Southern Mesopotamia in the time of Ashurbanipal 9783111396170, 3111396177

Table of contents :
Introduction
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abbreviations
I. Geographical Framework
II. The Reign of Ashurbanipal: A Survey
III. The Relationship Between Assyria and Babylonia until the time of Ashurbanipal
IV. Ashurbanipal and Shamash-shum-ukin
V. Kandalanu in Babylon and Bel-ibni, Governor of the Sea Land
VI. The Struggle over Babylonia
VII. Social Structure, Economy, and Art
Appendix A: Sources
Appendix B: Chronological Table for the Inscription of Ashurbanipal

Citation preview

STUDIES IN ANCIENT HISTORY II

SOUTHERN MESOPOTAMIA IN THE TIME OF ASHURBANIPAL by SAMI SAID A H M E D UNIVERSITY OF DENVER

1968

MOUTON THE HAGUE

·

PARIS

© Copyright 1968 in The Netherlands. Mouton & Co. N.V. Publishers, The Hague. No part of this book may be translated or reproduced in any form by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publishers.

LIBRARY O F C O N G R E S S CATALOG CARD N U M B E R 6 8 - 1 5 5 2 4

Printed in The Netherlands by Mouton & Co., Printers, The Hague.

In parentum

memoria

pro infinitis

beneficiis.

Vobis gratiam parem

referre

numquam pot ero.

INTRODUCTION

The relationship between Assyria and Babylonia underwent various forms throughout the centuries. Although the peoples inhabiting the two regions were Semites, spoke the same language with slight dialectal differences, and worshipped the same gods with some preference for particular dieties, a peaceful relationship seldom existed between them. The Kassite period (until 1160 B.C.) witnessed many battles and border skirmishes between the two states, and for short periods they alternately imposed rule over each other. In the Middle Babylonian period, Aramaean tribes began to establish themselves in the land and make their influence felt in Babylonian politics. During the time of Shalmaneser III (859-824 B.C.) the relationship was altered as the result of a treaty which gave Assyria the right to interfere in Babylonian affairs in case opposition should arise against the legal monarch of the South. The Assyrian kings apparently wished to see Babylonia peaceful but weak. A period of relative peace prevailed in Babylonia under Nabu-näsir until the ambitious Assyrian monarch, Tiglath-pileser III, came to the throne. His aim was doubtless the incorporation of the South, but he sought peaceful means for its achievement. In his first year parts of northern Babylonia were annexed to the Assyrian empire and he moved to suppress the Aramaean tribes east of the Tigris. His real opportunity came later when Babylonia became engulfed in trouble following the death of Nabu-näsir. Tiglath-pileser moved south and by a combination of diplomacy and force was able to subjugate the land ; in 729 he ascended the Babylonian throne and assumed the name Pulu. He was succeeded by his son, Shalmaneser IV, who continued his father's policy and ruled Babylonia under the name Ululaia. Soon after Sargon II (died 705 B.C.) usurped the Assyrian throne, Merodach-baladan declared himself king in Babylon and ruled for about ten years. Sargon then marched southwards, defeated him, held the hands of Marduk, and thus became the legal king of Babylonia. Sargon was

8

INTRODUCTION

succeeded by his son, Sennacherib, who installed Bel-ibni, a native Babylonian who was apparently pro-Assyrian, upon the throne of Babylonia. But Bel-ibni's rule was not to last long for he too was deposed by the Assyrians, probably on the grounds of some relationship he had had with Balasu and Merodach-baladan, two Babylonians then working for the independence of the South. The Assyrian monarch installed his son, Ashur-nadin-shum as king of Babylonia. When Sennacherib marched against Elam, the Elamite king advanced into Babylonia, took Ashur-nadin-shum captive, and installed a native king in the land. In 689 B.C. Sennacherib destroyed Babylon, flooded it with the waters of the Arahtu canal, and carried its gods to Assyria. He was succeeded by Esarhaddon, who treated Babylonia kindly, reinhabited Babylon, and acknowledged the exemptions of its citizens. Three years prior to his death he had — he hoped — settled the problem of succession. Upon his death his younger son, Ashurbanipal, was to become king of Assyria, and an oath of allegiance was to be sworn to him alone; his elder son, Shamash-shum-ukin, son of a Babylonian wife, was destined to be the king of Babylonia. The will favored Ashurbanipal and the line of kingship was to be preserved in his descendants. Esarhaddon died in the Fall of 669 B.C., was succeeded by Ashurbanipal, and in the Spring of 668 B.C. Shamash-shum-ukin held the hands of Marduk in Ashur and accompanied the statue of the god to Babylon. The relationship between the two brothers was apparently harmonious for sixteen years, although enough evidence is preserved to reveal that Ashurbanipal disputed with his brother over the extent of the area destined for the latter by his father. The dispute led, in 652 B.C., to Shamash-shumukin's revolt, which lasted for over three years. After a two-year siege of Babylon the city surrendered and Shamash-shum-ukin threw himself, together with his family, into a fire he built in his palace. After the death of Shamash-shum-ukin, Ashurbanipal appointed Kandalanu, who most probably was his brother, to the kingship of Babylonia. Kandalanu ruled the same area which had been intended for Shamash-shum-ukin, with the possible exception of Nippur, now a strong Assyrian fortress. In the Sea Land, Bel-ibni was appointed governor in 650 B.C. ; there he distinguished himself during the wars with Elam, and preserved the peace until the beginning of Ashur-etil-ilani's reign. In 631 B.C. Ashurbanipal died and was succeeded by his son, Ashur-etililani but the policy which had been set forth by Esarhaddon's will of succession seemingly continued, for Kandalanu's destined successor in Babylon was to be Sin-shar-ishkun (at the moment in control of Nippur) ;

INTRODUCTION

9

Ashur-etil-ilani, however, theoretically retained authority over all of Assyria and Babylonia. Early in his reign, Sin-shar-ishkun appointed to the governorship of the Sea Land, Nabopolassar, who was probably Bel-ibni's son. The latter soon declared his independence in his region and began attacking Assyrian territory. In 627 B.C. Kandalanu died and Babylon was without a king for a year; at the end of that time, Nabopolassar was able to ascend the throne in Babylon. His warfare against Assyria continued and all attempts of Assyria to regain control over the south were doomed to failure; by 622 B.C. Nippur fell, and thus came to an end the last remnant of Assyrian domination in southern Mesopotamia. The first chapter contains a tentative reconstruction of the geography of southern Mesopotamia during the period in question, and the second with a general survey of Ashurbanipal's reign: his wars, foreign relations, and personal character. Chapter III traces the prior relationship between Babylonia and Assyria from the time of Shalmaneser III through the reign of Esarhaddon. Chapter IV traces the relationship between Ashurbanipal and Shamash-shum-ukin until the fall of Babylon in 648 B.C. Chapter V discusses the reign of Kandalanu in Babylon and the career of Bel-Ibni as governor of the Sea land until the death of Ashurbanipal. Chapter VI treats the history of Babylonia from the accession of Ashur-etil-ilani until the fall of Nippur in 622 B.C. The political history of the period has been principally emphasized, but in order to present a more balanced estimate, a final chapter gives a brief account of the social structure, economy and art of the time. Appendix A evaluates the sources employed, and Appendix Β attempts to establish the chronological order of all the manifold important inscriptions of Ashurbanipal. Throughout this study wherever possible translation of Assyrian or Babylonian employed are those which appear in Streck Vol. II, ARAB, ABL etc. However, the original texts have themselves nearly always been consulted (always in crucial or quoted passages) and when necessary the available translations have been altered in the light of our present knowledge of the Akkadian language. I wish to express my sincere gratitude to Professor George G. Cameron, for his time, critical suggestions, and advice, all of which were invaluable to the writing of the work. I owe a special word of appreciation to Professor I. J. Gelb of the Oriental Institute, University of Chicago, for the use of his personal files, his time, and suggestions, and to Dr. John Brinkman, of the Oriental Institute, who made accessible to me a

10

INTRODUCTION

draft manuscript of his own doctoral dissertation. Finally, my appreciation is also extended to Mrs. Elizabeth Von Voigtlander of Michigan University whose doctoral thesis' draft was very helpful and a dating table of hers has been fully utilized.

TABLE O F C O N T E N T S

Introduction

7

Abbreviations

13

I. Geographical Framework II. The Reign of Ashurbanipal : A Survey

17 27

III. The Relationship Between Assyria and Babylonia until the time of Ashurbanipal IV. Ashurbanipal and Shamash-shum-ukin V. Kandalanu in Babylon and Bel-ibni, Governor of the Sea Land VI. The Struggle over Babylonia VII. Social Structure, Economy, and Art

46 62 104 121 134

Appendix A: Sources 160 Appendix Β : Chronological Table for the Inscription of Ashurbanipal 168

ABBREVIATIONS

BOOKS AND PERIODICALS AAA Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology AASF Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae AASOR Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research ABAW Abhandlungen der bayrischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, PhilologischHistorische Klasse ABL Assyrian and Babylonian Letters belonging to the Kouyunjik Collection of the British Museum ADD Johns, Assyrian Deeds and Documents ADOG Abhandlungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft AF Altorientalische Forschungen AGE Tallqvist K. L. Akkadische Gotterepitheta, mit einem gotterverzeichnis und einer liste der präikativen elemente der sumerischen götternamen. (Studia Orientalia, edidit Societas Orientalis fennica, VII). Helsingforsiae, 1938 AGS Knudtzon, Assyrische Gebete an den Sonnengott AKGW Abhandlungen der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften Göttingen, Philologisch-Historische Klasse AJ Antiquaries Journal AJA American Journal of Archaeology AJSL American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literature ANET Pritchard, ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament An.Or. Analecta Orientalia An.St. Anatolian Studies AO Der Alte Orient AOF Archiv für Orientforschung AOS American Oriental Series AOT Gressmann, ed. Altorientalische Texte zum altem Testament APAW Abhandlungen der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften APN Tallqvist, Assyrian Personal Names ARAB Luckenbill, Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia Ar. Or. Archiv Orientalni ARU Köhler and Ungnad, Assyrische Rechtsurkunden AS Luckenbill, The Annals of Sennacherib BA Beitrage zur Assyriologie BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Bauer Bauer, Das Inschriftenwerk Assurbanipals BBS King, Babylonian Boundary Stones BE Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania, Series A : Cuneiform Texts

14 BHT BO BOR BR BRM CAD

ABBREVIATIONS

Sidney Smith, Babylonian Historical Texts Bibliotheca Orientalis Babylonian and Oriental Records San Nicolo, Babylonische Rechtsurkunden Clay, Babylonian Records in the Library of J. Pierpont Morgan The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute, University of Chicago Editors, I. J. Gelb, Th. Jacobsen, Β. Landsberger, and A. Leo Oppenheim et al. (J. J. Augustin, Glückstadt 1956) CBS Collection of the Babylonian Section CCK Wiseman, Chronicles of the Chaldaean Kings CFBA Van Buren, Clay Figurines of Babylonia and Assyria CIS Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum ab Academia inscriptionum et litterarum humaniorum conditum atque digestum. Pars 1-1881 (Parisiis, e Reipublicae Typographeo 1881) Craig Craig, Assyrian and Babylonian Religious Texts CR Comptes Rendus CS FRANKFORT, Cylinder Seals GAG Von Soden, Grundriss der Akkadischen Grammatik GCCI Goucher College Cuneiform Inscriptions GJ Geographical Journal HA Olmstead's History of Assyria IEJ Israeli Exploration Journal ILN Illustrated London News JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society JCS Journal of Cuneiform Studies JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies JRAS Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society JRCAS Journal of the Royal Central Asian Society KAR Ebeling, Keilschrifttexte aus Assur Religiösen Inhalts ΚΑΤ Zimmern, Η. and Winckler, Η. Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament. Berlin: Reuther & Reichard, 1903 KPRT Klauber, Politisch-Religiose Texte aus der Sargonidenzeit Kr. Krückmann, Neubabylonische Rechts- und Verwaltungstexte LZB Literatur Zentralblatt MDOG Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft MDP Mémoires, Délégation en Perse MVAG Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatische-aegyptische Gesellschaft NBAD Moore, New Babylonian Business and Administrative Documents NBB Ebeling, E. Neubabylonische Briefe, ABAW, Phil. Hist. Klasse. Neue Folge. Heft 30. München, 1949 NJAS Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science NRVU San Nicolo and Ungnad, Neubabylonische Rechts- und Verwaltungsurkunden OECT Langdon, ed. Oxford Edition of Cuneiform Texts OIP Oriental Institute Publications OLZ Orientalistische Literaturzeitung PBS Publication of the University of Pennsylvania, Babylonian Section PEA Campbell Thompson, A Prism of Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal Pfeiffer Pfeiffer, State Letters of Assyria Piepkorn Piepkorn, Historical Prism Inscriptions of Ashurbanipal PRAK de Genouillac, Premières Recherches archéologiques à Kich PSBA Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology PW Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encyclopädie der Klassischen Altertumswissenschaft RA Revue d'Assyriologie et d'archéologie orientale

ABBREVIATIONS

RB RCAE RISA RLA RLV RT

15

Revue biblique Waterman, Royal Correspondence of the Assyrian Empire Barton, Royal Inscriptions of Sumer and Akkad Reallexikon der Assyriologie Reallexikon der Vorgeschichte Recueil de travaux relatifs à la philologie et à l'archéologie égyptiennes et assyriennes SBAV Sonderabdruck aus den Beitragen zur Assyriologie und Vergleichenden Semitischen Sprachwissenschaft SPAW Sitzungsberichte der preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften Streck Streck, Assurbanipal und die letzten assyrischen Könige TBB Koldewey, Tempel von Babylon und Borsippa TCL Contenau, Contrats Néo-Babyloniens 1 TTKB Turk Tarih Kurumu. Belleten UCPSP University of California Publications of Semitic Philology UET Ur Excavations Texts UVB Vorläufiger Bericht über die von dem Deutschen Archäeologischen Institut und der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft aus Mitteln der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft unternommen Ausgrabungen in Uruk-Warka VAB Vorderasiatische Bibliothek VAS Vorderasiatische Schriftdenkmaler YOS Yale Oriental Series WVDOG Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft WZKM Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes ZA Zeitschrift für Assyriologie ZDMG Zeitschrift der deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft ZK Zeitschrift für Keilschriftforschung

I GEOGRAPHICAL

FRAMEWORK

Southern Mesopotamia is here limited to the region south of a hypothetical line drawn from Hit o n the Middle Euphrates to Delli-Abbas o n the Diyala river and extended to the Zagros foothills, thence to the Persian Gulf. This may correspond to "Babylonia", but due to the frequent military activities (mainly during the Kassite Period) between the Assyrians and Babylonians and the resulting expansion and contraction, the two terms might not necessarily coincide. It was formerly believed that in prehistoric times the head of the Persian Gulf was situated as far north as the vicinity of modern Baghdad but that through the course of time it had retreated to its present limits. 1 Later studies, however, make it equally possible that the head of the Gulf could have been farther south or even the same as it is at present, and thus render the former theory erroneous. 2 1

This theory is based on the premise that in the normal process of delta formation, the sea retreated at the rate of about 29 metres seaward each year, or 3 kilometers per century. According to this assumption, in Sumerian times the sea had retreated as far south as Ur because of the gradual deposits of silt from the Tigris, Euphrates, and Karun (Seton Lloyd, Twin Rivers, London, 1947, p. 9; S. Pallis, The Antiquity of Iraq, Copenhagen, 1956, p. 2; A. Sousa, Irrigation in Iraq, Its History and Development, Baghdad, 1945, p. 24; de Morgan, MDP, I, Paris, 1900, pp. 4-48). DeMorgan reconstructed the geography of the area using as his principal data Sennacherib's Annals of his campaign against Elam in 696 B.C., and the voyage of Nearchus in 325 B.C. He attempted to pinpoint localities and the shore line on the basis of distance relationships; his conclusion is summarized in two maps included with the article. The weakness of deMorgan's reconstruction is that it is difficult to know definitely the exact location of these cities. 2 Regarding these new evidences, a portion of G. M. Lees and N. L. Falcon's conclusions may be quoted: "The Tigris, Euphrates, and Karun rivers are not building forwards a normal delta; they are discharging their load of sediment into a tectonic basin which is the successor to a geosyncline in which many thousands of feet of sediment had been accumulated in the past. There is no acceptable historical evidence that the head of the Gulf was ever very far up country from its present position, and the evidence which we have collected suggests on the contrary a complex of pattern of advance and retreat of the sea ; precise dating is not yet possible" (pp. 38-39), "The Geographical History of the Mesopotamian

18

GEOGRAPHICAL FRAMEWORK

Two hundred and fifty miles of semi-desert steppe separate the Euphrates and the Tigris when they enter the Mesopotamian plains. They flow south and southeast respectively; at approximately the latitude of Baghdad, they are only about twenty miles apart. Here they again take two gentle curves away from each other and then move on south towards the Persian Gulf. The Tigris is the shortest of the two and its flood period, as a rule, does not coincide with that of the Euphrates.3 The south and southeastern corner of Iraq is an area of lakes and swamps. The inhabitants are known locally as Ma'dans and usually belong to various tribes.4 Plains", GJ, CXVIII (March), 1952, pp. 24-39. For the Mesopotamian plain's geography see P. Buringh, "Living Conditions in the Lower Mesopotamian Plain in Ancient Times", Sumer, XIII (1957), pp. 30-57. Recent archaeological soundings in the Hammar area may have added another concrete proof to what Falcon and Lees were able to prove geologically. Artifacts and objects which go back as early as the Third Dynasty of Ur, the Old Babylonian, and Kassite periods were discovered (Roux, G., "Recently Discovered Ancient Sites in the Hammar Lake District-Southern Iraq", Sumer, XVI, 1960, nos. 1-2, pp. 20fF.). The site of Abu-Salabikh, (Ibid., pp. 24 ff.), yielded objects which can be dated to the Third Dynasty of Ur and pottery from its various levels which are characteristic types of Mesopotamian wares from ancient times to the New Babylonian periods (Ibid., p. 26). Pottery from Tell Aqram, comparable to that of Dur-Kurigalzu, exhibits Kassite workmanship {Ibid., p. 29). 3 Ordinarily the Tigris floods three weeks earlier than the Euphrates, reaching its height in the middle of April ; while the Euphrates usually floods around the beginning of May (G. Hested, Physical Basis of Geography of Iraq, Arabic translation by J. Khalaf, Baghdad, 1948, p. 136). 4 The exact extension of the marsh area during past milleniums is not specifically known, and therefore the history of the region is ambiguous. The entire marsh area may be divided into three major regions; 1 Al-Hwaiza marsh, east of the Tigris; 2 Hammar marsh, south of the Euphrates; and 3 the central marshes in the area between the two rivers. The eastern parts of the Al-Hwaiza marsh are deep, and canoes are rowed rather than navigated by poles. The depth of the water makes it difficult to keep animals there and presents a hindrance to the construction of artificial islands upon which homes may be built. For these reasons settlements are primarily limited to the western fringe of the marsh where some of these islands are found. Portions of the Hammar marsh seems to have a long history as the soundings of Roux (op. cit.) would testify. Its waters are quiet and shallow, and thus artificial islands are easily constructed. The central marshes are the smallest of the three regions. At some areas, namely the southern parts, they run parallel to the Euphrates, and at others they join the river. These marshes contain a long series of lakes oriented north-south, which are so deep that it makes the construction of permanent settlements impossible. Very little research has been done regarding the inhabitants of the marsh areas and most of the work undertaken is of unscientific nature. Researchers who have written on the subject are: Fulanain, Haji Rikkan, Marsh Arab (London, 1927); G. Maxwell, The People of the Reeds (New York, 1957); A Ring of Bright Water (London, 1960), pp. 76ff.; R. Levy, "A Note on the Marsh Arabs in Lower Iraq", J AOS, 44 (1924), pp. 130-133; Sigrid Westphal-Hellbusch, "Die Kultur der Ma'dan in Gegenwart und

GEOGRAPHICAL FRAMEWORK

19

The distinctive characteristics of the marsh dwellers have always been their main dependence upon buffaloes for living, their reed houses and mats, and their strange boats known locally as mashhüfs.5 In addition to Vergangenheit", Sumer, XII (1956), pp. 66-75; Wilfred Thesiger, "Marsh Dwellers of Southern Iraq", National Geographic, CXIII, no. 2 (Febr., 1958), pp. 204-239; H. St. J. Philby, "The Eastern Marshes of Mesopotamia", GJ, CXXV (1959), pp. 65-69; Q. N. Al-Nuri, "Kinship and Changing Requirements of Group Loyalty Among Tribal People in South Iraq" (unpublished Master's Dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle, 1960). P. A. Buxton, and V. H. Dawson, "The Marsh Arabs of Lower Mesopotamia", Indian Antiquary, Vol. 1 (1921); Lady Drower, "Marsh people of South Iraq", JRAS, 34, (1947), pp. 83-90; E. S. Drower, "The Arabs of the Hor Al-Hawiza, in H. Fields", The Anthropology of Iraq, Part 1, No. 2 (Chicago Field Museum, 1949), pp. 368-406; Henry Field, "Some notes on the Albu Muhammed of Iraq", JRCAS, 36 (1949) pp. 274-277; G. Maxwell, the Ma'dan "Marsh dwellers of Iraq", Natural History, 68 (1959) pp. 266-274; F. Bawdin, "The Marsh Arabs of Iraq", GM, 17 (1944-45) pp. 382-393; Sh. M. Salim, Al-Chibayish; "Anthropological study of a Marsh village in Iraq" (Text is Arabic) (Al-Rabitah Press, Baghdad), Vol. 1,1956, Vol. 2, 1957; Wilfred Thesiger, The Marsh Arabs, London, 1964; Sh. M. Salim, Marsh Dwellers of the Euphrates Delta, London School of Economics Monographs on Social Anthropology, No. 23 (London, 1962). The Ma'dans are essentially unsettled, forever moving from one place to another and often dislodging the current inhabitants of a particular location to take up their own residence on the spot. The Basic reasons for this would seem to be 1) to acquire the new lands resulting from the retreat of the marshes and 2) to acquire better trade localities which are at the edges of the marshes where there are markets and a demand for the marsh dweller's products. The marsh dwellers are organized into tribal communities with each tribe having its own chieftain. The principal concept of the tribal society is best explained by the term AVasabiya, meaning blind obedience of the individual to his community or tribe. The members of the tribe usually trace their descent to common ancestory and therefore have common sentiments. This "Al'açabiya" determines the social solidarity of the group which is necessary for the tribe in order to defend its herds and lands from other tribes. The head of a particular tribe ordinarily has widespread ties of kinship within his own tribe and certain other characteristics such as generosity, courage, and honesty. Tribesmen therefore see him as a wise and just father, and so obedience to him is a sign of love and respect rather than of weakness and fear (al-Nuri, p. 8). All important decisions involving the welfare of the entire group are discussed in a meeting of the tribe's council and a judicial council made up of members who reputedly have sound judgement and a wide knowledge of tribal code. Disputing individuals have the right to request the chieftain to appoint certain persons to mediate between them (Al-Tahir, A. J., The Bedouin and Sedentary Tribes in the Arab States (Cairo, 1955), p. 30 (in Arabic). 5 Much of the marsh dweller's life revolves around his buffaloes which are the most important unit in his economy. These animals are killed for food only if they are dying of some disease because they are highly prized for their milk and dung. Marsh families ordinarily own two or three buffaloes, but the nomadic tribes around the marsh fringes have whole herds. The marsh dwellers drink sour or curdled buffalo milk and churn it into butter by swinging in a dried sheep skin. Buffalo dung has multiple uses. It is used for fuel and for water-proofing. Women gather it and make it into plate-shaped pats which bear the imprint of the left hand. These are stacked to form a dome-shape when used for fuel. It also is used like cement to patch walls and the cylinders of matting

