Assurbanipal and the Ziggurat at Nippur

Full text

UNIVERSITÀ CA’ FOSCARI VENEZIA
KASKAL
Rivista di storia, ambienti e culture del Vicino Oriente Antico
Volume 12
2015
LoGisma editore
Firenze 2015

UNIVERSITÀ CA’ FOSCARI VENEZIA
KASKAL
Rivista di storia, ambienti e culture del Vicino Oriente Antico
Volume 12 _ 2015
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 reviewed evaluation.
ISBN 978-88-97530-70-1
ISSN 1971-8608
Stampato nel marzo 2016

KASKAL
Rivista di storia, ambienti e culture del Vicino Oriente Antico
Volume 12 (2015)
ASSURBANIPAL AND THE ZIGGURAT AT NIPPUR
Tim Clayden – Bernhard Schneider
Introduction1
Part of an inscription (Frame 1995, 219-221, B.6.32.15)2 of Assurbanipal (668-627 BC)3 found at
Nippur reads:
(With regard to) Egigunû,4 the ziqqurat of Nippur, whose foundation is made secure on the
breast of the Watery Abyss (apsû), whose enclosure wall had become old and eroded, I
repaired its dilapidated section(s) with baked bricks from a (ritually) pure kiln, and completed
its structure. I had it built anew with the work of the god Kulla5 and made it shine like
daylight. I raised its top (as high) as a mountain and made (its) appearance resplendent (lines
15-19).
This paper examines the archaeological evidence for this programme of building work. It does
so using the original excavation records (sparse and inadequate though they might be) of John H.
1. The initial draft of this paper (including the historical and inscription elements), was written by Tim
Clayden drawing largely on the Meyer diary and the Haynes reports from Nippur for the archaeological
content. Bernhard Schneider’s contribution began as a comment on the initial draft and developed into a
more substantial element drawing on the material in the Hilprecht-Sammlung in Jena and his own work
on the first millennium ziggurat at Nippur as part of his ongoing work on his PhD on the construction
history of the é.kur. Professor Michael Roaf made extensive and detailed comments on Tim Clayden’s
initial draft and Drs James Armstrong, Steven Cole, Stephanie Dalley and Grant Frame made crucial
comments subsequently. The conclusions and all errors are the joint work of the authors.
2. At least two incomplete copies are known L-29-632+633+636 and UM 55-21-384 (3N-T840). See also
the discussion by Gerardi 1989.
3. See Brinkman 1984, 85-111, and Frame 1992, 102-213 for reviews of the events in Babylonia during the
reign of Assurbanipal. For the dates of Assurbanipal’s reign see Frame 1995, 194.
4. George 1993, 92, n. 373.
5. The god of bricks and brick making, but not of brick laying (Lambert 1980-1983).

Tim Clayden – Bernhard Schneider
350
Haynes and Joseph A. Meyer. Haynes led the excavations of the University of Pennsylvania single
handed between 1893 and early 1900. For seven months (May - November) in 1894, before his
death6 on 20 December that year aged 38, Joseph Meyer accompanied Haynes.7 Haynes’ reports are
now held in the University Museum Archive at the University of Pennsylvania.8 Volume 20 of the
21 diaries Meyer wrote is deposited at the Haverford College Library.9 Additional material from the
“Schriftliche Nachlass” of Professor H.V. Hilprecht Jena10 is also used in this study. We are grateful
to the three institutions for the easy access they have given us to both sets of data11 and for their
permission to publish items of their material.
The records of Haynes and Meyer manuscripts provide tangible evidence of building work by
Assurbanipal found in situ in the fabric of the ziggurat, and evidence of what was almost certainly a
second structure, possibly to be identified as the Temple of Enlil, found in a secondary context in
rubble to the south east of the ziggurat and in repairs to the south, east and north corners of the
ziggurat.
6. Dr. Sundberg, the Baghdad doctor, examined Meyer on 5 December 1894 and diagnosed death by
typhoid which he wrote and told Provost William pepper in Philadelphia (letters 27/02/1895). Dr. med.
Simon Sailer (District Hospital Schwaz, Austria) drawing on Sundberg’s evidence suggests that Meyer’s
death may have been the result of pneumonia following an amoebiaisis common in Iraq (Dr. Simon
Sailer, District Hospital Schwaz, Austria, 29 January 2015).
7. Myer 1992 outlined what is known of the life of Joseph A. Meyer. Details of the diary Myer discussed
are noted below (fn. 9). Kuklick 1996, 67-68, noted Meyer’s contribution to the Nippur excavations.
8. The Haynes correspondence is in the Nippur series, folders 7-20, University of Pennsylvania Museum
archives. References in this paper to the Haynes letters are made in the form H(aynes)L(etter),
day/month/year: assigned page number – e.g. HL, 23/12/1894: 1. Quotations from the Haynes letters
and Figures 7, 12, 14 and 15 are published by courtesy of the University of Pennsylvania Museum
Archive.
9. The Meyer diary (28th May - 19th June 1894) is in the Special Collections, Haverford College Library,
Haverford College, PA. References in this paper to this diary are made in the form M(eyer),
day/month/year: assigned page number – e.g. M, 04/06/1894: 4. Quotations from Meyer’s diary and
Figures 3-4, 5, 6 and 8-13 are published by courtesy of the Special Collections Haverford College Library.
Mr. Schneider’s investigations have shown that 19 of the remaining 20 Meyer diaries are now in the
Rotch Library of Architecture and Planning at MIT, Cambridge MA (Myer 1992, 139). Volume 21 is
apparently lost but was preserved in a typescript copy found in 1941 among the papers of C.S. Fisher.
10. Citations to material in this archive are given in the format HSN 86.1 = “Hilprecht-Sammlung
Schriftlicher Nachlass”, page number. See Oelsner 1980, 112-123, for a general introduction to the
archive.
11. We are deeply indebted to Alex Pezzati at the University of Pennsylvania Museum Archive and Sarah
Horowitz of the Special Collections, Haverford College Library for their invaluable help and assistance in
arranging for copies of manuscripts in their collections to be made available. Thanks are also due to
Professor Manfred Krebernik, custodian of the Frau Professor Hilprecht-Sammlung Babylonisher
Altertümer who authorised access to the “Schriftliche Nachlass” of Professor Hilprecht; and to the staff
of the Istanbul Archaeological Museum for their assistance in providing information about Nippur bricks
in their collection. Drs Richard Zettler at the University Museum, Philadelphia, Jonathan Taylor at the
British Museum and Paul Collins at the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford are owed our gratitude for
providing access to and commentary on the Nippur bricks in the collections of their Museums.

Assurbanipal and the Ziggurat at Nippur 351
Background
The ziggurat at Nippur12 was at the heart of the é.kur, one of the most venerable temple
complexes in ancient Babylonia. It was the principle seat for the worship of Enlil, Babylonia’s
supreme deity until the rise of Marduk in the second half of the second millennium BC. “To build
in Nippur and make offerings in its temples was to demonstrate to all not only one’s piety, but also
one’s importance as the provider of this religious centre, and thereby as the provider of Babylonia”
(Tinney 1996, 55).13 Care of the temple was maintained throughout the ‘life’ of ancient Babylonia
(cf. George 1993, 116, fn. 677). When Assurbanipal built at Nippur the pantheon of Enlil had lost
its central position in Babylonian religious life. At this time the principle god at Nippur was “a
syncretism of Enlil and Marduk, known popularly as Bēl” (Cole 1996, 19 and fn. 75), but the echo
of its ancient importance as a religious centre and early role in the legitimisation of rulers in
Babylonia remained. Further during the long decline of the city after the Kassite period, the
educated elite at Nippur had preserved knowledge of reading and writing Sumerian and various
other aspects of learning in the fields of astronomy and medicine (43-44). These factors may have
sparked Assurbanipal’s antiquarian interest (cf. May 2013, 199) and he may also have been aware of
the learned opinion given to his predecessor, Esarhaddon as to why Nippur should be restored.14
Of equal if not greater importance would have been his understanding of the strategic importance
of Nippur at the “frontier of tribal Babylonia from which they could police the Chaldean and
Aramean tribes” (Cole 1996, 69) as well as being astride an important east west trade route (ibid).
12. See Klein 1998-2001, Stol 1998-2001 and Streck 1998-2001 for a summary history of Nippur. Black 1975
and Cole 1996, 7-12, outlined the early history of the city to the Kassite Period; Cole (13-44) reviewed
the material for a history from the post-Kassite to 7th century BC; and Zadok 1978, 273-277, summarised
some elements of the life of the city from the Neo-Babylonian to Acheamenid periods.
13. George 1992, 240, concisely outlines the importance of the maintenance of cult sites: “The concept of
the city and its temples as the source of the nation’s life and prosperity is traditional in the Sumero-
Babylonian world view, according to which a country’s well-being depended on the benevolence of the
temple’s divine inhabitants. This benevolence could be encouraged, though not of course guaranteed, by
the proper care and maintenance of the cults of these temples, and the provisioning of the gods was
accordingly a prime function of mortal kingship”. The Curse of Agade records how Enlil unleashed the
devastating Gutium on Babylonia after Naram-Sîn destroyed the é.kur (Cooper 1983, 55-61). The
inference of the tale is clear – damaging Enlil’s interests at Nippur would provoke divine retribution on a
grand scale.
14. A letter addressed by Bēl-ušezib, one of Essarhaddon’s “inner circle” of scholastic advisers (Parpola
1993, XXV-XXVII and 86-101, nn. 109-121), to Esarhaddon, makes the case for the restoration of
Nippur (Reynolds 2003, 100-101, n. 124). In explaining the significance of Nippur Bēl-ušezib states:
“Nippur is a dynastic house and a temple of the [great] gods [of heaven and e]arth. It is not summoned
for state service and it [does not pay] tribute. They do only the king’s [wor]k that the king can legally
claim, (and) [do] not [...] corvée work therein. It is [...] the eternal [c]ity of Enlil, the lord of all lands, the
organiser of heaven and earth. [...] no malicious finger is pointed at it. And the king should recognise [its
privileges], so his days may be long” (100, obv. lines 9-13). He notes that “[Nippur], like Babylon is a
destroyed sanctuary, and its repair work has not been ord[ered. Now] let the [servants] of the king rebuild
Nippur on their own” (100-101, rev. line 1). Given his name which incorporates the deity worshipped at
Nippur, it is possible that Bēl-ušezib was biased towards the city and its temples.

