Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T02:15:19.490Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Kurba’il Statue of Shalmaneser III

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 August 2014

J. V. Kinnier Wilson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The discovery of an inscribed statue of Shalmaneser III at Nimrud during the 1961 season of excavations by the British School of Archaeology in Iraq was reported in the last issue of this journal. It is the purpose of the study which follows to present the text of the inscription, together with a translation, some discussion of setting and content and notes on deserving passages.

As was stated in the first report, the statue, a fraction over one metre in height and diagonally broken at its left lower corner, was found leaning against the North wall of the storeroom NE 50, situated in the North-East courtyard of Fort Shalmaneser. The exact position is shown on the accompanying detail from the 1961 plan, given in Fig. 1. The statue ‘had apparently been brought in to Fort Shalmaneser for repair, since we found dowel holes bored in the opposed faces of the fracture. It seems unlikely that an object of such importance would have been broken in normal circumstances, and the damage may have been the work of the invaders in 614 B.C.’ One may perhaps admit the possibility of another explanation (see below), but it is worth recalling that the fragmentary condition of the Shalmaneser statue found at Nimrud in 1956 has also been plausibly attributed to an act of Median violence.

Type
Research Article
Information
IRAQ , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , Autumn 1962 , pp. 90 - 115
Copyright
Copyright © The British Institute for the Study of Iraq 1962

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Oates, D., ‘The excavations at Nimrud (Kalhu), 1961’, Iraq XXIV, Pt. 1, pp. 16–17 and Pl. VIIIGoogle Scholar.

2 Oates, ibid.

3 Laessøe, J., Iraq XXI, Pt. 2, p. 147Google Scholar.

4 Cf. Iraq XXIV, Pt. 1, p. 16Google Scholar.

5 I understand that this second definition is not at variance with the first but belongs to a different category of nomenclature.

6 Cf. Thureau-Dangin, F., R. A. 17, p. 30Google Scholar; Thompson, R. Campbell, D.A.C.G., pp. 146ff.Google Scholar; C.A.D.G., pp. 104–6Google Scholar.

7 See R.A. 14, p. 91Google Scholar.

8 For the latest discussion of gaṣṣu see Salonen, A., Türen, pp. 114–5Google Scholar.

9 For further particulars concerning the necklace cf. again the first report.

10 Reproduced by permission of the Syndics of the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge.

11 See Billerbeck, A. and Delitzsch, F., B.A. VI, p. 144 24ffGoogle Scholar.

12 See Cameron, G., Sumer VI, 17, p. 26Google Scholar; Michel, E., W.O. I, p. 472, 26Google Scholar.

13 See Safar, Fuad, Sumer VII, p. 18Google Scholar; Michel, E., W.O. II, p. 40Google Scholar. The symbols ‘842’ and ‘839’ are here used to distinguish conveniently the edition of the Assur annals written in Shalmaneser's seventeenth year (so according to the colophon; the edition treats of years 1–16), and that which includes details of the king's reign up to and including the twentieth year (and which is dated according to the colophon in that year). On the use of these dates see Hallo, W., The Biblical Archaeologist, XXIII, p. 38Google Scholar, together with the chronological note on p. 40. It need hardly be mentioned that by, for instance, ‘839’ the year 839–838 is meant.

14 ḪÉ.NUN

15 SÈG

16 NIM.GÍR

17 KA

18 TI.LA

19 MAN

20 The signs have not been transcribed since šakkanakku is only one of several closely related forms (these have been brought together by Borger, , Einleitung in die assyrischen Königsinschriften, p. 39Google Scholar), and it is difficult to be quite certain what would be appropriate for a Shalmaneser text.

21 SILIM-mu

22 On the reading of Kur before Labnani as māt rather than šad, see Lewy, J., Or. N.S. 21, p. 398, note 2Google Scholar.

23 A.RAD

24 ZALAG

25 GIŠ.BAR

26 Imēri-šú

27 ERIM.ḪI.A.MEŠ

28 GÍBIL-up); and so read in Iraq XXI, Pt. 2, p. 156Google Scholar, line 18 (deleting note 8), rather than dš-[ru-up].

29 SAG

30 GIŠ.ÙR.MEŠ

31 GAZ.MEŠ

32 TI or TÌL

33 Sic. The signs are something of a forma mixta since either GÍD by itself (as in line 39), or a-rak, but not what is written (unless, as seems rather unlikely, GÍD has a conditioned value rakx) would serve to express the sense required.