20

GEOGRAPHICAL FRAMEWORK

keeping buffaloes, the marsh dweller hunts, fishes, practices agriculture and engages in trade.6 A problem that faced the farmer in ancient Mesopotamia as well as the tillers in modern Iraq is soil salination which makes the ground unproused for grain storage. These pats can be used to roof a whole structure in which case they are laid on like mosaic (Maxwell, People of the Reeds, p. 62ff.). Reed mats are made in many places throughout the marshes and sold to traders who come regularly from the towns. The mats are used for sun-shades, for roofing, and for food coverings, as well as for floor coverings. Homes are constructed almost entirely of reed, each on its own island; and each house is surrounded and built up by cut-reed bundles (Maxwell, ibid., p. 60). The homes are usually built of giant reed phragmites communis which grows to a height of twenty feet. The dwellings are easily transported from place to place. The use of reed mats is known from ancient Mesopotamia. They were used in the ziggurats of Ur and Warka (R. P. Dougherty, "Searching for Ancient Remains in Lower Iraq", AASOR, VII, 1925-26, New Haven, 1927, p. 19). A boat found in the excavations at Ur, now in the Baghdad museum, is a miniture of a modern mashhiif. The Ma'dan's boats are made of planks covered with bitumen and have flat bottoms. The prow is long and tapered in order to push a path through the reeds. There is a thwart about a third of the way forward, but passengers usually sit on the bottom of the boat (Thesiger, p. 218). On the archaeological sites in the marshy area see Roux, Sumer, XVI, op. cit., p. 20ff. Anthropologists and travelers in the marsh area report that the marsh dwellers occasionally unearth small statues or pots filled with ancient coins (Thesiger, op. cit., p. 213; Fulanain, op. cit., p. 251); record the discovery of pottery and a flat square brick inscribed with cuneiform signs. Thesiger (op. cit., p. 213) reports that he was given a small piece of lead sheeting that bore writing which has since been identified as Phoenician. • The marsh dweller sells eggs, butter, milk, cream, sour milk, chickens, and buffalo dung to people of the cities. Birds and fish constitute the meat of the Ma'dan's diet. The men go out in groups for two or three days at a time for hunting and fishing (Maxwell, People of the Reeds, op. cit., p. 45). Fish are not netted, but are speared or caught by the use of poisoned bait. When the reeds are small they serve as food for the buffaloes. In the marshes various herbs are eaten by the animals; in Spring, white flowers called izhair Al-baf and another plant, k'aybe, are also consumed by the animals. When the marsh dwellers want to prepare land for tilling, they usually burn the reeds on the spot where they wish to plant at the beginning of winter in order to be ready for planting in the Spring. Rice is their main agricultural product, but wheat and barley are also cultivated. Various vegetables are grown and palm trees grow in the fringe areas. Up to 40 years ago the land was used and owned collectively (Al-Nuri, op. cit., p. 49). Each individual was assigned a tract of land and a percentage of its produce was given to the chieftain for the maintenance of the guesthouse (mudif), and the tribal militia (D. Warriner, Land and Poverty in the Middle East London, 1948, p. 102). The individual's privilege to use the land could be revoked as a punitive measure (Al-Nuri, op. cit., p. 50). In addition to these more ordinary occupations the Ma'dans are adept thieves. During the Turkish rule they practiced piracy, holding ships for blackmail on their way upstream (Levy, op. cit., p. 30).

GEOGRAPHICAL FRAMEWORK

21

ductive. T h e major source of sodium and salt has always been water deposits caused by poor irrigation drainage. Other factors adding to the problem are the semi-arid climate and the permeability of the soil. 7 T o w n s and villages in ancient Mesopotamia were ordinarily located on rivers or canals. These waterways were always open and constituted the chief means o f communication, and the Persian Gulf was the gateway for sea trade with the rest o f the world. A reconstruction of the geography of southern Mesopotamia during the 7th century B.C. is a hazardous task; for all major rivers in the area have altered their beds many times throughout the centuries, and in large sections of the area heavy deposits of new soil n o w hide all ancient river and canal beds. A new method, ceramic survey, has been used recently for locating old settlements and canals. The method has produced sound results, but these have not yet been published fully. 8 Tentatively, however, we may reconstruct the geography somewhat o n the basis of cuneiform and classical sources, and the accounts of the Arab geographers. 9 ' Regarding the effect of salination upon the Mesopotamian village communities, see Adams and Jacobsen, "Salt and Silt in Ancient Mesopotamian Agriculture", Science 128 (1958), pp. 1251 ff. On the problem of salination, its effects and reasons, see P. Buringh and C. H. Edelman, "Some Remarks About the Soils of the Alluvial Plains of Iraq, South of Baghdad", Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science, III (1955), pp. 40-49; see also Th. Jacobsen, "Summary of Report by the Diyala Basin Archaeological Project, June 1, 1958", Sumer, XIV (1958), nos. 1, 2, pp. 79ff. Regarding the problem of soil salination in modern Iraq see M. J. Al-Alusi, Problems of Economic Development in Iraq (Cairo, 1958), pp. 12ff., (in Arabic), and G. Hested, op. cit., pp. 112-133. 8 This method was first used in the Diyala region by Th. Jacobsen in 1937. In 1953-54 it was utilized by F. Safar, V. Crawford, and Th. Jacobsen in a survey for central Sumer. In 1956-57 R. Adams and V. Crawford used this method in their survey of Akkad. Lately Safar, Adams, and Jacobsen have employed the method for the Diyala basin archaeological project. Th. Jacobsen, "La Geographie et les Voies de Communication du pays de Sumer", RA, LII (1958), pp. 127-129; Jacobsen, "Early Political Development in Mesopotamia", ZA, 52 (1957), pp. 96-99; "The Waters of Ur", Iraq, XII (1960), pp. 174ff.; R. Adams, "Mesopotamian Mound Survey", Archaeology, Χ (1957), pp. 270ff.; "Survey of Water Courses", Sumer, XIV (1958), pp. 101-104; "The Diyala Basin", Sumer, XIV (1958), pp. 79-89. • Cuneiform texts contain many names of rivers and canals, but it is extremely difficult to locate them precisely. Some lists of such waterways, which were in Ashurbanipal's library, have been preserved. These were first published by Delitzsch in Wo lag das Paradies. F. Η. Weissbach, "Die Geographen Liste, II R 50", ZDMG, 53 (1899), pp. 653-667 published a list which was later treated, with others, by F. Hommel in Grundriss der Geographie und Geschichte des alten Orients Babyloniens und Chaldaea (München, 1904). Boundary stones, royal Annals, correspondence, and business documents of the period also contain the names of many rivers and canals.

22

GEOGRAPHICAL FRAMEWORK

From these combined sources the geographical positions of the ancient canals and rivers o f southern Mesopotamia can be deduced. T h e cuneiform sources preserve the name o f a certain Sirtu (MAJjT) canal, which may be identified with the Archous river of the classical sources and with the Dujail river of Arabic accounts. 1 0 Far to the north of the site o f modern Baghdad, we hear of the Tartara canal which ran first in a southern direction, then curved eastward. 1 1 Three main canals would appear t o have branched off the Euphrates in the vicinity of Sippar: the Iturungal, Irninna, and the Pati- d Bel. 1 2 The Iturungal left the Euphrates north of Sippar, and flowed east to Kish. It continued south from Kish to Nippur. Somewhere south of Nippur it perhaps joined the Apkallatum (Greek, Pallacottas). 1 3 The Irninna left Classical writers who have left some information concerning the area are Herodetus, Strabo, Arrian, Pliny the Elder, and Ammianus Marcellinus. Of the several sources, the writings of the Arab geographers are the fullest and most detailed. The Work of Ibn Serapion has been translated by G. LeStrange in JRAS, 1895, pp. 1-76, 255-315, 735-749. Other geographers of importance are Ibn I^auqal, El-masälik wa al-mamâlik; Yaqüt, Mu'jam el buldän, and Abu el-Fida's Geography. The geography of Babylonia was first reconstructed on the basis of the Arab sources by M. Streck, Die alten Landschaft Babylonien nach den Arabischen Geographen, 2 Vols. (Leiden, 1900-10); G. LeStrange, The Lands of the Eastern Caliphate (Cambridge, 1905), pp. 26-75; J. Obermeyer, Die Landschaft Babylonien im Zeitalter des Talmuds und des Gaonats (Frankfort, 1929). 10 Weissbach, op. cit., p. 658; Hommel, op. cit., p. 277, where the Çirtu canal is mentioned together with the Tigris. The text seems to place the names of the rivers in geographical order and the Çirtu, meaning 'the upper,' 'high' may be taken as an indication that the river was located in North Babylonia. Pliny, NH, VI, 31, states that "The Tigris surrounds Apamaea" (which he placed about 125 miles north of Seleucia on the Tigris) "and that city was also transversed by the waters of the Archous". The Dujail river, according to the Arabic accounts, leaves the Euphrates about 36 miles south of modern Hit and reaches the Tigris north of Baghdad (LeStrange, op. cit., p. 65). For the identification of Dujail with the Archous see also J. W. Lane, Babylonian Problems (New York, 1923), p. 71, "Now this southern branch (which is named in Pliny Archous) cannot represent any other waterway except this broad canal, the presursor of the later Dujail, and we may, then, accept the fact, without much fear of challenge, that it discharged into the Agarguf basin, where one outlet emptied in the Tigris near Seleucia". 11 ARAB, I, 407; Medieval and modern Al-Thirthar. 12 It is known from the account of Nebuchadnezzar II that the wall he built from the bank of the Tigris above Opis, (a city which may be located somewhere in the neighborhood where the Al-Adaim river empties into the Tigris) terminated on the Euphrates at Sippar. This may indicate that a system of canals branched off from the Euphrates in the vicinity of the last mentioned city. 13 Hommel, op. cit., p. 277; Weissbach, op. cit., p. 658. For the Iturungal canal in earlier periods see Jacobsen, ZA, op. cit. ; Iraq, op. cit., p. 175. From north of Sippar down to Kish the canal's line has been established by the survey of Adams and Crawford (Jacobsen, Iraq, p. 175).

GEOGRAPHICAL FRAMEWORK

23

the Euphrates at Sippar and flowed southeast and south to Cutha. This canal may have been extended in Parthian times east toward the Tigris to become known as the Cutha canal.14 The Pati- dBel, which was probably the later Nahr Malka, ran to the southeast of Dur-Kurigalzu.15 We know that the Arahtu canal passed the city of Babylon, and continued in a southern direction and perhaps joined the Apkallatum.16 The Borsippa canal quite likely branched off the western bank of the Arahtu at Babylon and flowed to the city of Borsippa.17 The Kish canal, which

For the Apkallatum in earlier periods see Jacobsen, Iraq, op. cit.·, for classical Pallacottas, see Arrian, Anabasis of Alexander, VII.21, who relates that Alexander sailed on the river south of Babylon until it reached the Pallacottas. The Apkallatum may be identified with the Badat river of the Arabic sources, which was a long drainage canal branching off the left bank of the western branch of the Euphrates in the vicinity of of Kufa, and flowing southeast to join the Sura al-Asfal (modern Al-Hillah river). It then continued in a southeasternly direction to join the medieval Mars river, which was perhaps a part of the old Iturungal. The Apkallatum may have also been called the Dakkuri canal since it ran through their area. The name Budai as inhabitants of kur Bu-ú-du has come down to us; M. Streck, "Keilschrift Beitrage Zur Geographie Vorderasiens", MV AG, XI (1906), 3; "Die Nomadischen Volkerschaften Babyloniens und des grenzenden Elams", no. 10. The similarity between the names Badat and Bu-u-du may indicate that the Badat has preserved the name of the land. This waterway may be that which Sennacherib called the Dakkuri canal. Sennacherib mentioned that his ships had taken the Dakkuri canal after the Arahtu. He followed the Dakkuri canal (Badat) until its confluence with the Iturungal; then he named a certain city (whose name is not preserved in the text) where he took provisions for his army, and which, in all probability, is to be located south of Nippur. Afterwards nowhere states that he took the land route while his troops proceeded by water (AS, p. 73, Is. 64-68). Sennacherib may have passed through Larsa, south along the Euphrates and along the northern shores of Hammar until he reached Bab-Salimeti. He never mentioned crossing the Euphrates again; this accords well with the present reconstruction, although he may have crossed some small canals. 14 Jakobsen, Iraq, op. cit., p. 176; Hommel, op. cit., p. 277; Weissbach, op. cit., p. 658. 15 ABL, 883; ARAB, I, 408. However we know nothing of Nahr Malka in this area before the Parthian period. Xenophon, in the Anabasis, left a description of the area but never mentioned the river, and refers only to the Euphrates. But in the neighborhood of Uruk we hear of a canal by the name Nar Sharri (NBAD, no. 8, 1. 8; no. 12, 1.16; no. 59,1. 10, 26; no. 73,1. 5; ABL, 275). 16 Sennacherib informs us that he removed "the wall and moat and houses of the gods, the towers of brick and earth, all there was and threw them into the Arahtu canal" (AS, p. 84, Is. 51 ff.). Nabopolassar relates that he "caused the Arahtu to bring mortar and pitch" (Inscription I, Col. I, Is. 23-42; Col. II, Is. 1-13). Nebuchadnezzar refers to the same canal in many of his inscriptions, an example of which is Inscription I, Col. I, Is. 35-45, etc. All of these references fully indicate that the Arafrtu canal is none other than that on which Babylon was situated. For the route from Babylon up the Arahtu canal to Sippar and upwards see A. Leo Oppenheim, Dreambook..., p. 313 ; Jacobsen, Iraq, op. cit., pp. 176fF. " ARAB, II, 36.

24

GEOGRAPHICAL FRAMEWORK

seemed to have been in close proximity to the Euphrates, may have taken its waters from the Arahtu and flowed southwest through Kish to empty into the Iturungal.18 The Baniti canal is probably to be identified with the earlier Me- dEnlil-la. It left the right bank of the Euphrates at Kish and flowed southeast past Marad (Wennet es-Sa3dün) until it reached the vicinity of Nippur.19 After passing the city of Larsa, the Euphrates started through a marshy area, and continued on to empty into the Persian Gulf. 20 It is difficult to conclude with certainty whether the weir at Diqdiqah, which has been established for earlier periods, was still in existence as late as the 7th century B.C. However, it may seem possible to assume that it still remained.21 It is quite probable that the modern bed of the Tigris is the same as it was in the 7th century B.C. ; perhaps the river started to be lost in the marshes not far south of the site of modern Al-Kut.22 After flowing out of the lakes the Tigris ran in a single channel, which may be the Harra river, marking the borders between Elamite and Babylonian territories in the south. However, although both the Tigris and the Euphrates eventually flowed into the Gulf, the two rivers did this at separate locations. 23 The 18

ΝBAD, no. 11. Jacobsen, Iraq, op. cit., p. 177. The course of this canal has been traced by Adams and Crawford from Kish to Wennet es-Sa'dun (Jacobsen, ibid.). The canal was mentioned in CCK, rev. 1. 26, p. 52, and in ABL, 327. 20 South and southeast of Uruk in the direction of Larsa, stretches an empty space which was probably once lakes and marshes (Jacobsen, Iraq, op. cit., p. 179). See ΝBAD, op. cit., no. 12. 21 Jacobsen, Iraq, op. cit., p. 176. Evidence for this may be derived from the fact that Ur had witnessed many reconstructions throughout the centuries and had retained its importance. This no doubt was because of the city's religious importance as the seat of the god Sin; also, its fertile surrounding areas were heavily populated at this time, a fact which may indicate continuous care of water distribution. In the accounts of Sargon about his activities against Merodach-baladan he writes : "He cut a channel (leading) from the Euphrates and carried it up to its (the city's) environs. The city's meadows, where battles (are fought), be filled with water and cut dykes. That one, with his allies (and) his warriors, pitched the royal tent in the midst of the ditches like a pelican (?)" (ARAB, II, 39). Thus, during the time of Sargon, the area seems to have had a considerable number of waterways. 22 Westphal-Hellbusch, op. cit., p. 66; G. Hested, op. cit., p. 64. 23 Cf. ARAB, II, 319. Pliny, NH, XXI.30, records that "the distance between the two rivers was 25 miles, and according to another account, 7 miles". Strabo, IV, 15.5 referred to the fact that each had its separate channel to the sea. After the weir of Diqdiqah, the Euphrates began to lose itself in the Hammar marsh ; it flowed out of the marshes and emptied its course into the Persian Gulf (Streck, p. 796; ABL, nos. 418, 520, 795, 1000, 1136, where the Nar Marrât (Hammar marsh, classical, "Locus Chaldiacum" is mentioned). 19

GEOGRAPHICAL FRAMEWORK

25

al

river Nar Puqudu perhaps branched off the Harm and flowed eastward.24 Along these rivers and canals, there were a number of flourishing cities, such as Sippar, Cutha, Babylon, Nippur, Uruk, Ur, Larsa, Kisig, Eridu, etc. The areas around these cities were settled by various tribes, each having its own territory.25 21

On the öarru, cf. ABL, 273, 288, 747, 790, 1108, 1121, 1135, 1244. For the Nar •»Puqudu see ΝBAD, no. 150. 2S The regions here assigned to the various tribes are those which seem most probable to me. The Bit-Dakkuri tribe had inhabited the region south and southeast of Babylon extending southward towards Uruk. Their capital, al Bit-Dakkur, was apparently in the neighborhood of the latter. Sennacherib mentioned twenty-six of their cities, among which were Marad (Wennet es-Sa'dun) and Baniti (which was very likely on the Baniti canal). (AS, p. 52, Is. 36-39). For this tribe see S. Schiffer, Die Aramaer (Leipzig, 1911), p. 61 ; RLA, II, pp. 38-40; a contract from the 24th year of Nebuchadnezzar (Dougherty, GCCI, no. 54,1. 6; BR, no. 14) mentioned the Dur Bit-Dakkuri as being in the vicinity of Uruk; NBAD, no. 73,1. 6; Streck, p. 778. The Bit Ammukani had settled to the south of the Dakkuri region, north and southeast of Larsa, and their territory extended down along the north shores of the Hammar marsh (RLA, II, pp. 35-36; Streck, p. 777). The Bit Iakin territory stretched from Larsa and included the settlements of the Hammar marsh and the region to the south of it. Tell-al-Lahm has been identified by H. W. F. Saggs, "A Cylinder from Tell-al-Lahm", Sumer, XIII (1957), nos. 1 and 2, pp. 190-194) with Dur-Iakin. Tn. Jacobsen, however, (see the map attached to his article "The water of Ur", Iraq, op. cit.) identified this city with Kisig, which was a part of Bit-lakin's land. The new soundings in the Hammar (Roux, Sumer, 1960, op. cit., p. 26) yielded the following inscription from the site of Abu-$alabikh : sa É m la-kin, which is but another proof that the Bit-Iakin represents the whole area and not a particular site. RLA, II, pp. 34-44; M. Streck, "Über die älteste Geschichte der Aramaer mit besonderer Brucksichtigung der Verhaltnisse in Babylonien und Assyrien", Klio, VI, (1906), pp. 207ÍT.; Streck, p. 778. The area of the Rubu' tribe was north of the marshes, to the east of the Tigris (M VAG, XI, p. 239, no. 71). The Ubudu inhabited the south Euphrates area (ibid, p. 217, no. 10). Around Sippar were located the tribes of ïjiranu and Luhuatu (ibid, p. 227, no. 31; p. 231, no. 51). The Garasimmu lived in Lower Babylonia near the Seas Land, (ibid, pp. 223-224; Streck, pp. 283 ff.) and the Nuhanua had settled on the Uknu river (ARAB, II, 32, 257; ABL, 967 ; RCA E, III, p. 270; MVAG, XI, p. 233, no. 63). Most of the Ru'ua dwelt in the lower marshes in southern Babylonia towards the Persian Gulf (ibid, p. 240, no. 74; Streck, CXXXII; Forrer, Die Provinzeinteilung des Assyrischen Reiches, p. 98) but a part of this tribe had apparently settled in north Babylonia east of the Tigris; H. W. F. Saggs, "Nimrud Letters", Iraq, XVI, part I (Spring, 1955), Letter VIII. The Puqudu, the IJillim, and the Pillat lived in the territory between the Uknu and the Çarru river; part of the Puqudu, however, seemingly were still inhabiting the southern marshes of Babylonia (MVAG, XI, 226, 233-4; Streck, pp. 803, 787, 803); T. Jacobsen, "Pekod" Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible (New York, Abingdon Press, 1962) Vol. Ill p. 709 A, places them on East Banks of the lower Tigris, approximately between modern Kut-el-Amara and the confluence of the Kerkha river. Mentioned in Jeremiah, oracle against Babylon (Jer. 50:21) and in Ezekiel List of Tribes has turned

26

GEOGRAPHICAL FRAMEWORK

against Jerusalem (Ezek. 23-23). The Gambuli resided between Ur and the Uknu river (MVAG, XI, pp. 218-223; RLA, (1959), p. 136; Delitzsch, Wo lag..., op. cit., p. 240; Forrer, op. cit., p. 97; Streck, p. 783). The IJamranu's region was to the north of Babylonia not far south of the Hamrin Mountains and may have extended southwest (MVAG, XI, p. 225). The Gurumu seem to have lived in the region east of the Tigris south of the Lower Zab (M. Streck, Klio, op. cit., p. 205 ; in the Ptolemaic Canon, VI, 1 the name Garamaia occurred in this area). The Hagaranu had settled east of the Tigris to the northest of the site of modern Baghdad (MVAG, XI, p. 227, no. 33). The Rahiqu lived east of the Tigris in north Babylonia (Forrer, op. cit., p. 12; MVAG, XI, p. 238, no. 51).

