A very unusual literary tablet, Kt. j/k 97 from Kültepe, was published by C. Günbattı in 1997. It is inscribed with what already the first editor described as an Old Assyrian version of legends about Sargon. Since then the tablet has caused a good deal of discussion. Translations or editions have been made by M. Van De Mieroop (2000), K. Hecker (2001), B. Foster (2002, 2005), A. Cavigneaux (2005), and J. G. Dercksen (2005). These studies represent extremely different approaches: Hecker takes the text at face value and reads it as a laudatory royal inscription, whereas others see it as a kind of parody of inscriptions or legends about Sargon (Van De Mieroop 2000; Foster 2002, 2005), inspired by Mario Liverani. Dercksen (2005: 108) goes to the opposite extreme, stating that the “supposedly literary character of the text can be ignored, as this modern concept was alien to OA society”. He sees the text as “not a parody”, but instead as having “functioned to extol Sargon of Akkad during kispum celebrations that were part of the official cult of Assur”. Cavigneaux's study suggests a middle way between these extremes.

The tablet was found — and probably written — in Anatolia within the community of Assyrian merchants living abroad in Kaneš, on a tablet that looks very much like a normal business letter. It was excavated in 1958 in the house of Aḫ-šalim, an ordinary merchant, from whose house a number of other texts have been published. It alludes to the legend Sargon King of Battle, in which, following M. Liverani (1993: 52–6), Cavigneaux understands an expedition of Sargon to Anatolia, aided by the merchants of Purušḫaddum, as in fact referring to the Old Assyrian colonization in Anatolia. Cavigneaux further suggests what kind of situation lies behind our text (2005: 596): “Le nouveau texte … suggère de manière très concrète que les marchands assyriens berçaient leurs soirées au coin de la cheminée, au long des hivers anatoliens, d'histoires dont les rois d'Akkad étaient les héros”. He sees the text as an unicum, with hardly any chances of ever finding a duplicate (p. 597).

I would like to express my thanks to Bendt Alster and Takayoshi Oshima for giving me the opportunity to add a few comments on their article. Within the limits of these pages, I will restrict myself to certain general subjects and one theme in the Old Assyrian Sargon Legend.

As Alster and Oshima suggest above, the Old Assyrian Sargon Legend is obviously a written improvisation. However, improvisation has little to do with whether the text is to be taken in a serious (Hecker, Dercksen) or trivial (“humorous”) manner (Van De Mieroop, Foster, Cavigneaux, Alster and Oshima) nor does it relate to accuracy (see Alster and Oshima, fn. 17). Rather, it relates to the mode of composition: whether or not a fixed text was followed, whether or not there was a written model (see Alster and Oshima, fn. 17). In my opinion, this text is a written “improvised” composition based on oral traditions (see also Alster and Oshima, pp. 2 and fn. 8, 6 and 8, Cavigneaux 2005: 596). In this period, orality and literacy existed alongside each other. This written composition may have developed from an oral set of thematic scenes, the building blocks of traditional oral literature. The episodic structure of the narrative reflects such a concatenation of scenes. These oral building blocks could be varied at will according to the needs of the moment, modified to suit the new purposes and new places. It can be deduced that such legends were known orally from internal evidence — the words placed in the mouth of Sargon in this Old Assyrian composition, “Why should I enlarge (upon this theme) in an inscription? Where do (peoples) noi know me (a-«a»)-nu-um lá i-tí-a-ni, suggested reading of Aage Westenholz), that I am the King, that I conquered the Upper and Lower Lands?” (ll. 63–5). In this writer's opinion, these lines indicate that the author implies that Sargon's fame is so well known that it does not need to be written down.