Tim Clayden – Bernhard Schneider
352
The antiquarian in Assurbanipal15 may have led him in the use of Sumerian format rather than
Babylonian (Gerardi 1989, 215).16
For many centuries before Assurbanipal’s building programme, Nippur had seen a period of
considerable decline. This began in the 13th century BC (Armstrong 1989, 220) and accelerated in
the 12th and 11th centuries BC as a result of the westward shift of the Euphrates (Cole 1996, 13-14)
which would have massively impacted on the irrigation fed economy of Nippur. So much so that
by the 10th century “Nippur may have been little more than a ghost town” (Armstrong 1989, 227)
with sand dunes encroached on the city leaving evidence in the é.kur (ibid, 198 and 228). This
period of weakness was exploited by neighbouring tribes much as the confusion at the end of the
Old Babylonian period had been exploited by the Kassites. Incursions followed by migrations of
Arameans (Cole 1996, 23-29) from the west; migrations of Chaldeans into the south-east (ibid, 30-
33); and Arabs from the south west (ibid, 34-42). Throughout the é.kur and its rites were kept
functioning for as long as possible (Cole 1996, 16).17 In the 9th and 8th centuries BC there is
evidence of a functioning city again at Nippur (Armstrong 1989, 230)18 which “grew beyond the
confines of the old religious quarter for the first time in almost five hundred years” (ibid, 231).19
Esarhaddon, Assurbanipal’s predecessor, began rebuilding work at Nippur and conducted repairs
on the é.bára.dúr.gar.ra,20 é.kur and pú.kù.dadag.ga21 (Zettler 1992, 49; Frame 1995, 175-181, nn.
15. May 2013 argues that Assurbanipal deliberately copied aspects of the Ur III king Šulgi’s written and
representational formats as part of his interest in the past.
16. The Assurbanipal inscriptions from Sippar (Frame 1995, 212-214, B.6.32.12), Borsippa (ibid, 215-219,
B.6.32.13-14), Uruk (ibid, 224-227, B.6.32.19), Akkad (ibid, 227-228, B.6.32.20), Dūr-Kurigalzu (ibid, 228-
229, B.6.32.21) and Mê-Turran/Turnat (ibid, 229, B.6.32.22) are all in Akkadian. Of the 11 Assurbanipal
inscriptions from Babylon (ibid, 196-212, B.6.32.1-10) only one (ibid, 210-211, B.6.32.9) is in Sumerian the
rest are in Akkadian. By contrast at Nippur only one inscription is in Akkadian (ibid, 219-221, B.6.32.15)
with the remainder in Sumerian (ibid, 221-224, B.6.32.16-18; Spar et al 2014, 277-278, n. 164). This
pattern is repeated at Ur where of the 15 inscriptions of Sîn-balāssu-iqbi (written during the reign of
Assurbanipal, Frame 1995, 230-244, B.6.32.2001-2014) all were all in Sumerian bar 1 in Akkadian (ibid,
244-245, B.6.32.2015). The surviving references to events at Nippur under the reign of Esarhaddon focus
on matters of war (Reynolds 2003, XXXII-IIII; 53-5, nn. 70; 56-58, nn. 73-76; 160-171, nn. 192-204).
17. This had happened before. In the reign of Ammi#aduqa the bulk of the administration of the cults of
Nippur moved to Dūr-Abiešu~ most probably because of the encroachment of sand dunes at the city
(George 2009, 138). Some activity did continue at the é.kur (van Lerberghe – Voet 2009, 3-4), but at least
one contemporary Nippurian living in Dūr-Abiešu~ looked forward to returning to Nippur and seeing
the é.kur reconstructed (ibid, 3 and 189, seal B).
18. The “Neo-Babylonian Governor’s archive” from Nippur (Cole 1996a) dated to 755-732 BC (ibid, 1-6)
attests to the range of activities at Nippur in the period almost a century before Assurbanipal. One letter
from the archive (ibid, 212-213, n. 103) refers to baked bricks (ibid, lines rev. 18-21a) and a man who
made them, but there is no reference to building activity.
19. See Gibson 1992 (48-49) and Streck (1998-2001, 544-545) for a review of the evidence for occupation at
Nippur in the Neo-Assyrian period.
20. The temple of Ištar at Nippur, cf. George 1993, 71-72. Frame 1999, 12-14, and 1997, notes just how
unproscriptive the Assyrians were in imposing Assyrian deities and worship on Babylonia. Beaulieu 1997
argues that during the reign of Assurbanipal worship of Assur was conducted at Uruk – a notably pro-
Assyrian city (possibly influenced by Assurbanipal’s policy of confirming land grants to senior figures in
the city, cf. Beaulieu 2000). Arnold 1985, 38-93, reviewed the actions of the Assyrian governors at Uruk
during the reign of Assurbanipal (see also the discussion by Frame 1992, 127 and 203).
21. The “pure shining well” in the courtyard of the temple of Enlil (Leichty 2011, 269).

Assurbanipal and the Ziggurat at Nippur 353
11-14; Cole 1996, 78; Leichty 2011, 260-270, n. 128-132).22 He recorded that he found the é.kur
“old” and “dilapidated” and that he “completely rebuilt” it (ibid, 265, lines 29-32), though this may
have been a slight exaggeration given the work Assurbanipal later carried out on the ziggurat. In
summary Esarhaddon’s construction work on the temple complex was the first significant effort
since the middle of the thirteenth and the late twelfth centuries BC during the reigns of Kadašman-
Enlil II (1263-1255 BC, Brinkman 1976, 132-133, J.2.3 and J.2.4), Kudur-Enlil (1254-1246 BC, ibid,
191, P.2.2), Adad-šuma-u#ur (1216-1187 BC, ibid, 90, C.2) and Nebuchadnezzar I (1125-1104 BC,
Brinkman 1968, 113, 326, 4.2.3 and 327, 4.2.8) half a millennium previously.23
Assurbanipal built extensively and on a massive scale in Assyria. In Babylonia evidence for his
building work24 survives in the form of inscribed or stamped bricks found at Nippur,25 Babylon,26
Cutha,27 Dūr-Kurigalzu28 and Mê-Turran/Mê-Turnat.29 This material is complemented by
inscriptions on cylinders and two stelae describing in greater detail building work by Assurbanipal at
Nippur,30 Akkad,31 Babylon;32 Borsippa,33 Sippar,34 Uruk.35 Work recorded was also done in his
name at Ur by the governor Sîn-balāssu-iqbi.36
22. Texts also referred to as “Nippur A-D”.
23. See Schneider forthcoming for a review of the é.kur in the post-Kassite period.
24. Frame 1995, 195, dates the construction of city walls of Babylon and Borsippa, and temples at Babylon,
Borsippa, Sippar and Uruk to the period before the Šamaš-šuma-ukin revolt.
25. Frame 1995, 221-224, B.6.32.16-18: these bricks can be seen at htt://www.penn.museum/collection/;
and Spar – Jursa 2014, 277-278, n. 164. CDLI numbers P 257432, 258965, 263442, 293355, 428361,
428427, 468954, 468956, 468963-7.
26. Frame 1995, 208-212, B.6.32.7-11. CDLI numbers P 427906, 428489, 468904-43.
27. Streck 1916, 186-187, line 24; George 1993, 126-127, n. 802. Van Koppen 2013, 380-384, identifies the
Elamite king who stole the cult statues from Cutha (which Assurbanipal returned) with Kutir-Nahhunte’s
attack on Babylonia in years ‘e’ and ‘f’ of Abi-ešuh’s reign. Assurbanipal’s restoration work at Cutha was
righting a very ancient wrong.
28. Frame 1992, 112-113, n. 60 and 1995, 228, B.6.32.21. CDLI number P 468969.
29. Frame 1995, 229, B.6.32.22. CDLI number P 468970.
30. Frame 1995, 219-221, B.6.32.15.
31. Frame 1995, 227-228, B.6.32.20. This may have been at Akkad or Babylon where Ištar of Akkad (George
1993, 155, n. 1168) had a shrine (Frame 1995, 195). An inscription of Nabonidus states that Esarhaddon
and Ashurbanipal looked for the é.ul.maš (Temple of Ištar at Ulmaš at Agade), but they neither could
find it and that Ashurbanipal left and inscription reading “I looked or that (original) foundation of
é.ul.maš but did not find (it). I cut down poplar(s) and maštu-tree(s), built a duplicate of the é.ul.maš, and
gave (it) to the goddess Ištar of Akkad, the great lady, my lady” (Frame 1993, 24-26, col.ii, 37-45a).
32. Frame 1995, 196-208, B.6.32.1-6.
33. Frame 1995, 215-9, B.6.32.13-14. Legrain (1926, 34-35, n.74) read the name of the temple as é.zi.da
which would indicate its origin as Borsippa and the cult of Nabû. Frame (1995, 223, B.6.32.17) collates
the name as the Egigunû.
34. Frame 1995, 212-214, B.6.32.12; Frame – Grayson 1994.
35. Frame 1995, 224-218, B.6.32.19. As in the case of Assurbanipal’s restoration of the cult statues at Cutha
(fn. 27 above), his return of the cult statue of Nanaya from Susa, where it was taken during the reign of
Abi-ešuh, to Uruk was again righting a very ancient wrong.
36. Frame 1995, 233-234, B.6.32.2003-4; 244-245, B.6.32.2015. Sîn-balāssu-iqbi also built other structures at
Ur in whose building inscriptions, also in Sumerian, no mention is made of Assurbanipal (Frame 1995,
230-233, B.6.32.2001-2; 235-244, B.6.32.2005-14; 246-247, B.6.32.2016). CDLI numbers P 270111,
270148 and 468974. See Frame 1992, 125-126 for a discussion of events at Ur during Sîn-balāssu-iqbi’s
administration.