II T H E R E I G N O F A S H U R B A N I P A L : A SURVEY

Esarhaddon died on the first or second day of November 669 B.C.,1 or, perhaps, one month later,2 after ruling twelve years, eight months and ten days. He died believing that the efforts of his lifetime had left his kingdom quiet to the extent that the ascendency of his son, Ashurbanipal, 3 would not be opposed. The most troublesome borders, namely the north and northeastern ones, were kept under control by military tactics and constant fighting during the period of the late Assyrian empire. Owing to the strategic importance of the area, previous Assyrian monarchs had there constructed good roads and well-defended strongholds to facilitate rapid movement of their troops in case of any rebellion. The inhabitants of the area were known to be constantly insubmissive to Assyria and through their chieftains the rival states found them perfect instruments by which to weave intrigues.4 To the late monarch, the problems of the South seemed to have been solved, and the Babylonians were now well under control. He had done his best to meet their wishes half-way and, contrary to the harshness and violence of his father Sennacherib, Esarhaddon had treated them with kindness. 1

E. Kugler, Sternkunde und Sterndienst in Babel, II (1907), pp. 355ff. W. Dubberstein, "Assyrian-Babylonian Chronology 669-612 B.C.", JNES. Ill (1944), p. 38 ff. 3 Assur-bani-apli; Old Testament (Aramaic); Osnappar of Ezra 4:10. Many Greek and Latin historians mention the name Sardanapolus, whom many Assyriologists equate with Ashurbanipal. Although some of the tasks attributed to the Greco-Roman Sardanapolus coincide with those of Ashurbanipal, other tales have no reference to his actual character. An Arabic source, Al-Birflni, seems to have known him under the name of Sardanapolus as well as another name, Thonos Konkileros (C. E. Sachau, Chronology of Ancient Nations, London, 1879, p. 100, this being the English translation of Al-BirOni, Al-Athär Al-Bäqiyah an Al-qurün Al-Khäliyah). 4 M. El-Amin, "Soundings in the Region of Makhmur", Sumer, IV (1948), no. 2, Arabic Section, p. 297. M. Mallowan and M. El-Amin, "Sounding in the Makhmur Plain", Sumer, V (1949), no. 2, pp. 145ff. ; T. W. Brown, "Report on the Discovery of a Line of Ancient Fortifications on the Ridge East of the Rania Plain, Sulaimaniyah Liwa", Sumer, XIV (1958), nos. 1-2, p. 122ff. 2

28

THE REIGN OF ASHURBANIPAL

In actuality, however, the state was on the threshold of disaster. The empire had been stumbling in her foreign relations since the death of Tiglath-pileser III, forty-five years prior to the ascendency of Esarhaddon, and under whom the empire had reached its political and imperial supremacy. Three years before his death Esarhaddon signed a treaty with Ramataia, king of Urukazabarna,5 which was probably one of many concluded with other vassal kings who were present at Nineveh at the ceremony of Ashurbanipal's and Shamash-shum-ukin's installation as crown princes of Assyria and Babylonia,® but it is the only one thus far discovered. Esarhaddon's personal inquiries to the gods indicate the immensity of his anxieties and suggest that the empire was on the brink of deterioration. 7 At the outset of his reign he had a conflict with his own brothers who had killed his father and opposed his mounting the throne.8 Almost simultaneously an insurrection arose in Babylonia, putting his dominance in the South to sore trial.9 The years of his reign witnessed continual warfare in the north, northeast, east and west, and at the moment of his death he was himself enroute to bring down the revolts of both Tyre and Egypt. Immediately following the arrival at Nineveh of the word of Esarhaddon's death, Zaquti, the queen-mother,10 hastened to accept the oath of 5 D. J. Wiseman, "A Collection of Appalling Curses — Transcribed from the largest cuneiform tablet in the world : The Treaty of Esarhaddon with Ramataia the Median, Discovered in a Nimrud Throne Room", ILN, Vol. 234 (Jan. 3, 1959), no. 6239, pp. 26-29; D. J. Wiseman, Iraq, XX, (1957). The treaty is dated to the 16th day of Ayyar, eponym Nabu-bel-usur, shaknu official of Dur Sharrukin, May, 672 B.C.. 6 PEA, Col. V, 1. 54-Col. VI, 1.1. 7 S. Strong, "On Some Oracles to Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal", SBA V, Band II (Leipzig, 1893); A. Delattre, "The Oracles of Esarhaddon", BOR (1889); AGS; KPRT. 8 PEA, Col. I, Is. 41ff.; ARAB, 501. » PEA, Col. II, Is. 40ff.; ARAB, 509, 543. 10 Mother of Esarhaddon and wife of Sennacherib. She bore in addition, the western Semitic name of Naqi'a, meaning "the pure lady". The name may indicate that she was of west Semitic origin; it was first suggested by C. Johns in ADD, IV, pp. 160, that the name Naqi'a is Hebrew. Meissner in SPA W, XII (1932), p. 11, and ftn. no. 1, argues that the name could not be Aramaean for then it should be Naqita/u. H. Lewy, in "Nitokris-Naqi'a", JNES, XI (1952), p. 272 argues on a linguistic basis that the name Naqi'a is an Assyrian rendering of an old dialectal form used by the Aramaeans of southern Babylonia, in the sense of Biblical Aramaic, Niqia. Waterman, RCAE, III, p. 327 sets forth the possibility that Naqi'a may be a princess sent to Sennacherib by Hezekiah of Judah in 701 B.C.. We may assume that Shamash-shum-ukin was less than 18 years of age in 672 B.C. on the evidence of clause 237 in the treaty with Ramataia which states the following: "If Esarhaddon king of Assyria died in the minority of his sons." This would place the birth of Shamasn-shum-ukin at least by 688 B.C. ; the birth of his elder brother, who died prior to 672 B.C., was problaby in 690 B.C. If we believe

THE REIGN OF ASHURBANIPAL

29

fidelity to her grandson, Ashurbanipal, from all members of the royal family, officials present at Nineveh, and finally from the people of Assyria.11 Ashurbanipal came to the throne in a time of uneasiness. Egypt, Tyre, and Arvad were in open revolt and an Assyrian army was already on its way to deal with the rebels. The Egyptians doubtless felt themselves better prepared to meet the onslaught of Assyria than they had been at the time of their previous revolt. They probably had learned that the assistance of Tyre and other coastal states, and the previsions and guidance given to Esarhaddon's troops by the Arabian tribes in the desert, were two important factors in his success. Accordingly, Egyptian strategy may be found behind the revolts of Tyre, Arvad and Tabal, which were the first to be dealt with by the Assyrian troops. Although Ashurbanipal boasted in his Annals of being at the head of his armies throughout these initial military endeavors, in all probability he remained at Nineveh.12 Tyre was the first to be attacked and Ba'ali, hard pressed, submitted in all probability no later than Tebetu/Shabatu 669/668 B.C.. This conclusion regarding the date, when studied in the light of Tyre's natural defenses, may provide evidence for the accounts in which the Assyrian scribe recorded its siege,13 and for the assistance Ashurbanipal acquired from the coastal states and North Syria. The inability of Ba'ali to offer resistance, in spite of his power, brought terror to the hearts of the neighboring revolted territories. Ashurbanipal claims — and the claim may well be believed — that Iakinlu, king of Arvad, Mugallu, king of Tabal,

Waterman Esarhaddon must have been married when he was 9 years old to have a son by 690 B.C.; clearly, this assumption is impossible. H. Lewy forwarded the theory that Zaquti was born in Lahiru in Babylonia on the Elamite border, which had been taken by Sargon in 712 B.C.. She further suggested that the princes of Lahiru came to pay homage to Sargon and it is not difficult to imagine that Zaquti was brought to serve as a concubine in the royal harem. She also suggested that Zaquti was the Nitokris of Herodotus and that the Greek legends have transferred much of her career in Babylonia to Semiramis. 11 ABL, 1239; Olmstead, HA, pp. 401 if., discusses the taking of the oath. 12 In Ashurbanipal's reference to the surrender of Iakinlu of Arvad he records that the latter brought his daughter with large presents to Nineveh (Cylinder A, Col. II, Is. 63-67) ; he then recorded the coming of Iakinlu, Mugallu, king of Tabal and Sandisharme of Cilicia with their presents and daughters to Nineveh (Piepkorn, Edition B, Col. II, Is. 71 if.). In his account of Kirbit he relates that the people of Der came to him and asked for help (Streck, p. 166, 1. 10; ARAB, 908). The campaign definitely took place in his accession year, and we may presume that the king was at Nineveh when the people of Der came. 13 Piepkorn, Edition B, Col. II, Is. 44-52.

30

THE REIGN OF ASHURBANIPAL

and Sandisharme of Cilicia went to Nineveh post haste taking with them rich gifts and their daughters for the royal harem.14 As soon as the Mediterranean coast had again acknowledged Assyrian domination, the army swept on into Egypt via the coastal road and was maintained by ships drawn from the Phoenician states, to the number of which Ba'ali may also have contributed.15 The first Egyptian city the troops came upon was Karbaniti.16 A fierce battle ensued and Tarku, Egypt's king, who was then in Memphis, fled to Thebes after hearing of the Assyrian victory. The army pushed on to Memphis, then to Thebes, leaving in its bloody path a subdued land. The Egyptian governors, who had been appointed by Esarhaddon and had fled at the advance of Tarku,17 were then reinstated in their positions, and event which probably took place no later than Tammuzu 668 B.c..18 Ashurbanipal relates that the governors subsequently sided with Tarku 14

Ibid., Edition B, Col. II, Is. 71-79; Cylinder A, Col. II, Is. 63-80; ARAB, II, 780782; Streck, II, p. 18. 15 Streck, II, p. 8, Col. 1, Is. 68-77 ; ARAB, II, 771. " Perhaps to be identified with the city of Pelusium, the port of Egypt located in the marshes at the mouth of the Pelusium (Damietta) branch of the Nile, a distance of about 22 miles west of Port Said (G. Smith, "Egyptian Campaigns of Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal", Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde, 6 (1868), p. 94). 17 Streck, Cylinder A, Col. I, Is. 78ff,; ARAB, II, 771 ; Piepkorn, Edition B, Col. I, Is. 68if. 18 Piepkorn, p. 8, no. 4 quotes from a text which begins "Accession year; in my former campaign", and concludes that the first Egyptian campaign should be dated to the reign of Esarhaddon, and that Ashurbanipal falsely attributed it to himself. Piepkorn here follows other scholars, e.g. Olmstead, Assyrian Historiography, p. 54, who argues that Ashurbanipal had taken the first Egyptian campaign, the triumph over Ba'ali and N o r t h Syria f r o m his father. Streck, I, CCLXXVI accepts Ashurbanipal's statements at face value. This also is the opinion of H. von Zeissel, who studied the facts from the Egyptian side ("Athiopen und Assyrer in Ägypten", Agyptologische Forschungen, Heft 14, Glückstadt und Hamburg, 1944, p. 43). The phrase "Accession year; in my former campaign", cited above, may mean in a former campaign which took place in the accession year. Ashurbanipal in his own Annals made a very clear distinction between his career and that of his father. F o r instance, in Edition E, Col. I, 1. 4 - Col. II, 1. 9 he recorded the career of his father in Egypt, then started to record his own. In his account of the surrender of Hazael {ARAB, II, 940, 943) he reported the coming of the Arabian king to his father and never claimed it for himself. The marching towards Egypt via the Mediterranean coast most probably took place in Shabatu or early Adaru 669/68 B.C.. Several facts may help to determine a date for the conclusion of the Egyptian campaign: 1) The campaign was clearly concluded rapidly. 2) There is no mention of the episode in the Babylonian Chronicle, whose compiler seemed to have an interest in the Egyptian affair. 3) Ashurbanipal fails to refer to inundation of the Nile or to any difficulty he would experience under inundation circumstances; he usually reports the occurrence of such matters. Thus the end of the campaign, in all probability, could be placed around the end of Tammuzu 668/ 67 B.C.

THE REIGN OF ASHURBANIPAL

31

19

in their desire to be rid of Assyrian authority. This may indicate a deep undercurrent of resentment and bitterness towards Assyria that flowed throughout Egypt, or they may have joined Tarku out of fear, for it is possible that he had acquired the support of the Egyptian people. The men of the Assyrian garrison seized the governors, placed them in fetters, and sent them to Nineveh to meet the wrath of the great king in person. Ashurbanipal, however, had mercy upon Necho, who was clothed in royal robes and returned in splendor with an Assyrian army to take up his old post as governor in Sais and Memphis. As an additional favor, Necho's son was given the governorship of Atribis, hitherto under Bukkunanni. While Assyrian forces were busy quelling revolts in the West, the people of Der were sending dispatches to Nineveh complaining of the hostilities directed against them by the near-by city of Kirbit.20 Later Ashurbanipal received the news of a Kirbit attack on the territory of lamutbal, east of the Tigris and a part of Babylonia. In determined retaliation he sent his e mid resi, Nur-ekalli-umu, who destroyed Kirbit, arrested its chief, Tandai, and sent him to Nineveh,21 probably around the beginning of May 668 B.C..22 Ashurbanipal, following the traditional colonial policy of the Assyrian monarchs, transferred people from revolted areas (probably of the Mediterranean coast) to Kirbit. 23 The New Year's festival of 668/667 B.C. witnessed the installation, at Ashur, of Shamash-shum-ukin. Shortly thereafter, the newly appointed king of Babylon started his trip south to assume the responsibilities of his 19

Cylinder A, Col. I, Is. 118ff. ; Streck, II, p. 12; ARAB, II, 773. City of Kirbit, probably in the region east of Der (Tell el-Uqur) near modern Bedrah; it was located most likely on the river Gawi. 21 Streck, II, Κ 2846, pp. 206-207, where is mentioned the name of the general who conducted the campaign; Cylinder B, Col. Ill, Is. 5-15; Streck, II, pp. 164-166, rev. Is. 7-12; ARAB, II, 908 does not name him. In Edition B, Col. Ill, Is. 5-15 (Piepkorn, p. 48) Ashurbanipal claims the entire victory for himself. There is no reason whatsoever to make us think that Shamash-shum-ukin might have led the campaign against Kirbit, and that after the revolt and death of the latter Ashurbanipal attributed it to himself, as was thought by J. N. Aynard, Le Prisme du Louvre, AO 19,939 (Paris, 1957), p. 18. 22 The date for the end of the Kirbit campaign may be surmised from the fact that both the Babylonian Chronicle and the Esarhaddon Chronicle mention the event immediately after the return of Marduk from Assyria to Babylon, which took place in Ayyaru. F. Delitzsch, Die Babylonische Chronik (Leipzig, 1906), Is. 34-37 mentions the Kirbit campaign, without recording the campaign which was waged against Egypt. Because the compiler fails to record the triumph over Egypt which took place, in all probability, in Tammuzu, 668/67 B.C., this may enable us to place the Kirbit campaign to Ayyaru/Simanu 668/67 B.C.. 28 Streck, II, p. 156, C Is. 9-10. 20

32

THE REIGN OF ASHURBANIPAL

post; accompanying him was the statue of Marduk which had been carried off by Sennacherib during the destruction of Babylon in 689 B.C.. 2 4 The new feats of Assyria's strength suggested that the young monarch was indeed a person to be reckoned with, and foreign states evidently made overtures to gain his friendship. Guggu (Gyges), king of Lydia, sent his deputation to Assyria probably around Shabatu, 668/667 B.C.. 2 5 Gyges' critical position resulted from an advance of the Cimmerian "barbarians", whose continuous threat to the borders of Lydia had obliged him to seek Assyria's assistance. It seems probable that the embassy to Ashurbanipal was successful and that the Lydian king gained an ally in the Assyrian monarch, for shortly afterwards, as the Annals state, Gyges successfully repulsed a Cimmerian attack and courteously sent his Assyrian overlord a share of the booty as well as two Cimmerian chieftains in fetters.26 A period of comparative peace now ensured, but it was destined to be short-lived. Tanut-Amon (Tandamane), the successor of Tarku, defeated the Assyrian garrison in Memphis, drove the governors from their posts, and declared himself King of the land. Upon hearing of these events Ashurbanipal in 664/663 B.C. directed his troops once more to Egypt. The Assyrian forces moved swiftly, since the Mediterranean coast was quiet, and the retaking of Egypt was again accomplished quickly.27 Psammetichus (Assyrian, Tushamilki) was placed on the Egyptian throne and the victorious army returned to Nineveh loaded with booty. While the Assyrians were thus engaged in Egypt, Urtaku, king of Elam, advanced into Babylonia.28 As Ashurbanipal asserted, the Elamite ruler had been incited to attack Babylonia by Marduk-shum-ibni, Nabushum-eresh, the governor of Nippur, and Bel-iqisha, the Gambulian. 29 The nature of this conspiracy, or the information given to Urtaku which caused him to break his pact of friendship with Assyria, cannot be ascertained.30 Urtaku, however, did not tarry in Babylonia, for Ashur24

AOF, 18 (1957), p. 382; ARAB, II, 989; AGS, no. 149; to be discussed fully in a subsequent chapter. 25 ARAB, II, 784-785; Piepkorn, Edition B, p. 46, Col. II, Is. 93 ff. 26 Streck, p. 20; ARAB, II, 784; Streck, II, p. 20 Is. 95ff. Streck, II, p. 166 Is. 13ff; ARAB, II, 910. 27 Cylinder A, Col. II, Is. 28-48; Streck, pp. 14-16; ARAB, II, 776-778; Piepkorn, p. 36ff., Edition B, Col. II, Is. Iff. 28 Piepkorn, p. 58, Edition B, Col. IV, Is. 27-28. 29 Piepkorn, p. 58, Edition B, Col. IV, Is. 28-35. 30 The relationship between Elam and Assyria at the time of Esarhaddon's death was quite friendly. When a famine had befallen Elam the Assyrian monarch sent food and permitted some of the poverty-stricken Elamites to settle in Babylonia until the crisis was past (ABL, 295).

THE REIGN OF ASHURBANIPAL

33

banipal states that he retreated at the advance of an Assyrian army, which was probably headed by Nabu-shar-usur, 31 was pursued to the borders of his land, and defeated.32 The accomplishment most likely occurred in the Summer of 663 B.C.. Thus the Elamite potentate had been given a lesson, and his instigators, namely Bel-iqisha and Nabu-shum-eresh, died.33 Then Nabu-shar-usur descended upon the Gambulians whose new chieftain, Dunanu, son and successor of Bel-iqisha, probably surrendered with little or no resistance. Shortly after these events, Urtaku died and his brother-in-law, TeptiHuban-Inshushinak (Assyrian, Teumman, ca. 664-653 B.C.), ruler of Susa, came to the throne. 34 Because of the latter's schemes against the ex-royal family, we are told, the sons of Urtaku (Hubannugash, Hubana'pi, and Tammaritu) along with Kudurru and Paru, the sons of Hubanhaltash II, sought asylum in Assyria for themselves and their retinue of courtiers and archers. The Elamite king kept sending ambassadors to Nineveh requesting their extradition, but it was not granted.35 By the end of the year 660 B.C. Assyrian troops, headed by Nabushar-usur36 were dispatched against Ahsheri, king of the Manneans.37 They marched east to the city of Izirtu, probably located south of the present Lake Rezaiyeh (Urmia) and inflicted destruction and plunder. At the advance of the Assyrian army, Asheri fled from his royal city to Ishtatti. Ashurbanipal reports that the people of Mannai, in civil rebellion against their king, cast his body into the street. His son and successor, Ualli, submitted to Assyria and sent his son, Erisinni, to render 31

There is no direct reference to indicate that Nabu-shar-usur himself directed the armies against Urtaku. A prayer of Ashurbanipal (AGS, no. 153) in which the monarch prayed for the triumph of his general and his armies, sent to fight the Gambulians, indicates clearly that Nabu-shar-usur was the leader of the campaign against the Gambulians. However, owing to 1) the fact that the Assyrian armies descended upon the Gambulians right after the fight with Elam and 2) that Nabu-shar-uçur, on the evidence of the land grant presented him doubtless at the time of his retirement (dated the 9th of Marcheswan, 655 B.C.) was the leader of this campaign, to be placed before 655 B.C., and we may conclude that he was the leader who conducted the Elamite campaign as well. 82 Streck, II, p. 224, no. 21 ; ARAB, II, 944. This campaign against Urtaku is recorded in Prism Β (6th campaign, Col. IV, Is. 18-86, Piepkorn, 56ff); Prism C, 6th campaign, Col. V, Is. 24-43; for Prism C see Bauer, pp. 13-24. 83 Piepkorn, p. 60, Edition B, Col. IV, Is. 59ff. 34 ARAB, II, 857; Piepkorn, p. 60, Edition B, Col. IV, Is. 74if. 85 Piepkorn, p. 61, Edition B, Col. IV, Is. 89-99; ARAB, II, 933; Steck, II, 206, 9; ARAB, II 875ff.; Streck, II, pp. 108. 88 AGS, p. 269, no. 150, a prayer of Ashurbanipal to Shamash to preserve his leader, Nabu-shar-usur, who apparently was sent to fight the Manneans. 37 Cylinder A, Col. II, 1. 126 - Col. III, 1. 26; ARAB, II, 786; Streck, II, pp. 22-26; Piepkorn, pp. 50-56, Edition B, Col. Ill, Is. 16ff.

