 1984, 60 §J line 12. According to Parpola, these eponyms date to 616* and 620* respectively. If Cylinder A is earlier than his clay cone inscription, then the eponymy of Bēl-a~u-u#ur should probably come before that of Sa’ilu. One could also argue for an earlier date for the eponymy of Bēl-a~u-u#ur because a shorter version of Sîn-šarra-iškun Cylinder A (Meinhold 2009, 457 n. 16 line 87 ex. F) is dated to the eponymy of Aššur-mātu-taqqin, which Parpola dates to 623*. Compare, for example, Falkner (1954/1956, 119), who suggests that the eponymies of Bēl-a~u-u#ur and Sa’ilu date to 619 and 618 respectively; she dates that of Aššur-mātu-taqqin to 624.

The Sîn-šarra-iškun Inscription in the Aššur Site Museum: A Revised Edition

165

of Nabû had not previously existed. In an inscription written on clay cones, no reference is made to previous builder(s) or the temple becoming old.

The importance of line 12 of this new inscription is that it confirms what has been long known from the archaeological record: Sîn-šarra-iškun did not rebuild a new temple for Nabû at Aššur on the foundations of an earlier temple to that god, but rather constructed an entirely new place of worship for him.

Conclusions

Thanks to K. Kessler we now have another official inscription of one of the lesser known late Neo-Assyrian kings: Sîn-šarra-iškun. A re-examination of this sixteen-line text reveals that its contents have more in common with other inscriptions commemorating the construction of the temple of Nabû at Aššur than its editio princeps indicated. Moreover, Kessler did not stress this text’s importance: it is the only inscription of this king that states that Nabû did not have his own temple prior to Sîn-šarra-iškun becoming king, a fact that has long been known from the archaeological record, but contradicted by the textual record. This king’s Cylinder A inscription recorded that Sîn-šarra-iškun rebuilt a Nabû temple at Aššur that had existed at least since the days of Šalmaneser (I) and that had subsequently been rebuilt by Aššur-rēši-iši (I) and Adad-nārārī (III), after which time it fell into complete disrepair and was abandoned. Thanks to this short inscription, the textual record now supports the archaeological record.

Appendix: A Catalogue of Sîn-šarra-iškun’s Inscriptions from Aššur The author would like to present here a catalogue of Sîn-šarra-iškun’s inscriptions from Aššur. Instead of organizing the catalogue by excavation number, museum number, or object type, the author has decided to arrange the material by provenance.12 Each section is arranged numerically by Aššur excavation number; the “Unknown Aššur Provenance” section, however, is arranged by museum number and place of publication. Each entry consists of: (1) the excavation number (if known); (2) museum and registration numbers (if known); (3) the object type (cone, cylinder, prism, stone block, and tablet); and (4) further information on the find spot (if recorded in the Aššur excavation field journals).

In addition to the catalogue, a plan of the Nabû temple showing the general areas from which objects inscribed with inscriptions of Sîn-šarra-iškun originate (Figure 2) is provided here. The notations on Figure 2 indicate the square in which the objects were found, not the precise spot where they were discovered.

12. For a catalogue by object type, see Novotny – Van Buylaere 2009, 216-218 nn. 3-6.

Jamie Novotny

166

Figure 2. Plan of the Neo-Assyrian Nabû temple showing the general areas from which objects inscribed

with inscriptions of Sîn-šarra-iškun originate. Adapted from Bär 2003, 392 fig. 6.

Excavation/Museum Number Object Type Findspot eB5V 1. Ass 6626 (A 3448) Cone — eB7I (Fig. 2 n. 1) 1. Ass 13799 (VA Ass 3284g) Brick Northern anteroom. eB7II (Fig. 2 n. 2) 1. Ass 13158 (+) Ass 13158a (VA Ass 2316)

Cylinder Northeast, East of the dais.

2. Ass 13183a (VAT 9524) + Ass 13183b (A 494)

Prism On the brick pavement, East of the dais.