Tim Clayden – Bernhard Schneider
354
In 652 BC, at the outset of the revolt (652-648 BC)37 led by Šamaš-šuma-ukin against his
brother Assurbanipal, Nippur sided with the rebel.38 But within a year it was under Assurbanipal’s
control (Brinkman 1984, 97) and remained so until his death with all transactions at the city dated
according to his regnal years (Frame 1992, 200).39 After 651 BC Assurbanipal used Nippur as “a
military base” (ibid, 193) and it was probably maintained as such after 648 BC (ibid, 193 and 200).
This factor may have influenced Assurbanipal’s decision on the extent of the building work, almost
certainly conducted after the end of the revolt (ibid, 200), he was prepared to conduct at Nippur. A
mudbrick wall preserved only one or two bricks high and five metres thick built above and on the
line of the ruins of the Ur III city wall was revealed by excavation (Gibson – Zettler – Armstrong
1983, 177). This wall and the remains of housing found in area WC-2 (ibid, 184-188) were dated by
the excavators to the reign of Assurbanipal (ibid, 189).40 The city wall may have been judged to have
been a necessary requirement if Nippur housed an Assyrian military garrison. Assurbanipal also
received at least one report on the condition of the “temples of the King” (i.e. Assurbanipal) at
Nippur (Waterman 1930, 246-247, n. 1074, obv. 5) indicating an ongoing interest on his part in the
town and its temples.
The construction work would have been supervised in Nippur by the pro-Assyrian šandabakku,41
Ellil-bani, appointed to the post by Assurbanipal at some point between 664 and 661 BC (Frame
1992, 121; Cole 1996, 54-55 and Reynolds 2003, XXXII). Unfortunately though a number of his
letters to Assurbanipal reporting on matters concerning Nippur have survive (ibid, 160-170, nn.
192-203), none mention building works. It is unclear when he ceased to serve as šandabakku and no
successor is known until the neo-Babylonian period (Cole 1996, 55).
37. See Brinkman 1984, 93-104, Frame 1992, 131-187 and Cole 1996, 78-80, for accounts of the revolt.
38. This is in contrast to the situation when Esarhaddon was king and Nippur sided with the Assyrians and
its inhabitants so reviled by other Babylonians that Nippurians dared not leave their city and the city’s
water supply disrupted by other Babylonians (Reynolds 2003, 53-54, n. 70).
39. 42 texts dated to Assurbanipal are known from Babylonian sites (Brinkman 1983, 21-25) of which 50%
(21 tablets) were found at Nippur (ibid, J.5, 8, 16, 17, 23, 25-30 and 32-42). For the rest 23% (10) were
from Uruk; 16% (7) from Borsippa with 1 each from Ur and Dilbat. 175 texts dated to Šamaš-šum-ukin
are known (ibid, 25-39) of which 7 (4%) (ibid, K.26, 27, 62, 76, 114, 116 and 152) were from Nippur. The
bulk of the Šamaš-šum-ukin texts were from Babylon (71 texts, 40% of total) with 25 (14%) from
Borsippa, 18 (10%) from Uruk, 9 (5%) from Dilbat, and 5 (3%) from Ur and Kiš. The disparity in
geographical distribution of the texts between the two kings is clear and reflects the division of
responsibilities they had. Overall 217 texts date to the time of Assurbanipal and of these 28 or 13% were
from Nippur.
40. Pottery and burial practices excavated at Nippur also provide evidence for Assyrian occupation at the
site (Armstrong 1989, 237-238).
41. See Cole 1996, 45-53, for a history of this very senior official post and for its actions in the time of
Esarhaddon (ibid, 53-54), and during Assurbanipal’s rule (ibid, 54-55). Zadok 1978, 273-275 examines the
role from the reign of Essarhaddon into the Neo-Babylonian period. The last šandabakku is attested in
Darius I year 1 (522 BC) (Cole 1996, 36).

Assurbanipal and the Ziggurat at Nippur 355
The identification of the builder as Assurbanipal
In his excavation records Haynes, who had been given a list of the cuneiform names of kings, refers
to bricks of “Melisiha”, but did not provide a copy of the inscription. In his notes Meyer also refers
to bricks of “Melisiha”, presumably following guidance from Haynes on the reading of the name,42
but does provide a drawing which he entitled “Brick inscription of the inscription on Melisiha’s
bricks. It is stamped and owing to the shallowness of the stamp it is extremely difficult to find one
with the characters distinct. The copy was made by comparing a number of bricks” (M,
25/06/1894: 80). The inscriptions were both stamped and made by hand. The correct reading of
the royal name as that of Assurbanipal (line 4) is clear. In this paper we have substituted
Assurbanipal for Meli-Šipak when quoting either Haynes or Meyer.
Reviewing the bricks shows that there were three different Assurbanipal brick inscriptions from
Nippur:
Assurbanipal 1 (Frame 1995, 221-222, B.6.32.16; Spar – Jursa 2014, 277-278, n. 164)43
The first, and the most common (26 known examples)44 is the 11 line inscription found by Haynes
and Meyer and copied by Meyer. It records building work on the é.kur.
1. den-líl-lá (For the) God Enlil,
2. lugal kur-kur-ra lord of the lands,
3. lugal-a-ni-ir his lord,
4. AN.ŠÁR-ba-an-ap-lu Assurbanipal,
5. sipa še-ga -bi his obedient shepherd,
6. lugal kala-ga mighty King,
7. lugal uba- da li mmú-b a King of the four world quarters (of the world),
8. é-kur the é.kur,
9. é ki-ág-gá-ni his beloved temple,
10. sig4-al-ùr-ra-ta with baked bricks,
11. mu-un-na-dù has (re) built.
42. Haynes almost certainly adopted the reading of the name from Professor H.V. Hilprecht who had been a
member of the 1889 expedition and who in 1893 published a brick inscription of Assurbanipal, but
which he identified as Meli-Shikhu (1893, 35-36 and 52, Pl. 29, n. 82). This appears to have been an
avoidable error as J.P. Peters (leader of the first two seasons of excavations at Nippur) reported (in a letter
to E.W. Clark in Philadelphia, 12/02/1894) that “Meli Siha, to whose inscriptions he refers, was discovered
by Hilprecht in the Constantinople trip (i.e. in 1893) to be in reality our old Assyrian Asshur-bani-pal,
masquerading in Babylonian guise”. Peters noted the mistake in a footnote 3 years later (1897, ii, 151).
43. “Excavation notes indicate that this particular brick likely came from a well head ... in a room in the
eastern quadrant of the Level IV Inanna temple” (Spar – Jursa 2014, 278). Shaped in the form of a
“keystone” (ibid, 278) its dimensions suggest that “24 similarly shaped bricks would have been required to
form a full circle that – based on the dimensions of this brick – would have had an outer diameter of
almost 4m and an inner diameter of approximately 2.4 m” (ibid).
44. In August 1894 Hilprecht spent time in Constantinople reviewing the Nippur finds. He recorded (HSN
86) that in the 1893/1894 season 4 “Aššurbanapal” bricks with inscriptions “auf Hauptseite” and 3 on
the “Nebennort” were found. It is unclear which bricks these are and whether they were consigned to
Philadelphia.

Tim Clayden – Bernhard Schneider
356
The form and content of the inscription is very similar to that used by the Kassite king, Adad-
šuma-u#ur in his building inscriptions from Nippur (Hilprecht 1893, 52, n. 81, Pl. 28) – “(For the
God) Enlil, Lord of (all) lands, his lord, Adad-šuma-u#ur, his obedient shepherd, who provides for
Nippur (and) supports the é.kur, (re)built the é.kur, his beloved temple, with baked bricks”
(translation by Dr. Grant Frame). Why Assurbanipal should have chosen to mimic the inscription
of a Kassite ruler is unclear, unless it was to indicate further the link between himself and earlier
rulers who favoured the complex and who also rebuilt the city wall (cf. Armstrong 1989, 224). In
this case the last significant royal building works before his own (see also Frame 1995, 222; Spar –
Jursa 2014, 278).
Another possibility may be rooted in Assyrian/Babylonian history. Adad-šuma-u#ur was
probably not ruler of only southern Babylonia until 25 years into his reign (c. 1192 BC) when he
defeated the Assyrian king Enlil-kudur-u#ur and became ruler of all of the north of Babylonia as
well (Walker 1982, 405-409). This event appears to have taken place following a pro-Assyrian revolt
in southern Babylonia against Adad-šuma-iddina which put Adad-šuma-u#ur on the Babylonian
throne (cf. Walker 1982, 405). The parallels between the twelfth century BC events and
Ashurbanipal’s situation following the revolt of his brother, but with southern Babylonian support
for Assurbanipal, is apparent. Further a copy of a statue inscription of Adad-šuma-u#ur (ibid, 405,
lines 1-8) notes that he had the constant support of Anu (i.e. Uruk) and Enlil (i.e. Nippur) – cities
controlled by Adad-šuma-u#ur from the outset of his reign in 1216 BC – but that Marduk decided
that he should rule all of Babylonia and so it happened (Walker 1982, 407). Walker (ibid) notes that
“the theme of Anu and Enlil choosing a course of action which is then initiated by the appropriate
local ruler is familiar from the Old Babylonian period”. It is possible that Ashurbanipal understood
the subtleties of the situation (i.e. the parallels between himself and Adad-šuma-u#ur and how the
two of them first ruled Babylonia apart from Babylon and then later ruled all of the country) and
exploited the Babylonian tradition and copied his inscriptions in the city of learning and tradition
where such matters would have been understood.
Assurbanipal 2 (Frame 1995, 223, B.6.32.17)
The second survives in a single example and would appear to relate to the building work on the
é.gi.gùn.na recorded in the cylinder inscription noted above (ibid, 219-221, B.6.32.15).
1. den-líl-lá (For) the God Enlil,
2. lugal {dingir-re}-e-ne-ke4 king of the gods,
3. nir-g ál an - ki-a sovereign of heaven (and) netherworld,
4. nun nam-tar-tar-ra prince (who decides) the fates,
5. lugal-a-ni-ir his lord,
6. AN.ŠÁR-ba-an-IBILA Assurbanipal
7. sipa še-ga -bi his obedient shepherd,
8. lugal kala-ga mighty king,
9. lugal ki-šár(?)-ra(?) x king of the world,

Assurbanipal and the Ziggurat at Nippur 357
10. é-gi-gùn-n[a] the é.gi.gùn.na
11. sig4-al-ùr-ra with baked bricks
12. mu-un-na-dù (re)built.
Assurbanipal 3 (Frame 1995, 223-224, B.6.32.18)
The third inscription is known from two examples and records (line 10) the installation of
“something” (ibid, 223) in the é.~ur.sag.galam.ma at Nippur. George (1993, 100, n. 480) suggested
that it was a wooden fitting of some sort. Frame (ibid, 224) does not translate the word. The
é.~ur.sag.galam.ma was a shrine dedicated to the worship of Enlil and was situated on the ziggurat
at Nippur (George 1993, 100-101, n. 480). The bricks on which the inscription is made are shaped
and would appear to have formed part of a well head (Gerardi 1986; Frame 1995, 224).45 If the
structure from which these bricks came was excavated by Haynes and Meyer, they did not
recognise it and it was not recorded.
1. den-líl-lá
(For) the God Enlil,
2. lugal dingir-re-e-ne-ke4 King of the gods,
3. n ir-gá l an- k i-a sovereign of heaven (and) the netherworld,
4. nun nam-tar-tar-ra prince (who decides) the fates,
5. lugal-a-ni-ir his lord,
6. AN.ŠÁR-DÙ-IBILA Assurbanipal,
7. s ipa š e-ga- bi his obedient shepherd,
8. lugal kalag-ga mighty king,
9. lugal ki-sár-ra King of the world,
10. A-x
...
11. šà é-~ur-sag-galam-ma-ke4
within é.~ur.sag.galam.ma46
12. pa-pa-~i nam-lugal-a-ni his ancient royal cella
13. libir-ra-bi-ta(*)
14. galam- bi skilfully
15. sig4-al-ùr-ra with baked bricks
16. mu-un-na-dù
(re) built.
Assurbanipal 1 bricks at Nippur
There is no indication in the records of Haynes and Meyer to suggest that they distinguished
anything other than Assurbanipal 1 bricks (11 line inscriptions). An examination of their records
shows that they found these bricks in four areas all of which were closely associated with the
ziggurat: 1. loose in fill on the south western face of the ziggurat below Parthian housing; 2. and 3.
in the fabric eastern and southern corners of the ziggurat; 4. in a conduit built into the façade of the
north eastern face of the ziggurat. In the following study we examine the evidence for each area.
45. The form is clear in the on-line photographs of the brick at http://www.penn.museum/collection/
46. “House, skilfully built mountain” (George 1993, 100-101, n. 480).