34 PAB. On the reading cf. end note.

35 ZÁḪ

36 KÚR.MEŠ

37 Clear on the stone, but the word is not easy to defend syntactically. Cf. end note.

38 GÍD

39 ZI; suggested reading.

40 The sign is ZU which does not appear to be satisfactory in the context. The reading given is that appropriate to *SU which involves only a very slight correction.

41 On this difficult line cf. the discussion in the end note.

42 Or, ‘a conflagration”.

43 The translation is not altogether certain.

44 Text, ‘twentieth’.

45 Reconstructed.

46 See now Goetze's, article, ‘Cilicians’, in J.C.S. XVI, p. 48ffGoogle Scholar.

47 The Art of the Ancient Near East, No. 155 and p. 195.

48 Now reproduced in many easily accessible publications.

49 See Oates, D., Iraq, XXI, Pt. 2, pl. XXIXGoogle Scholar.

50 Cf., for example, C. J. Gadd, The Stones of Assyria, pls. 38, 41 and 42.

51 Iraq, XXIII, Pt. 1, p. 31Google Scholar.

52 Iraq, XXIV, Pt. 1, p. 16, note 26Google Scholar.

53 M.A.O.G., 1/3, § 3, ‘Die Kultorte’.

54 Cf. Wiseman, D. J., Iraq XIV, Pt. 1, p. 30Google Scholar.

55 Schlobies is probably mistaken in thinking that the temple dedicated to Adad ša zunni (H.A.B.L. 578) was at Nimrud.

56 Cf. particularly W. Andrae, ‘Der Anu-Adad-Tempel in Assur’.

57 Cf. Frankena, R., Tākultu, 121Google Scholar.

58 Enūma eliš I, 79Google Scholar.

59 Wiseman, D. J., Iraq XIII, Pt. 2, p. 117 and pl. XVIGoogle Scholar.

60 Cf. Forrer, E., Provinzeinteilung des assyrischen Reiches, p. 36Google Scholar, and notes 51 and 52 above.

61 In fact this may not be right since, in the astronomical omina, both Schott, A., Z.A. 44, p. 293f.Google Scholar, and Weidner, E. F., A.f.O. 14, p. 313Google Scholar, n. 133a, agree that the āmiru is “ein zufälliger Beschauer”. One may thus have to consider some other way of reading the ‘IGI’ concerned.

62 rabûti is almost untranslatable, since it would seem to apply to both the officers first mentioned and also to the cities.

63 35 kmo North of Aleppo, cf. Williams, V. Seton, ‘Preliminary report on the excavations at Tell Rifa‘at’, Iraq, XXIII, Pt. 1, p. 68ffGoogle Scholar.

64 ND.496 (Iraq XIII, Pt. 2, p. 117Google Scholar); H.A.B.L. 413, Rev. 8.

65 Cf. R.C.A.E. 413.

66 Cf. ND.3469 (Iraq XV, Pt. 2, p. 146Google Scholar).

67 Cf. R.C.A.E. 123 with Oates, D., Iraq XXIV, Pt. 1, p. 17, n. 26Google Scholar.

68 Cf. L.A.R. I, § 715Google Scholar.

69 See above, page 90.

70 Rendic. Lincei, Ser. VI, vol. VIII, pp. 574–86Google Scholar.

71 An. Or. 23, p. 68Google Scholar.

72 Cf. originally Thureau-Dangin, F., Huitième campagne, p. 59Google Scholar, note 9, and subsequently many places elsewhere.

73 Z.A. IV, p. 230Google Scholar, 7, and cf. for the second word Gadd, C. J., Ideas of Divine Rule, p. 93Google Scholar.

74 See Frankenau, R., Tākultu, 97Google Scholar.

75 Cf. Frankena, ibid. The kippat matāti of Z.A. IV 7, p. 20 is either a variant or perhaps is plural, combining more than one of the earth planes.

76 See Craig, J. A., A.B.R.T. II 13, 7Google Scholar.

77 Variant kip-pat, which I should in fact prefer, seeing it as a ‘desonant’ form (of. Z.A. N.F. 20, p. 74ff).

78 Laessøe, J., Iraq XXI, Pt. 1, p. 38, lines 3–4Google Scholar.

79 Hulin informs me that door-sill inscriptions found at Fort Shalmaneser in 1962 also carry the same formula and in this form.

