Conclusions

Ultimately, the Nebuchadnezzar tradition was of greater value to the Assyrians and their supporters in Babylonia as they tried to convince the Babylonians of their legitimacy. By placing Samas-suma-ukin on the Babylonian throne, Esarhaddon was following the same strategy employed by Sennacherib when he installed Assur-nadin-sumi as king of Babylon.

The recognition that scribes composed and manipulated texts, particularly historical-literary compositions, to engage in a discourse that served their interests and the interests of the ruling elite has strongly influenced textual criticism within the field of Assyriology and cannot be denied. This devel­opment was a necessary corrective to an earlier tendency by Assyriologists to attach a high degree of credibility to texts and to assume that a ‘historical kernel’ of the past was preserved in their contents. Texts purporting to describe events that took place centuries earlier must be approached with critical care and are first and foremost sources about themselves and the age in which they were composed or copied. By placing the literary traditions surrounding Nebuchadnezzar I in their proper seventh-century context, we gain another facet in our understanding of the discourse that surrounded and shaped Esarhaddon’s programme to rebuild Babylon and Assyrian efforts to bring Babylonia firmly within the empire.

But the potential power of this discourse was not limitless and scribes did not have unfettered license to invent the past.⁹¹ Anything may be possible in the poetics of politics,⁹² but not all possibilities inspired effective discourse. A primary factor that constrained scribal discourse was the presence of cultural memory within society. An appreciation of how cultural memory could be preserved within ancient societies should inform intertextual inter­pretations by modern scholars and prevent such approaches from devolving into free association. The concept of cultural memory reminds us that, even though the objective reality of the past can never be recovered, the subjective interpretation of past events by scribes in antiquity was not accomplished in the face of popular ignorance. Scribes attempting to propagate an ideology had to be responsible to the broader textual and non-textual traditions in which they operated. These traditions limited scribal invention but allowed room for manipulation.

The success of this discourse becomes apparent when we consider Samas- suma-ukin’s tenure on the Babylonian throne. Esarhaddons death while on campaign in Egypt was an opportune time for a Babylonian revolt against Assyrian rule, yet none occurred. This was due in large part to the pre-emptive measures Esarhaddon took in anticipation of any succession crisis that might follow his own death, but Samas-suma-ukins legitimacy as the designated heir to the Babylonian throne would have rested partially on the degree to which Esarhaddon reconciled Babylonia to Assyria and solved the enduring problem of how to incorporate Babylonia into the empire. There was never an attempt to equate Samas-suma-ukin with Nebuchadnezzar I, but the return of Marduk may have evoked Nebuchadnezzar I’s legacy and confirmed that Marduk bestowed legitimacy upon the king. Samas-suma-ukin benefited from this ideology during his reign. When the Babylonians did once again revolt against the Assyrians in 652, it was in support of Samas-suma-ukin as their king.

Notes

* All abbreviations herein are in accordance with the list of abbreviations found in the U-W volume of The Chicago Assyrian Dictionary (CAD), viii-xxix, which can be accessed online at http://oi.uchicago.edu/research/pubs/catalog/cad/

Adams (1981) contains a comprehensive analysis of survey data reflecting shifts in human settlement in response to the changing course of the Euphrates.

The most notable example of large-scale urban abandonment in Mesopotamia occurred in southern and central Babylonia in the seventeenth century bc, in conjunction with the decline and collapse of Hammurabi’s dynasty (Gasche 1989: 109-43).

Hammurabi, the sixth king of the first dynasty of Babylon, was responsible for the reunification of southern Mesopotamia. The years 1792 to 1750 have been assigned to his reign following the middle chronology (Brinkman 1977: 337). However, there is growing evidence that these dates need to be lowered and a reign from 1696 to 1654 has been proposed by Gasche, Armstrong, Cole and Gurzadyan (1998: 91). For comprehensive treatments of Hammurabi’s reign, see Charpin (2003) and Van De Mieroop (2005).

Postgate 1995: 395-411. Nabonidus’ efforts to correct the mistakes of previous kings while restoring the Ebabbar at Sippar exemplify the assiduous attention that Babylonian monarchs gave to the rebuilding of temples (Beaulieu 1989: 135-6).

George 2003: Tablet XI: 322-8.