3. Ass 13188 Brick From the stack of stamped bricks. 4. Ass 13189 (VA Ass 3284b) Brick From the brick pavement by the dais. 5. Ass 13374 (VA 8418) Prism South cella, in debris under later stone

foundations. 6. Ass 13444 Brick North cella pavement, in situ. 7. Ass 13445 Brick As eB7II n. 6. 8. Ass 13595 (VA 5060) (+) LB 1323 Cylinder From the pavement of the door

between the anteroom and the southern cella, in debris from a fire.

The Sîn-šarra-iškun Inscription in the Aššur Site Museum: A Revised Edition

167

Excavation/Museum Number Object Type Findspot eC7I (Fig. 2 n. 3) 1. Ass 13223 (A 3561) Cone On the brick pavement of Room 4. eC7II (Fig. 2 n. 4) 1. Ass 13266 + Ass 13594 (VA 8419 + VA 5059)

Prism Level of the brick pavement.

2. Ass 13446

Brick Pavement of the North cella, in situ.

3. Ass 13447 Brick Threshold pavement before the North cella, in situ.

4. Ass 13448 Brick As eC7II n. 3. 5. Ass 13449 Brick Pavement of the southern anteroom, in

situ. 6. Ass 13450 Brick As eC7II n. 5. 7. Ass 13462 Brick Pavement of the northern anteroom. 8. Ass 13463 Brick As eC7II n. 7. 9. Ass 13465 Brick As eC7II n. 7. 10. Ass 13466 Brick As eC7II n. 7. 11. Ass 13467 (BM 115697; 1922-8-

12,72) Brick As eC7II n. 7.

eC7III (Fig. 2 n. 5) 1. Ass 13331 (A 3563) Cone In the “Hallan” remains of the wall, in

debris ca. 40 cm above the brick pavement.

2. Ass 13352 (VA Ass 3284c) Brick Pavement level of the pavement of the southern anteroom.

3. Ass 13458 (A 3565) Cone On the pavement of the south courtyard, South corner.

4. Ass 13606 Brick Southern anteroom, near the narrow South wall.

5. Ass 13607 (VA Ass 3284f) Brick As eC7III n. 4. eD7I (Fig. 2 n. 6) 1. Ass 13165 (A 3560) Cone — eE6V (Fig. 2 n. 7) 1. Ass 13014 (A 3557) Cone Just North of the “Hallan” foundation. eE7I (Fig. 2 n. 8) 1. Ass 12548 (A 3547) Cone West, dump. 2. Ass 12726 (A 3549) Cone East, under the Parthian foundation. 3. Ass 12727 (VA 8416) Cone As eE7I n. 2. 4. Ass 12729 (A 3550) Cone As eE7I n. 2. 5. Ass 12946 (A 3554) Cone Just south of the large test trench.

Jamie Novotny

168

Excavation/Museum Number Object Type Findspot 6. Ass 12951 (A 3555) Cone As eE7I n. 5. 7. Ass 13105 (A 3558) Cone Level of the second Assyrian stratum. 8. Ass 13123 Brick Test trench, ca. 2 m deep. e7 dump 1. Ass 13591 (A 3567) Cone — gC4III 1. Ass 3518 (+) Ass 3830 (VA 7506

[+] VA 7518) Prism In grey debris, West end of the wall of

Aššur-rêm-nišēšu. hB4II 1. Ass 2043 (VA Ass 3285) Brick Northwest corner of the Peripteros, in

rubble. hB4V 1. Ass 1328 (VAT 9948) Tablet Southeast corner of the ziggurat; part of

the N 2 archive (see Pedersén 1986, 29–34).