80 Z.A. XIII, p. 69Google Scholar.

81 That the tâmdu ša matNairi was Lake Van has heen accepted, following Streck, by Thureau-Dangin, F., Huitième campagne, p. xGoogle Scholar; Billerbeck, A., B.A. VI, p. 141Google Scholar; Lehmann-Haupt, C. F., Armenien Einst und Jetzt, II.2, p. 595, etc.Google Scholar; Forrer, E., Provinzeinteilung, p. 23Google Scholar; Smith, Sidney, C.A.H. III, p. 10 and 20Google Scholar; Borger, R., Einleitung, 118Google Scholar, et al. On a recent school of opinion which would allow the Sea of Nairi to be also Lake Urmia, see below under Gilzānu and note 135.

82 Lucullus, xxxi, 4Google Scholar.

83 Milhridatic Wars, xii.

84 Cf. Tozer, H. F., ‘History of Ancient Geography’, 2nd edit. (1935), 219Google Scholar, and the reference cited.

85 Natural History, VI, xxxi, 128Google Scholar.

86 Clearly relevant because of the matenzite ša matišua of the Kurkh Monolith, ii, 42.

87 Cf. Streck, M., Z.A. XII, 91–94Google Scholar; Lehmann-Haupt, C. F., Armenien, I, 444Google Scholar; Melikishvili, G. A., Nairi-Urartu, 53Google Scholar.

88 Beiträge zur alten Geographie und Geschichte Vorderasiens, 71–92.

89 Indogermanische Forschungen, XVI (1904)Google Scholar.

90 A bad form, doubtless secondary.

91 See now Melikishvili, G. A., Urartskiye klino-obrazniye nadpisi (1960), p. 434Google Scholar.

92 Cf. Garstang, J. and Gurney, O. R., The Geography of the Hittite Empire, pp. 34–5Google Scholar and the reference cited (and cf. also p. 46).

93 Most recently discussed Williams, V. Seton, Iraq XXIII, Pt. 1, pp. 72–3Google Scholar. The context suggests that, in pronunciation, mlz was probably given a final vowel, thus Melize (Melide) or the like.

94 Cf. C. F. Lehmann-Haupt, Materialien, No. 6; Armenien, II.1, p. 115Google Scholar.

95 Cf. Ebeling, E., R.L.A. II, p. 101, and referencesGoogle Scholar.

96 Book IV, iv, 18; vi, 5; vii, 1–2.

97 Melikishvili, G. A., Nairi-Urartit, 58f. and 111Google Scholar. Cf. also Forrer, E., R.L.A. I, p. 283Google Scholar.

98 See Forrer, E., R.L.A. I, p. 283Google Scholar.

99 Col. i, 44ff., see Budge, E. A. W. and King, L. W., A.K.A. I, p. 269ff.Google Scholar; L.A.R. I § 440Google Scholar.

100 Cf. Michel, E., W.O. I, p. 65, note 2, and references citedGoogle Scholar.

101 Nairi-Urartu, 15, note 1.

102 The Balawat Gates inscription might have provided a fourth if the text had not been broken away at quite the most vital point. On whether or not Tumme should be restored in this position cf. the cautious statement of Michel, E., W.O. II 412n. bbGoogle Scholar). It may be added that the order ‘Tumme-Dayâni’ as on our statue is not to be preferred to the order ‘Dayaeni-Tumme’ of the other two sources.

103 On the principle that Tiglathpileser I would not leave Siegesinschriften in inappropriate places.

104 Such are the geographical problems of this campaign that no apology need be offered that the suggestion made is not further defended here. All that may be said is that recent research has left the old idea that the ‘Upper Sea’ of this campaign was the Mediterranean (last defended perhaps by O'Callaghan, , Aram Naharaim, p. 109, note 1Google Scholar) a long way behind. For Melikishvili's opinion here see Nairi-Urartu, p. 407ff., and indeed from particularly such a phrase as iš-tu mattum 4me a-di matda-ia-e-ni u tâmdi e-le-ni-te (Budge, E. A. W. and King, L. W., A.K.A. I, p. 117f.Google Scholar, line 8) I am myself quite ready to believe that the ‘Upper Sea’ was Tiglathpileser's idea of the Black Sea, although it is questionable whether he ever set eyes on it.

105 Cf. Diakonoff, I. M., ‘Assiro-babilonskiye istochniki po istorii Urartu’, Vestnik drevney istorii, 1951, No. 10, note 42Google Scholar; Melikishvili, G. A., Nairi-Urartu, p. 151Google Scholar.