Holloway 2002: 259-61. Black (1981: 39-40) offers an evocative description of the Mesopotamian concept of place and their perception of the antiquity of localities in the introduction to his discussion of the akitu festival at Babylon. Jonker 1995: 16-17.

Ibid., 68.

Ibid., 29.

Glassner (2004: 11-13) and Waerzeggers (2008: 1-38).

Van de Mieroop 1999: 9-38.

There are even rare examples of ancient forgeries. The Cruciform Monument of Manistusu represents a scribal forgery in which priests in the mid-first millennium forged a donation to the temple of Ebabbar in Sippar by the late third-millennium king, Manistusu (Sollberger 1968: 50-70; and al-Rawi and George 1994: 135-48). It is important to recognize that although the priests invented the donation, they did not invent the kings who had reigned almost two millennia earlier.

Mario Liverani (1973: 178-94) argued that cuneiform documents should be interpreted as sources for themselves that tell us more about the contemporary concerns of the author or copyist than they do about the past events described in the text.

Jacobsen 1939.

Steinkeller 2003: 267-92.

Michalowski (1983: 237-48) argued that scribes at Isin composed the Sumerian King List in order to assert the ideal of a single city exercising hegemony. This was done in order to justify Isin's claim to dominance over southern Mesopotamia after the collapse of the Ur III Empire. While Michalowski's assertion that the Sumerian King List was composed during the Isin-Larsa period was disproved by the discovery of an Ur III copy of the Sumerian King List published by Steinkeller (2003: 267-92), his observations about the ideological significance of the text to the Isin kings have been made no less insightful.

Liverani 1993: 41-67.

The question of literacy in Babylonian society remains open. According to Parpola (1997: 315-24), it may be that a greater proportion of the population was literate in the first millennium than might be assumed. But even if literacy was relatively common, it is doubtful that many Babylonians would have had access to specialized tablets that were the source of scholarly information about the past.

Jonker 1995: 35-7.

J. A. Brinkman (1977: 338) assigned the years 1125-1104 to Nebuchadnezzar I. Y. Bloch (2011) recently recalculated the reigns of the Babylonian kings from the thirteenth to the early eleventh centuries bc based on his re-evaluation of Middle Assyrian chronology and lowered the years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign to 1121-1100. Bloch's proposals deserve close examination, but absent such considerations, Brinkman's traditional dates are retained here.

Luckenbill 1924: 83: 45-84: 54 and 137: 36-40. In one account (83: 48), responsibility for the destruction of the Babylonian gods was deliberately transferred to Sennacherib's men (Brinkman 1973: 94-5), while in another it was Sennacherib who smashed the statues of the gods (OIP 2 137: 37). For a brief discussion of how Mesopotamians understood the relationship between a god or goddess and its cult statue, see Walker and Dick (2001: 6-8).

Grayson 1975: 127: 31-3 and 131: 1-4 = Glassner 2004: 208-9: 34-6 and 212-13: 1-4.

Parpola 1980: 175.

Holloway 2002: 273. The strategy was not an entirely novel one. Tiglath-pileser III and Esarhaddon's grandfather, Sargon II, had both had themselves crowned king of Babylon and had also presided over the akitu festival at Babylon. Tiglath- pileser III had himself crowned king of Babylonia and ruled the country for 18 years, residing in Babylon for two of those years according to Grayson 1975: 72 i 23-6 = Glassner 2004: 194-5. The Assyrian eponym lists note his participation in the akitu festival (Millard 1994: 45 and 59). The Babylonian Chronicle records that Sargon II did the same after driving Merodach-baladan II out of Babylonia (Grayson 1975: 75 ii 1' = Glassner 2004: 196-7).

Brinkman 1983: 81.

Frame 1992: 65.

Frame 1992: 70-2 and prior scholarship referenced in n. 32.

Radner 2003.

Luckenbill 1924: 137 l. 37.

Borger 1967: 12-15 §11 episodes 2-9.

Brinkman 1983.

Reynolds 2003: Nos 25-30.

Borger 1967: 83-4 §53 r. 35-8 and 88-9 §57 r. 11-24. Building inscriptions from Babylon commemorate Esarhaddon's work in Babylon for Marduk (Frame 1995: 6.31.1-9). Inscriptions from Nippur and Uruk include the claim that Marduk had become reconciled with Babylon and had taken up residence in Esagil during Esarhaddon's reign (Frame 1995: 6.31.11: 9; 6.31.12: 17; and 6.31.15: 18-20).