War, and imminent battle in particular, put any Babylonian or Assyrian king, whose rule and security very much depended on successful campaigns, in a precarious situation. While careful military planning certainly helped to defeat one's enemies, victory in the end was determined by the gods. Before entering battle, oracles were consulted to make certain that the king's decisions had the gods' favour, and a number of other rituals could be performed to ensure that the gods supported the king's cause. These rituals — dubbed “war rituals” by modern scholarship — are not very well known, and the texts attributed to this group are a rather mixed set of royal rituals related to the king's campaign and to potential aggression by enemies. They include traditional Babylonian rituals to be performed before setting off on a military campaign or immediately before a major battle, as well as specifically Assyrian rituals for the same purpose. It is not suprising that two of these texts include the performance of divination rituals, while others focus on the binding of substitute figurines representing the enemies and also use figurines representing the king himself. In line with the general ideology of war, the rubrics of the rituals clearly indicate that the reason for the king's military action is the enemy's aggression against his land, and that the king himself only acts in defence of his own land's borders. It seems that all these texts, apart from the Assyrian rituals in the narrow sense, were assembled in a “series ‘battle’” (iškar tāḫāzi) that is mentioned in the famous letter of an Assyrian king demanding the collection of various scholarly texts from the Ezida and scholars' houses in Borsippa. The same text refers to rituals (or a ritual) “So that in Battle Arrows do not Come Near a Man” that are also known from the catalogue of exorcistic texts (KAR 44 //). Apparently they were not thought to be part of the iškar tāḫāzi; but in the letter the two text groups are named together within a longer list and they were certainly closely associated with each other. Special namburbi rituals could be performed on campaign to avert evil indicated by accidents of the king's chariot, but there is no reason to assume that they belonged to the iškar tāḫāzi too. Other namburbi rituals were used to protect the land's borders when an earthquake had signalled an imminent invasion of the enemy.

The object once known as the Burney Relief, and now renamed The Queen of the Night (hereinafter referred to as the Queen) is a mould-made plaque of straw-tempered clay (Fig. 1). Integral with the rectangular background (49.5 × 37 cm) is a nude figure who wears the horned headdress of a Mesopotamian goddess, has lowered wings, dewclaws and bird's talons, holds the divine rod-and-ring symbol in each hand, stands on the backs of two addorsed lions, and is flanked by large owls. Traces of black, red and white paint survive. Since it was first published in the Illustrated London News on 13 June 1936, the plaque has been hailed as a masterpiece of ancient Mesopotamian art generally dated to the Old Babylonian period and, more specifically, to the age of Hammurabi (reigned 1792–1750 BC according to the Middle Chronology). After more than seven decades in private ownership, the plaque finally came into the public domain when, in 2003, the British Museum celebrated its 250th anniversary with the acquisition of this iconic work.

One would expect such a unique piece to have its detractors, and in 1936–7 Dietrich Opitz published an article in which he raised doubts about its authenticity, although Van Buren, in her article appended to his (1936–7), came out in favour of the plaque. Then “a seminal article by Henri Frankfort (1937–9)… caused Opitz (1937–9) to change his mind” (Curtis and Collon 1996: 91–2), and other major scholars have agreed with Frankfort, including Thorkild Jacobsen (1987).

In 1970, Pauline Albenda published a short article that focused on two features of the plaque's iconography, namely the “ring and rod” (normally referred to as rod-and-ring) symbols held by the goddess, and the overlapping lions on which she stood. These led her to “conclude that the Burney relief is not genuine”. In 2005, she revived the debate in an article in the Journal of the American Oriental Society. I shall consider in turn the various points she raises (giving the relevant page numbers in brackets) and seek to demonstrate why I think her arguments to be flawed and why I am convinced that the Queen of the Night is a genuine work of the age of Hammurabi of Babylon.

The purpose of the present note is to alert scholars to the fact that following a cleaning programme undertaken in the late 1960s certain iconographic details apparently visible on the decorated face of the monument known as the Broken Obelisk should be treated with caution.