106 ‘Urartian fortresses and towns in the Van region’, A.S. VII, p. 39Google Scholar.

107 Vanskoye tsarstvo, p. 56.

108 Histoire d'Arménie, p. 108.

109 Nairi-Urartu, p. 30.

110 Op. cit. p. 30 and note 6.

111 Thureau-Dangin, F., Huitième campagne, p. viiiGoogle Scholar, accepted by Wright, E., J.N.E.S. II, p. 186Google Scholar.

112 See F. Thureau-Dangin, op. cit., ix and end map; cf. Burney, C. F., A.S. VII, p. 38 and n. 5Google Scholar; Lehmann-Haupt, C. F., Armenien, II.1, p. 319Google Scholar.

113 Van Kale. The only explanation of the difference in writing between the Urartian Tušpâ (Ṭu-uš-pa-a) and Ass. Turušpâ (Ṭu-ru-uš-pa-a) that appeals to me is that the city name was originally Turšpâ or Tupâ which on the one hand the Urarṭians could not write having a borrowed script, and which on the other hand the Assyrians could not write (although they attempted a more accurate spelling) not having an alphabetic script. I thus hereafter write Turšpâ. In view of the Thospites (=Lake Van) of Pliny (Natural History, 6. 128Google Scholar), the Thospitis of Ptolemy (5. 13. 7), the Tho<s>pitis of Strabo (Geography, 11. 14. 8Google Scholar), and the Tosp, Dosp, of Armenian writers, the chances in fact are that the original pronunciation was Toršpâ.

114 About 2½ miles East of Van Kale. Cf. partiallarly the opening chapters of Lehmann-Haupt, C. F., Armenien, II.1Google Scholar, and Barnett, R. D., Iraq XII, Pt. 1, pp. 1–43, and XVI, Pt. 1, pp. 3–22Google Scholar.

115 A.S. XI (1961), pp. 143–158Google Scholar.

116 For the Akkadian text see W. G. Lambert, op. cit., p. 152.

117 The reading *uš may, however, be considered an improvement over ‘ni is’ since it really only involves a scribal misunderstanding regarding the slope of two wedges and the resulting name is then not far away from the normalised Arz/ṣaškun of other sources.

118 Line 57. It appears, however, to be out of position and is expected after line 53.

119 Cf. the poetic version, A.S. XI, p. 150, line 41Google Scholar.

120 Z.A. XIV, p. 148Google Scholar.

121 Diakonoff, I. M., ‘Assiro-babilonskiye istochniki po istorii Urartu’, Vestnik drevney istorii, 1951, No. 28, note 15Google Scholar; Melikishvili, G. A., Nairi-Urartu, p. 31Google Scholar; Piotrovsky, B., Vanskoye tsarstvo, p. 54f.Google Scholar; cf. Lambert, W. G., A.S. XI, p. 155fGoogle Scholar. and my note 135, below.

122 B.A. VI, p. 43fGoogle Scholar.

123 Huitième campagne, p. xi and n. 4.

124 Armenien II.1, p. 319ffGoogle Scholar. The identification stated is given on page 321. For other authorities who have objected to the Bitlis route see Rigg, A., J.A.O.S. 62, p. 136Google Scholar, note 49, although his own arguments are far from clear.

125 Sefarad VI (1946), p. 341, note 31Google Scholar.

126 B.A. VI, p. 43Google Scholar.

127 In his Anmerkungen, p. 8*, Lehmann-Haupt, draws attention to the fact that already in Z.A. XIV, p. 133Google Scholar, Streck had given notice of this association.

128 On this identification for Muṣaṣir see Lehmann-Haupt, , ‘Muṣaṣir und der achte Feldzug Sargons II’, M.V.A.G. 21 (1916), pp. 119–151Google Scholar; Armenien II.1, p. 299ffGoogle Scholar. and photograph, p. 300.

128a On the location of Zamua (Sulaimaniyah area) see basically Speiser, E. A., A.A.S.O.R. VIII, pp. 1–41Google Scholar.

129 On the association of these names cf. Melikishvili, , Nairi-Urartu, 33Google Scholar; for that last given see, in context, Tseretheli, de, R.A. XLVIII, p. 67ffGoogle Scholar.

130 For a proposal to identify Uišini (by itself) with Ushnū see already Lehmann-Haupt, C. F., Armenien, II.1, p. 341Google Scholar.