Livingstone 1989: 33.

Grayson 1975: 86 iii 30-2 = Glassner 2004: 198-9 iii 30-2.

Frame 1992: 93-7, 102.

Grayson 1975: 131: 5-8 = Glassner 2004: 212-14: 5-8.

For Samas-suma-ukin, see Frame (1995: 6.33.1, 3-4 and 6). For Ashurbanipal, see Frame (1995: 6.32.1-14 and 19).

Frame 1995: 6.32.2: 36-40, 6: 7-10, and 14: 23-7. All indications that the Marduk statue had been destroyed and therefore was not the original disappear from Ashurbanipal's inscriptions. Ashurbanipal was advancing a concept formulated by his predecessors that Marduk was the son of Assur according to Frame (1992: 56-7 and 2008: 29).

Luuko and Van Buylaere (2002: No. 21). For discussion of this letter, see Parpola (1972).

Starr (1990: Nos 262-5) and Parpola (1993: No. 24). Parpola (1983: 32-5) dates the letter to 669, reasoning that the temple precinct at Babylon was still undergoing construction in 670.

Frame 1995: 104 and n. 8.

The scribal elite in the first millennium could look back on a long past to find precedents, inspired by an antiquarian interests and a nascent sense of chronological eras (Beaulieu 1994: 37-42). The utilization of antiquities was not limited to inscriptions. Woods (2004: 23-103) has demonstrated that the creators of BBSt 36, itself a composition in which the scribe appeals to past precedents in order to make a case for royal support, adopted archaic iconography found on cylinder seals for the relief featured at the top of the tablet.

Hunger 1992: No. 158.

The omen apodosis in LBAT 1526 r. 1-3 also appears to reference the abduction of the gods of Babylon and Marduk's subsequent return by Nebuchadnezzar (Brinkman 1968: 108n. 585).

For a summary of Nebuchadnezzar I's reign, see Brinkman (1968: 104-16) and RLA 9 192-4.

King 1912: No. 6 and No. 24.

King 1912: No. 24: 11-12.

The Sitti-Marduk kudurru, commissioned by Nebuchadnezzar I, records that the battle with the Elamites was fought on the banks of the Ulaia River (King 1912: No. 6 i 28). A later literary-historical text purporting to be a letter from the victorious Nebuchadnezzar to the Babylonians also places the engagement at the Ulaia River (Frame 1995: 2.4.7).

Lambert 1964.

Frame (1995: 2.4.8) and Foster (2005: 376-80).

Frame (1995: 2.4.6) and Foster (2005: 381-3).

Frame (1995: 2.4.5) and Foster (2005: 385).

For a discussion of Babylonian tablets in the library, see Fincke (2003-4: 111-49).

Fincke 2003-4: 122.

Fincke 2003-4: 115-18.

Nabu-musesi is assigned to the court at Nineveh in Hunger (1992: xxi) and Baker (2001: 847 No. 6) based on his appended statement in a report in Hunger (1992: No. 157 r. 1-9) that he would be coming to Nineveh to serve the king. Where he was arriving from is not known.

A complete edition of the text appears in Borger (1971) and a more recent translation can be found in Foster (2005: 388-91) as well as commentary in Foster (2007: 29).

61 According to the middle chronology, the sack of Babylon occurred in 1595 bc. It is becoming increasingly apparent that this date needs to be lowered, but even if we accept the ultra-low date of 1499 proposed in Gasche H., S. Cole,

J. Armstrong and V. G. Gurzadyan (1998), a span of over eight centuries still separates the sack of Babylon from the events of 668. The only textual evidence for a Hittite removal of Marduk from Babylon and a Babylonian return comes from first-millennium tablets: ‘The Marduk Prophecy' and ‘The Agum-Kakrime Inscription' (Brinkman 1976: 97). Like ‘The Marduk Prophecy', examples of ‘The Agum-Kakrime Inscription' are only to be found on tablets excavated at Kuyunjik (K 4149 + 4203 + 4348 + Sm 27) or likely excavated there (Rm. 505).