34

THE REIGN OF ASHURBANIPAL

homage to the Assyrian king at Nineveh, together with a daughter for the royal harem.38 Ashurbanipal's problems and continual foreign conflicts were in the meantime being carefully watched by Psammetichus, the Egyptian king. Even though he was indebted to the Ninevite monarch for his position on the throne, Psammetichus was perhaps at the same time resentful toward Assyria since he was subject to the Assyrian king's wishes, and thus was humiliated before his subjects. Although he must have been quite certain that the Egyptians would rally to his side if he were to rebel, he also sought foreign assistance from Gyges, king of Lydia.39 The causes which determined Psammetichus' to revolt seem clearer than those which prompted Gyges to lend aid.40 Perhaps Gyges thought that co-operation with a strong and independent Egypt would be beneficial. Thus assisted, Egypt rose in rebellion in 655/654 B.C..41 This endeavor was a success because, supposedly, Ashurbanipal was in no position to attempt a campaign into Egypt as he formerly had been. The assistance of Gyges to Psammetichus had of course brought the 38

Cylinder A, Streck, II, p. 24if. ARAB, II, 786ff., Col. Ill, Is. 7ff.; Edition B, Col. Ill, Is. 85 ff. 38 Cylinder A, Col. II, Is. 114ff.; Streck, II, p. 22; ARAB, II, 785. Diodorus Siculus does not mention Gyges by name as rendering help, but he refers to the existence of Carian and Ionian mercenaries on Psammetichus side (Bk. I, 66.12, 67.2). Herodotus, Bk. II, 152,154, tells us of Carians and Ionians in Egypt, the help of Gyges to Psammetichus. On the death of Tarku in 664 B.C., see Drioton et Vandier, "Les Peuples de l'Orient, Mediterraneen", L'Egypte, II (Paris, 1938), p. 529; H. von Zeissel, op. cit., p. 45. 40 Ashurbanipal tells us that the messengers of the Lydian king kept coming, then stopped, an event to be followed by Gyges' help to Psammetichus. On the basis that Gyges and his Carian and Ionian troops thus assisted Psammetichus in 655 B.C., the assignment of his death to 657 would be impossible. A more acceptable date would seem to be sometime near the end of 655 B.C., Pliny the Elder, NH, BK. XXXV, 55, informs us that Gyges came to the throne in the 18th Olympiad, or "according to some account in the same year as Romulos makes it clear". Thus the first year of Gyges, if we follow Pliny, must be 704 B.c.. Herodotus gives 49 years to Ardys, son of Gyges, while to the father he gives 38 years. In all probability Herodotus has the figure reversed and it should be 38 to Gyges and 49 to his son (BK. I: 14, 15); this would place the death of Gyges 655 B.C. or the beginning of 654. L. Hartman, JNES, XXI (1962), pp. 25 ff. argues on the basis of the eclipse of 15 April 657 mentioned in ABL, 1391, that the Cimmerian threat was in May 657 B.C. ; apparently the writer favored this date for the Lydian king's death. 41 A. Gardiner, Egypt of the Pharoahs (London, 1961), pp. 352ff. and p. 451. Etienne Drioton and Jacques Vandier in "L'Egypte" Clio, Les peuples de l'orient Mediterraneen, II, Presses Universtaires de France, Paris 1962, p. 576, agree with Herodotus (II: 157) that Psammatichus chased the Assyrians until Palestine and laid siege on the city of Azotos (Ashdod). However, the evidence of Herodotus stands alone for it is not mentioned in any Assyrian or Egyptian sources that such a chase and a siege have taken place.

THE REIGN OF ASHURBANIPAL

35

bond of friendship between Assyria and Lydia to an end. Unfortunately for the Lydian monarch, the Cimmerian attacks grew stronger in the following Spring; since the Lydian monarch was unable to ask his old ally Ashurbanipal for aid, his country was overcome and he himself was killed. The victorious Cimmerian hordes, headed by their king Tugdamme (Lygdamis), called by Ashurbanipal "king of Ummanmanda, the Sakai and Gutium", proceeded toward the Assyrian frontiers and threatened Cilicia.42 Apparently they were defeated by the Scythians about 654 B . C . . 4 3 The defeat of the Cimmerians seems to have weakened the position of the Urartian king, who had hitherto aligned himself with the mand probably used them as a line of defense against Assyria. Therefore, Rusa II (680-645 B.C.), with the intention of getting closer to Assyria, sent an embassy to Ashurbanipal, perhaps in the Fall of 654 B.C.44 and met the monarch at Arbela.45 In Abu, 653, Teumman advanced toward Babylonia, apparently with a large army. The Assyrian king, now seemingly more frightened than ever by the threat, hurried to take the word of Ishtar, whose oracle assured him of triumph and recommended that he should remain at home.46 The Assyrian troops took what is assumed to be their usual route to Elam through Der. Teumman, camping at Bit-imbi, retreated to Susa upon word of their advance. The Elamite army proceeded to cut off the water supply of the oncoming Assyrians by seizing the Ulai river, but the Assyrians were able to win a decisive victory at Tell-Tuba, and Teumman's head was carried triumphantly to Assyria.47 Ashurbanipal was particularly enthusiastic over the victory and recorded it in both inscription and relief.48 After the death of Teumman, Ashurbanipal was 42

AAA, Is. 146-152; Strabo, Bk. 1:21 ; I. M. Diakanoff, History of Media From the Early Period Until the 4th Century B.C. (Moscow-Leningrad, The USSR Academy of Sciences, 1956), p. 285. 43 Strabo, Bk. 1:21 ; in a letter of Ashurbanipal to the god Ashur (Bauer, pp. 83 ff.) the Assyrian king mentioned the defeat of Teumman and referred to the triumph over the Ummanmanda, which seems from the letter to have taken place a little earlier. H. W. F. Saggs (The Greatness that was Babylon, Hawthorn Books, Inc., Publishers, New York, 1962) p. 130, made the Assyrian forces themselves responsible for the defeat of the Cimmerians and to have prevented them from invading North Syria. 44 Diakanoff, op. cit., p. 285 ; H. Tadmor, in his "The Last Days of Assyrian", a speech delivered at the meeting of the world Orientalists (Moscow, August, 1960), dates the embassy to 647. 45 ARAB, II, 1035. Streck, 11, pp. 316-318. 46 Piepkorn, p. 66, Edition B, Col. V, Is. 64ff. gives a good picture of the condition of Ashurbanipal at hearing the news of Teumman's advance. 47 Edition B, Col. V, 1. 84 - Col. VI, 1. 16; ARAB, II, 858; Streck, 108; ARAB, II, 787; Streck, II, 26; ARAB, II, 1043,1045, 1089; Streck, 340ff. 48 Piepkorn, p. 68, Is. 97-99; Parrot, Α., The Arts of Assyria (New York, 1960), PI. 60,

36

THE REIGN OF ASHURBANIPAL

able to place Urtaku's sons, who were refugees in the Assyrian court, on Elamite thrones : Huban-nugash in Madaktu, and Tammaritu in Hidalu.49 The reigning king at Susa, however, was then Adda-Hamiti-Inshushinak, who was unrecognized as such in the Assyrian royal inscriptions.50 The Assyrian army then descended upon and ravished the land of the Gambulians. Dunanu and Samgunu, sons of the late Bel-iqisha, together with the sons of Nabu-shum-eresh, were sent to Nineveh in fetters; Shapibel, their capital, was destroyed and flooded with water, and a large amount of booty was taken. 51 The southeastern front was now apparently under control, but clouds were gathering at the heart of the empire, in Babylonia, for Shamashshum-ukin led a revolt against Ashurbanipal around the middle of Ayyaru, 652 B.C..52 The king of Babylonia, as we shall see, had already acquired the help of many foreign nations such as Elam. In 651 B.c. the Elamite king, Huban-nugash, was dethroned by another Tammaritu who continued to render assistance to the Babylonian monarch and later welcomed Nabu-bel-shumate, the escaping Assyrianappointed ruler of the Sea Land.53 In 649 B.C. Elam witnessed another upheaval; a certain Indabigash led a revolution against Tammaritu at Madaktu. Tammaritu fled, only to be captured by Bel-ibni, the successor of Nabu-bel-shumate in the Sea Land, and was taken to Nineveh along with his family and ofïïcers. War activities were continued against Elam until the fall of Susa at the beginning of 646 B.C. 5 4 The southeastern frontier had now quieted to the point that Ashurbanipal could focus full attention upon his western borders where the Arabian tribes were causing considerable trouble. Uaite', son and suc60, pp. 51-52. In the relief of the "Elamite Wars" Teumman's decapitation is pictured and in the "Garden Scene", the Assyrian monarch and his queen are shown feasting while the head of Teumman hangs from a tree. " ARAB, II, 916; Streck, II, 174; ARAB, II, 1033; Streck, II, 316; ARAB, II, 1059; Streck, II, 328. 60 G. G. Cameron, History of Early Iran, (Chicago, 1936), p. 195. " ARAB, II, 788; Streck, II, 26-27; Piepkorn, Edition Β, Col. VI, Is. 17ff., 1. 43, and Is. 27-38. " The letter of Ashurbanipal to the Babylonians is dated to the 23rd of Ayyaru, 652 B.C. (ABL, 301). Thus, the revolt may have broken out about the middle of Ayyaru 652 B.C. " The escape of Nabu-bel-shumate doubtless took place at the end of 651 B.C.. The letter in which the appointment of Belibni is made could be taken as a terminus post quern for the date of Nabu-bel-shumate's flight (ABL, 289). 64 ABL, 284; Cameron, op. cit., p. 193. Richard N. Frye (The Heritage of Persia, the World Publishing Co., Cleveland and New York, 1962) p. 58 gives the year 636 B.C. for the fall of Susa.

THE REIGN OF ASHURBANIPAL

37

cessor of Hazael, the Arabian king, honored the oath his father had sworn to Assyria until the revolt of Shamash-shum-ukin.55 In 652 B.C. he sided with the rebelling brother and sent a military detachment towards Babylon under the leadership of Abiate and Aimu.56 At the same time Uaite' himself led his tribesmen against the western borders of Assyria in Syro-Palestine.57 The ill-fated Arabian armies on their way to Babylon were intercepted and defeated by Assyrian forces. A remnant of them were able to enter Babylon, but they soon left the city because of the food shortage and fell again into the hands of the Assyrians.58 Abiate had escaped into the desert, but finally made his way to the Assyrian court where he begged Ashurbanipal for mercy. His penitence was evidently kindly received by the monarch, who installed him as a king over Arabia in return for heavy tribute.59 The Assyrian governors were apparently successful in repulsing the attacks of the Arabian tribes on the Syro-Palestinian borders. A report from Nabu-shum-lishir, governor of a western province probably during the time of these attacks, informs his lord of Aiakamaru's triumph over the Nabataeans. 60 The attacks of the Arabian tribes were apparently also waged against Moab. The Moabite king, Kamashhalta, repulsed the bands of Ammuladi, a Qidri chieftain, whom he arrested together with Adia, the wife of Uaite'. 61 They were then sent to Nineveh, which greatly pleased Ashurbanipal, for Ammu-ladi had collaborated with Shamash-shum-ukin.62 " ARAB, II, 817; Cylinder A, Col. VII, Is. 97ff. (Streck, p. 64). Late in Esarhaddon's reign, Hazael, king of Arabia, had surrendered to him. ARAB, II, 946 implies that Uaite' had been conducting campaigns against Assyria on behalf of his father. « ARAB, II, 821 ; Cylinder A, Col. VIII, Is. 31 if.; Streck, p. 68. " ARAB, II, 818; Cylinder A, Col. VII, Is. 107ff.; Streck, pp. 64ff. 68 ARAB, II, 821, Cylinder A, Col. VIII, Is. 35ff.; Streck, p. 68. 69 Streck, II, pp. 68, 134, 202. The two brothers, Abiate and Aimu, were apparently chieftains of a strong tribe under the chieftainship of Uaite'. Ashurbanipal convinced Abiate to detach himself from Uaite' and form his own kingdom; Later events reveal that both Uaite' and Abiate were kings of Arabia. Ashurbanipal's motive for installing Abiate was aparently to set a rival king to Uaite' over Arabia. Perhaps in 652 B.C. Arabia was divided into two separate kingdoms. Ashurbanipal evidently hoped that the conflicts emerging from this division would send both men seeking his friendship, or at least result in open war between them and thus keep his own border safe from attacks. ,0 ABL, 260; RCA E, III, 101. Pfeiffer, 91. β1 ARAB, II, 820, Cylinder A, Col. VIII, Is. 15ff. ; Streck, p. 88. " The capture of the two was so dear to the heart of the the Assyrian monarch that both Ammu-ladi and Adia are found in a palace relief as a permanent record of his pleasure. Cf. A Guide to the Assyrian and Babylonian Antiquities, British Museum Publication (London, 1922), p. 188.

38

THE REIGN OF ASHURBANIPAL

Apparently the victories of the Moabite king instilled fear in the other Arabian tribes. Thus, Natnu, king of Nabiate, wishing to be on better terms with Assyria, surrendered Uaite', who had taken refuge in his court, around 6 5 0 B.C.. 8 3 SO by 6 5 0 B.C. the situation was controlled; Abiate paid his tribute regularly, and Uaite' was imprisoned and tortured for his misdeeds. The momentary quiet of the western borders, however, was destined to be followed by a storm. Directly following Uaite' I's capture, Uaite' II came to the throne of Arabia and immediately started adverse actions against Assyria.64 Abiate broke the oath he had sworn to Assyria and, together with Uaite' II, began attacking Assyrian borders.65 This probably occurred around 6 4 7 / 6 4 6 B.C. while Ashurbanipal was engaged against the Elamites. Ashurbanipal was presumably in no position at this time to send an army to stop the attacks, which may perhaps be the reason that the other tribes of Natnu, Isamme, and Atarsamain joined the adversaries. Thus, the western borders of Assyria apparently had reached the peak of their threatened danger. As soon as the Elamite warfare was over, Ashurbanipal turned his attention westward and forwarded troops to deal with the troubled area; by April/May 645 B.C. they had crossed the Tigris and Euphrates.66 The first tribes they attacked were those of Atarsamain67 and the Nabataeans ; then they launched out at Uaite's followers. The latter met a terrible defeat and his gods and family fell to the Assyrians. In Abu of the same year, Assyrian troops following the road from Damascus went to deal with the tribe of Abiate, which was also defeated and despoiled, and both Abiate and his brother Aimu were then sent to Assyria.68 The Assyrian armies marched against other rebelling territories, namely the cities of Ushu, in the territory of Sidon, and Akku (Acre), and took harsh vengeance against both rebelling cities.69 During the 63

Ungnad, Α., Vorderasiatische Schriftdenkmaler, Bk. I, no. 83, Col. Ill, Is. 4-16. Paul Haupt, "Wateh-Ben-Hazael, Prince of the Kadureans, About 650 B.C.", Hebraica, I (1885), no. 4, pp. 1-15; RLA, I, p. 126. 61 Uaite' II is the cousin of Uaite' I because their respective fathers, Hazael and Birdadda, were brothers. ARAB, II 819 makes Uaite' I the nephew of Uaite' II; however, the genealogy of Uaite' included in the above passage, shows this to be an erroneous conclusion. 65 Cylinder A, Col. VIII, Is. 65if. ; Streck, p. 70; ARAB, II, 822. 66 The date can be given precisely to April/May due to the statement in the Annals that "The Tigris and Euphrates they (the armies) crossed in safety at the height of their flood ..." (Cylinder A, Col. VIII, Is. 78-80; Streck, p. 70; ARAB, II, 823. •7 ARAB, II, 823; Cylinder A, Col. VIII, Is. 96ff. ; Streck, p. 70. 68 ARAB, II, 825, 826, 827, Cylinder A, Col. IX, Is. Iff.; Streck, pp. 72ff. 69 ARAB, II, 830, Cylinder A, Col. IX, Is. 117ff.; Streck, pp. 80ff.

THE REIGN OF ASHURBANIPAL

39

Arabian and Phoenician campaign, Judah also was probably subjugated. The Jewish chronicler reports that king Manasseh was carried into captivity to Babylonia, where he was perhaps chastened for some aid he had given to Shamash-shum-ukin.70 In 645 B.c. Rusa II died and was succeeded by Sardur III, (645-620 B.c.) who sent an embassy to Nineveh at the end of the Winter, 644 B.C..71 The purpose of the deputation was most likely to inform the Assyrian king that the Urartian monarch would honor the same oath that his father had taken before him. An inscription of Ashurbanipal's strongly implies that the Urartian embassy came at a time when they could offer their congratulations on the monarch's great victories in the east and west.72 After the destruction of Susa and the suicide of Nabu-bel-shumate, who had continuously caused tension between the two nations, Cyrus, the son of Teispes and king of Parsumash, sent his deputation to Assyria, perhaps around Tebetu 645 B.C..73 Cyrus and his forefathers had, possibly, lived peacefully in their area throughout the struggle between Assyria and Elam. In order to maintain this peaceful existence Cyrus sought the friendship of Assyria, the unrivaled power. Very shortly thereafter Ashurbanipal celebrated his victories. As part of the celebration he had the king of Arabia with the three Elamite princes harnessed to his chariot and then driven in triumph throught the streets of Arbela. He was now able, for the second time, to turn his attention to such peaceful endeavors as building activities ; in his lifetime he rebuilt and restored most of the temples oí Assyria and Babylonia. Restorations may be assigned to two periods in his reign. The first had begun immediately after his initial Egyptian campaign,74 and the second 70

II Chronicles, 33:11. H. Tadmor, op. cit., dates the embassy to 639 B.C. AS may be deduced from the Annals, the Urartian embassy arrived soon after the completion of Ashurbanipal's various wars to congratulate him on his victories. Since these wars ended sometime in the latter part of 645, there seemingly is no reason to assume that the embassy was actually sent 6 years later. 72 ARAB, II, 834, Cylinder A, Col. X, Is. 40ff. ; Streck, p. 84. 73 AAA, XX (1933), Is. 146-152. The text implies that Cyrus came soon after all of Elam had surrendered and Susa had been destroyed. 74 The first building to come under his care in the north seems to have been the temple of É-hur-sag-gal-kur-kur-ra, which his father had begun (AAA, ibid., Is. 27ff.; Piepkorn, Cyl. Β, 1, Is. 14-20; ARAB, II, 883, Cylinder C, Col. X; Streck, 11, pp. 146ff.). The building of Esagila in Babylon had doubtless been begun in his accession year in order to be ready by April 668 B.C. to receive Marduk. Then the temples of Nabu in Borsippa and Shamash in Sippar were restored (ARAB, II, 954, Cylinder L; Streck, II, p. 226). The peaceful interlude also witnessed the rebuilding of the Nusku and the É-hul-hul temple at Harran (AAA, op. cit., Is. 60-61 ; PEA, Prism A, Is. 46-48. Piepkorn, Edition E, Col. VII, ff may refer to the rebuilding of the É-hul-hul because of the correlation 71

40

THE REIGN OF ASHURBANIPAL

occurred in the last years of his reign following the submission of Elam.75 The records from the last years of Ashurbanipal are, however, few in number, and the latest Annals so far discovered were written in 636 B.C. It has been argued that the extent of the empire at the end of Ashurbanipal's reign can be reconstructed from the titles of post-canonical eponyms, and that such reconstruction permits the conclusion that several governors of the empire had in fact seceded.76 Such a conclusion is, however, unwarranted and indeed hazardous. It is true that the Assyrian governors in the west, southeast and south had been constantly occupied in repulsing aggressions on their territories from the outbreak of the Babylonian War until the settlement of the Arabian question. The absence of the names of many governors from the post-canonical eponyms, proves merely that the governors in question had remained at their posts in order to preserve the peace. The omission of the name of Bel-ibni, who had been governor of the Sea Land from 650 B.c. until the beginning of Ashur-etil-ilani's rule77 can be attributed to nothing more than his constant preoccupation with aggressions upon his territory and counter-attacks upon Elam. Also absent from the list are Nabu-shum-eresh, governor of a western province, Aplia of Arrapha, Kudurru of Uruk, Nurea of Zamua, and Sin-balatsu-iqbi of Ur; their absence, too, can be explained by their involvement with similar situations, for we know that they remained in power until at least 630 B.C.. Ashurbanipal's own Annals, in which he provides us with a semblance of an autobiography, might serve as an index to his real character, provided we could grant them full credence. He boasts of having mastered all scribal and priestly knowledge and lays claim to the ability to read Sumerian and "obscure Akkadian". He also claims excellence in the arts of hunting and the techniques of war.78 There is ample evidence for his pride in athletic prowess, and especially between the style and context of this text to that in the accounts of AAA, op. cit., and PEA, Prism of Ashurbanipal, Is. 46-48. The temples in Uruk and Nippur were rebuilt anew (AAA, ibid., Is. 62-66; PEA, Prism A, Col. II, 1. 49, Col. III, 1. 11). The city of Arbela (ARAB, II, 982) had witnessed a great deal of rebuilding, together with the city of Milkia and its temple, the É-gal-din, which was completely restored. 75 The second period of rebuilding began with the È-MASH-MASH, the temple of the goddess Ninlil. It was completed and a statue for the goddess was comissioned and installed anew. Ashurbanipal seemed to be very interested in the bit-ridüti, for he recorded a rebuilding of it as early as 646 B.C. and in 636 B.C. (Editions F, A, ftn. 11,6, p. 240 a, b below). ™ H. Tadmor, op. cit. " ABL, 793; RCAE, 111, p. 237. " Streck, II, pp. 254-256 ; ARAB, II, 986.

THE REIGN OF ASHURBANIPAL

41

in hunting, for there are a large number of reliefs in which hunting scenes figure prominently. Hunting as a royal pastime was certainly not new, however, for it was a popular subject of earlier reliefs — those of Shalmaneser III and Sennacherib being the most distinguished. A careful comparison of the reliefs may nevertheless indicate that Ashurbanipal's claims may be taken seriously. The representations of lions are unquestionably superior to those of the earlier reliefs whereas those from Old Babylonian times, and from Shalmaneser Ill's period give an unrealistic representation, which indicates that the artists had little or no opportunity to view the beasts at close range. The reason for the contrast is probably that by the time of Ashurbanipal the Assyrian artist had acquired complete mastery of anatomical details and thus rendered them more naturally, thus suggesting that there was now more opportunity for artists to study lions — probably the result of an increase in lion hunting.79 The monarch also made special mention of his bowmanship and horsemanship. These boasts can probably be connected with his military training. His Annals present an unbelievably mighty figure who had a long and extraordinary history of bravery. But although the hunting reliefs underscore his accomplishments as a hunter, the king is not shown in the battle reliefs. Ashurbanipal did presumably have some military training, but there are no evidences as to its extent. In a land grant from the king to Nabu-shar-usur, his retired general and chief guard, it is stated that this military man had been in Ashurbanipal's close company since his boyhood, thus implying that Ashurbanipal may have received some training from the general.80 The monarch also claims to have studied astronomy, mathematics, and oil divination with the priests — a claim which indicates that scholarship during this period was highly respected.81 The existence, however, of tablets prepared for Ashurbanipal by court scribes explaining simple Sumerian logograms82 would strongly imply that the king was interested in past times and had even become acquainted to some extent with the language. 78

S. N. Kramer, History Begins at Sumer (Garden City, New York, 1959), PI. 9; A. Parrot, Sumer, The Dawn of Art (New York, 1961), fig. 353; in the first, a lion is represented attacking a bull and is dated to the Sumerian period; the second is dated to the Old Babylonian period. The lion from the time of Shalmaneser is more realistic and better proportioned than the earlier work. 80 F. E. Peiser, Texte Juristischen un Geschäftlichen Inhalts (Berlin, 1896), N o . IX, pp. 142-146. 81 Α. Adams and C. Kraeling, City Invincible (Chicago, 1960), p. 108. 82 See B. Landsberger's comment, ibid., p. 110.