Tim Clayden – Bernhard Schneider
358
Bricks loose in fill in front of the south eastern face of the ziggurat
In August 1894 Haynes re-opened excavations at the eastern end of the south eastern face of the
Parthian Fortress which overlay the ziggurat. Haynes’ first task was to remove the massive Parthian
buttress on the south eastern face of the ziggurat. He did so in four months. In completing the
work he was proud to report that he had “removed 100 000 cubic feet of earth, of which the
greater part is composed of a solid mass of libben, or mud brick is practically removed down to the
foundations of the supposed walls of Ur Namma” (HL, 23/12/1893: 1). Buried within the Parthian
brickwork Haynes found the buttress walls of the staircase leading to the first level of the ziggurat
(Figures 5 and 6).47 Incorporated within the structure of the staircase were inscribed bricks of Ur-
Namma48 (2112-2095 BC). Haynes’ plan of his work in this area has survived (Figure 7). Haynes
also cut through a series of baked brick pavements.49 Above the upper pavement (probably of
Assurbanipal) the remains of two structures flanking a street were found.50 These buildings may
clearly be identified with the section of the Parthian Phase II remains published by Fisher (1907,
I.14, Grid H/K and 6/7) and discussed by Keall (1970, 32, Figure 4).51
47. Haynes recorded that the walls were four feet thick and nine feet apart with “space between walls filled
solid with mud bricks 14 x 14 x 9 inches” (annotated plan accompanying HL, 23/12/1893). The walls
extended c. fifty two feet from the face of the ziggurat where they were at least ten feet high, but cut
down to accommodate the overlying (Parthian) buttress’ (HL, 23/09/1893: 2-3). Keall observed that the
dimensions of the bricks in the Parthian period were very much larger than those in the Ur-Namma fill in
the staircase (1970, 46, fn. 1). On the basis of a single stamped brick of Kadašman-Enlil II (?) (1263-1255
BC) McCown et al. 1967, 19-20, pl. 14C, dated the construction of the staircase to the Kassite period. A
second brick was found in the staircase (Brinkman 1976, 132, J.2.2.2, a duplicate of one found during the
earlier Philadelphia excavations – Brinkman 1976, 131, J.2.2.1). The dating is unclear as the bricks could
have been repairs or re-used. Bricks of Ur-Namma, Ur-Ninurta and Assurbanipal were found in the fill
above the stairway treads which does not help date the stairway (Mc Cown – Haines – Hansen 1967, 20).
48. In quoting Haynes’ letters we have corrected his readings of “Ur Gur” to Ur-Namma.
49. Haynes recorded three pavements of baked brick at between 25 and 30 feet below the surface (i.e. 8-13
feet below the Parthian houses in the area, (HL, 11/11/1893: 4). Haynes recorded (HL, 25/11/1893: 1)
that the upper pavement ran 63 feet from the south face of the ziggurat. A further area was excavated in
January 1894 (HL, 27/01/1893: 1-2). The second pavement ran 2 feet below the first (HL, 11/11/1893:
4; HL, 03/02/1894: 1-2; HL, 10/02/1894: 1-2). The lowest pavement at 30 feet below the surface
included bricks of Ur-Ninurta (HL, 08/12/1893: 4; HL, 23/12/1893: 3; HL, 10/02/1894: 2-5; HL,
03/03/1894: 2; HL, 31/03/1894B: 1-2; see Fisher 1907, pl. 17, for a schematic section). Many fragments
of stone vessels of which a number were inscribed were found between the 2nd and 3rd pavements (HLs,
04/11/1893: 1; 11/11/1893: 5; 25/11/1893: 2-3; 02/12/1893: 1-2; 16/12/1893: 1). Haynes noted that
among the inscribed vessel fragments was a portion of an Ur-Namma brick (HL, 25/11/1893: 2-3).
Many of the inscribed vessel fragments, dated mainly to the Sargonic and Ur III periods, have been
published by Hilprecht (1893, 47-49, text nn. 1, 2, 5, 7-10; 1896, 60-63, nn. 86-119). (X)
50. The walls lay 2.5 feet below the surface and were 2 feet thick and survived to a height of 14.5 feet (HL,
11/11/1893: 2).
51. The concordance of the room numbers used by Haynes and Fisher. HL, 11/11/1893 contains a detailed
description of the rooms.
Haynes Fisher Haynes Fisher Haynes Fisher Haynes Fisher
100 67 106 60 112 90 117 95
101 66 107 - 113 92 118 94
102 64 108 71 114 91 119 -
103 62 109 70 120 97
104 63 110 68 115 ‘Lowest terrace
of Citadel’ 121 96
105 61 111 69 116 93

Assurbanipal and the Ziggurat at Nippur 359
In December 1893 and January 1894 Haynes excavated and recorded a number of bricks
bearing an eleven line stamped inscription of Assurbanipal on their edges (HLs 23/12/1893: 3;
20/01/1894: 2; and 27/01/1894: 2). A number of bricks were found below the Parthian buttress,
which cut through the upper two levels of pavement drawing later material into the stratigraphy,
Haynes was removing (HL, 23/12/1893: 2). The bricks were found “At a depth of about twenty
five feet below the surface and just to the northwest of room 114 (see plan accompanying letter of
13th instance, i.e. Figure 7) were found several fragments of bricks with green glazed edges. These
were found promiscuously scattered among other bricks, some of which bear the inscription of
Assurbanipal. Until the present time no other inscribed bricks have been found among the green
glazed fragments and these bricks of Assurbanipal, both of which evidently belonged to some fallen
building” (HL, 20/01/1894: 2-3). A week later Haynes reported “As there are no evidences of
buildings of any sort resting on the pavement,52 it is probable that this represents a large open space
like a plaza. Today several inscribed bricks of Assurbanipal, and a half brick with a green enamelled
edge were found immediately above this pavement (i.e. the uppermost pavement around the
ziggurat, cf. fn. 49 above). Among them no other inscribed bricks were found” (HL, 27/01/1893:
2). Haynes later dated the upper pavement about the ziggurat on which the rubble containing bricks
of Assurbanipal to Assurbanipal, but accepted that “we have no certain clue to the origin of the
pavement” (HL, 16/02/1895: 4).
Six months later Meyer and Haynes reviewed the Assurbanipal bricks and their context in more
detail. Haynes wrote (HL, 20/07/1894: 8-10):
Some fifteen feet southeast of the eastern corner of the ziggurat, and about twenty five feet
beneath the surface was found one of Assurbanipal’s inscribed bricks with a green glazed
edge. It was found in the same stratum and at about the same distance, from the walls of the
ziggurat, as the fragments of green glazed bricks reported in my letter of January 20 (1894,
see above). Like them this brick was also embedded in a fallen mass of crude and burned
bricks firmly cemented together by an intermixture of clay and soil. This mass of debris
extends underneath rooms 118 and 121 (Note: of the Parthian houses, Figures 5 and 6) just
excavated ... In the corresponding strata, and at the same distance from the ziggurat, on its
south western side, is a confused mass of the same crude and burned bricks of equal volume,
and in all respects similar to the mass described above. Here too have been found among
many burned bricks of one mould several stamped bricks of Assurbanipal, and a fragment of
green glazed brick.
After several months study and comparison of bricks I do not hesitate to identify the
uninscribed bricks in these fallen masses, both to the southeast and to the northwest of the
ziggurat, as the bricks of Assurbanipal, since they are of the same mould, texture, color, and
hardness as are the stamped bricks of the same king, nor can I longer resist the conclusion,
which was at first only a theory, that the temple as it was rebuilt upon the ancient
foundations by the versatile and energetic Assurbanipal was stripped for its facing of brick by
some vainglorious destroyer of the later Babylonian Empire, who in rebuilding considerably
enlarged its sacred precinct.
52. The Assurbanipal pavement discussed above (fn. 49).

Tim Clayden – Bernhard Schneider
360
Meyer was more succinct writing (M, 16/7/1894: 138-9):
I am inclined to think today, that the Assurbanipal temple had been badly damaged or
perhaps fallen to decay – especially at the corners. Proof: the fallen burned brick, lying in
heaps at the foot of the temple on the – what I think is – Assurbanipal pavement, which
contain many Assurbanipal bricks, some of them coated with a green glaze which I think is
faded blue.
Three fragments of a barrel cylinder inscription of Assurbanipal recording his work on the é.kur
(Frame 1995, 219-221, B.6.32.15, ex. 1) were found in the same debris field as the glazed bricks of
Assurbanipal near the east corner of the ziggurat (ibid).53 These fragments may be identified with
the “three fragments of a clay, burned, cylinder 3 3/8 inches in extreme length 2 inches in diameter
across end, fully I think of intire (sic) inscription found in the debris ascribed to Assur-bani-pal
toward N. Corner of Temple area”54 recorded as having been found on 2 October 1899.55 Given
the close association within the same brick debris field between the glazed inscribed bricks of
Assurbanipal and the barrel cylinder inscription recording his work, it is possible that the two were
in the same building before its destruction. Equally the glazed bricks and the cylinder may have
originally have come from the fabric of the ziggurat and were not part of a separate structure.
Summarising the reports of Haynes and Meyer it would appear that they had excavated a layer
of rubble laid above a pavement probably dated to Assurbanipal which lay below the houses and
which was cut by the buttresses of the fortress built in the Parthian period. The rubble consisted in
part of stamped bricks of Assurbanipal which were similar in form, size and fabric to unstamped
bricks. Many of the uninscribed bricks bore a green glaze which may have been an oxidised form of
an original blue glaze. Crucially, at least one Assurbanipal stamped brick also had green glaze on
one surface. This single brick suggests that it was part of a structure in which some of the bricks
bore a green glaze. The rubble represents the debris from a structure which had been destroyed
either before or by the Parthians. The houses resting on the rubble layer containing the
Assurbanipal bricks form part of the Phase II Parthian building work at Nippur. In this phase the
earlier practice (Phase I, c. 65 AD onwards) of patching up the ziggurat (Keall 1970, 29) came to an
end and four massive buttresses were added to each side of ziggurat (ibid, 26-31). The initiation of
the Phase II work is dated to a point shortly after 90 AD (Keall 1970, 41). We may conclude,
53. In his diary (n. 21 now preserved only in a later copy, see above) Meyer described a sketch (M,
14/10/1894) as “No.4 is the fragment of what is possibly the dedicatory cylinder of the latest restoration
of the temple. It was found in the rubbish from the fallen upper parts of the temple near the west
corner...”. This may be a reference to the Assurbanipal cylinder, but Meyer (an accurate recorder) notes
that it was found near the west not the east corner which is where the Assurbanipal cylinder fragments
were said to have been found.
54. Hilprecht refers to the cylinder fragments and their discovery on the Assurbanipal pavement near the
east corner of the ziggurat in his publication of the excavations at Nippur (1903, 460-461).
55. Mrs Haynes’ weekly report gives the date as 5 October 1899.