62 Grayson 1975: 175-6 iv 3-6 = Glassner 2004: 280-1 iv 3-6. Chronicle P, which describes Tukulti-Ninurta I's abduction of Marduk, was authored by

a Babylonian, and the fragment on which the text is preserved comes from a Late Babylonian tablet. Grayson (1975: 56) suggests with extreme reservation that Chronicle P was composed between the mid-twelfth and the early eighth centuries. Amelie Kuhrt (1995: 356) points out that there is no contemporary evidence that Tukulti-Ninurta I took the Marduk statue and points out the chronological inconsistencies between the purported date of the statue's return from Assyria and the Elamite theft, suggesting that the theft by Tukulti-Ninurta was a later Babylonian invention from the seventh century.

63 Foster (2005: 388) and de Jong (2007: 423).

64 Pedersen (1986: 76) points out that Ass. 13348ek is an impossible combination of excavation number and index and assigns the tablet to the house of the exorcists based on the presence of a companion text in the same archive and the likelihood that the index is correct.

65 de Jong 2007: 424.

66 Grayson 1975: 162-4 ii 1'-13' = Glassner 2004: 178-81 ii 1'-13'. All three examples of the ‘Synchronistice History', which were written from an Assyrian perspective and depict Nebucahdnezzar I as an adversary of the Assyrians, also come from Ashurbanipal's library.

67 Frymer-Kensky (1983: 131-2 and 140-1) made a similar argument with regard to the ‘The Marduk Ordeal', disagreeing with von Soden's assertion that the composition stemmed from anti-Babylonian sentiments that sought to justify the destruction of Babylon in 689, arguing that Marduk is ultimately vindicated and therefore the text should be associated with plans to return Marduk to Babylon. Copies of the ‘The Marduk Ordeal' come from Kuyunjik and from Assur. According to Pedersen (1986: 26 No. 121), examples from Assur come from a library excavated in the Assur temple and, significantly, from the same

house from which a copy of ‘The Marduk Prophecy' probably came (70 No. 453).

de Jong 2007: 423-4.

Brinkman (1983), in his analysis of the Esarhaddon inscriptions, was correct to assert that the altered presentation of events by Esarhaddon's scribes did not prove or disprove the proposition that Babylonian priests had appealed to the emperor to rebuild Babylon. However, they certainly played a role in swaying the emperor if they formulated the concepts articulated in the ‘Marduk Prophecy'.

Frame 1992: 68.

Porter 2004: 265.

Porter 2004: 271.

Luckenbill 1924: 84: 52-4.

Frame 1992: 55-6. Frame does point out that Sennacherib may have focused his wrath on the temple and administrative areas which were not excavated. Borger 1967: 21 §11 Episode 26a: 42b-46.

H. D. Baker (2010: 95-6) points out that the diversion of these avenues was considered taboo in Babylonian society and that the Merkes excavations revealed that the antiquity of these street networks stretched back to the Old Babylonian period. For treatment of the cultic topography of Babylon and the relationship between temples and the major avenues, see B. Pongratz-Leisten (1994) and George (1996).

Ten of the 57 exemplars of the text Tintir, which describes the topography of the city, come from Kuyunjik according to George (1992: 29-33), suggesting that there was significant interest in the composition at the time of Babylon's rebuilding.

How likely it was that workers encountered Nebuchadnezzar I's inscriptions is difficult to determine. Only one text (Frame 1995: 2.4.1), an inscription commemorating the restoration of the Ekitushegaltila shrine in the Enamhe temple of Adad, located in the western part of the city (George 1992: 329-30), attests to Nebuchadnezzar's building activity at Babylon. In spite of the dearth of building inscriptions that survive from his reign, Nebuchadnezzar I's work at Babylon may have been much more extensive. Wolfram von Soden (1971: 253-64) has proposed that Nebuchadnezzar I founded the city's ziggurat, Etemenanki. If von Soden is correct, the scope of Nebuchadnezzar I's efforts would have generated more building inscriptions for workers to discover than what survives today.

H. Schaudig 2010: 145-50.

Oates (1960) and Safar (1981).

George 1992: 13-18.

The Akita Chronicle states that the god Nabu came from Borsippa to Babylon for Marduk's re-entry into the city with Sams-suma-ukin (Grayson 1975: 131: 4-8 = Glassner 2004: 212-15). The arrival of Nabu was also a crucial event during the regular celebration of the akitu festival.