42

THE REIGN OF ASHURBANIPAL

Esarhaddon was probably instrumental in interesting Ashurbanipal in such matters of history and may have entrusted Nabu-ahi-eriba t o teach the young crown prince things that his o w n education lacked. In this respect Ashurbanipal may have acquired general knowledge of astronomy, mathematics, etc., even of the ancient scripts, but he certainly had not mastered them to the extent his records imply. 8 3 Ashurbanipal had Babylonian documents pertaining to his o w n interests collected and stored. H e apparently employed a number of scribes and sent them to find ancient archives and to make copies o f the extensive collections of omens, oracles, incantations, medical series, and religious rituals. In this manner he succeeded in gathering at N i n e v e h a systematic library, the first of its kind so far found in the ancient N e a r East. 8 4 Ashurbanipal insisted that the copying of the ancient texts from the originals be done with great care. However, investigation in detail reveals that in a surprising number of cases the supposed "identical" copies involved essential change from the old originals. 85 83

Due to the complexity and difficulty of the Akkadian language, the ability to read and write it were doubtless skills only of the scribes. 84 A. Leo Oppenheim in "Assyriology Why and How?", Current Anthropology, I (Sept., Nov., 1960), p. 412, suggests that the topical range of Ashurbanipal's collection is "representative of the main body, if not the entire content, of the scribal tradition". This comment does not seem to be appropriate, for the bulk of the archives seem to include what Ashurbanipal himself was fond of, and first on the list are matters pertaining to magic. Thus, the king probably had collected what interested him most (see his letter to Shadunu (Pfeiffler, no. 256), and it is dangerous to assume that this would necessarily include the entire or the main body of the scribal tradition. 85 The Kouyunjik Collection under which the collection of Ashurbanipal's library is known, was accumulated as a result of the excavations of H. Layard, 1849-50; H. Rawlinson, 1853-55; H. Rassam, 1854, 1877-83; G. Smith, 1873, 74, 76; E. A. Wallis Budge, 1888, 1889, 1891, and particularly those of Rassam. The greater number of the inscribed tablets are now in the British Museum and a few have found their way to other museums and private collections. Scholars worked on the classification of the tablets of the library, and their contents, their material, writing, measurements, and firing. This was first done by M. J. Menant in La Bibliothèque du Palais de Ninive (Paris, 1880), followed by better cataloguing made by C. Bezold, Catalogue of the Cuneiform Tablets of the Kouyunjik Collection of the British Museum (London, 1889-1899). The other work of Bezold, Bibliotheque und Schriftenwesen in alten Nineveh (aus den Centraiblatt für Bibliothekensen, Juni, 1904), pp. 257-277, is of great importance. Some tablets were copied for the temples of Nabu and Ashur; this suggests that Ashurbanipal may have transferred tablets from the temples and added them to his own library. For the arrangement of the library see M. Weitemeyer "Archive and Library Technique in Ancient Mesopotamia", Libri, 6 (Copenhagen, 1955-1956), pp. 227ff.; G. H. Bushneil, The World's Earliest Libraries (London, 1931), pp. lOff. Two hundred tablets of Ashurbanipal's library seem to be lists of cuneiform signs and sign combinations with added readings and also lists of Sumerian words with their

THE REIGN OF ASHURBANIPAL

43

A letter of Asharidu to Ashurbanipal, and the latter's letter to Shadunu 8 6 indicate that the search for texts was widespread. Asharidu tells the king that he has found an original text about Hammurabi, and that he has brought it from Babylon. This may give some idea of the great care devoted to collecting the most valuable classical tablets. Greco-Roman sources followed by many medieval writers and poets relate that the last great King of Assyria was Sardanapolus w h o was an effeminate prince w h o lived luxuriously surrounded by his harem and female attendants. The legend, however, made his name synonymous with oriental splendour, debauchery and self-indulgence. 8 7 Historians had tended to equate Sardanapolus with Ashurbanipal because the two names somewhat similar and because Ashurbanipal was the last great King of Assyria. But even before the birth of Assyriology, at least one scholar had doubted the stories related. 88 There is a great divergence between which is recorded of Ashurbanipal's character and that of the Greco-Roman Sardanapolus. 8 9 According to classical sources, Akkadian translations. They also include lists containing unusual expressions in Akkadian. A large number of the incantations and prayers were in Sumerian with their interlinear Akkadian translations (A. Leo Oppenheim, op. cit., pp. 12ff., where a good presentation of the contents of the library is given). 88 ABL, 255; RCA E, IV, p. 212; Pfeiffer, no. 256. 87 The Dutch Painter Louis L. Chalon's (1687-1741) Painting "The Death of Sardanapolus", pictures him and his women and female companions in the midst of the fire lit in the palace. Lord Byron (George Noel Gordon, 1788-1824), Sardanapolus; Eugene Delecroix (1798-1863) painted "The Death of Sardanapolus" in accordance with the legends, under the influence of Byron's ode. 88 W. C. Koopman, Disputatio historico-critica de Sardanapolo (Amesterodami, 1919). 89 Aristotle argued the tales given and a version of the inscriptions Sardanopolus reportedly, ordered to be engraved upon his tomb, philosophically (The Works of Aristotle, translated by Sir D. Ross, vol. XII, Oxford, 1952, pp. 52ff. Cf. Cicero, De Finebus, translated by H. Rackhan, London, 1931, book 11, 106). Busts and Vase scenes of Sardanapolus being in different world museums see (Ludwig Curtis, "Sardanapal", in Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäeologischen Institut, Vol. 43 (1928) pp. 281-297. Diodorus Siculus (11, 23-29) relates that Sardanapolus was the 30th King after Ninus, being the last powerful King of Assyria, who took interest in leisure, luxury and lived exactly like women. Diodorus also reported that he ordered an inscription to be written on his grave in a barbarian language. Nicolas of Damascus (The article of Weissback in ΡIV, Vol. 25 (1920) pp. 2436-2475, p. 2439) mentions that Sardanapolus never went hunting nor wore weapons. Arrian (Anabasis of Alexander 11, V, asserts that Sardanapolus tomb was near the walls of Anchialus; over it stood a statue of his with his hands joined as if to clap ... with the inscription "Sardanapolus, son of Anakyndaraxes, build Anchialus and Tarsus in one day; and so stranger, eat and drink and be merry, since other human things are not worth this ... (the idea being the hand clap); see Streck, CCCXCVI-CDVIII. Strabo (VI, Β., XIV, 9) reports the same matter. Callisthenes writes (PW, 2443, Ed. Meyer, Forschungen Zur Alten Geschichte, 1 (1892), pp. 203 ff), that there were two men named Sardanapolus, one was manly and noble minded, the other effeminate ... the following

44

THE REIGN OF ASHURBANIPAL

this "last great Assyrian King" dressed like a woman, never to have carried weapons nor went o n the chase. While his palace was under siege, Sardanapolus and his family supposedly died by throwing themselves into a fire. According to one tradition, his t o m b was in Nineveh; another relates that he was buried in Cilicia. Both the Annals and the reliefs testify that Ashurbanipal wore royal manly robes, often carried arms, went hunting, claimed to be a scholar, and was no doubt a patron of the arts. In addition, Sardanapolus was the son of Anakyndaraxes and Ashurbanipal was the son of Esarhaddon. The story of Sardanapolus appears to be based u p o n multifarious elements which are difficult to trace. Monuments similar t o the t o m b of Sardanapolus as described by Strabo (the one bears a likeness o f the King snapping his right hand's fingers) have been found in Anatolia. 9 0 Others similar to those recorded by Arrian (with the figure's hands joined as if to clap) have been found in Assyria. 91 It is possible that the legendary Sardanapolus is actually a composite personality having some of the actual attributes of Ashurbanipal, stands on a tomb in Nineveh : "Sardanapolus, son of Anakyndaraxes, built Tarsus and Anchiale in one day ...". Callisthenes reports the existence of two graves, one in Nineveh with inscriptions and other in Andrialos near Tarsus. Athenaios (Bk. XII, 528-530) relates the story of Sardanapolus, frightened by a siege, burnt himself and his wives to death in his palace. Dio Cassius (9, Bk. LXXIX-LXXX, Loeb edition, London, translated by Earnest Cary, William Heinemann, 1927, p. 390, 436ff) followed by Roman historians pictured Sardanapolus love of joy and pleasure, and the Assyrians were tired of his actions. During nights Sardanapolus took pleasure in going to the city bars, played a prostitute role and even had many husbands to himself among whom was a certain slave who finally revolted against his authority and killed him. Dio Cassius gave this name to one of the Roman emperors... Plutarch, Moralis, IV, p. 336, Loeb Library, translated by Babbitt F. Cole, London 1931), "described Sardanapolus as the last King of Assyria", who, though born a man, spent his days at home carding purple wool and sitting with his knees drawn up in front of him among his concubines". Lucian regarded him as a "byword for luxury and effeminacy", Vol. IV, p. 354 Loeb library, translated by Harmon A. M. (London, 1925). St. Augustine, City of God, XVIII : 21 said that Sardanapolus having been deprived of the crown by Arbaces the Mede. Of the medievel men of literature many mentioned Sardanapolus and his attributes e.g., John Milton (1608-1674) who also reported him being deprived of his throne by Arbaces the Mede (the works of John Milton, New York, Columbia University press, 1932, Vol. VII, p. 299). A letter sent to Milton by certain Diodati, reports at the end, "Farewell and be joyous though not in the fashion of Sardanapolus in Cilicia." (ibid, Vol. 12, 1936, p. 295). ,0 Boghazkoy Royal Gate, O.I., 4348; Alaca Hûyuk Adoration, O.I., 10141; Ivriez, O.I., 6594; I. J. Gelb discovered a late Hellenistic monument in Cilicia which had the same features. Herbert J. Muller (the Loom of History, Harper and Brothers publishers, New York, 1958) p. 175 attributes the building of Anchiale and the monument there to Sennacherib. " A. Parrot, The Arts of Assyria, op. cit., p. 20, fig. 24.

THE REIGN OF ASHURBANIPAL

45

Shamash-shum-ukin and Ashur-etil-ilani, all of which have, through the course of time, come to be associated with "the last great king of Assyria".92 The final fate of Sardanapolus is also that of Shamash-shum-ukin, for it is known that the latter died by throwing himself into a fire.93 Although little is known about Ashurbanipal's son and successor, Ashur-etil-ilani, we never hear of him engaging in warlike activities. However, his brother, Sin-shar-ishkun did lead a campaign to Babylonia in 623 B.C..94 There is also no evidence that Ashur-etil-ilani ever went hunting, and if Sinshum-lishir had not assisted him, he might never have gained the throne of Assyria. Once seated on the throne, Ashur-etil-ilani was powerless and Assyria began its final disintegration. Evidence shows that during his reign vassals detached themselves from Assyria and encroached upon Assyrian territory. 95 It is also very likely that he was eventually dislodged by his brother Sin-shar-ishkun — all of which may indicate that he had a weak character. It seems possible that this character has been exaggerated and transferred to his father's name. Sometime after Simanu in 631 Ashurbanipal died. A certain Naburihtu-usur, assisted by a high official, attempted to usurp the throne. 96 The real successor, Ashur-etil-ilani, however, was supported by Sin-shumlishir, the rab saqi, who frustrated the attempt of the pretenders. 97 Thus came to an end the reign of Ashurbanipal, who had striven to keep Assyria strong and united. Except for Egypt which was lost early in his reign, the empire apparently had otherwise kept its territorial extensions intact. But the cultural and political interests of the king, as revealed by his royal correspondence, were centered in Babylonia.

" Dr. I. J. Gelb of the Oriental Institute, University of Chicago has assumed that the narrative of Sardanapolus may actually deal with two persons; one may be Anatolian, the other Assyrian. Dr. Gelb kindly allowed me the use of his unpublished manulecture delivered in 1960 at a meeting of the Midwestern branch of the AOS. 83 Streck, CLVIII, CCCLXXXVI-CCCLXXXVII. 84 CCK, p. 52, BM, 25127, re. 30. ·• The revolt of Josiah and his annexation of Assyrian territories, and the revolt of Nabopolassar will be dealt with in a subsequent chapter. " To be discussed in Part III, Chapter III. " ADD, IV, no. 807.

III T H E R E L A T I O N S H I P B E T W E E N ASSYRIA A N D BABYLONIA UNTIL THE TIME OF ASHURBANIPAL

The reign of Shalmaneser III, (859-824) will serve as a starting point in briefly tracing the relationship between Assyria and Babylonia prior to the time of Ashurbanipal. The treaty Shalmaneser III concluded with Nabu-apal-iddina, the king of Babylonia, marked the subjugation of the South to Assyria and the Assyrian monarch was permitted to offer sacrifices at the temples of Nergal, Marduk, and Nabu. 1 After death of Nabu-apal-iddina, his younger brother, Marduk-bel-usate opposed the legitimate successor, Marduk-zakir-shumi. When Marduk-bel-usate seized part of northern Babylonia, Shalmaneser came to the aid of the new Babylonian monarch and defeated the rebel's army. In another campaign Shalmaneser pursued Marduk-bel-usate into the mountains and slew him.2 The Assyrian king subsequently conducted a tour in which he visited the temple cities of Cutha, Babylon, and Borsippa. The report of these campaigns in Shalmaneser's Annals gives us our first reference to the tribes of southern Mesopotamia, the Bit-Dakkuri, Bit-Ammukani, and Bit-Iakin.3 These tribes probably are now beginning 1 Synchronistic History, CT, XXX 40 iii 22-25; M DOG, XXVIII, 24 if.; see also A. T. Olmstead, "Shalmaneser III and the Establishment of the Assyrian Power", J AOS, 41 (1921), p. 345 fF. ; A. T. Olmstead, "Babylonia as an Assyrian Dependency", AJSL, 37 (1921), p. 217. 2 ARAB, I, 565, 566, 622, 623, 624. 3 The beginning of the first millennium witnessed the migration of the Chaldeans, whose original territory, in all probability, was Arabia, because their line of migration was from the south (H. Winckler, Geschichte Babylonien und Assyrien, translated by J. A. Craig (New York, 1907), pp. 100-02; Kraeling and Adams, City Invincible, op. cit., Albright's comment, p. 180). The Chaldaeans appear to have written their own inscriptions, which contain exclusively Babylonian names, in South Arabic. (Two inscriptions found in Kuwait have been published by D. Carruthers, "Captain Shakespear's Last Journey", GJ, 59 (1922), pp. 321-323; CIS, nos. 984, 985. Another has been published by G. Ryckman in Le Museon, 50, p. 239. From Ur, E. Burrows, JRAS (1927), pp. 795-96; G. Driver, Semitic Writing (New York, 1954), pp. 124, 127, dated to the year 575. From Uruk-warka, W. K. Loftus, Travels and Researches in Chaldaea and Susiana (London, 1857), p. 233; CIS, IV, no. 699; B. Kienast, UVB, XIV (1958),

ASSYRIA AND BABYLONIA UNTIL THE TIME OF ASHURBANIPAL

47

to assert influence in Babylonian politics. During this period Bit-Iakin and Bit-Ammukani were loyal to the crown, but in succeeding years they were no longer in favor of Assyria. Marduk-zakir-shumi I reigned for about three decades. In his lifetime he assisted the son of Shalmaneser III, Shamshi-Adad V, in putting down a revolt which the latter faced in Assyria. As a result of this Babylonian aid, a treaty was signed between the two nations which restricted the Assyrian's power. Immediately after Marduk-zakir-shumi's death (ca. 813), Shamshi-Adad V moved against Babylonia. The new Southern monarch, Marduk-balatsu-iqbi, and his allies, namely Elam and the southern tribes, were defeated, and the Babylonian king was taken captive to Assyria.4 In 812 B.C. Shamashi-Adad V once again descended upon Babylonia. He moved south along a route east of the Tigris, crossed the Diyala, and defeated the Babylonian forces. Marduk-balatsu-iqbi's successor, Babaaha-iddina, was captured and transported to Assyria along with his gods and family. The Assyrian ruler then visited the temple cities of Cutha, Babylon, and Borsippa before continuing his march southward. Since the Assyrian monarch led a separate campaign against the South, it is probable that at that time the region (currently termed Kaldi) was independent. Later in the same year he received the tribute of various Southern kinglets. However, in 811 Shamshi-Adad V directed his armies once more to attack the South.5 After Shamshi-Adad's death, his son and successor, Adad-nirari III, reported in his Annals that the people of pp. 43-44. The Hammar area, G. Roux, Sumer, op. cit., which is an inscription in Lihyanite containing the name KRB) B. Moritz, in his article, "Die Nationalitat der Arumu-Stamme in Sudost-Babylonien", in Oriental Studies Dedicated to Paul Haupt (Baltimore, 1926), pp. 184-211, argues on a philological basis for the Arabian origin of the southern Mesopotamian tribes. Moritz, although he has attained valuable results, may, in some cases have gone too far in his assumptions. See the argument of C. Gordon, JNES, XVII, 30, for a Chaldaean locality in the north, not in Babylonia, on the basis that Haldu is one of the ancient designations for Urartu; cf. the challenge of H. W. F. Saggs in "Ur of the Chaldees, A Problem of Identification", Iraq, XXII (1960), p. 200ff. 4 ARAB, I, 725, 726. This is the first time the Babylonian king fought with Elamite aid against Assyria. The enmity between Elam and Babylon seemed to decrease in order to meet the common foe since both found themselves confronting a stronger enemy. See E. F. Weidner, "Die Feldzuge Samsi-Adad V, gegen Babylonien", AO F, IX, (1934), pp. 89-104 for a general history of the relationship between Assyria and Babylonia, especially for this period and earlier; also see W. F. von Soden, "Der Aufstieg Assyrerreiches als geschichtliches Problem", AO, Band 34, Heft 1/2 (1937). 5 ARAB, I, 725, 726.

48

ASSYRIA AND BABYLONIA UNTIL THE TIME OF ASHURBANIPAL

Kaldi became his vassals and paid him tribute. He also recorded that he had offered sacrifices at the southern cult centers.6 After these campaigns, Babylonia appears to have fallen into a period of anarchy. Although Eriba-Marduk, one of the southern chieftains, was apparently able to achieve some order in the country, his successor, Nabushum-ishkun (died 748) was not even able to defend the people of Borsippa from local attackers.7 During this period in Babylonia there is recorded an increasing number of civil and temple administrators bearing Assyrian names. The high priest of Nabu, Nabu-shuma-imbi, who was also the chief administrator of Borsippa, was of Assyrian descent.8 This perhaps indicates the beginning of Assyrian infiltration into northern Babylonia, which probably explains Assyria's later strength in this region. The successor of Nabu-shum-ishkun, Nabu-näsir (747-734), came to the throne during a period in which the land was suffering from continuous troubles caused by the Aramaean tribes which surrounded northern Babylonia on every side. In addition, the government was weak and therefore not able to extend its authority over the entire land. Notwithstanding these difficulties, Nabu-näsir proved to be a capable leader who consequently gave the country peaceful, though not prosperous, years of relative stability and order. Tiglath-pileser III came to the throne of Assyria in Nabu-näsir's third * For the campaigns of Adad-nirari III see ARAB, 1,741. The career of Sammuramat, mother of Adad-nirari III (the legendary Semiramis of the Greek sources), who seemnigly ruled in Assyria as a regent for her son (809-805), supposedly fails during this period. See C. F. Lehmann-Haupt, Die Historische Semiramis und Ihre Zeit (Tübingen, 1910), where is discussed the character of this queen as seen in cuneiform and Greek sources. Also see G. Goossens, La reine Semiramis. De l'histoire à la legende (Leiden, 1957). A. Poebel ( J N E S , II, (1943), pp. 81-84) attempted to prove that Adad-nirrari III was an adult when he ascended the throne, and therefore that his mother, Sammuramat, had never ruled in his name. 7 In an account of the building activities connected with the temple of N a b u at Borsippa, Nabu-shuma-imbi, governor of the city, reports a devastation and riot. The people of Borsippa apparently turned against each other and a certain Nabu-shum-iddin attacked the city at night "like a thief" and the inhabitants came to the defense of their governor (S. Strong, "Four Cuneiform Texts", JRAS (1892), p. 337ff.). 8 About half of the officials of the N a b u temple who were called on as witnesses in VAS, I, 36 iii 6-19 bore Assyrian names and are designated as aplu Assur. F o r N a b u shuma-imbi see VAS, I, 36 iii 6; JRAS (1892), 353:15. Two letters are preserved which were sent to Bel-dan (the district governor of Kalhu f r o m 746-734) from his son, who seems to have been in Babylonia. In one of his letters he promises to send his father anything that he wants (ND, 441); cf. D . J. Wiseman a n d J. V. K. Wilson, "The Nimrud Tablets, 1950", Iraq, XIII (1951), part 2, p. 104,110.

