Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 August 2014
BM 91452 is a piece of an inscribed lapis lazuli mace head. It is about 7 cm high; approximately two-thirds of the circumference is missing so that the beginnings and ends of the seven inscribed lines are not preserved. The inscription has never been copied or fully edited and I am grateful to the Trustees of the British Museum for permission to do so. The object comes from Nimrud and the inscription is probably to be assigned to Aššurnaṣirpal II.
The mace head is of special interest because its ancient name actually appears in the inscription. This is the word NA4ḫal-tap-pa in line 6. An instrument called ḫaltappû/ḫultuppû, associated with the god Ea, is known in connection with the exorcist (āšipu) and the casting out of evil demons. The present inscription now identifies the instrument, which had previously been called a “whipping rod0, as a mace head. The fact that ḫaltappaû/ḫultuppû is commonly preceded by the determinative for wood (GIŠ) whereas in this text it is preceded by the determinative for stone (NA4) presents no difficulty, GIŠ could refer to the wooden shaft while NA4 could refer to the stone head; or, under varying circumstances of time and place, there may have been completely wooden ḫaltappû/ḫulluppû. In any event, this lapis lazuli mace head is part of a cult object connected with exorcism and associated with Ea; the association with Ea being supported by the divine epithets preserved at the beginning of the text (the divine name is missing in the lacuna).
1 Both this and the following text are in the British Museum and I wish to thank the staff of the Department of Western Asiatic Antiquities, particularly Messrs. Barnett, Sollberger, and Walker, for their generous co-operation.
2 The transliteration and translation published by Cocquerillat in RA 46 (1952), 131, n. 2 are not reliableGoogle Scholar. The text is mentioned in BM Guide3 (1922), 195; and cf. Luckenbill, D. D., ARAB I, §204Google Scholar.
3 For references see CAD, ḫ, 53a and 231; and AHw, 354b.
4 The object has been mounted on a base with a label ascribing it to Shalmaneser III. But Luckenbill, op. cit., included it with the inscriptions of Tukulti-Ninurta I. Cocquerillat, op. cit., ascribed it to Tukulti-Ninurta II. Borger, , EAK I, 71Google Scholar (and cf. HKL I, 62)Google Scholar, has also suggested it may be a text of Tukulti-Ninurta II.
5 I am grateful to C. B. F. Walker for verification of this information.
6 See CAD, K, 587b; to which add Postgate, J. N., Sumer 26 (1970), 135: 6 (Shalmaneser III)Google Scholar.
7 The name could have been written in a variety of ways but if we assume it took five signs plus three signs for the same title as Tukulti-Ninurta plus one sign for “son of”, this equals nine and leaves approximately six signs. These could easily be accounted for by further divine epithets at the end of line two or extra royal epithets after ASsurnasirpal's name. In theory they could also be accounted for by the name Shalmaneser, titles, and “son of”; but the close parallelism between “Annals B” of ASSurnasirpal II and our text argues against this.
8 Inscriptions of kings after Tukulti-Ninurta II have less correspondence with this fragment than the texts listed here.
9 See KAH II, 84: 125Google Scholar; and cf. Borger, , EAK I, 137Google Scholar.
10 Cf. AKA, 139 iv 6.