Assurbanipal and the Ziggurat at Nippur 361
therefore, that at some point between 65 and 90 AD whatever structure Assurbanipal had
constructed using glazed bricks was finally fully demolished by the Parthians.56
Bricks in the fabric of the southern, eastern and northern corners of the ziggurat
By 3 February 1894 Haynes had removed the “pavement” (HL, 03/02/1894: 1) and six weeks later
had extended the trench to a depth of over fifty feet as he excavated the southern corner of the
ziggurat. He recorded:
The southern corner P of the brick wall of the ziggurat has been removed and found to have
been opened and rebuilt in ancient times, perhaps by Assurbanipal for the upper twenty nine
courses contained inscribed bricks of Assurbanipal and Ur Namma in the ratio of three of
the former to two of the latter. Below the thirtieth course only bricks of Ur Namma were
found. Altogether forty two courses of bricks were removed, and except the single brick ...
only the bricks of Ur Namma and Assurbanipal were found. It was clearly observed too that
the bricks of the wall had been laid in bitumen, and that the corner, which had been rebuilt,
was laid in mud. There is reason to think that the original wall contained no bricks later than
the time of Ur Namma though such an hypothesis could not be actually proven without
removal of the whole wall. (HL, 17/03/1894: 4-5)57
Subsequent investigation of the eastern corner of the ziggurat revealed that it too had “been
opened and rebuilt by some king not before the time of Assurbanipal” (HL, 31/03/1894a: 5).
Haynes continued:
Altogether fifty two courses of bricks were removed: the first fifty courses containing the
bricks of Assurbanipal and Ur-Namma: the two last courses containing only the bricks of
Ur-Namma.
Besides these bricks of Assurbanipal and Ur-Namma there were only two other inscribed
bricks found; one was found in the thirteenth course: the other in the forty eighth. Both
bricks are of the same king: but the inscription was badly stamped and I am unable to
identify them but both are packed to be sent to Constantinople. The wall was originally built
of bricks laid in bitumen: the rebuilt portion of the corner was laid in mud and I noticed
many bricks of Assurbanipal as well as those of Ur-Namma to which a coating of bitumen
still adhered, clearly proving them to have been taken from some other structure into which
56. James – van der Sluijs 2008 suggest that Assyro-Babylonian ziggurat stages were decorated in an
established order of colours (ibid, 65). The sequence, seen in excavations at Khorsabad and Ur (ibid, 61-
62), and in Herodotus’ description of the ziggurat at Ecbatana (ibid, 57) was, from the base up, white,
black, red and blue at the summit. Rawlinson (ibid, 58-60) may have over interpreted his excavation
results at Borsippa, however a late Babylonian hymn does seem to suggest that there was a sequence of
colouring of the levels (Köcher 1959, 238-239, lines 6-10; Oppenheim 1970, 17). See also the earlier
discussion by Nunn 1988, 235-237 who is less certain that the full sequence of colours was used. No
evidence has survived of the colouring of the various stages of the ziggurat at Nippur in the Neo-
Assyrian period. However, if the structure decorated by glazed bricks was part of the ziggurat and if the
green glaze is an oxidation from blue, then it might have been at the summit of the ziggurat.
57. Haynes (HL, 31/03/1894a, 5) confirmed the structure of the ziggurat: “Both the south and east corners
of the ziggurat walls have been removed, and both are shown to have been opened in ancient times. The
walls were originally laid in bitumen, while the rebuilt corners were laid in mud for mortar”.

Tim Clayden – Bernhard Schneider
362
they had been previously been built, which fact leads me to think this corner too, was
opened by some later king than Assurbanipal. (HL, 31/03/1894b: 4-5)
Meyer (M, 12/06/1894, 40) studied the bricks taken from the eastern corner and noted that
“there were a number of Ur-Namma’s, some I imagined with a different stamp from the ordinary
one58 and one of Assurbanipal’s”. He also conducted a deeper analysis of the various building
stages of the eastern corner of the ziggurat. Commenting on an architectural diagram of the north
eastern faced in this area (Figure 9) next to his copy of a “Melisiha” brick (Figure 4) he wrote:
The arrangement of the e[ast] corner of the ziggurat is still a mystery. The extreme left is the
s[outh] e[ast] face of the burned brick wall – evidently of Ur-Namma – without buttresses
but with a batter of about 9o. This wall is the full depth of wall B to within 3 ft. of the corner
where it ends in a perpendicular joint of the same batter as the wall – without much doubt
the original corner. This space of 3 ft. Filled in by a later wall A resting on earth F of sun-
dried bricks which continues north to a second perpendicular joint with a similar batter to
the face of the s[outh] e[ast] wall. From this point on the wall B has the full depth. It
continues to a third perpendicular joint – no batter – from which point the wall J is
continuous to the north corner of the ziggurat. Walls A, B, J and G are apparently all of an
ancient variety of brick – although A was no doubt built later than the others especially J and
G – and from J on the n[orth] a number of very archaic inscribed bricks were found. The
walls G, G, each 2’6’’ thick were built with a finished face towards the space H which seems
to have been filled in by the builder of C and D – apparently Assurbanipal – but to all
appearances this space H was formerly a passage way or approach to the upper story, and I
can even imagine there are marks on the sides of a ramp or flight of steps. So little of the
surface is exposed, however that it is hard to determine.
It is only a short distance above the last joint that Sultan (i.e. one of the local workmen) has
tunnelled under wall J and found the Ur-Namma bricks in an inner wall. None were,
however, found in the outer wall which is only about 3 ft. thick. Wall D is the one furnished
with buttresses, B and J are plain – with a batter – but very irregular in plan – bulging out
and in from the direct line.
The sequence of building phases is clear, but the dating, apart from that of the inner wall to Ur-
Namma and later work of Assurbanipal, is not.59
In a note on the ziggurat wall and the north corner Meyer recorded that its bricks were “mostly
yellow, though some were red – the latter harder” (M, 07/06/1894, 19), or the same as the bricks in
58. Meyer (M, 09/06/1894, 29) summarised his findings on the bricks of Ur-Namma and Ur-Ninurta: “The
Ur-Namma bricks seem to be mostly of the peculiar greenish-yellow color, nearly always yellow on the
outside but sometimes reddish where broken so as to show the inside. In size they are about (note: Meyer
did not give the dimensions, but Walker 1981, 23, n. 13 records that they were 31.5 x 31.5 x 7.5/7.6.5
cm). The Ur-Ninurta brick has the inscription engraved by hand – Ur-Namma’s is pressed – they seem to
be pale red as a rule – hard burned and of good quality. The upper face is almost concave and has the
edges raised a little. This is also seen in the Ur-Namma brick but to a less extent. I judge from this that
the brick was made in a mould contained on five sides only – or perhaps on four and placed on a level
surface and the top of the brick levelled and smoothed by bare hand. This side is always the smoothest
and bears the stamp and inscription when there is one. The tracks of dogs or jackals are common on the
bricks”.
59. Fisher 1907, pl. 17, does not show the sequence. Perhaps he did not have access to Meyer’s notes.

Assurbanipal and the Ziggurat at Nippur 363
the Assurbanipal “niche” (see below). In a lower point of the wall he found a stamped brick of
Assurbanipal in the fabric (ibid, 19-20, Figure 10).
Origin of the Assurbanipal bricks in ziggurat corners and fill in front of the ziggurat south east façade.
The Assurbanipal bricks found below the Parthian houses at the south-eastern façade of the
ziggurat were clearly in a rubble fill level. This layer, as argued above, dated to between Phases I and
II of the Parthian construction, that is between 65 and 90 AD.
Reviewing the notes of Haynes and Meyer it is not completely clear whether Assurbanipal
actually repaired the ziggurat at its southern and eastern corners. Clearly Assurbanipal bricks were
used, but they were mixed with the earlier bricks of Ur-Namma and at least two bricks of an
unknown builder. Haynes noted that the bricks of the ziggurat were laid in bitumen, however at the
point at which the Assurbanipal bricks were used they were laid in ‘mud’. Meyer’s comment on the
colour of the bricks in the fabric of the north corner having the same appearance as the stamped
bricks of Assurbanipal might be evidence suggesting that the yellow and red bricks were from the
same building phase.
Haynes also recorded that the Ur-Namma and Assurbanipal bricks both bore traces of bitumen
on them suggesting that they had been re-used from a context in which they were laid in bitumen
and not mud. It is unlikely that the bricks would have been re-used from elsewhere in the ziggurat
so we must conclude that they came from an unknown context. The repairs using the Ur-Namma
and Assurbanipal bricks must at the very least have post-dated Assurbanipal’s original work and
more probably were re-used after his reign. In Phase I of their work at Nippur the Parthians
patched the ziggurat, but ceased to do so thereafter (Keall 1970, 29). Although the Parthians
removed bricks from the ziggurat to build the terrace wall they erected round the structure (ibid,
21), they also stabilised the ziggurat fabric. There is no record of Assurbanipal bricks having been
found in the terrace wall, suggesting that they were not in the ziggurat fabric from which the wall
was constructed.
Meyer’s observations on the sequence of building at the eastern corner of the ziggurat suggest
that either Assurbanipal, or a later builder using his bricks, filled in the area of a walled walkway and
ascending ramp/stairs running along the top of the first stage south east side of the ziggurat.60
McCown (1967, 18 and 29, fn. 38) records that stamped bricks of Assurbanipal bearing the same
inscription as that excavated by Haynes and Meyer were found in the pavement of the Level II
(“Assyrian”) Temple of Enlil (ibid, pl. 26). The Level II temple structure was largely destroyed, and
certainly overbuilt by the Parthians (ibid, 19). It is therefore a strong possibility that the Parthians at
some point between 65 and 90 AD levelled the Temple of Enlil bringing its long history to an
60. McCown 1967, 20, noted that in a later filling of the eastern corner of the ziggurat 25 bricks of
Assurbanipal, 16 of Ur-Namma and 1 of Ur-Ninurta were found.