ASSYRIA AND BABYLONIA UNTIL THE TIME OF ASHURBANIPAL

49

year (745). In his accession year the king of Assyria endeavored to assist his southern neighbor in restoring complete order to the region. His first two campaigns, dated to his accession year, were directed against the insubmissive Aramaean tribes of Babylonia. However, the Assyrian monarch was evidently not completely motivated by altruism because he then began to incorporate some of the Babylonian territories to Assyria. The fact, however, that he left the central government in Babylonia unmolested, suggests that he intended eventually to subjugate Babylonia in a manner that would not expose him as an aggressor. He finally withdrew to Assyria, probably having in mind that future events would place Babylonia, like a ripe fruit, into his hands. The campaign appears to have been quite effective, for nothing is heard of the Aramaean tribes for about twelve years.9 Nabu-nâsir's son and successor, Nabu-nadin-zeri (Nadinu), was killed in a revolt led by Nabu-shuma-ukin, a political official. Only a month later the latter was overthrown by Nabu-mukin-zeri (Ukin-zir, 731-729), chief of the Ammukani tribe.10 It was now imperative for Assyria to forcefully interfere and depose the new Babylonian leader because the unification of Babylonia under Ukin-zir would present a severe threat to the northern kingdom. The people of Babylon at this time were politically indecisive as to where their sympathies should lie. Many turned pro-Assyrian and others remained neutral. A few letters found in Nimrud provide information regarding the situation at about the time of Tiglath-pileser Ill's intervention which resulted in Ukin-zir's dethronement. In one of the letters, we find Assyrian officials unable to enter Babylon, which implies that the city was controlled by Ukin-zir's supporters; it also reveals that the Assyrians attempted to use diplomacy with the Babylonians.11 Another letter reports that Ukin-zir had been unsuccessful in rallying support in ' Tiglath-pileser III began his campaign with the annexation of Dur Kurigalzu and Sippar to Assyria. He then moved east of the Tigris and subdued the hostile tribes in his path to the Persian Gulf: the royal family of the Shilani were sent to Assyria, a portion of the Ammukani were transplanted, and the Ra'sani were required to pay tribute. In most of the conquered areas, Assyrian officials were placed in charge of the local governments. Perhaps the Assyrian king did not visit Babylon on this campaign, although in Κ 3751 (ARAB, I, 788-789) he reports that he took Babylon and Oruk. After offering sacrifices at Kish, he probably withdrew to Assyria. 10 Nabu-näsir died after ruling in Babylon for 14 years. King List A names Nabumukin-zeri as a member of the dynasty of Shashi. "Nimrud Letters", Iraq, XVII (1955), pp. 21-56 and Tiglath-pileser's Annals record that he was the head of the Ammukani tribe, and that he was usually called Ukin-zir. 11 H. W. F. Saggs, "The Nimrud Tablets (1952)", Iraq, XVI (Spring, 1955), part 1, letter I, p. 23.

50

ASSYRIA AND BABYLONIA UNTIL THE TIME OF ASHURBANIPAL

Babylon except for a few temple servants, which indicates that he may have been obliged to withdraw; it reports also an attempt to influence the inhabitants of a certain city to render assistance against the Babylonian ruler.12 Perhaps because he was aware that his assumption of the throne would be opposed in Babylon, Ukin-zir seems to have made his capital at Sapia and merely maintained a representative at Babylon. Early in Tiglathpileser Ill's campaign, he sent his messengers to Babylon to request the surrender of the city and to insure the inhabitants that their privileges would be respected. Ukin-zir's representative was apparently able to keep the Babylonians from surrendering at this time, but the northern part of Babylonia seems to have submitted to the Assyrian army without resistance.13 On his southward march Tiglath-pileser III apparently stopped briefly to lay waste the region of Bit-Sha'alli and Bit-Shilani,14 and then moved south to besiege Sapia.15 Again in 730 B.c. Babylonia was attacked. By this time, apparently, southern resistance had greatly weakened, for Ukin-zir withdrew before the Assyrian monarch entered his capital city, and Balasu of the Dakkuri, Nadinu of Larak, and Merodach-baladan, who came with a rich gift (mandatiti), all submitted.16 12 Ibid., letter II, p. 26. Letter VIII seems to imply that the Itu'a tribe provided protection for Assyria from rebel attacks, and that some of the Ru'a tribe were guarding the road to the fort of Kar-Shamash (which may be located in the vicinity of Arrapha, RCAE, III, p. 47) ; this may have been a road from the Tigris which passed through their territory. Letter V may contain the explanation why Balasu, who supposedly was an uncle of Ukin-zir, became an Assyrian supporter (a letter sent by Ukin-zir to Merodachbaladan in which he insinuated that Balasu was their rival, had apparently been acquired by the Assyrians who then read the letter to Balasu). Letter XI names Balasu as a provider of troops to Assyria. Neither of these letters nor the Annals mention Merodach-baladan as opposed to Assyria at this time. The Annals simply report that he and Balasu submitted and paid tribute. The term used here for tribute was mandattu, which may indicate that Merodach-baladan assisted Assyria. See H. W. F. Saggs, op. cit., letter V, p. 32, VIII, p. 39; XI, p. 43, and the commentary on the letters on p. 45ff. 13 See "Nimrud Letters", op. cit., no. I, p. 23. Although Tiglath-pileser III conquered Babylon and Borsippa and other cities in north Babylonia, he nowhere mentioned the fact. This no doubt indicates that he had met little or no resistance in these areas. Supporters of Ukin-zir seemingly escaped to the south (Nimrud Letter II, p. 26). 14 The Bit-Sha'alli region apparently borders the Bit-Dakkuri on the south, probably in the area of Hor Al-Shinafiya; the Bit-Shilani region is between the Bit-Sha'alli and the Ammukani. 16 ARAB, I, 790; in ARAB, I, 792 Tiglath-pileser III mentions the cutting of palm trees, apparently from the surroundings of Sapia, but he did not state that the city surrendered. " Tiglath-pileser III and Ukin-zir apparently spent the year 730 examining their own

ASSYRIA AND BABYLONIA UNTIL THE TIME OF ASHURBANIPAL

51

Tiglath-pileser III took the hands of Marduk at the New Year festival of the following Nisannu (729/728), and became king of Babylonia; at this time he assumed the name Pulu.17 In Tebetu of his second year as king of Babylon, Tiglath-pileser III died and was succeeded by his son, Shalmaneser IV. The new monarch claimed rule over both Assyria and Babylonia, and in the South assumed the name Ululaia.18 That the South, however, was not in reality a part of a joint kingdom becomes apparent from the fact that when Sargon II succeeded Shalmaneser IV in 722,

and each other's position; the Eponym Chronicle (RLA, II, 431) reports that Tiglathpileser remained in Assyria and there is no mention of Ukin-zir's activities. The Babylonian Chronicle (i, 19-21) reports that in Ukin-zir's third year, Tiglath-pileser moved south to Akkad and defeated Ukin-zir. (See ARAB, 1,793 for the subjugation of the Dakkuri and the Chaldaean leaders). Merodach-baladan is here mentioned for the first time and is referred to as the son of Yakinu. 17 The Eponym Chronicle says merely that the king "seized the hands of Bel" {RLA, II, 431:45); later Annal editions (P. Rost, Keilinschrifttexten Tiglath-pileser III, Pl. XXXIV, 1) mention that in addition to his other titles, Tiglath-pileser was called king of Babylon, king of Sumer and Akkad {ARAB, I, 808). The Babylonian Chronicle (ZA, II, p. 23, Col. I, Is. 17-23) mentions the same title, and in Is. 22-23 reports that "for three years Ukin-zir reigned over Babylon. Tiglath-pileser sat on the throne of Babylon". Babylonian King List A (Col. IV, Is. 7f.) states that "Ukin-zir of the dynasty of Shashi ruled for three years, Pulu for two years" (Th. Pinches, PSBA, 1894; A. S. Anspacher, Tiglath-pileser III New York, 1912, pp. 17 ff.). The Ptolemaic Canon (S. Smith, Assyrian Eponym Canon, p. 102) relates that in 731 B.C. Porus (Pulu) became king of Babylon. Berossos, who refers to Pulu as "Rex Chaldaeorum" (Eusebius, Chr. 1.4) is in agreement with the above sources. For a complete discussion regarding the identification of Pulu, see J. Brinkman, The Political History of the Post Kassite Babylonia, an unpublished doctoral dissertation (Oriental Institute, University of Chicago, 1962). I Chronicles 5:26, "and the God of Israel stirred up the spirit of Pul the king of Assyria, and the spirit of Tiglath Pileser, king of Assyria and he carried them away". The Hebrew word 'carried' is here in the singular, implying that Tiglath-pileser and Pulu are one and the same person. The correct translation of the waw introducing the epexegetical phrase concerning Tiglath-pileser should be "even"; E. R. Thiele, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings (Chicago, 1951), pp. 76f.. Thus the verse should read, "And the God of Israel stirred up the spirit of Pul, king of Assyria, even the spirit of Tiglath Pileser, king of Assyria and carried the (i.e. certain Hebrew tribes) away". II Kings 15:19, 20 also mentions that Manahem paid tribute to Pul. The name Pulu appears in Babylonian, but not in Assyrian records. Tiglath-pileser III had indeed brought the whole of western Asia under Assyrian sway, and introduced a new administrative system for the entire empire; Babylonia, which could not be ruled as any other sugjugated realm, witnessed the Assyrian monarch assuming its rule. Business documents dated after Tiglath-pileser have been preserved from his last years in Babylonia. 18 Babylonian Chronicle, i 27-30. The only record preserved from his reign is a land transaction from Der dating to the third year of his rule; the only Annal fragment is a cylinder which had been placed in the temple of Nabu at Bersippa {ARAB, I, 827f.).

52

ASSYRIA AND BABYLONIA UNTIL THE TIME OF ASHURBANIPAL

Merodach-baladan formally became King of Babylonia at the following New Year festival when he held the hand of Marduk. 19 In an effort to strengthen his position, Merodach-baladan enlisted the aid of Elam, which now began to intervene actively in Babylonian politics and was willing to grant assistance to any anti-Assyrian leader.20 Merodach-baladan successfully gained the support of Humbanigash, the king of Elam, and in 720 an Elamite army clashed with Sargon's forces near Der. Although the Assyrians were apparently defeated, Sargon continued to hold Der; however, Merodach-baladan remained on the Babylonian throne for twelve years.21 Sargon advanced into Babylonia in 710 B.C. and captured a Gambulian fort, Dur-Athara, which had been fortified by a Babylonian force consisting of about 600 cavalry together with 4,000 infantry. The area became an Assyrian province, with Dur-Athara, called Dur-Nabu as its seat of local government.22 Attempting to extend the province of Dur-Nabu, Sargon fell upon the tribes of Rua'a, Puqudu, Iatburu, and the yindaru, thus bringing Assyrian forces into the home territory of Merodach-baladan. The Assyrian monarch reports that his soldiers cut down the tribes' date palms.23 The invaders continued south and apparently subjugated fourteen cities located along the Uknu River, in addition to the fortresses of Sam'una and Bab-duri, which had been fortified by the Elamite sovereign against the Iatburu.24 This campaign resulted also in the fall of Babylon "

Babylonian Chronicle, i 31-32. The campaign of Tiglath-pileser III against the Aramaean tribes on the lower Euphrates had brought the Assyrian borders up to the frontiers of Elam. Elam immediately took the anti-Assyrian side. ABL, 436 deals with Merodach-baladan's (?) activities and his efforts to enlist allies; it no doubt dates to the reign of Sargon. The letter reports that son of Yakin had attempted to gain the support of the Litamu tribe. The Dakkuri tribe evidently gave their allegiance to Assyria, but later came to the Babylonian side {RCAE, III, p. 162). 21 For the battle of Der see ARAB, II, 4, 55; Cameron, op. cit., p. 158. An inscribed cylinder of Merodach-baladan discovered at Nimrud records his rebuilding of the Ishtar temple at Uruk and also mentions victories over Assyria. The finding of the cylinder at Nimrud would imply that it had been transported to Assyria at a later date (C. J. Gadd, "Inscribed Barrel Cylinder of Marduk-aplaiddina", Iraq, XV, Pis. IX-X, pp. 133-34). See also UVB, VI, X, XII, XIII and H. Lenzen, "The Ningish-zida Temple built by Marduk-apla-iddina II at Uruk-Warka", Iraq, XIX (1957), part 2, pp. 146ff. For the kudurru from his reign see F. Delitzsch, "Der Berliner Merodachbaladan Stein" BA, II, pp. 258-73. 22 ARAB, II, 31; A. T. Olmstead, Western Asia in the Days of Sargon of Assyria, pp. 130-31. " ARAB, II, 32. «* ARAB, II, 32, 33. 20

ASSYRIA AND BABYLONIA UNTIL THE TIME OF ASHURBANIPAL

53

and Borsippa; Merodach-baladan apparently escaped to the south.25 In the following year Sargon again moved into southern Babylonia and, as his records relate, easily captured Dur-Iakin. There he freed prisoners taken from the cities of Sippar, Nippur, Babylon and Borsippa who had been detained by Merodach-baladan, no doubt because of their pro-Assyrian tendencies. All Babylonia once again came under Assyrian domination, and at the following New Year festival 709/708, Sargon formally mounted the Babylonian throne.26 Sargon proudly recorded the costly gifts he presented to the Babylonian temples, probably to gain the support of the Babylonian priests.27 He also granted the cities of Nippur, Sippar, Babylon and Borsippa exemption from encumbrances, exemptions which had very likely been denied by both Shalmaneser IV and Merodach-baladan.28 For the remaining years of Sargon there is no information about Babylonian-Assyrian relationships; presumably the situation was peaceful, only to deteriorate in the time of Sargon's successor, Sennacherib. Berossos reports that a brother of Sennacherib sat on the Babylonian throne and was succeeded by a certain Akises whose reign lasted only thirty days, at the end of which time he was reputedly murdered by Merodach-baladan who again assumed the throne for six months.29 In 26

ARAB, II, 34-37. Babylonian Chronicle, ii, 1. 1 : "Year XII of Merodachbaladan, Sargon descended of Akkad. 5. Sargon in Babylon sat on the throne 6. year XIII Sargon held the hands to Bel". ARAB, II, 184 records "into Babylon, the city of the gods, joyfully I entered, in joy of heart and with a beaming countenance I grasped the hands of the great lord Marduk". The sender of ABL, 1016 addresses Sargon as king of Babylon but not as king of Assyria. Perhaps Sargon never claimed the title "king of Babylon" in Assyria; he may have been known in the North as "king of Assyria, king of Sumer and Akkad, viceroy of Babylon", and in the South as "king of Babylon and king of the Lands" ; the two sets of titles may never have been combined. 27 ARAB, II, 184; HA, pp. 250-57. 28 ARAB, II, 117. 28 Berossos is the only source which mentions Sennacherib's brother as a ruler in Babylon (AS, p. 162 II a ). Several scholars are inclined to agree with Berossos' statements. So F. Hommel, Geschichte Babylonien und Assyrien, pp. 686, 731 ; C. P. Tiele, Babylonische Assyrische Geschichte (Gotha, 1886), pp. 285-312; Edw. Meyer, Geschichte des Altertums, I, p. 464. It seems altogether possible that Sennacherib placed his brother, whose name is not preserved, as his representative in Babylon. Babylonian King List A assigns two years reign to Sennacherib before the outbreak of the southern revolt (CT, XXXVI, 25 ; ANET, p. 272, Col. iv; The Synchronistic History, Col. iv, ANET, p. 273). The Synchronistic History reports that immediately following these two years, the people of Akkad revolted, and includes no further details prior to the ascendancy of Ashur-nadin-shumi. The Babylonian King List, however, mentions that a certain Marduk-zakir-shumi ruled for a month and was followed by Merodach-baladan who reigned for 6 months. 29

54

ASSYRIA AND BABYLONIA UNTIL THE TIME OF ASHURBANIPAL

any event, it is clear that Merodach-baladan once again sought allies to help him establish a firm position against Assyria.30 In spite of these obstacles, Sennacherib advanced southward along the Tharthara river as far as Dur-Kurigalzu and Sippar. To meet the threat, Merodach-baladan sent to Cutha a division of cavalry and light armed troops, under the leadership of Nergal-näsir the Sutean, who in turn was assisted by ten Elamite generals. A contingent of heavy-armed forces under Tannanu, assisted by the Elamite Imbappa, was also directed to Kish. 31 Sennacherib sent a force to Kish while he himself led an army against Nergal-näsir. When the Babylonian forces at Cutha were obliged to surrender, the Assyrian monarch was able to assist his troops at Kish, where he successfully defeated Merodach-baladan's armies, thus opening the way to Babylon, which was entered and sacked. After its fall, Sennacherib apparently continued his march south into the territories of Bit-Dakkuri, Bit-Sha'ali, Bit-Ammukani, and Bit-Iakin.32 The Assyrian monarch then designated, as king of Babylon, one Belibni, a Babylonian who may have been a relative of Merodach-baladan but who had apparently lived for some time in Assyria.33 On his homeward march to Assyria, Sennacherib claims to have defeated certain tribes which he had not been able to attack on his advance, namely, the Tu'muna, Rihihu, and others.34 In 700 Sennacherib descended upon Akkad, removed Bel-ibni from the throne, and returned him to Assyria together with his retinue. His forces then moved south, and in the battle of Bituti defeated Nergal-ushezib, who evidently had been scheming to gain the Babylonian throne. The Assyrians went on to the Bit-Iakin area, but Merodach-baladan had fled to Elam.35 30

The Annals record that Merodach-baladan had Arab and Elamite support during his subsequent wars with Assyria. It was probably at this time that he sent his ambassadors to Hezekiah (II Kings, 20: 12-19). Since Isaiah was angered at the outcome of the meeting, we can assume that the mission was successful. Cf. S. Smith, The First Campaign of Sennacherib, King of Assyria, B.C., 705-681 (London, 1921), p. 11. 31 AS, p. 49, Col. I, 1. 8; p. 51, Col. I, Is. 18ff.; S. Smith, op. cit., p. 12. 32 AS, pp. 50-53, Is. 29-49. 38 AS, p. 54, 1. 54. 34 Ibid., Is. 55-56; 1. 60. 35 Sennacherib's representative, Bel-ibni, perhaps was in no position to meet Merodachbaladan and Nergal-ushezib who had united to oppose the Assyrian intervention. Rather than meet them openly, Bel-ibni may have found it advisable to reach some agreement with them by which they would remain independent in their own areas and leave him alone in Babylon. Sennacherib may have heard of this assumed agreement and attacked Babylonia again (Babylonian Chronicle, CT, XXXIV, 46ff.; AS, p. 158, Is. 25-28). If there had been an actual insurrection in Babylonia Sennacherib would have recorded it and would have severly punished Bel-ibni. However, a business document dated 682 B.C. from Assyria, records the name of Bel-ibni, perhaps the once

ASSYRIA AND BABYLONIA UNTIL THE TIME OF ASHURBANIPAL

55

The policy of placing natives on the Babylonian throne was doomed to failure and Sennacherib, in 699, named his son, Ashur-nadin-shum, as king of Babylon.36 The continued residence of Merodach-baladan in Elam, however, presented a real danger to Assyria and indeed caused disturbance for the newly appointed king of Babylon. We can safely assume that Merodach-baladan led raids upon the southern Babylonian border territories, for which reason Sennacherib in 695 mustered an army and fleet and prepared to move against the fugitive and his Elamite ally. The fleet sailed down the Tigris as far as Opis, then transferred to the Euphrates, and continued its course to the Nar marräti. 3 ' During the course of the campaign, in Tishriti, 694 B.C., the Elamite king, Hallushu-Inshushinak (699-693 B.c.) invaded northern Babylonia and entered Sippar. Earlier the statue of Nabu was sent from Der to Assyria, a fact which may testify that the Assyrians feared an Elamite attack via the usual road from Der.38 He then descended upon Babylon, took Ashur-nadin-shum captive, and installed Nergal-ushezib on the throne. The latter apparently grew stronger, for in Tammuzu, 693 B.C. he possessed Nippur. 39 In Tishriti, 693 B.C. the Assyrian forces entered and plundered Uruk. They then moved north, met the Babylonian armies at Nippur, and captured Nergal-ushezib who was taken to Assyria.40 Ushezib-Marduk succeeded Nergal-ushezib as king of Babylon, and after a revolt in Elam, Kudur-Nahhunte (693-692) came to the Elamite throne. As a result of the latter's defeat by Sennacherib's forces, he lost the throne to his brother, Huban-immena (692-688).41 The combined forces of HubanAssyrian installed as king in Babylon, and thus may prove that he lived to enjoy a peaceful existence in Assyria (ADD, no. 222; Olmstead, AJSL, (1922), op. cit., p. 78). For the installation of Ashur-nadin-shumi, see Babylonian King List A, Col. IV, ANET, p. 272; The Synchronistic History, AN ET, Col. iv, p. 273; Babylonian Chronicle, ii, Is. 29, 30; AS, p. 158. 36 ARAB, II, 243, 315, 324. 37 AS, p. 73, Is. 59-70. 38 Babylonian Chronicle, ii, Is. 39-40; see HA, pp. 290-91 for the campaign against Elam. There exists a document from Sippar which is dated after Hallushu, the Elamite monarch; VAS, IV, 1; compare Ungnad, OLZ (1907), pp. 621 ff.; A. R. Millard, "Another Babylonian Chronicle text," IRAQ, XXVI, Part 1 (1964), p. 15. L. 1. 3 » Babylonian Chronicle, ii, 1. 4; HA, p. 292. On the basis of ABL, 292; Pfeiffer, 35, Olmstead has assumed that Nergal-ushezib was captured through treason. The relevant passage, rev. 2, states: "Whoever captures him, and brings him before me; or if he kills him, according as my grandfather did for Adad-barakka in the case of Shuzubu — he laid him on the balance and his weight in silver he measured and gave him." It seems that Adad-barakka could have captured Shuzub (Nergal-ushezib) though any number of means, not necessarily treason. 40 Babylonian Chronicle. 11 Babylonian Chronicle iii, Is. 7-15; AS, Col. IV, 1. 81-Col. V, Is. 1-14.