As recounted by C. J. Gadd, the Broken Obelisk was found by Hormuzd Rassam in August 1853 at Nineveh, about halfway between Sennacherib's Palace and Ashurbanipal's Palace (Gadd 1936: 123; Rassam 1897: 9). It was probably in or near the Ishtar Temple (ibid.; Reade 2005: 373). The Obelisk was drawn on site (Fig. 1), either by Charles Hodder (Gadd 1936: 123) or by William Boucher, who arrived at Nineveh in March 1854 in order to help Rassam record some of the important sculptures he had found at Kouyunyik (Barnett 1975: 22; Rassam 1897: 37). Gadd describes how the obelisk was shipped with other sculptures from Basra to Bombay in the steam-frigate Acbar in March 1854, and from Bombay to London in the ship Merchantman, arriving in February 1855 (Gadd 1936: 123). It now has the British Museum number 118898 (56-9-9, 59).

It is known as the Broken Obelisk because it is the upper part only of an obelisk with a stepped top. At the bottom it measures 65 × 41 cm, and it has an overall surviving height of 63 cm. There is a lengthy cuneiform inscription on three of the four sides (the short left side is blank) and on one of the long sides there is, in addition to the cuneiform inscription, a panel of carved decoration showing a king holding a rod and ring or (more likely) a mace and a coil of rope. In front of the king are two pairs of prisoners roped together. In the field above the prisoners, and in front of the king, are five divine symbols, comprising a horned cap, a crescent, a winged disc from which emerge two hands, one of them holding a bow, a bolt of lightning, and a rosette. The text (Grayson 1991: 99–105) recounts the achievements of a king who is thought to be Ashur-bel-kala (1073–1056 BC). It is usually inferred from the text that the obelisk was originally set up at Ashur.

The step-topped, free-standing square monument called in modern literature the Broken Obelisk was found by Hormuzd Rassam at Nineveh, near the Ishtar temple on the mound of Kuyunjik. It is the earliest monument of this kind, and it differs in its pictorial rendering from the later, so-called Assyrian obelisks. Whereas the succeeding examples display reliefs on their four sides, creating consecutive narratives, the Broken Obelisk exhibits a single, motionless relief on its front, the subject of the present paper (Börker-Klähn 1982, Nos. 132, 138–45, 152; Bär 1996, 57-68, 88–99, 101–5, 148–65).

My aim here is to shed light on the motif of the king holding prisoners of war by means of lead ropes and to examine the bearing of this motif on the status of the royal image in pictorial renderings. According to different interpretations of the scene, the king holds a ring and rod (Börker-Klähn 1982, 178, No. 131 with earlier bibliography), or a ceremonial mace (Russell 2003, 4) as well as lead rope(s) with which he binds prisoners of war standing in front of him (e.g. Pritchard 1969, 300, No. 440; Strommenger 1964, 437, PI. 188, bottom; Börker-Klähn 1982, 178; Collon 1995, 117; Russell 2003, 4). My initial interest in the iconography of the Broken Obelisk was aroused by the fact that on it the so-called ring and rod symbols of kingship granted by the gods, are held by the king, whereas usually they are held by a deity in compositions conveying the very act of the divine giving (Hallo 2005, 150–1, 161; Suter 2000, 6–7; Ornan 2005, 12).

In 1935 M. E. L. Mallowan was rightly considered to be one of the outstanding British archaeologists of his generation. Having served his apprenticeship under Sir Leonard Woolley at Ur and supervised the prehistoric sounding at Nineveh under R. Campbell Thompson, he had then directed a successful excavation of his own at Arpachiyah (McCall 2001: 41–4), followed by the immediate publication of the final report (Mallowan/Cruikshank 1935).