Summaries of the akitu festival can be found in Cohen (1993: 438-40) and Bidmead (2002: 45-106). There is some disagreement among scholars with regards to the meanings of all the rituals observed during the akitu festival, but in general the range of interpretations all suit the understanding of the akitu festival as an event that had ideological relevance to Esarhaddon's programme in Babylonia. Certainly there was an element of crisis in the rites. Van der Toorn (1991: 339) rejects the argument that a ritualized destruction of the Esagil occurred at the beginning of the festival, preferring to view the festival in less dramatic terms while still recognizing a strong element of renewal and confirmation in the proceedings. While the akitu was not a Saturnalia in which social norms were relaxed and class distinctions erased (Sommer 2000: 92 and Pongratz-Leisten 1994: 75-7), it was a civic event that included public celebrations that reduced the gulf between and the priestly class and the common citizenry. King 1912: No. 6 and No. 36.

Glassner 2004: 45.

Michalowski (1990: 393) points out that Samas-suma-ukin was distinguishing himself from his grandfather by speaking this oath.

Reynolds 2003: No. 174.

Reynolds 2003: No. 164: 6'-13'.

For a summary of scholarship on cultural memory as it relates to festivals in the Greco-Roman world, see H. Beck and H.-U. Wiemer (2009: 9-54). As Porter (2004: 259n. 5) points out, Assyriologists have traditionally focused on the production of good editions of ritual texts and have not typically considered how rituals and their associated festivities impacted the populace.

Sommer 2000: 95.

This point follows Roger Chartier's (1998: 271-2) critique of Gareth Stedman Jones' belief that power is constituted by discourse and must therefore be understood as text.

Michalowski 2003.

Bibliography

Adams, R. McC., 1981. Heartland of Cities: Surveys of Ancient Settlement Land Use on the Central Floodplain of the Euphrates. Chicago/London.

al-Rawi, F. N. H. and A. R. George, 1994. ‘Tablets from the Sippar Library III: Two Royal Counterfeits', Iraq 56, 135-48.

Baker, H. D. (ed.), 2001. The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, Vol. 2, Part II, L-N. Helsinki.

—2010. ‘A Waste of Space? Unbuilt Land in the Babylonian Cities of the First Millennium BC', Iraq 71, 95-6.

Beaulieu, P.-A., 1989. The Reign of Nabonidus, King of Babylon (556-539 BC). New Haven, CT.

—1994. ‘Antiquarianism and the Concern for the Past in the Neo-Babylonian Period', Bulletin of the Canadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies 28, 37-42.

Beck. H. and H.-U. Wiemer, 2009. ‘Feiern und Erinnern - eine Einleitung', in

H. Beck and H.-U. Wiemer (eds), Feiern und Erinnern: Geschichtsbilder im Spiegel antiker Feste. Berlin, 9-54.

Bidmead, J., 2002. The Akitu Festival: Religious Continuity and Royal Legitimation in Mesopotamia. Piscataway.

Black, J., 1981. ‘The New Year Ceremonies in Ancient Babylon: “Taking Bel by the Hand” and a Cultic Picnic', Religion 11, 39-59.

Bloch, Y. 2011. ‘Assyro-Babylonian Conflicts in the Reign of Assur-resa-isi I: The Contribution of Administrative Documents to History-Writing', in G. Galil (ed.), The Ancient Near East in the 12th-10th Centuries BCE: Culture and History. Münster, forthcoming.

Borger, R., 1967. Die Inschriften Asarhaddons Konigs von Assyrien. Osnabrück.

—1971. ‘Gott Marduk und Gott-Konig Sulgi als Propheten: Zwei prophetische Texte', BiOr 28, 5-13.

Brinkman, J. A., 1968. A Political History of Post-Kassite Babylonia 1158-722 BC. Rome. —1973. ‘Sennacherib's Babylonian Problem: An Interpretation', JCS 25, 89-95.

—1976. A Catalogue of Cuneiform Sources Pertaining to Specific Monarchs of the Kassite Dynasty. Chicago.

—1977. ‘Mesopotamian Chronology of the Historical Period', appendix to A. L. Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead Civilization. Chicago, 335-48.

—1981. Prelude to Empire. Philadelphia, PA.

—1983. ‘Through a Glass Darkly, Esarhaddon's Retrospects on the Downfall of Babylon', JAOS 103, 35-42.