56

ASSYRIA AND BABYLONIA UNTIL THE TIME OF ASHURBANIPAL

immena and Ushezib-Marduk met an Assyrian army at JJaluli and both sides reported a victory. 42 Sennacherib, apparently determined to put an end t o the problems arising from Babylonia, swept southward t o Babylon in 689. H e completely devastated the city, tore d o w n the walls and temples, threw their debris into the Arahtu canal, burned Babylon to its foundation, flooded the entire area, and made it "like a meadow". The statues of Marduk and other Babylonian gods were carried off to Assyria. 43 It has been proposed that, after Babylon's destruction, Sennacherib had a change of heart toward the Babylonians. It has also been postulated that during the Sargonid period there was a pro-Babylonian party in Assyria which had considerable influence o n royal policies, that during the reign of Sennacherib it was in the ascendancy, 4 4 and that, consequently, Sennacherib appointed as governor o f Babylon his son Esarhaddon, w h o remained at this post until after his father's death. Neither of these views seems to have a firm basis. 45 42

Babylonian Chronicle iii, Is. 16-18; AS, p. 82, Is. 35-36; Cameron, op. cit., pp. 166-67. « AS, pp. 83-84, Is. 44-54; ARAB, II, 341. 44 Winckler, "Die Politische Entwickelung Babylonien und Assyrien", AO, I, II; F. Schmidtke, Asarhaddons Stadthalterschaft in Babylonien ... pp. 7 ff. There is no absolute evidence to support the assumption that such parties did exist in Assyria. 45 For these postulates see especially Schmidtke, op. cit., p. 9. Little is known of Esarhaddon's governorship which could indeed prove such a supposition. At the time of Sennacherib's death, Esarhaddon was north of Hanigalbat undertaking some warlike exploits. Thus the proposal of Winckler and others that Esarhaddon was in Babylon at the time of the Murder seems baseless. Meissner, in "Wo Befand sich Esarhaddon zur Zeit der Ermordung Sanheribs?" Miscellanea Orientalia, Deimel Festschrift (Analecta Orientalia), (Rome, 1935), pp. 232-34 attacks this assumption bitterly and discusses the text Sm 1089 upon which some scholars based their argument. "Wie man sieht, beziehen sich diese arg Verstummelten Zeilen nicht auf Historische Ereignisse, und wir können ihnen trotz der Erwähnung von É-sagila und Babylon (which had been mentioned in the text) weder etwas über den Ort entnehmen, an welchen sich Asarhaddon zur Zeit der Ermordung seiner Vaters befand, noch wer ihm zur Niederwerfung Seiner feinde behelflich war." Berossos (Eusebius, Chr. 27, 12 and in 28) contains the evidence which supported the assumption that Esarhaddon was governor of Babylon for 8 years. Olmstead, HA, p. 338, upon this authority, assumed that Esarhaddon was the governor of Babylon, who at the death of Sennacherib, was at the frontier city of Zaqqap. The same author, in "The Rise and Fall of Babylon", AJSL, 1922, p. 84 suggests that Esarhaddon was appointed as king over Babylon and that the city of Zaqqap witnessed his installation. It seems improbable that Esarhaddon was at the city of Zaqqap if he was a governor of Babylonia for a governor of the South would reside somewhere near the middle of his province rather than in a frontier city; also there is no evidence to prove that Esarhaddon was at Zaqqap when his father died. A letter sent to Esarhaddon (?) while he was crown prince {ABL, 152) implies that his father allowed him to participate in the affairs of state and that people had taken

ASSYRIA AND BABYLONIA UNTIL THE TIME OF ASHURBANIPAL

57

Sennacherib had appointed Esarhaddon, his youngest son, to succeed him on the throne and had bestowed upon him the name Ashur-etililani-mukin-apli, which continued to be occasionally used as late as the early part of Esarhaddon's reign.46 Sennacherib's appointment of their complaints to him. The letter alone, since it was found at Nineveh makes it highly improbable that he could have been the governor in Babylon. Waterman (RCAE, III, p. 67), suggested that Esarhaddon and his father were both absent at the time the letter was sent, and that Esarhaddon might then have been governor of Babylon. The text, however, does not substantiate such an assumption. Esarhaddon's Annals indicate that he was at the head of an army when the news of Sennacherib's death reached him. He arrived at Arbela, where he was held by Rimuta, the seeress, who assured him of a forthcoming victory. This indicates that Arbela must have been on his way to the capital, and the clash in Hanigalbat may suggest that he met the rebelling forces soon after leaving Arbela. The rebels doubtless knew that the crown prince was on his way to meet them and from where he would start his advance, and thus they set forth to do battle. (ARAB, II, 504); "Before me in the land of Hanigalbat, all of their mighty warriors blocked my path, offering battle". Therefore, Esarhaddon must have been coming from the east, heading towards Nineveh; after passing through Arbela his advance was blocked by the enemy. It was assumed by Winckler (AF, Zweite Reihe I (Leipzig 1898), p. 189) that Zaquti held a regency over Babylonia. Streck, pp. CCXXVI, CCXXVII finds no direct evidence to prove such a theory. H. Lewy ( J N E S , op. cit., pp. 273 if.) has adopted the same view as Winckler. To support her theory she gave the following evidences: 1) text 82-5-22, 90 (ADD, I, no. 645; ARU, 14, (Leipzig, 1913); two copies of two dedicatory inscriptions left by Zaquti. In each of the texts it is stated that the precious object in question was dedicated "for the life of the soul of Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, her son, and for her own life, for the stability of her reign (and) her wel being." The other dedicatory inscription is of Ashurbanipal's consort, Ashur-sharrat (ADD, I, no. 644) which reads in 1. 6 : "stability of her reign," which is missing in the translation of ADD (see Lewy, op. cit.). The reference in these two inscriptions, however, may have been to the queen's own lifetime as having been the queen of Assyria and the word palia here perhaps means her reign as the queen par excellence over Assyria. 2) Text Κ 1617, published in ADD, no. 301 and ARU, no. 535. In its first line the tablet is sealed by an official who is characterized as "Supervisor of the villages of the city of Lafciru, of the queen mother's house." Since it is assumed that Zaquti was from Lahiru, the bit-ummi sarri may refer to her own family in that town, or to the fact that she held properties in Lahiru. As long as Zaquti was the queen par excellence and very likely a consultant in state affairs, she doubtless had many officials. Therefore it is not surprising to find there (text 82-5-22, 34, ARU, p. 52) the supervisor of the villages at Laljiru, on the staff of the mother's palace, as well as other officials attached to her palace. A text which H. Lewy apparently overlooked reveals the fact that Esarhaddon's consort also had an official with the title râb alani (ADD, II, no. 447). Zaquti must have had great influence over Sennacherib for him to have appointed her son, the youngest of the king's children, as crown prince. Thus, as the prince's promoter, she probably had great influence over him and acted as his consultant. Accordingly, it is not surprising that the governor of the Sea Land, wanting a quick answer to his demand, asked the queen-mother to put pressure upon the king to render him aid (ABL, 917). It is also not surprising that the queen had high officials in her service who informed her of the empire's news. The queen-mother's properties at Lahiru had probably been given to her by her family when she was presented to Sargon. " PEA, p. 9, Col. 1, Is. 11-22; ARAB, 11, 500. After Esarhaddon's appointment

58

ASSYRIA AND BABYLONIA UNTIL THE TIME OF ASHURBANIPAL

Esarhaddon as crown prince was probably based both on personal feelings for the son, and also on the influence of his mother, Zaquti.47 Sennacherib was murdered at Nineveh 48 by his elder sons who were apparently assisted by certain army officers.49 Esarhaddon was finally able to assume the throne through his own military endeavor; the brothers who opposed him were disunited, and the sympathies of the Assyrian citizens regarding his right to kingship were in his favor. In spite of these Sennacherib gave him the new name and presented him with bracelets of gold, ivory, and a crown of gold (Schmidtke, op. cit., p. 16; ARAB, II, 613). As for the use of the name early in Esarhaddon's reign see R. Borger, Die Inschriften Asarhaddons König von Assyrien (= Archiv für Orientforschung, herausgegeben von Ernst weidner, Beiheft 9) (Graz, 1956), no. 7, p. 9; no. 30, p. 68. The name is mentioned also in a letter of Sherua-eterat {ABL, 308). See B. Meissner, Könige Babyloniens und Assyriens (Leipzig, 1926), p. 204. 47 See above. The fact that Esarhaddon was the youngest son of Sennacherib is attested throughout the Annals. 48 The place of Sennacherib's murder is a subject of controversy among scholars. Winckler, ΚΑΤ, III, 85; Schmidtke, Asarhadons Stadthalterschaft in Babylonien seine Thronbesteigung in Assyrien (Leiden, 1916), pp. 83, 109; and OLZ (1918), p. 169, are of the impression that he was killed in Babylonia. A. Ungnad {ZA, XXXV (1924), p. 50, and OLZ (1917), p. 358) assumes that Nineveh was the place of his death. The assumption that he was killed in Babylonia is based on the assertion of Ashurbanipal {ARAB, II, 795) that he was killed between Shedi and Lamassi, whom some scholars have assumed to be located in Babylonia. However, a revised translation of this passage by Landsberger and Bauer {ZA, 37, (1926), p. 67) refutes the idea that Sennacherib died from the colossi falling on him and that Ashurbanipal used the same method to kill Shamash-shum-ukin's courtiers. It seems more likely that Ashurbanipal was implying that he had had the aid of the same spirits that had assisted his grandfather when he had destroyed Babylon. It is quite certain that the Shedu and Lamassu had been transported to Assyria along with the statue of Marduk and placed in the temple of Nabu, and it may be that Sennacherib was slain while worshipping before them in Assyria. ZA, op. cit., p. 50ff. quotes the following text of Ashurbanipal: "The rest of them alive you have into my hands. In the royal city of Nineveh you did slay them with weapons", which would seem to prove that Shamash-shum-ukin's followers were brought to Assyria and slaughtered at Nineveh. Hence, there seems to be little doubt that Nineveh was the place of Sennacherib's murder. (See E. Kraeling, "The Death of Sennacherib", J AOS (1933), 53, pp. 334-16). 49

ARAB, II, 502; S. Langdon, Building Inscriptions... 1, 35fï.; H. P. Schnabel, Berossos, p. 269; Babylonian Chronicle, CT, XXXIV, 46ff., Col. III, 34if.; II Kings, 19:36f. ; II Chronicles, 32:21; Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, χ, i, 5; Β. Meissner, "Neue Nachrichten über die Ermordung Sanheribs und die Nachfolge Asarhadon", SPAW, XI (1932), pp. 251-62. On the assistance the murderers acquired from the army see Prism S, Col. II, Is. 14ff. C. Thompson {PEA, pp. 7-8) suggests that Esarhaddon himself was an accomplice in his father's murder and had sent some Babylonians to perform the deed. Line 39, PEA, p. 10, reports that Esarhaddon was hidden in a secret place, a-sar ni-sir-ti. Since Esarhaddon was the youngest son, and the favorite one to have been chosen as the crown prince, it seems very reasonable to assume that he would fear some kind of an attack from his brothers, especially since they had military assistance, and would seek refuge in a hidden place (Col. I, Is. 82-84, PEA).

ASSYRIA AND BABYLONIA UNTIL THE TIME OF ASHURBANIPAL

59

circumstances, he clearly remained worried and frequently sought the assurances of seers.50 While Esarhaddon was occupied in stabilizing his throne, Nabu-zerkitti-lishir, who apparently was the governor of the Sea Land, rebelled and besieged Ur, then governed by Ningal-iddina. At the advance of the Assyrian army Nabu-zer-kitti-lishir withdrew and fled to Elam together with his brother, Naid-Marduk made his way to Assyria and paid homage to Esarhaddon, who subsequently appointed him to the governorship of the Sea Land, probably about 680.51 The sources dealing with Esarhaddon reveal him as a kindly figure who was not as harsh to political offenders as his predecessors had been, and who followed a mild policy towards Babylonia. The motives which induced him so to act have been variously conceived. He himself ascribes it to the compassion of the gods — a claim which is difficult to accept since in antiquity oracles were usually given in accordance with royal or priestly policy. A clue may be found in the personal interest taken by the king in Babylonia. His mother Zaquti had her own family ties with Babylonia, maintained properties in Lahiru, and naturally was attached to the Babylonian gods. Esarhaddon had acquired interests in magic, and the reports received from the magicians and astrologers of the main cities in Babylonia would certainly keep him in touch with them and make him admire the country. His interest in the past and his reverence for the culture of Babylonia may account for his attachment to the South and for his sympathy with the people's political demands. But since the king was Assyrian, he no doubt sought foremost the welfare of Assyria, which he probably conceived of as involving a fully united Mesopotamia. He probably saw no reason for the two adjacent lands to be on bad terms, since both countries spoke, on the whole, the same language, used nearly the same script, worshipped the same gods (with some preference either way to particular deities), and had the same cultural background. Thus, his policy toward Babylonia was to meet their demands half-way but to keep them attached to Assyria. He probably thought that a mild policy 60 PEA, ibid, Col. 1, Is. 69-76; Col. 1 , 1 . 4 4 . The description "to exercise the kingship against each other they rushed like young mountain goats" suggests that the brothers were fighting among themselves. PEA, ibid, Col. 1, Is. 50-52; ARAB, 11, 502-505 claims that the Assyrians respected the covenant and therefore did not aid his brothers. For the mental attitude of Esarhaddon throughout see E. J. Banks, "Eight Oracular Responses to Esarhaddon", AJSL, XIV (1897-98), pp. 267 ff. ; A. Delattre, "The Oracles of Esarhaddon", BOR, III (1889), no. 2; AGS, 101, 102; S. Strong, "On Some Oracles of Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal", SB Ay, II (1893), pp. 632fF. " PEA, ibid, Col. II, Is. 40-64; Cameron, op. cit. p. 167.

60

ASSYRIA AND BABYLONIA UNTIL THE TIME OF ASHURBANIPAL

would enable the Babylonians to form a good opinion of their Assyrian rulers and subsequently to be ready for a second step in his long-range plan: to have an Assyrian-installed king in Babylon who would hold the hand of Marduk. Esarhaddon relates that he renewed the Babylonian's exemptions from encumbrances, assisted the merchants, returned the plundered territories to their original owners, and encouraged business and building activities.52 Not long after his ascendancy, he ordered that Babylonian lands which had apparently been appropriated by the Dakkuri tribe after the destruction of Babylon by Sennacherib, be returned to their rightful owners. The usurpers seemingly disobeying his orders, brought accusations against the real owners, and called themselves the original possessors. The king moved south, forcefully dispossessed the tribe, which retreated to its former location, captured its chieftain Shamash-ibni, and claims to have appointed as their chieftain Nabu-ushallim, son of Balasu, who had been the Dakkuri chief in the time of Tiglath-pileser III.63 Shamash-ibni was carried north and killed in Assyria.51 Bel-iqisha, chief of the Gambuli, rose in revolt, but soon submitted and resumed his tribute and gifts.55 After the defeat of the Dakkuri and the submission of the Gambuli in 678, Esarhaddon ordered the restoration of Babylon and appointed as a new governor over the city, Ubaru, whom the Babylonians received with welcoming arms.56 S2

BA, III, p. 325, Col. VII, Is. 14-42; ARAB, II, 659E, 655, 668. When Iddinasharru and his son Zakiru wrote to remind Esarhaddon of the manner in which Tiglath-pileser III and his successors had guarded the inherited rights of Babylonia, and had firmly established the income of Esagila and Ezida, Esarhaddon listened to their petition (Winckler, AF, II, 24). ·» ABL, 403; RCAE, III, pp. 148-150; Pfeiffer 80. While the king who sent the letter is not indicated, it is believed that the letter dates to the early period of Esarhaddon. The letter starts with the proverb: "When the potter's dog goes into the oven, the potter kindles a hot fire under it." The explanation of this proverb could be a warning to those whom he termed non-Babylonians, that if they did not leave peacefully, he would use force and drive them out just as the potter is forced to drive the dog out of his kiln by kindling a hot fire under it. For their expulsion see ARAB, II, 517, 535. " S. Smith, BHT, p. 12, Is. 10-12 in Esarhaddon Chronicle. " ARAB, II, 539, 544. " ARAB, II, 643; Borger, op. cit., Episode no. 10, p. 15, where Esarhaddon implies that Marduk's anger lasted but a moment. He then turned "the book of fate" upside down and ordered its (the city's) restoration in the 11th year. Therefore, this was the year 678 B.C. ; in this year, too, Shamash ibni of the Dakkuri was carried north and killed. See BHT, p. 12,1.10, dating the murder of Shamash-ibni in Assyria to the third year of Esarhaddon. In ARAB, II, 642, 646, 649, 651, the king reports seeing favorable signs that were interpreted as the gods' appeasement over the Babylonians and declared the desolation of Babylon to last for 11 years instead of 70. On the restorations of Babylon see ARAB,

ASSYRIA AND BABYLONIA UNTIL THE TIME OF ASHURBANIPAL

61

Later in the reign of Esarhaddon Ummanaldas, the king of Elam, attacked Babylonia. H e fell upon Sippar and made such a great massacre that the usual procession of Shamash could not go out that year. 57 Probably at the same time, men of the Puqudu tribe invaded the territory o f Bit-Ammukani, slew many of their men, and violated their w o m e n ; while the invaders were crossing the king's canal, Nabu-shar-usur, an Assyrian captain, seized them. 5 8 Esarhaddon, in all probability, was quite sincere in his kindly attitude t o Babylon. In 672 B.c. he officially appointed his son, Ashurbanipal, t o the crown princehood of Assyria, and his elder son, Shamash-shumukin, to Babylon. Thus, the assumed second step of his plan for Babylon's future rule Was set forth.

II, 652-654; 656, 659°, 659D, 663, 664, 675, 712, 731 ; Borger, op. cit., Episodes no. 23, 26, 34, 35, pp. 21, 24-25, which mention also the return of the gods from Assyria. The phrase "the lord Marduk had compassion on Babylon (and) took up his abode (once more) in É-sagila, his temple", when studied in the light that Marduk came back to Babylon from his captivity in Ayyaru 668 B.C. probably means that Marduk had agreed to take up his abode again in Esagila. See also J. Nougayrol, "Nouveau Fragment de Prisme d'Asarhaddon relatant la restauration Babylone", AOF, XVIII (1958), pp. 314ff. The temples, the walls, and the tower temple were all restored as has been indicated in the Annals. For the rebuilding of Esarhaddon in Babylon see F. Wetzel, "Das Hauptheiligtum des Marduk in Babylon", WVDOG, no. 59 (Leipzig, 1938), pp. 38-39. It is difficult to assign an exact date to the time of Esarhaddon's appointment of Ubaru as viceroy over Babylon. In ABL, 418, Ubaru tells Esarhaddon that "The Babylonians have entered Babylon" (obv. 10). The letter implies that Ubaru had just been appointed and suggests that the Babylonians had already entered the city when he entered it. Cf. rev. Is. 8-9; "The chiefs of Chaldaea bless the king saying he (the king) is the one who has populated Babylon again"; the verb used for "populated" is u-Se-Si-bi Shafel preterite III person of waSabu, "to dwell" which implies that the land was already populated. Thus, the appointment of Ubaru must have taken place during or after the third year of Esarhaddon. Esarhaddon also restored the temple of Eanna in Uruk (XOS, I, no. 40; ARAB, II, 736-741 ; YOS, I, no. 41 ; ARAB, II, 743-745). 57 Babylonian Chronicle, Col. IV, Is. 9-10 i8 ABL, 275, Pfeiffer 78.

IV ASHURBANIPAL AND SHAMASH-SHUM-UKIN

As indicated above, Esarhaddon had experienced some difficulty ascending the throne after the murder of his father and, had it not been for the support of the Assyrian people and of the army, as he claimed, he might well have failed.1 Obviously he did not wish to see his heir have the same difficulty, for such conflicts might turn Assyria into a battleground or lead to outside intervention. Accordingly, he hoped to settle the matter by appointing as crown prince the son he had chosen to rule Assyria. There was, however, an obstacle to this course of action: the treaty with Ramatala, of 672 B.C. says specifically that his sons were still under age.2 Furthermore, he may have suspected that several factions, given the opportunity, would dispute the right of his successor to the throne. The same treaty may offer some clue to the identity of these groups: (You swear) that should one of his brothers; his uncles, his cousins, his family (or) one of his father's descendants, (or) any descendant of the former royalty (or) one of the chiefs (or) one of the governors, (or) one of the citizens of Assyria, (or any foreigner ...3) The fact that "his brothers" and "his uncles" head the list could imply either that the Assyrian monarch had granted mercy to his brothers, or that, even if they had not been pardoned and did not reside in Assyria, they or their sons were still in a position to instigate trouble. Descendants of a former royal family were another possible threat since the present royalty had acquired the throne through Sargon II's 1

PEA, p. 11, Col. I, 47-52, 80; 70-73. See D. J. Wiseman, "The Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon", Iraq, XX (1958), part 1, 1. 237 of the treaty with Ramatala. The expression "(You swear) that if Esarhaddon king of Assyria died during the minority of his sons", clearly indicates that his sons at that time were minors. 3 Ibid., Is. 318-322. This could be considered a general formula included in every treaty of the day, indicating only various possibilities. However, each group listed probably represents a faction which could well be a threat to the ascendancy of his son. Translations from the treaty with Ramataia are of Wisemen. 2

ASHURBANIPAL AND SHAMAS-SHUM-UKIN

63

usurpation. Esarhaddon's destruction of Tiglath-pileser Ill's remains may indicate that members of the latter's family were still in a position t o dispute the right of his house to kingship. 4 In order t o solve all these problems, it seems that Esarhaddon appointed his eldest son, Sin-apla-iddina, to be the crown prince of Assyria; the latter's untimely death, however, brought matters t o a crisis. 5 H e then attempted to settle the succession anew by naming his younger son, Ashurbanipal, to the Assyrian throne and his eldest living son, Shamashshum-ukin® to the kingship of Babylon. 7 The 12th o f Ayyaru, 672, was chosen for the oath-taking ceremonies, and a great celebration was held 4

A. S. Anspacher, Tiglath-pileser III (New York, 1912), p. 9. AGS, Prayer no. 107, in which Esarhaddon inquired from the god concerning the installation of Sin-apla-iddina as crown prince. H. Lewy, JNES, op. cit., forwards the possibility that Esarhaddon had appointed Shamash-shum-ukin for the crown princehood of Babylonia at the same time he installed Sin-apla-iddina for Assyria and that when Sin-apla-iddina died, Esarhaddon replaced him by Ashurbanipal. 6 The name Shamash-shum-ukin, which means "the god Shamash has made the name firm", i.e., "Shamash has created the name and the manner of the named person and made firm his existence (Lehmann, SamaSSumukin ..., pp. 9-16). K. L. Tallqvist, APN (Helsingfors, 1914), Acta Scientiarum Fennicae, p. 212, "Shamash has established a son". Greek, Saoscouchions, in the Ptolemaic Canon; Sammuges of Berossos. His name has been written in seven forms ; for these various Sumerian readings of the name, see K. L. Tallqvist, APN, op. cit., p. 212. People bearing the name are few and it does not seem to have been popular in either Assyria or Babylonia. ' The seniority of Shamash-shum-ukin to Ashurbanipal is mentioned in a letter sent by Adad-shum-usur to Esarhaddon {ABL, 870, obv. Is. 10-11). In the kudurru, published by King BBS p. 70, obv. 1. 9) Shamash-shum-ukin referred to himself as mätu asaridu sa Assur-ahu-iddina. The treaty with Ramataia, Is. 69-70, states, regarding Ashurbanipal, "You will not oust him from the kingship of Assyria by helping one of his brothers, older or younger, to seize the throne". In this case the "older" could refer to non other than Shamash-shum-ukin and certainly intimates that Ashurbanipal was not the eldest son. On this subject see the discussion of B. Meissner, "Samassumukin and Assurbanipal", MVAG. IX (Berlin, 1904), pp. 181-84; A. H. Godbey "The Esarhaddon Succession", AJSL, 22 (1905), p. 65; Johnston, J AOS, XXV, p. 79; Streck, I, pp. CCXLII-CCXLIII. ARAB, 758, Esarhaddon mentions Ashurbanipal as "the oldest prince of the Palace." The word "oldest", "the most important", and not to mean that he was the eldest necessarily. 6

For Esarhaddon's other children see Streck, I, CCXLVI-CCXLVII for Ashurbanipal ; for Ashur-mukin-paleia, CCXLVII-CCXLVIII; Ashur-etil-shame-ersiti-ballitsu, CCXLVIII-CCXLIX ; §amas-mita-luballit, CCXLIX; and a daughter, Sherua-eterat, CCXLIX. Despite the lack of direct evidence, it is the writer's opinion that Kandalanu was also a brother of Ashurbanipal. The view is tentatively held on the basis of Is. 249-250 of the treaty with Ramataia: "(you swear) that you will (if necessary) await the woman pregnant by Esarhaddon king of Assyria (or) the wife of Ashurbanipal, the crown prince". Thus, it seems conclusive that in Ayyaru, 672 B.C., when the treaty was concluded, one of Esarhaddon's wives was pregnant; the child she bore may have been Kandalanu.

