Position in chronology
Ashurbanipal 020
Written in modern English
Ashurbanipal set up the statue of Ḫallušu-Inšušinak I — a king who had disturbed the region — alongside statues of other rulers who had once held power over Elam, together with their substantial plunder, in a gate of his palace at Nineveh, so that people in future generations could gaze on them. He destroyed and demolished the tombs of those kings and their royal ancestors and carried their bones back to Assyria. He also records that the goddess Nanāya, who 1,635 years earlier had grown angry and withdrawn to a place unworthy of her, was at last commanded by the gods to return to Uruk and re-enter her temple Eḫiliana — the appointed time having finally come. The passage then breaks off; what followed, concerning the king and the god Aššur, is too damaged to read.
A modern paraphrase of the literal translation — same content, contemporary voice.
Translation — scholar edition
RINAP 5(i' 1') (No translation possible) (ii' 1') [...] ... [... the statue of] Ḫallušu (Ḫallušu-Inšušinak I), who had dist[urbed ...], together with statues of [...] kings who had exercised dominion over the land Elam, with their substant[ial] booty, [I erected] in Nineveh, in a gate of my palace, for the admiration of futur[e] people. I destroyed (and) [demolished] tombs of the kings, their ancestors, (and) I took their bones to [Assyria]. (ii' 10') (As for) the goddess Nanāya, who 1,635 year[s] (ago) became angry and (went to) live in a place not befit[ting her], as soon as the time had come (and) the fix[ed time] had arrived, they (the gods) commanded her journey (back) to Uruk (and) her (re)entry into [Eḫiliana]. The king [...] by the command of (the god) Aš[šur ...]
Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period, volume 5 — scholar edition (ORACC).
Why it matters
Records Ashurbanipal's desecration of Elamite royal tombs and the repatriation of Nanāya's cult statue to Uruk after 1,635 years — anchoring a precise, self-serving Assyrian chronology of divine abandonment and imperial restoration.
Transliteration
[... e-pu]-⸢šu⸣-uš / [... MUNUS].⸢ḪUL⸣ / [...]-mu / [...] x ŠÁ? / [...]-⸢ú⸣-ti / [...] x-ti / [...]-⸢ti⸣-ia / [...]-⸢pal⸣-su-ma / [...] x-ZA / [...] x-šu / [... a]-⸢ra⸣-mu / [...] x / [...] x / [...] (traces) [...] / [ALAM] ⸢m⸣ḫa-lu-si mu-nar-[riṭ ...] / a-di ALAM.MEŠ LUGAL.MEŠ [...] / šá e-pu-šú be-lut KUR.⸢ELAM⸣.[MA.KI] / it-ti šal-la-ti-šú-nu ka-⸢bit⸣-[ti] / a-na ta-mar-ti UN.MEŠ EGIR.[MEŠ] /…
Scholarly note
Royal inscription of Ashurbanipal or a late Sargonid successor, edited by Jamie Novotny & Joshua Jeffers (RINAP 5, 2018–). ORACC text Q003719.
Attribution
Image: BM — (British Museum, London, UK) — from Nineveh (mod. Kuyunjik) — Photo via Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative (cdli.earth/artifacts, P424510). source
Translation excerpted from Novotny, J. & Jeffers, J. 2018–. The Royal Inscriptions of Ashurbanipal (668–631 BC), Aššur-etel-ilāni (630–627 BC) and Sîn-šarra-iškun (626–612 BC), Kings of Assyria. RINAP 5. University Park, PA: Eisenbrauns. https://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/rinap5/Q003719/.
Related tablets
Related sources
One of the earliest specimens of human writing. Not literature, not law — accounting. The need to keep track of grain in a temple bureaucracy is what pushed marks-on-clay into a system that could one day carry epics.
Marks the boundary between proto-writing and writing. We can see signs being used systematically — but not yet phonetically. The leap to recording speech itself comes a few centuries later.
The earliest historical document in human history. Before this, we have lists, accounts, and dedications. Here, for the first time, a ruler tells us what happened — with names, places, and consequences.