Tim Clayden – Bernhard Schneider
364
end.61 The bricks they used either as rubble fill in their work at the south-eastern face of the
ziggurat, or in the fabric of the south, east and north corners of the ziggurat.62
Bricks in a conduit built into the façade of the north eastern face of the ziggurat.
The fourth area in which stamped bricks of Assurbanipal were excavated was on the north eastern
façade of the ziggurat. In one of his earliest descriptions of an archaeological feature following his
arrival on site in May 1894, Meyer recorded his observations with an accompanying sketch (Figure
11) of a “niche” in the north-eastern façade of the ziggurat (M, 04/06/1894: 5-6). The area was also
photographed (Figure 12). Meyer prepared further sketches of the north-eastern façade of the
ziggurat showing clearly the position of the niche (Figures 13 and 13a) and again in a rougher
drawing (Figures 14 and 14a). In his description of this feature Meyer wrote:
Niche in the centre of the central pilaster-buttress of the north-east side of the temple (i.e.
the ziggurat), lowest terrace. The top was destroyed when the platform was increased in size.
A to B (outside) B (inside) the older work. Laid up of bricks mostly a pale red color (some
yellow) and from 11 to 12 inches square 2 ½ inches thick laid in mud for the most part but
there are fragments of bitumen at many places; either the brick had been used a second time
or small quantities of bitumen had been used as a means of strengthening. Most likely the
latter for corners were full and the bitumen had the appearance of having been run in hot.
Width of the pilaster-buttress 14 ft. 4 in. Width of niche 2 ft. 2 in. in depth 4 ft 2 in. Height
(inside) which was probably the height of the triangular head of the opening about 5 ft. 5 in.
this arch on the horizontal principle and had straight sides apparently meeting in a point. The
arched portion was only 1 ft 7 in. deep. An offset of 6 in. in front perhaps formed a square
headed panel around the top of the opening. Within the side as and back rose to the point
where the new baked brick construction began. I was led to think it a niche because the
corners at the back bond with each other- laid mostly in bitumen at these corners – and the
brick seems to be the same. Pilaster-buttress (central one) 14’4’’ wide, projection 12 inches.
Haynes’s first report of the feature (HL, 16/02/1895: 4) noted that:
Photograph n. 23 (Figure 15) shows the north eastern facade of the ziggurat as seen from the
northern corner. The panelled part of the casing wall is identified as the work of
Assurbanipal, since this part of the structure contains only the bricks of that conquering
king. The projecting base of this wall is undoubtedly the work of Cassite kings.63 The higher
part of the section of the casement is of unknown origin. Three courses of the large crude
bricks 13 x 1 3 x 9 inches64 are clearly distinguished between Assurbanipal’s work and the
later casing wall above.
61. It is probable that the collection of predominantly Kassite dated objects found in a box in a Parthian
building south of the Ziggurat was found in the Temple of Enlil when the Parthian builders demolished
the temple and cut into it (cf. Clayden 2011, 9-10).
62. Meyer recorded (M, 17/07/1894: 145) that a wall that formed part of the foundation for the Parthian
Phase II buttress on the north-western façade contained “Assurbanipal bricks as well as those of Ur-
Namma, occurred in this lower wall”.
63. Assuming that the reading of the name was Melisiha i.e. the Kassite king Meli-Šipak.
64. Cf. fn. 58 above for brick sizes.

Assurbanipal and the Ziggurat at Nippur 365
A week later Haynes reflected further on the Assurbanipal conduit. He wrote “Assurbanipal’s
conduit was much higher than the present structure as it is clearly seen by the position of the
fragment of strengthening blocks of brick still visible in its ruin. In Ur-Namma’s conduit the
strengthening blocks is [sic] slightly above the middle. Observing the same proportions in this
conduit one would expect its top to reach as high as the top of the well, possibly a little higher. It
ended of course in the first terrace which must have been in the plane of the top of the well or a
little higher not lower” (HL, 23/02/1895: 2). He noted further that “In Assurbanipal’s time the
bottom of this conduit was filled and paved to discharge its water over the foundation of the
present encasement wall of the Cassite kings” (ibid, 2).65
The function of the “niche” built by Assurbanipal is unclear. However, similar two similar
structures in the fabric of the Ur III ziggurat at Ur in the north west and south east faces, were
identified by Woolley (1939, 119, pl. 40, 48 and 68, pls. 80a and 82a) as drains for surface water
collecting on the ziggurat terraces after rainfalls. The manner in which the Nippur structure was
built like an inverted funnel reaching towards the floor level of the first stage of the ziggurat
suggests that it too might have served as a drain to the first stage of the ziggurat. Unfortunately the
top of the structure was destroyed by the construction of a well dug into the ziggurat in the second
phase of building in the Parthian period (Knudstad 1968, 98, pl. 2).
The glazed bricks
Evidence for the use of glazed bricks in the decoration of religious or secular (royal) buildings is
known from the Middle-Assyrian period66 and in twelfth century BC structures at Susa (Moorey
1994, 315).67 There are no contemporary examples from Babylonia. Use of the decorative technique
survived in Assyria and Tukulti-Ninurta II’s (c. 890-884 BC) glazed brick tile from the temple of
Anu and Adad at Assur is the earliest datable neo-Assyrian example. Thereafter evidence for the
use of glazed bricks in Assyria in royal building projects is more common (ibid, 315-317; Nadali
2006, 109-110). In Babylonia the technique was introduced by the Neo-Assyrians during the reign
of Esarhaddon.68 Letters to Esarhaddon note the use of glazed bricks in construction work on an
unnamed building at Uruk (Parpola 1993, 293, n. 355, lines 5-7) and a plan to have the quay wall of
the ezida at Borsippa built of glazed kiln fired bricks (Parpola 1983, 296 lines 15’ ff.; Parpola 1993,
301, n. 364, lines 15’-16’). In Assyria Assurbanipal may have used blue69 glazed bricks in his
65. See fn. 39 above.
66. On the basis that no glazed bricks have been found at Mari, Sauvage rejects the CAD reading for a word
in the Mari archive (Š, s.v. ša~ātu A) as a glaze on bricks (1994). Instead he suggests that the word should
be translated as painted (ibid).
67. See also the discussion in Tite et al. 2008, 187-188.
68. By contrast Nadali 2008, 97-99, has suggested that the Babylonian use of moulded mud brick depicting
figurative scenes may have influenced Esarhaddon to adopt the practice in Assyria.
69. Reade – Freestone – Simpson 2005, 26, note the lack of analysis of glass from the period of the neo-
Assyrian empire, but note that the cobalt blue seen in glass objects from Nimrud in the 9th century was
derived from Egyptian sourced materials (ibid). More recent work, however, on Kassite glass (Kirk 2011)
shows that blue glass was made in Babylonia from non-Egyptian sources.

Tim Clayden – Bernhard Schneider
366
building works at Harran at the temple of Sun (Luckenbill 1927 ii, 354, n. 915).70 At Nineveh he
decorated the bīt akītu with scenes of his military conquests depicted using glazed high relief bricks
(Oppenheim 1970, 17; Nadali 2008, 90). In Babylonia a broken letter possibly dated to his reign
(Parpola 1983, 276, n. 283) records that ‘the inhabitants are glazing and gilding kiln-fired bricks’
(Parpola 1993, 304, n. 368, lines r. 6’-7’). One of the subjects covered in Assurbanipal’s “Library” at
Nineveh was instructions in 35 tablets and fragments for the manufacture of glass (Oppenheim
1970, 23-59; 1973). The texts are Assyrian and not Babylonian in origin (Oppenheim 1970, 28). To
what extent the king took a personal interest in this group of texts is not known, but certainly the
scholars assembling the “Library” were interested in glass manufacture and indicates the degree of
importance attached to the technology at that time.
In the Neo-Babylonian period the use of glazed bricks as a decorative element in temples, city
gates and palaces appears to have begun at Babylon in the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II (604-562
BC: Moorey 1994, 318) less than 30 years after the Assyrians were driven out of Babylonia. The
Assurbanipal structure at Nippur would have remained standing as the earliest building in
Babylonia for which we have clear evidence of glazed brick decoration. It may have inspired Neo-
Babylonian use of the decorative technique more widely and most especially at Babylon,71 though
more probable is the Neo-Babylonian experience of late Assyrian buildings seen during their
conquest of the Assyrian empire in 612 BC.
Surviving examples of the glazed Assurbanipal bricks
Unfortunately there is no known surviving example of a glazed brick bearing an inscription of
Assurbanipal from Nippur. However, fragments of un-inscribed bricks do. In his notebooks made
during his examination in Constantinople of the boxes of finds from the 1893 and early 1894
season of excavations at Nippur, Hilprecht recorded the contents of Hay[nes] n. 95 (i.e. box
number 45 despatched by Haynes from Nippur) as “.. 1 smaller block of Libben, fragments of
glazed bricks ...” (HSN 3: 34-5). He notes that from this box he assigned “einen grün emaillierten
fragm. Unbeschrieb Brick” to the Imperial Ottoman Museum, Constantinople (HSN 3: 34), the rest
he sent to Philadelphia. In a separate entry on Hay[nes] n. 94 (“containing 2 smaller block of
Libben, fragments of green glazed bricks – broken pieces”, ibid) Hilprecht commented that “Die
Kiste ist so ziemlich das Duplicat von no. 94 5??” and assigned none of the fragments to
Philadelphia (HSN 3: 35).
Hilprecht recorded Haynes’ note of the contents of the “double sized case – No 108:72 1 green-
edged brick (inscribed) with Mili-Shihu: several frags. of green edged bricks” (HSN 179.2). The
whereabouts of this brick is not known to the authors.
70. Novotny 2003, 71-73, has shown that although Essarhaddon may have sought to initiate building works
at Harran, it was Assurbanipal who actually undertook the work (see also Michalowski 2014, 206).
71. Da Riva 2014 has reviewed the cultural influence (not archaeological) the Assyrians left in Babylonia.
72. The case numbering suggests that it came from the later part of the 3rd season at Nippur – April 1894 to
February 1896.

Assurbanipal and the Ziggurat at Nippur 367
However, two examples of such glazed and broken bricks survive in the Istanbul Archaeological
Museum (Eşem 8943 and 8945, Figs. 16 and 17).73 A third may be preserved in the collections of
the University Museum, Philadelphia (CBS 10285, Fig. 18). The CBS catalogue entry written in
Professor H.V. Hilprecht’s hand, states that this fragment of brick with the remnants of a
green/blue glaze on one surface was dated to the reign of Assurbanipal and was “reportedly from
the shrine on top of ziggur[at]”. The entry continues by referring to Haynes’ letters of 20 July and
21 September 1895. Both letters report on the results of excavations on the south east side of the
ziggurat where many Assurbanipal bricks were found. However, neither letter refers to an object
which might be identified with CBS 10285. It is unclear why Hilprecht linked the brick fragment to
the two letters, nor is it clear why he identified the brick as being one of the Assurbanipal glazed
bricks beyond the fact that the fragment does resemble the descriptions by Haynes and Meyer. A
further example (ANE 114300)74 may rest in the British Museum. During a visit to Nippur in 1919
en route to Ur, H.R. Hall75 collected two brick fragments from the site. One (ANE 114299, Frame
1995, 221, B.6.32.15, ex. 2) bears an Assurbanipal 1 inscription (see above). The second (ANE
114300) was a fragment and was recorded as being “originally glazed with light green glaze on every
side”. This glaze has now apparently faded away.
These broken fragments are all that survive of the glazed façade that Assurbanipal had built at
the é.kur at Nippur.
Conclusions
Assurbanipal’s brick inscriptions from Nippur fall into three groups. The first, for which the most
exemplars have survived, records work on the é.kur (Assurbanipal 1). These bricks appear in the
reports and drawings of Haynes and Meyer and show that Assurbanipal conducted at least two
areas of building work on or near the ziggurat at Nippur. Only one element survived the extensive
and intrusive building work of the Parthian period. This was the drainage conduit built into the
north east façade of the ziggurat (Fig. 19). The drain was unique in that it apparently served to drain
the first stage of the ziggurat. This in turn might imply other, now lost, building alterations made on
the first stage which necessitated the construction of a new drain. The second element was
destroyed probably during the Parthian period. A structure built of baked bricks some of which
bore a green (originally blue?) glaze was built on or near the south east façade of the ziggurat where
the bricks from its demolition were found. It might also have been part of a structure at the summit
of the ziggurat. The Assurbanipal bricks in the south, east and north corners of the ziggurat may
have been re-used, though this is not clear and these corners may have been rebuilt by
Assurbanipal. Bricks with the same inscription (Assurbanipal 1) were found in the Temple of Enlil.
This suggests that the bricks found by Haynes and Meyer may have been taken by Parthian builders
from the Temple of Enlil which stood close by. Given the relatively precise dating of the context of
73. E-mail 16 February 2015.
74. https://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/search.aspx
75. Hall 1930, 61-66, described his visit made when he was travelling en route to Ur.