As a result of a change in the Iraq Antiquities Law, the division of antiquities found during excavations ceased. Mallowan, like many other archaeologists whose fieldwork had been sponsored by museums, was obliged to abandon Iraq and look for new opportunities of research in neighbouring eastern Syria, which was virtually terra incognita at this time (Oates/Oates 2001: 121). No doubt, Mallowan's interest in this area has been stimulated by the discoveries of Max von Oppenheim at Tell Halaf, where pottery has been found similar to that excavated by Mallowan at Arpachiyah. Furthermore, in 1934 Poidebard's aerial survey was published, and it included photographs of numerous archaeological sites along the Khabur and its tributaries (Mallowan 1947: 1). In the fall of 1934 Mallowan, accompanied by his wife, Agatha Christie, and an architect, Mr R. H. Macartney, arrived in Syria to inspect a number of sites located along the Khabur and Jaghjagh rivers, as well as in the Khabur plain. After a winter spent in Egypt, Mallowan returned to the Khabur area in the Spring of 1935, not only to continue his survey, but first to excavate Tell Chagar Bazar. Sherds of the same so-called Halaf pottery had been found at the base of the mound, pointing to the possibility of obtaining at this site a long stratigraphical sequence, which would, in turn, serve as a chronological framework for research on other sites (Mallowan 1936: 7–11, Fig. 2). The season's work, however, was not limited to Tell Chagar Bazar. Small teams were detached from the main force for a few days to make trial soundings on some other principal sites, such as Tell Ailun and Tell Mozan (Oates/Oates 2001: 129).

This is the second article in a series detailing archaeological results from salvage excavations conducted in northern Iraq during the 1980s and early 1990s. An introduction and background information to the overall salvage project and specific information on fifteen excavated sites in the northern Jazirah, near the Iraq-Syria border and mostly within T. J. Wilkinson and D. J. Tucker's North Jazira Survey (NJS; see Wilkinson and Tucker 1995), were provided in the first article (Altaweel 2006). In that article the project was called the Ray Jazirah Project (RJP), and the fifteen sites were referenced as RJP 1–15. Since then I have been informed that a more appropriate name is the Jazirah Salvage Project. Nevertheless, for consistency with the last and future articles, the RJP initials will be maintained for referencing archaeological sites and the project in general.

This report provides data for the second set of excavated sites in the North region of the RJP. As in the first article, my role has been to provide this information to a wider audience prior to publication in Arabic and to conduct comparative analysis of the source material with other archaeological sites. I have attempted to maintain fidelity to the original source material, including using Iraqi conventions such as the system of numbering levels and ceramics, with only my commentary added to help in the interpretation of the data. In a similar manner to the previous report, very detailed descriptions on any one site will not be provided; rather, the primary purpose is to give summary data on the excavation results, with significant emphasis, where possible, on the ceramic remains. A list of the sites' occupation history and a table listing RJP sites with corresponding NJS sites (Table 1) are provided prior to the discussion of archaeological results. This report includes some additional details from a previously discussed site (RJP 5). The new sites discussed, including the first fifteen sites in the earlier article, can be seen in Fig. 1 according to their RJP numbers.

Excavations at Tell Brak in 2006–7 explored two key episodes in Mesopotamian political and social history, developing early social complexity in the fifth to fourth millennia BC and the shift from territorial state to early empire in the second millennium BC. Late Chalcolithic complexity is represented in Area TW on the main mound and at the outlying sub-mound of Tell Majnuna, while investigation of the Old Babylonian to Mitanni state-to-empire transition involved excavation in Areas HH and HN (Fig. 1). Both sets of excavations tie into our exploration of larger issues of the creation and maturation of past urban landscapes, for which Tell Brak provides a great depth of data.

We would like once again to express our warmest gratitude to Dr Bassam Jamous, Director General of Antiquities and Museums, to Dr Michel Al-Maqdissi, Director of Excavations, to all their staff in Damascus, and to Sd Abdul Messih Baghdo, Director of the Antiquities Office in Hasseke, for their constant and friendly support. Financial support for the excavations was generously provided by the British School of Archaeology in Iraq, the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge, the National Geographic Committee for Research and Exploration (2006), the Society of Antiquaries of London (2007), Newnham College, Cambridge and the University of Cambridge. We are extremely grateful to all those who have made this research possible.