131 Ushnū is mentioned by early Arab geographers and from notices found in Syriac texts has a history dating at least from the 7th century, cf. SirStein, Aurel, Old Roules of Western Iran, p. 364fGoogle Scholar. and the reference cited.

132 Cf. also Wright, E., J.N.E.S. II, p. 178, end of note 26Google Scholar.

133 The main associated problem is the correct placing of the three rivers Alluria, Qallania and Innāya (Eighth Campaign, line 297). Lehmann-Haupt's, reconstruction, Armenien, II.1, p. 321Google Scholar, may be followed with the aid of his end map (Vol. II.2) but seems to me to be here at its weakest. The Uaiais = Ushnū theory would need to suggest that the three rivers were respectively the Zolā, Nāzlā and Bardasār which discharge into the West of Lake Urmia from the region of the present frontier mountains. It may be added that, although the new theory hangs at present by slender threads, it does make the ‘lower boundary of Urarṭu’ (alÚ-a-ia-is … še-pit mi-iṣ-ri matUr-ar-ṭi, line 298) truly lower than the ‘upper boundary’ (alUš-qa-ia … ri-eš mi-iṣ-ri ša matUr-ar-ṭi, line 167) which Col. Wright convincingly identifies with the modern Uski (J.N.E.S. II, p. 183Google Scholar with note 50, cf. map, p. 176). On Lehmann-Haupt's Bajkale theory the lower boundary would lie in fact slightly North of the upper boundary (if Ušqaya = Uski is correct). Since also the Gādir river connects Ushnū with the Kelashin pass which Muṣaṣir (Topzāwa) commands it would be possible to visualise an Urarṭian defensive line along this valley (cf. Eighth Campaign, line 304, for the names of five associated strong points), and it is arguable that, from the military point of view, Muṣaṣir would have been very vulnerable in so southerly a position without a defensive system of this kind.

134 Lambert, W. G., A.S. XI, p. 152, 55Google Scholar.

135 Of many interrelated problems the most obvious one is undoubtedly that of correctly identifying the ‘Sea of Nairi’ in Shalmaneser's time since, in both his accession year and his third year, the king went down to Gilzānu after purifying his weapons in this ‘Sea’. The situation at the moment is that some scholars give their allegiance to the contention that the Sea of Nairi is Lake Van (cf. note 81) and others to the belief that it is, or may be, Lake Urmia (cf. note 121). In Tiglathpileser I's time I would not doubt that the Sea of Nairi was Lake Van. But already at the beginning of the reign of Shalmaneser III Nairi has become the name also of a newly appearing kingdom ruled by Kāki(a) from his capital Hubuškia perhaps South-West of Lake Urmia, so it is no longer so obvious that the Sea of Nairi still means Lake Van, or means so exclusively. The situation would thus seem to call for an open-minded approach to the subject.

135a Following Melikishvili, G. A., Nairi-Urartu, p. 41Google Scholar. Saggs, H. W. F., Iraq XX, Pt. 2, p. 195Google Scholar, note to line 18, understands Manaš differently. Since it carries the ‘city’ determinative one could also think that alManaš was another way of representing the capital city (I)zirtu (cf. line 165).

136 Cf. especially Rawlinson, H., J.R.G.S. X, p. 12Google Scholar; Lehmann-Haupt, C. F., Armenien, I, pp. 219–20Google Scholar; Wright, E., J.N.E.S. II, p. 179Google Scholar; Melikishvili, G. A., ‘Voprosi istorii Maneyskogo tsarstva’, Vestnik drevney istorii, 1949, No. 1, p. 57ff.Google Scholar; Nairi-Urartu, p. 43f.

137 Eighth Campaign, line 51.

138 B.S.O.A.S. XIX (1957), pp. 78–9Google Scholar, a reference I owe to Dr. Ilya Gershevitch.

139 Cf. Cameron, G., History of Early Iran, p. 142Google Scholar.

140 Minorsky's, spelling, B.S.O.A.S., XIX, p. 62Google Scholar.

141 So Wright, E., J.N.E.S. II, p. 178Google Scholar, n. 25, a conclusion reached with only an approximate idea of where Parsua lay.

142 J.A.O.S. 45, pp. 215–7Google Scholar.

143 J.A.O.S. 59, p. 107fGoogle Scholar.

144 A.f.O. XVI, p. 14Google Scholar.

145 B. Arch. XXIII, p. 34ffGoogle Scholar.