Tim Clayden – Bernhard Schneider
368
the Assurbanipal bricks in the rubble in front of the south-eastern façade of the ziggurat, we may
accordingly date the demolition of the Temple of Enlil to no later than at some point between 65
and 90 AD.
A single brick (Assurbanipal 2) provides evidence of the building work on the ziggurat itself
recorded more fully in a cylinder inscription.
Two shaped bricks (Assurbanipal 2) are the only evidence of a third structure on or near the
ziggurat built by Assurbanipal. This would appear to have been a well in a shrine.
These elements of building or building rubble supplement the meagre evidence for original
building work by Assurbanipal found in the Temple of Enlil Level II (there is separate evidence for
contemporary settlement in the city and for the building of the city wall) and as such tangible
evidence for Assurbanipal’s building works in Babylonia – an element in his efforts to establish a
rapprochement between Babylonia and Assyria after the destruction wrought by Sennacherib and
the waging of the civil war with his brother, Šamaš-šuma-ūkin. They also represent the earliest
evidence we have of the use of glazed bricks as a decorative element in Babylonian temple
construction. The temple Assurbanipal built at Nippur may have been the inspiration for the
decision of Nebuchadnezzar II to use glazed bricks to such great effect when he rebuilt the
temples, gates and palaces of Babylon.
Figure 1: Reconstructed plan of the ziggurat and temple complex at Nippur
(after Gibson – Hansen – Zettler 1998-2001, 551, Fig. 2).

Assurbanipal and the Ziggurat at Nippur 369
Figure 2: The mounds at Nippur in 1861/2 (Collingwood 1862).
Figure 3: The mounds at Nippur in 1894 –
the same view as that of Collingwood in 1861/2 (M, 19/06/1894: 64-5).
Figure 4: Meyer’s copy of the
Assurbanipal brick inscriptions (1)
which he and Haynes read as Meli-
Šipak (M, 25/06/1894: 79).
Figure 4.1 (left): Ash.1922.181,
Assurbanipal inscription 1
(Photograph Tim Clayden).
Figure 4.2 (right): Ash. 1924.627,
Assurbanipal inscription 1
(Photograph Tim Clayden).

Tim Clayden – Bernhard Schneider
370
Figure 5: The excavations before the south East facade of the ziggurat showing
the Ur-Nammu staircase walls (M, 14/06/1894: 46).
Figure 6: The Parthian houses before the south east facade of the ziggurat (M, 06/07/1894: 114).

Assurbanipal and the Ziggurat at Nippur 371
Figure 7: Haynes’ plan of his excavations at the south east face of the ziggurat as at 13 January 1894.
Figure 8: The eastern corner of the ziggurat (M, 13/06/1894: 44).

Tim Clayden – Bernhard Schneider
372
Figure 9: Meyer’s sketch section of the east corner of the ziggurat (M, 25/06/1894: 78).
Figure 10: The north corner of the ziggurat (M, 07/06/1894: 19).

Assurbanipal and the Ziggurat at Nippur 373
Figure 11: The ‘niche’ in the north east facade of the ziggurat in which
Assurbanipal bricks were embedded (M, 04/06/1894: 5).
Figure 12: A photograph of the ‘niche’ in the north eastern faced of the ziggurat (published by courtesy of the
University of Pennsylvania Museum Archive, Photograph 5331, no 25).

Tim Clayden – Bernhard Schneider
374
Figure 13: Meyer’s sketch elevation of the north east facade of the ziggurat.
The Assurbanipal ‘niche’ may be seen in section III of the facade (M, 26/06/1894: 82).
Figure 13a: Schematic drawing of Meyer’s sketch of the north-east faced of the ziggurat. The Assurbanipal
‘niche’ is at ‘f’. Dotted lines are reconstructed wall lines. The scale is approximate. The following are Meyer’s
notes to the drawing: - a. Meli-Šipak (i.e. Assurbanipal); b. Line of top of old wall; c. Bottom of wall; d.
Bitumen surface; e. Passage runs into mound with wall on this (i.e. north) side only; g. 3 courses of large
crude brick; h. burned brick. The roman and arab numerals indicate the pilaster- buttresses on the face of the
ziggurat I = 3.5 m; 1 = 3.2 m; II = 3.2 m; 2 = 3.2 m; III = 1.9 m; 3 = 4.2 m; IV = 4.2 m; 4 = 4.2 m; V = 4.5
m. The sketch indicates the width of the facade at 39.48 m.

Assurbanipal and the Ziggurat at Nippur 375
Figure 14 Meyer’s working sketch of the north east facade of the ziggurat (M, UoP).
Figure 14.a: Schematic drawing of Meyer’s drawing of the north east face of the ziggurat (cf. Figure 13). The
abbreviations are – L(arge) C(crude) B(brick) and B(urned) B(brick).
The detailed notes are:
A. Small brick (later developments show construction all around the well to be 12x12x6 brick alternating with
9x6x3 on edge) shows only behind the well and ancient conduit to the height of the well, and all wall behind
the existing burned brick platform up to Meli-Šipak’s casing 6’ from the face of the lower parts of the
ziggurat (the buttressed face).
B. At this point the brick is hard to distinguish but I feel convinced it is all large crude brick down to the
platform level both back and side of the excavation show it.
C. Note how the queer extension of the well follows the line of the ancient conduit as as the offset. This
seems to indicate that the conduit projected about 4’. The well exterior is larger at bottom than on top.
14.1.I: a. Pavement level. Bottom of wall; b. Offset of about 6’7 ½’’ to back of well; c. S(mall) c(rude) b(rick)
back; d. Offset of about 6’7 ½’’ (perhaps excavated less); e. Level of mat separating later from earlier small
crude bricks; f. Less 6’’ debris 7’ 6’’ L(arge) c(rude) b(ricks); g. 3 courses of l(arge) c(rude) b(ricks) from
b(urned) b(rick) to b(urned) b(rick) 2’ 5’’ exact.
14.1.II: a. This part built circular; b. B(urned) b(rick) laid in bitumen.
14.1.III: a. S(outh) w(est side of small proj(ection); b. N(orth) w(est) side of small proj(ection); c. Stage face of
well epoch.
14.1.IV: a. This appears to be the face seen in the well.

Tim Clayden – Bernhard Schneider
376
Figure 15: Haynes’ photograph of the north east facade of the ziggurat from the northern end.
The Assurbanipal ‘niche’ may be distinguished as the middle of the three buttresses on the wall
(published by courtesy of the University of Pennsylvania Museum Archive). The photograph was taken from
the northern end of the north east facade drawn by Meyer (Figure 10, cf also Figure 13 and 13a above).

Assurbanipal and the Ziggurat at Nippur 377
Figure 16: Eşem 8943 showing traces of blue/green glaze. Photograph courtesy of the Istanbul
Archaeological Museum.
Figure 17: Eşem 8945 showing traces of blue/green glaze. Photograph courtesy of the Istanbul
Archaeological Museum.

Tim Clayden – Bernhard Schneider
378
Figure 18: CBS 10285. Showing traces of blue/green.
Photograph courtesy of the University Museum of Philadelphia.
Figure 19: The Assurbanipal niche in 2003. Photographer: W. Allinger-Csollich (Private archive of B. Schneider)

Assurbanipal and the Ziggurat at Nippur 379
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Armstrong J.A. 1989, The Archaeology of Nippur from the Decline of the Kassite Kingdom until the Rise of the
Neo-Babylonian Empire, PhD. Diss., University of Chicago.
Arnold B.T. 1985, Babylonian Letters from the Kuyunjik Collection. Seventh Century Uruk in the Light of New
Epistolary Evidence, PhD. Diss., Hebrew Union College.
Beaulieu P-A. 1997, “The Cult of AN.ŠAR/AŠŠUR in Babylonia after the Fall of the Assyrian
Empire”, State Archives of Assyria Bulletin 11, 55-73.
––––– 2000, “A Land Grant on a Cylinder Seal and Assurbanipal’s Babylonian Policy”, in S.
Graziani – M.C. Casaburi – G. Lacerenza (eds.), Studi sul Vicino Oriente Antico Dedicati alla
Memoria di Luigi Cagni (Istituto Universitario Orientale, Dipartimento di Studi Asiatici, Series Minor
61), Vol. 1, Napoli, 25-45.
Brinkman J.A. 1968, A Political History of Post-Kassite Babylonia 1158-722 BC (Analecta Orientalia 43),
Rome.
––––– 1976, Materials and Studies for Kassite History, Vol. 1, Chicago.
––––– 1983, “Documentary Evidence for the Economic Base of Early Neo-Babylonian Society: A
Survey of Dated Babylonian Economic Texts, 721-626 BC”, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 35,
1-90.
––––– 1984, Prelude to Empire. Babylonian Society and Politics, 747-626 BC (Occasional Publications of the
Babylonian Fund 7), Philadelphia.
Clayden T. 2011, “The Nippur ‘Hoard’”, Al-Rāfidān 32, 1-56.
Cole S.W. 1996, Nippur in Late Assyrian Times c. 755-612 BC (State Archives of Assyria Studies 4),
Helsinki.
––––– 1996a, Nippur IV. The Early Neo-Babylonian Governor’s Archive from Nippur (Oriental Institute
Publications 114), Chicago.
Collingwood W. 1861/1862, Trigonometrical Survey of a Part of Mesopotamia from Hillah to the Ruins of
Niffer with the Rivers Euphrates and Tigris, London.
Cooper J.S. 1983, The Curse of Agade, Baltimore - London.
Da Riva R. 2014, “Assyrians and Assyrian Influence in Babylonia (626-539 BCE)”, in S. Gaspa – A.
Greco – D. Morandi Bonacossi – S. Ponchia – R. Rollinger (eds.), From Source to History.
Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Worlds and Beyond Dedicated to Giovanni Battista Lanfranchi on
the Occasion of his 65th Birthday on June 23, 2014 (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 412),
Münster, 99-125.
Fisher C.S. 1907, Excavations at Nippur. Plans, Details and Photographs of the Buildings, with Numerous
Objects Found in them During the Excavations of 1889, 1890, 1893-1896, 1899-1900, Berlin.
Frame G. 1992, Babylonia 689-627 BC. A political History, Leiden.
––––– 1993, “Nabonidus and the History of the EULMAŠ Temple at Akkad”, Mesopotamia 33, 21-
50.
––––– 1995, Rulers of Babylonia from the Second Dynasty of Isin to the End of the Assyrian Domination (1157-
612 BC) (The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Babylonian Periods 2), Toronto - Buffalo -
London.
––––– 1997, “The God Aššur in Babylonia”, 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, 55-64.