2. Ass 1702 (VAT 9975) Tablet Trench 17, next to the edge of the terrace; part of the N 2 archive (see ibid.)

hE8I 1. Ass 13946a (VA Ass 3284h) Brick West. iC5I 1. Ass 948 (VA 7501) Prism By the southeast corner of the temple. iD4V 1. Ass 18738 (A 3620) Prism Ca. 30 cm above the Sargon II

pavement. City Area 1. Ass 6655 (VA Ass 3284a) Brick — 2. Ass 10625 (VA Ass 2128) Cone — 3. Ass 19423 (A 3634) Prism — Unknown Ashur Provenance 1. S[aint]-É[tienne] n. 155

(Jerusalem) Prism —

2. S[aint]-É[tienne] n. 156 (Jerusalem)

Prism —

3. VA Ass 3284i Brick — 4. Kessler 2011–12, 39–43 Stone Block —

The Sîn-šarra-iškun Inscription in the Aššur Site Museum: A Revised Edition

169

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Andrae W. 1935, Die jüngeren Ischtar-Tempel in Assur (Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 58), Leipzig.

Bär J. 2003, Die älteren Ischtar-Tempel in Assur: Stratigraphie, Architektur und Funde eines altorientalischen Heiligtums von der zweiten Hälfte des 3. Jahrtausends bis zur Mitte des 2. Jahrtausends v. Chr (Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 105), Saarbrücken.

Borger R. 1996, Beiträge zum Inschriftenwerk Assurbanipals: Die Prismenklassen A, B, C = K, D, E, F, G, H, J und T sowie andere Inschriften, Wiesbaden.

Donbaz V. – Grayson A.K. 1984, Royal Inscriptions on Clay Cones from Ashur (The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia Supplements 1), Toronto.

Falkner M. 1954/1956, “Die Eponymen der spätassyrischen Zeit”, Archiv für Orientforschung 17, 100-120.

George A.R. 1992, Babylonian Topographical Texts (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 40), Leuven. Heinrich E. 1982, Tempel und Heiligtümer im Alten Mesopotamien: Typologie, Morphologie und Geschichte,

Berlin. Kessler K. 2011/2012, “Eine Steininschrift des Sîn-šarru-iškun aus dem Site Museum in Assur”, in

J.M. Córdoba (ed.), Donny George Youkhana. In memoriam, ISIMU 14–15, Madrid, 39-43. Leichty E. 2011, The Royal Inscriptions of Esarhaddon, King of Assyria (680–669 BC) (The Royal Inscriptions

of the Neo-Assyrian Period 4), Winona Lake. Meinhold W. 2009, Ištar in Aššur: Untersuchung eines Lokalkultes von ca. 2500 bis 614 v. Chr. (Alter Orient

und Altes Testament 367), Münster. Novotny J. – Van Buylaere G. 2009, “Sîn-šarru-iškun and Ezida in Calah”, in G. Galil – M. Geller –

A. Millard (eds.), Homeland and Exile: Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honour of Bustenay Oded (Vetus Testamentum Supplements 130), Leiden, 215-243.

Pedersén O. 1986, Archives and Libraries in the City of Assur: A Survey of the Material from the German Excavations, Part 2 (Studia Semitica Upsaliensia 8), Uppsala.

Pomponio F. 1978, Nabû: Il culto e la figura di un dio del Pantheon babilonese ed assiro (Studi Semitici 51), Rome.

––––– 1998, “Nabû. A. Philologisch”, Reallexikon der Assyriologie 9/1-2, Berlin, 16-24. Pongratz-Leisten B. 1994, Ina šulmi īrub: Die kulttopographische und ideologische Programmatik der akītu-

Prozession in Babylonien und Assyrien im 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. (Baghdader Forschungen 16), Mainz am Rhein.

Porter B.N. 1997, “The Relative Status of Nabû and Marduk in the Late Assyrian Period”, in S. Parpola – R.M. Whiting (eds.), Assyria 1995: Proceedings of the 10th Anniversary Symposium of the Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, Helsinki, September 7-11, 1995, Helsinki, 253-260.

Radner K. 1998, The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire Volume 1, Part 1 [A], Helsinki, 1998.