Charpin, D., 2003. Hammu-rabi de Babylone, Paris.

Chartier, R., 1998. ‘Why the Linguistic Approach can be an Obstacle to the Further Development of Historical Knowledge. A Reply to Gareth Stedman Jones', History Workshop Journal 46, 271-2.

Cohen, M., 1993. The Cultic Calendars of the Ancient Near East. Bethesda, MD.

Cooper, J., 1983. The Curse of Agade. Baltimore.

de Jong, M. J., 2007. Isaiah among the Ancient Near Eastern Prophets: A Comparative Study of the Earliest Stages of the Isaiah Tradition and the Neo-Assyrian Prophecies. Leiden.

Fincke, J., 2003-4. ‘The Babylonian Texts of Nineveh: Report on the British Museum's Ashurbanipal Library Project, AfO 50, 111-49.

Foster, B., 2005. Before the Muses: An Anthology of Akkadian Literature, 3d edn, Bethesda, MD.

—2007. Akkadian Literature of the Late Period. Münster.

Frame, G., 1992. Babylonia 689-627 BC: A Political History. Leiden.

—1995. Rulers of Babylonia from the Second Dynasty of Isin to the End of Assyrian Domination (1157-612 BC). Toronto.

—2008. ‘Babylon: Assyria's Problem and Assyria's Prize', Journal of the Canadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies 3, 21-31.

Frymer-Kensky, T., 1983. ‘The Tribulations of Marduk', JAOS 103, 131-41.

Gasche, H., 1989. La Babylonie au 17" siecle avant notre ere: Approche archeologique, problemes et perspectives. Ghent.

Gasche, H., J. A. Armstrong, S. W. Cole and V. G. Gurzadyan, 1998. Dating the Fall of Babylon: A Reappraisal of Second-Millennium Chronology. Ghent and Chicago.

Gasche, H. and M. Tanret (eds), 1998. Changing Watercourses in Babylonia: Towards a Reconstruction of the Ancient Environment in Lower Mesopotamia. Ghent/Chicago.

George, A. R., 1992. Babylonian Topographical Texts. Leuven.

—1996. ‘Review of Pongratz-Leisten, Studies in Cultic Topography and Ideology, Bi. Or. 53, 363-95.

—2003. The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic. Oxford.

Glassner, J. J., 2004. Mesopotamian Chronicles. Atlanta, GA.

Grayson, A. K. 1975. Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles. Locus Valley, NY/ Glückstadt.

Holloway, S. W., 2002. Assur is King! Assur is King!: Religion in the Exercise of Power in the Neo-Assyrian Empire. Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 10, Leiden.

Hunger, H., 1992. Astrological Reports to Assyrian Kings. Helsinki.

Jacobsen, T., 1939. The Sumerian King List. Chicago.

Jonker, G., 1995. The Topography of Remembrance: The Dead, Tradition and Collective Memory in Mesopotamia. Leiden.

King, L. W., 1912. Babylonian Boundary-Stones and Memorial-Tablets in the British Museum. London.

Kuhrt, A., 1995. The Ancient Near East c. 3000-330 BC. London.

Lambert, W. G., 1964. ‘The Reign of Nebuchadnezzar I: A Turning Point in the History of Ancient Mesopotamian Religion', in W. S. McCullough (ed.), The Seed of Wisdom: Essays in Honor of T. J. Meek. Toronto, 3-13.

Liverani, M., 1973. ‘Memorandum on the Approach to Historiographic Texts', OrNS 42, 178-94.

—1993. ‘Model and Actualization: The Kings of Akkad in Historical Tradition', in M. Liverani (ed.), Akkad the First World Empire: Structure, Ideology, Traditions. Padua, 41-67.

Livingstone, A., 1989. Court Poetry and Literary Miscellanea. Helsinki.

Luckenbill, D., 1924. The Annals of Sennacherib. Chicago.

Luuko, M. and G. Van Buylaere, 2002. The Political Correspondence of Esarhaddon. Helsinki.

Michalowski, P., 1983. ‘History as Charter: Some Observations on the Sumerian King List', JAOS 103, 237-48.

—1989. The Lamentation over the Destruction of Sumer and Ur. Winona Lake.