Tim Clayden – Bernhard Schneider
380
––––– 1999, “My Neighbour’s God: Aššur in Babylonia and Marduk in Assyria”, Bulletin of the
Canadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies 34, 5-22.
Frame G. – Grayson K. 1994, “An Inscription of Ashurbanipal Mentioning the kidinnu of Sippar”,
State Archive of Assyria Bulletin 8, 3-12.
George A.R. 1992, Babylonian Topographical Texts (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 40), Leuven.
––––– 1993, House Most High. The Temples of Ancient Mesopotamia, Winona Lake.
––––– 2009, Babylonian Literary Texts in the Schøyen Collection (Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and
Sumerology 10), Bethesda.
Gerardi P. 1986, “A New Assurbanipal Brick Inscription from Nippur”, Annual Review of the Royal
Inscriptions of Mesopotamia 4, 37-38.
––––– 1989, “Assurbanipal and the Building of the Egigunû”, in H.D. Loding – M.T. Roth (eds.),
DUMU-E2-DUB-BA-A. Studies in honor of Åke W. Sjöberg (Occasional Publications of the Samuel
Noah Kramer Fund 2), Philadelphia, 207-215.
Gibson M. 1992, “Patterns of Occupation at Nippur”, in M. deJong Ellis (ed.), Nippur at the
Centennial. Papers Read at the 35e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Philadelphia, 1988
(Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund 14), Philadelphia, 33-54.
Gibson M. – Hansen D. – Zettler R.L. 1998-2001, “Nippur. B”, Reallexikon der Assyriologie 9, 546-
565.
Gibson M. – Zettler R. – Armstrong J.A. 1983, “The Southern Corner of Nippur: Excavations
During the 14th and 15th Seasons”, Sumer 39, 170-190.
Hall H.R.H. 1930, A Season’s Work at Ur, Al-‘Ubaid, Abu Shahrain (Eridu), and Elsewhere Being an
Unofficial Account of the British Museum Archaeological Mission to Babylonia, 1919, London.
Hilprecht H.V. 1893, Old Babylonian Inscriptions, Chiefly from Nippur (Transactions of the American
Philosophical Society, N.S. 18/1), Philadelphia.
James P. – van der Sluijs A. 2008, “Ziggurats, Colors, and Planets: Rawlinson Revisited”, Journal of
Cuneiform Studies 60, 57-79.
Keall E.J. 1970, The significance of Late Parthian Nippur, PhD. Diss., University of Michigan.
Kirk S. 2011, “Results of Axe Material Analysis”, Zeitschrift für Orient-Archäologie 4, 112-113.
Klein J. 1998-2001, “Nippur. A.I” Reallexikon der Assyriologie 9, 532-539.
Knudstad J. 1968, “A Preliminary Report on the 1966-67 Excavations at Nippur”, Sumer 24, 95-
106.
Köcher F. 1959, “Ein spätbabylonischer Hymnus auf den temple Ezida in Borsippa”, Zeitschrift für
Assyriologie und vorderasiatische Archäologie 53, 236-240.
Kuklick B. 1996, Puritans in Babylon. The Ancient Near East and American Intellectual Life 1880-1930,
Princeton.
Lambert W.G. 1980-1983, “Kulla”, Reallexikon der Assyriologie 6, 305.
Legrain L.L. 1926, Royal Inscriptions and Fragments from Nippur and Babylon (Publications of the Babylonian
Section 15), Philadelphia.
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.
van Lerberghe K. – Voet G. 2009, A Late Old Babylonian Temple Archive from Dūr-Abiešu~ (Cornell
University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology 8), Bethesda.
Luckenbill D.D. 1927, Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia, 2 Vols., Chicago.
May N.N. 2013, “‘I Read the Inscriptions from the Flood ...’ Neo-Sumerian Influence in
Ashurbanipal’s Royal Image”, in L. Feliu – J. Llop – A. Millet Albà – J. Sanmartin (eds),

Assurbanipal and the Ziggurat at Nippur 381
Time and History in the Ancient Near East. Proceedings of the 56th Rencontre Assyriologique
Internationale at Barcelone, 26-30 July 2010, Winona Lake, 195-206.
McCown D.E. – Haines R.C. – Hansen D.P. 1967, Nippur I. Temple of Enlil, Scribal Quarter, and
Soundings (Oriental Institute Publications 78), Chicago.
Michalowski P. 2014, “Biography of a Sentence: Assurbanipal, Nabonidus and Cyrus”, in M.
Kozuh (ed.), Extraction and Control. Studies in Honor of Mathew W. Stolper (Studies in Ancient
Oriental Civilization 68), Chicago, 203-210.
Moorey P.R.S. 1994, Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industries. The Archaeological Evidence, Oxford.
Myer C.F. 1992, “Joseph Andrew Meyer, JR. Architect at Niffer”, in M. deJong Ellis (ed.), Nippur
at the Centennial. Papers Read at the 35e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Philadelphia, 1988
(Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund 14), Philadelphia, 137-149.
Nadali, D. 2006, “Esarhaddon’s Glazed Bricks from Nimrud: The Egyptian Campaign Depicted”,
Iraq 68, 109-119.
––––– 2008, “Assyrian High-Relief Bricks from Nineveh and the Fragments of a Royal Name”,
Iraq 70, 87-104.
Novotny J.R. 2003, Ehulhul, Egipar, Emalama, and Sin’s Akitu-house: A Study of Assyrian Building
Activities at Harran, PhD. Diss., University of Toronto.
––––– 2014, Selected Royal Inscriptions of Assurbanipal. L3, L4, LET, Prism I, Prism T, and Related Texts
(State Archives of Assyria, Cuneiform Texts 10), Helsinki.
Nunn A. 1988, Die Wandmalerei und der Glasierte Wandschmuck im Alten Oreint, Leiden.
Oelsner J. 1980, “Der schriftliche Nachlaß H. V. Hilprechts in der Hilprecht-Sammlung
Vorderasiatischer Altertümer der Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena”, Beiträge zur
Ethnholinguistik: Gedenkschrift zum 100. Geburtstag von Ferdinand Hestermann, Wissenschaftliche
Beiträge der Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena, Jena, 112-123.
Oppenheim A.L. 1970, “Glasses in Mespotamian Sources”, in A.L. Oppenheim – R.H. Brill –
D.P. Barag _ A. Von Saldern (eds.), Glass and Glass Making in Ancient Mesopotamia,
Corning, 9-101.
––––– 1973, “More Fragments with Instructions for Glassmaking”, Journal of Near Eastern Studies
32, 188-193.
Parpola S. 1970, Letters from Assyrian Scholars to the Kings Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal. Part I: Texts
(Alter Orient und Altes Testament 5/1), Neukirchen-Vluyn.
––––– 1983, Letters from Assyrian Scholars to the Kings Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal. Part II: Commentary
and Appendices (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 5/2), Neukirchen-Vluyn.
––––– 1993, Letters from Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars (State Archives of Assyria 10), Helsinki.
Peters J.P. 1897, Nippur or Explorations and Adventures on the Euphrates. The Narrative of the University of
Pennsylvania Expedition to Babylonia in the Years 1888-1890, New York - London.
Reade W. – Freestone I.C. – Simpson S. 2005, “Innovation or Continuity? Early First Millennium
BCE Glass in the Near East: The Cobalt Blue Glasses from Assyrian Nimrud”, Annales du
16e Congres de l’Asssociation Internationale pour l’Histoire du Verre, 23-27.
Reynolds F. 2003, The Babylonian Correspondence of Esarhaddon (State Archives of Assyria 18), Helsinki.
Sauvage M. 1994, “Note sur les briques émaillées d’ARM XIII 139”, Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et
Utilitaires 1994/40.
Schneider B. 2010, Die Baukörper der Ziqqurrat von Nippur im 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr., Beitrag zur
Archäologie des É.KUR in Nippur, Leopold-Franzens Universitäat Innsbruck, Diplomarbeit

Tim Clayden – Bernhard Schneider
382
zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades einses Magister philosophiae an der Philosophisch
Historischen Fakultät.
––––– forthcoming, “Some Remarks on the Archaeology of the Ekur of Nippur during Post-
Kassite Times”, in Proceedings of the Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale 60, Warsaw 2014.
Spar I. – Jursa M. 2014, The Ebabbar Temple Archive and Other Texts from the Fourth to the First
Millennium BC (Cuneiform Texts in the Metropolitan Museum of Art 4), Winona Lake.
Stol M. 1998-2001, “Nippur. A.II.Altbabylonisch”, Reallexikon der Assyriologie 9, 539-544.
Streck M. 1916, Assurbanipal und die letzen assyrischen Könige bis zum Untergange Nineveh’s, II Teil: Texte,
Leipzig.
Streck M.P. 1998-2001, “Nippur. A.III. Seit der mittelbabylonischen Zeit”, Reallexikon der
Assyriologie 9, 544-546.
Tinney S. 1996, The Nippur Lament (Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund 16),
Philadelphia.
Tite M.S. – Shortland A.J. 2008, “Production of Glazed Pottery and Brickwork in the Near East”,
in M.S. Tite – A.J. Shortland (eds.), Production Technology of Faience and Related Early Vitreous
Materials (Oxford University School of Archaeology 72), Oxford.
van Koppen F. 2013, “Abiešuh, Elam and Assurbanipal: New Evidence from Old Babylonian
Sippar”, in K. de Graef – J. Tavernier (eds.), Susa and Elam. Archaeological, Philological,
Historical and Geographical Perspectives. Proceedings of the International Congress Held at Ghent
University, December 14-17, 2009, Leiden - Boston, 377-397.
Walker C.B.F. 1981, Cuneiform Brick Inscriptions in The British Museum, The Ashmolean Museum, Oxford,
The City of Birmingham Museums and Art Gallery, The City of Bristol Museum and Art Gallery,
London.
––––– 1982, “Babylonian Chronicle 25: A Chronicle of the Kassite and Isin II Dynasties”, in G.
van Driel – T.J.H. Krispijn – M. Stol _ K.R. Veenhof (eds), zikir šumim. Assyriological Studies
Presented to F.R. Kraus on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday, Leiden, 398-417.
Waterman L. 1930, Royal correspondence of the Assyrian empire, Part II, Ann Arbor.
Woolley C.L. 1939, The Ziggurat and its Surroundings (Ur Excavations 5), Oxford.
Zadok R. 1978, “The Nippur Region During the Late Assyrian, Chaldean and Achaemenian
Periods Chiefly According to Written Sources”, Israel Oriental Studies 8, 266-332.
Zettler R.L. 1992, The Ur III Temple of Inanna at Nippur. The Operation and Organization of Urban
Religious Institutions in the Late Third Millennium BC (Berliner Beiträge zum Vorderen Orient 11),
Berlin.