—1990. ‘Presence at Creation,' in T. Abusch et al. (eds), Lingering Over Words: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Literature in Honor of William L. Moran. Atlanta, GA, 381-96.

—2003. ‘A Man Called Enmebaragesi', in W. Sallaberger et al. (eds), Literatur, Politik und Recht in Mesopotamien: Festschrift für Claus Wilcke. Wiesbaden, 195-208.

Millard, A., 1994. The Eponyms of the Assyrian Empire, 910-612 BC. Helsinki.

Oates, J., 1960. ‘Ur and Eridu: The Prehistory', Iraq 22, 32-50.

Parpola, S., 1972. ‘A Letter from Samas-suma-ukin to Esarhaddon', Iraq 34, 21-34.

—1980. ‘The Murderer of Sennacherib', in B. Alster (ed.), Death in Mesopotamia. Copenhagen, 171-82.

—1983. Letters from Assyrian Scholars to the Kings Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal. Part II: Commentary and Appendices. Neukirchen-Vluyn.

—1993. Letters from Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars. Helsinki.

—1997. ‘The Man without a Scribe and the Question of Literacy in the Assyrian Empire', in B. Pongratz-Leisten et al. (eds), Ana sadi Labnani lü allik. Beiträge zu altorientalischen und mittlemeerischen Kulturen. Festschrift für Wolfganag Rollig. Neukirchen-Vluyn, 315-24.

Pedersen, O., 1986. Archives and Libraries in the City of Assur: A Survey of the Material from the German Excavations, Part 2. Uppsala.

Pongratz-Leisten, B., 1994. Ina sulmi irub. Die kult-topographie und ideologische Programmatik der akitu-Prozession in Babylonien und Assyrien im I. Jahrtausend v. Chr. Mainz.

Porter, B., 2004. ‘Ritual and Politics in Assyria: Neo-Assyrian Kanephoric Stelai for Babylonia', Hesperia Supplements 33, 259-74.

Postgate, J. N., 1995. ‘Royal Ideology and State Administration in Sumer and Akkad', in J. Sasson et al. (eds) Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. New York, 395-411.

Radner, K., 2003. ‘The Trials of Esarhaddon: The Conspiracy of 670 BC', ISIMU 6, 165-83.

Reynolds, F., 2003. The Babylonian Correspondence of Esarhaddon. Helsinki.

Safar, F. et al. 1981. Eridu. Baghdad.

Schaudig, H., 2010. ‘The Restoration of Temples in the Neo- and Late Babylonian Periods', in M. J. Boda and J. Novotny (eds), From the Foundations to the Crenellations: Essays on Temple Building in the Ancient Near East and Hebrew Bible. Münster, 141-64.

Sollberger, E., 1968. ‘The Cruciform Monument', JEOL 20, 50-70.

Sommer, B., 2000. ‘The Babylonian Akitu Festival: Rectifying the King or Renewing the Cosmos?', Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Studies 27, 81-95.

Starr, I., 1990. Queries to the Sungod: Divination and Politics in Sargonid Assyria. Helsinki.

Steinkeller, P., 2003. ‘An Ur III Manuscript of the Sumerian King List', in

W. Sallaberger et al. (eds), Literatur, Politik und Recht in Mesopotamien: Festschrift für Claus Wilcke. Wiesbaden, 267-92.

Tinney, S., 1996. The Nippur Lament. Philadelphia.

Van de Mieroop, M., 1999. Cuneiform Texts and the Writing of History, London and New York.

—2005. King Hammurabi of Babylonia: A Biography. Oxford.

Van der Toorn, K., 1991. ‘The Babylonian New Year Festival: New Insights from the Cuneiform Texts and their Bearing on Old Testament Study', in J. A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume Leuven 1989. Leiden, 331-44.

von Soden, W., 1971. ‘Etemenanki von Asarhaddon: Nach der Erzählung vom Turmbau zu Babel und dem Erra-Mythos', UF 3, 253-64.

Waerzeggers, C., 2008. ‘On the Initiation of Babylonian Priests', Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte 14, 1-38.

Walker, C. and M. Dick, 2001. The Induction of the Cult Image in Ancient Mesopotamia: The Mesopotamian Mis Pi Ritual. Helsinki.

Woods, C., 2004. ‘The Sun-God Tablet of Nabu-apla-iddina Revisited', JCS 56, 23-103.