64

ASHURBANIPAL AND SHAMAS-SHUM-UKIN

in which officials, nobles, soldiers, and representatives of foreign countries subject to Assyria participated. 8 The statues of deities were also present. 9 After his appointment, Ashurbanipal entered the succession house {bit ridütí), and assumed his responsibilities as crown prince of Assyria. 10 It has generally been assumed that Ashurbanipal was appointed crown prince before Shamash-shum-ukin was selected as crown prince o f Babylonia, but the simultaneous appointment o f the two princes is very clear in the treaty with Ramatala. 1 1 After their installation, both went to Nineveh o n the 14th of the month, probably accompanied by Adad-shum-usur, Ashur-nasir, and Arad-Ea. 1 2 The reasons which may have led Esarhaddon to appoint a younger son to be crown prince of Assyria and an elder son for Babylonia merit some discussion. As was to be expected, Ashurbanipal declared that his selection was made by order of the gods : 8 ARAB, II, 766; Streck, I, p. 2; ARAB, II, 987; Streck, II, pp. 258ff. » PEA, p. 25 ff. 10 A Letter from Ashurbanipal's sister, Sherua-eterat, to his own consort, Ashursharrat, is definitely dated to the time Ashurbanipal was crown prince (ABL, 308), and offers proof that Ashurbanipal was married during the lifetime of his father. In the treaty with Ramatala, Is. 249-250 refer to the pregnancy of Ashurbanipal's wife at that time. A letter sent to Ashurbanipal from Adad-shum-u$ur and Marduk-shakin-shum early in his reign (ABL, 14, obv. 1. 6) states: "In regard to the son of the king our lord", implying that by the early part of his reign, Ashurbanipal had a son. Another letter from Adad-shum-u?ur to Ashurbanipal, doubtless dated to the beginning of his reign (ABL, 9, rev. Is. 6-7), records : "for the life of the king my lord and the sons of the king ..." A document dated 659 B.C. (J. H. Stevenson, Assyrian and Babylonian Contracts with Aramaic Reference Notes, The Vanderbilt Oriental Series (New York, 1902), no. 7, pp. 40-42) mentions a certain Luqu as the rab kisir of the king's son, also indicating that by that time Ashurbanipal had a son. A prayer of Shamash-shum-ukin (D. Prince, "A New Shamash-shum-ukin Series", AJSL, (1914-15), pp. 256-270, no. 12, 1. 12) states: "to him who is not worthy you gave a male heir". Although this prayer is dated to the time of the war between the brothers, it proves that Ashurbanipal had at least one son by then. In ADD, III, nos. 444 and 445, one of the witnesses bears the title mukin apati of the crown prince. The document is dated the 5th of Ululu, 660 B.C., indicating that by that year Ashurbanipal had a son as crown prince. In ADD, 440, dated 660 B.C., a shalshu of the crown prince is mentioned. 11 Olmstead, HA, p. 396ff. believed that Esarhaddon was persuaded to grant the same title (of crown prince) to Shamash-shum-ukin after the king returned from his first Egyptian campaign. This is a mere assumption; the text which Olmstead quoted to defend his opinion is ABL, 870, obv. Is. 7ff.: "you have clothed your son with robes, you have entrusted the kingship over Assyria to him, your older son you have established for the rule of Babylon." This text, contrary to Olmstead, also makes their simultaneous appointment very clear. " ABL, 1004.

ASHURBANIPAL AND SHAMAS-SHUM-UKIN

65

Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, the father who begot me, respected the word of Ashur and Belit-ile, his divinities, when they gave the command that I should exercise sovereignty.13 He further affirms that the gods had confirmed a kingly destiny upon him while he was still in his mother's womb.14 In these assertions he was merely following precedent, for almost every monarch of the ancient Near East claimed that he had been called to kingship by the gods of the land. Ashurbanipal also claimed, perhaps justifiably, that Esarhaddon had favored and admired him for his bravery and intelligence : The father, my begetter, saw for himself the bravery which the great gods decreed as my (portion). At the command of the great gods, he conceived a great love for me among (lit., in the assembly of) my many (?) brothers.16 Here too, however, he again attributed what he claimed to be his father's feelings, to the benevolence of the gods. There is, nevertheless, convincing evidence that Ashurbanipal was in truth a favorite, and officials surrounding Esarhaddon apparently noticed this partiality. In some of the letters sent to Esarhaddon prior to Ashurbanipal's appointment, the correspondents accord preference to Ashurbanipal, which is probably a mere reflection of their master's sentiments.16 One text makes reference to a statue having been made of Ashurbanipal, the crown prince, but there is no indication that any such statue was made of Shamash-shum-ukin.17 Yet Esarhaddon's apparently real affection for this particular son was scarcely a sufficient basis for bequeathing him the throne of Assyria. The major reason may well have been the status or perhaps the place of origin of their respective mothers, his wives. Although the name of Ashurbanipal's mother is still unknown, it may be assumed that she was of Assyrian origin. It is certain, however, that Shamash-shum-ukin was the son of a non-Assyrian wife from Bab13

ARAB, II, 766; Streck, II, p. 2. ARAB, II, 986; Streck, II, p. 254. In ARAB, II, 765, Ashurbanipal also declared that his name had been called for kingship from the earliest times by Ashur and Sin and other gods. 16 ARAB, II, 986; Streck, II, p. 254. 18 ABL, 453, Pfeiffer, 258, obv. 1. 13 the sender prays for the welfare of Ashurbanipal and then for all the brothers combined. In another letter, sent apparently after the appointment (ABL, 66), complimentary words follow the reconstructed name of Ashurbanipal, but nothing is added following that of Shamash-shum-ukin. 17 C. Bezold, Historische Keilinschrifttexte aus Assur (Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Jahrgang 1915, 8 Abhandlung) text no. 75. 14

66

ASHURBANIPAL AND SHAMAS-SHUM-UKIN

ylonia,18 and Esarhaddon no doubt realized that to name as his successor in Assyria one whose mother was from the very heart of Babylonia could have serious consequences. Ashurbanipal, as the next eldest candidate among the other sons, was therefore the most logical choice as king of Assyria. On the other hand, Shamash-shum-ukin's appointment to the throne of Babylon was no doubt a move to appease the Babylonians, and Esarhaddon must have believed that they would be quite contented to have Shamash-shum-ukin as their own monarch. Viewed in this light, Esarhaddon no doubt foresaw a unified Mesopotamia in the respective appointments of Ashurbanipal and Shamash-shum-ukin. From available evidence, much can be surmised about Esarhaddon's will in regard to the succession. The treaty with Ramataia states : Lines 237-41 : If Esarhaddon, king of Assyria die during the minority of his sons (and) either an officer or a courtier put Ashurbanipal the crown prince to death and take over the kingship of Assyria Lines 246-48 : you will seize him and put him to death and you will then cause a son of Ashurbanipal of the succession house to be established on the throne of Assyria. It is noteworthy that the name of Shamash-shum-ukin, who supposedly was to be Ashurbanipal's partner-brother in Babylonia, does not occur. This surely signifies that the line of kingship for the entire Assyrian empire was to be preserved through Ashurbanipal's own descendants.19 While the treaty specifies the help Ramataia should render to Shamashshum-ukin as well as to Ashurbanipal, and to the latter's heir in case of Ashurbanipal's death, it says nothing about help to be given an heir of Shamash-shum-ukin in the event of his death. This omission may perhaps be explained by a prayer of Shamash-shum-ukin (cited earlier) 18

For Ashurbanipal's mother see Streck, 1, p. CCXXVI, no. 2. There is nothing to add to what has been stated by Streck. However, the Babylonian origin of Shamashshum-ukin's mother is certain. R. F. Harper, Assyrian and Babylonian Literature, p. 30; Lehmann, Samassumukin ..., Zweiter Teil, p. 6, Is. 4-6 "Shepherd, favored one of Bel ... the king of Sumer and Akkad, the birth place of my mother, my Begetter". Since the mother came from Sumer and Akkad her exact place of origin may be indicated by the fact that Shamash-shum-ukin subsequently used the title "King of Amnanu". This title had been used only once before, by Sin-gashid, who had reigned at Uruk about 1000 years earlier. Amnanu refers to one part of the city of Sippar, the other part being Sippar of Shamash. The mother of Shamash-shum-ukin was, in all probability, a daughter of the nobility of the city of Sippar in order for her to be wed to a prince. 19 See n. 10 above. It is a fact that the son of Ashurbanipal, at a date unknown to us, subsequently became crown prince of the land at a time when Shamash-shum-ukin was still ruling Babylon, which proves that the line of kingship for Assyria was destined to be preserved in Ashurbanipal's descendants.

ASHURBANIPAL AND SHAMAS-SHUM-UKIN

67

to Shamash during his days of woe : "To him who is not worthy, you gave a male heir." This statement may permit us to conclude that, in accordance with Esarhaddon's desire, if Shamash-shum-ukin died without male children, Ashurbanipal was to have the right to choose the next ruler of Babylon. Also, since Ashurbanipal had named a son as crown prince of Assyria prior to Shamash-shum-ukin's revolt, it may have been willed that, in the event of Ashurbanipal's death during the lifetime of his brother, the latter would be required to give his oath of allegiance to Ashurbanipal's son and successor. It was probably Esarhaddon's desire also that, in the event of his death, Shamash-shum-ukin would ascend the throne of Babylonia at the following New Year festival, at which time he would grasp the hands of Marduk at Ashur and then accompany the image to Babylon. In the treaty with Ramatala, Esarhaddon ordered his vassal not to hold back any of the gifts that the heir to the Babylonian crown had received, which were presents of land, orchards, houses, and cattle: Lines 89-91 :

Whatever gift Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, his father gave him (Shamash-shum-ukin), he will take with him. Don't hold back even one. Lines 275-278 : (You swear) that the gift of lands, houses, plantations, people, implements, horses, mules, donkeys, cattle and flocks which Esarhaddon, king of Assyria has given to his sons will be theirs. It is to be assumed that a similar clause with respect to Ashurbanipal appeared in the will of succession. Clauses in the treaty with Ramataia also make it clear that Esarhaddon intended Ashurbanipal to rule over all Assyria, and that Shamash-shumukin's unquestioned domain should include not only Babylon and its surrounding area, but the entire South: Lines 84-89: ... You will help Ashurbanipal the crown prince to take the throne of Assyria (and) help to seat Shamash-shum-ukin his full brother, the crown prince of Babylon, on the throne of Babylon. The kingship over the whole of Sumer and Akkad (and) Karduniash you will hand over to him. There is, however, no clause to the effect that the vassals should interfere in case of rebellion on the part of Shamash-shum-ukin against his brother. The exclusion of such a clause may indicate Esarhaddon's belief that the king of Assyria would be able to crush such a revolt if it occurred. It may also suggest that he conceived of Shamash-shum-ukin as merely a vassal and, as such, any such "revolt" would be a purely internal affair. It is likewise clear that Esarhaddon's will in dealing with the succession

68

ASHURBANIPAL AND SHAMAS-SHUM-UKIN

required the Assyrian officials and citizens to swear to a single oath: that to Ashurbanipal as king of the entire empire. The oath of allegiance, as set forth by Zaquti immediately after Esarhaddon's death, doubtless was in accordance with the same will. Since Shamash-shum-ukin had sworn by the oath, we may presume that the oath was in agreement with his father's wishes. In a prayer to the god Shamash, Shamash-shum-ukin asserts that Ashurbanipal had agreed not to challenge his authority in the area assigned to him, or to interfere in his affairs. This suggests that the will of succession specified that Ashurbanipal was to treat his partner-brother as an equal.20 Ashurbanipal claimed to have been trained in the art of kingship and taught the rules of government. His Annals state the case as follows: At the same time I was learning royal decorum, walking in kingly ways. I stood before the king my begetter, giving commands to the nobles. Without me no governor was appointed, no prefect was installed in my absence.21 There is evidence to indicate that these claims were not entirely false. In a letter sent to Ashurbanipal while he was crown prince by one Iba§si-ilu, the sender complains of the behavior of Ashur-nad-kili, the captain of the city of Adinni,22 Another, sent by Marduk-shakin-shum to Esarhaddon, tells us that certain magical ceremonies were to be performed first by the king, then by the crown prince, and thirdly by the populace; there is no reference to Shamash-shum-ukin or to any of his brothers. 23 Shapea, who was apparently a supervisor over work undertaken in the city of Tarbisu, wrote to the crown prince complaining about the behavior of the workers and their supervisors, and gave an account of the work; he then asked Ashurbanipal's permission to transfer to Calah.24 Adadshum-usur, who no doubt held an important position during this period, records in a letter to Ashurbanipal, then crown prince, that he had constantly appealed to him.25 Such letters provide adequate proof that Ashurbanipal, while still crown prince, enjoyed wide authority, and that the supervision over state building activities was in his charge. Thus, so

D. Myhrmann, Babylonian Hymns and Prayers, no. XVII; D. Prince, op. cit., no. XVII, in which Shamash-shum-ukin, in a prayer to Shamash, declares that in the covenant (which presumable had been taken during his father's lifetime) Ashurbanipal had sworn to treat Shamash-shum-ukin as an equal. 21 ARAB, II, 986; Streck, II, p. 254. a2 ABL, 500; Pfeiffer, 173. ·» ABL, 18. 24 ABL, 885, Pfeiffer, 179. >s ABL, 10.

ASHURBANIPAL AND SHAMAS-SHUM-UKIN

69

Ashurbanipal's claims, as recorded in the Annals, were not mere boasts, although they may have been exaggerated. When we find him inquiring of the god Shamash regarding the Cimmerians etc., we may with justice conclude that the crown prince had been given responsibilities concerning some aspects of international affairs.2® While Ashurbanipal was enjoying this supreme status as prince par excellence, Shamash-shum-ukin was scarcely mentioned. Even in the salutation formulas of letters to Esarhaddon, his name usually appears only after that of his "superior" younger brother. Only three letters have been preserved which were sent by Shamash-shum-ukin to his father, very likely during the period of his crown princehood over Babylonia. Two of them unfortunately, are so mutilated that they reveal nothing; the third deals with the receipt of a few insignificant items from a certain Nabubanahe. 27 There is one letter preserved that had been sent to Esarhaddon by Ashurbanipal during the time of his crown princehood. 28 All this correspondence reveals something of the responsibilities Ashurbanipal bore while he was still crown prince. During this period he was still young and undergoing training; it was therefore to be expected that he would carry on a good deal of correspondence with his father, report information received concerning affairs of the empire and matters of administration, and seek his father's advice and consultation. Perhaps it is only because of the lack of recovery that there is so little correspondence between Ashurbanipal and Shamash-shum-ukin during this period of their crown princehoods ; since, however, there is also such a small amount from the time of their joint kingship, the absence of such correspondence may be significant. Shamash-shum-ukin may have been » KPRT, 44, HA p. 395ff., Streck, 1, CLXXX, for Ashurbanipal's authority as crown prince, see ABL, 65, 187,189,430,445 etc. 2 ' ABL, 535 and 536 are very fragmentary. In the first, only the salutation formula is preserved and in the second, the whole reverse is missing, which seems to have contained the main subject of the letter. Letter 534 deals with the receipt of 1 horse, 1 sheep, and 1 skin from Nabu-banale. 28 Other letters are preserved but, ABL, 1026, Pfeiffer, 93, seems to be the only example which could be attributed to the period of his crown princehood. It is a letter from Ashurbanipal to his rather in answer to an order given by the king to him to question Ranis-sharri. ABL, 434, Pfeiffer, 15, refers to authority Esarhaddon had placed in the hands of Ashurbanipal (Is. 17ff.): "Immediately, in case a fugitive from the land of the Mannai, or Hubuskia, flees into them quickly give him in charge of your messenger that you may bring him to the crown prince; and if there is a message in his mouth, you shall kindly speak with the crown prince." Letter 434 makes it clear that letter 1026 is an answer to Esarhaddon by Ashurbanipal, for letter 431 reports in 1. 22: "they have an oral message to give". Here Ashurbanipal was forced to inform his father of something important of which the prince had already received information. On ABL, 1026 see Streck, 1, p. CXLIV.

70

ASHURBANIPAL AND SHAMAS-SHUM-UKIN

so acutely aware of his brother's attitudes that, during his father's lifetime, he had no desire to humiliate himself by contacting the proud, arrogant younger brother who had been assigned a better position than himself. In summary, there is no direct evidence concerning the relationship existing between Ashurbanipal and Shamash-shum-ukin during the period following the delegation to their respective positions ; speculation, however, may enable us to conclude that it was not as good as it should have been. Ashurbanipal, as we have seen, obviously considered himself the central figure of power and authority, and boasted of his father's favoritism — which he "modestly" attributed to the bravery and intelligence which the gods had bestowed upon him. This is merely another way of saying that he was braver and more intelligent than his brothers, and may imply that jealousy and competition existed among them all and was especially strong between Ashurbanipal and Shamash-shum-ukin. Adad-shum-usur, apparently aware of the strained atmosphere, was not in favor of Esarhaddon's decision about their future posts. However, he reports that he had constantly appealed to Ashurbanipal when he was crown prince, thus implying that he respected Ashurbanipal's judgement and was rather attached to him.29 This could not be the mere flattery of a courtier, for Ashurbanipal would have known whether or not he had appealed to him before. But in a letter to Esarhaddon, Adad-shum-usur declares forthrightly, ... What the king my lord has done with the young kings is no kindness to the land of Assyria.30 This is surely indicative of the tension which had developed between the two brothers, which must have been apparent to many, among whom Adad-shum-usur was courageous enough to face his lord with the bitter fact. Evidently he foresaw that the growing friction between the young princes would eventually lead to disaster. Such a frank declaration to the king would naturally reach, and certainly displease Ashurbanipal, and therefore Adad-shum-usur apparently fell from his favor. The last assumption is drawn from a message from the courtier addressed to Ashurbanipal, doubtless after his accession to the throne, in which he complained of being disliked by the king who had not invited his son, Arad-Gula, to stand with the sons of other nobles who had been invited to the palance. The sender also declared that : 29 30

ABL, 10. The verb "to appeal" is partly reconstructed. ABL, 870: Pfeiffer, 151.

ASHURBANIPAL AND SHAMAS-SHUM-UKIN

71

None of the officials in the palace likes me. There is not a friend of mine among them to whom I might give a present-, that would receive me and take up my cause.31 In another letter Adad-shum-usur writes, O king my lord may I see your face (as) those (who are) acceptable. Alas! I am dying for want of food. I am forced to beg like a dog. Hitherto I have not been negligent. There is not a maidservant nor a manservant ... I am submissive ... O king my lord.32 Consequently, it seems apparent that Ashurbanipal had acquired knowledge of Adad-shum-usur's message to his father, and that the nobleman had become unpopular with the Assyrian king. The monarch's sentiments would certainly have been obvious to all other palace officials who usually followed their master's precedent in such matters. Certain other texts which have been the subject of controversy among scholars doubtless fall into the late years of Esarhaddon's reign and the early years of Ashurbanipal's. Among these are several letters referring to the sar puhi, or "substitute king" ; it has been argued that these texts refer to a single occasion prior to the naming of Ashurbanipal as crown prince.33 We find Adad-shum-usur (?) requesting Esarhaddon to allow the substitute king, sar puhi sa sarri, to complete his regular term of 100 days, because an occurence of an eclipse of the sun is still to be expected.34 Another letter, probably sent by Adad-shum-usur and Marduk-shakinshum, refers to the sar puhi in a communication to the "cultivator".35 Akkullanu tells Esarhaddon that the image of the substitute king was coming, probably from Babylon, but that it stayed in Akkad for about twenty days.36 In another letter to the same king, referring to the "crown 31

ABL, 2.: Pfeiffer, 160. ABL, 659 33 W. von Soden, ZA, 43, (1936), pp. 256ff.; R. Labat, RA, 40 (1945), pp. 127ff.; Thureau-Dangin, Ritael Accadiens, pp. 37 ff. The ritual takes different forms. When a magic spell was to be cast over an enemy before the battle, the king usually substituted a eunuch who would take his master's name lest the king's person be involved in the magical process which would possibly bring danger to him. When dangerous omesn gathered with no indications that the person of the king was safe, a substitute king usually was appointed. This person remained as substitute for 100 days while the king remained in his palace. At the end of the period the king's substitute was destroyed in the hope that he would carry away with him the dangers which had threatened the person of the king. Cf. H. Frankfort, Kingship and the Gods (Chicago, 1955), p. 262ff.

32

34

ABL, 359, Pfeiffer, 313. ABL, 362. RCA E, III, pp. 139-140. 3 « ABL, 46 (see obv. 1. 4). 35

72

ASHURBANIPAL AND SHAMAS-SHUM-UKIN

prince" and to Shamash-shum-ukin without any title, the sender reports that he caused Adad-shum-usur to swear in the city of Akkad by the great gods of the kings that during the term of 100 days he would report whatever he noticed. He stated in the letter also that the sar puhi went to his fate.37 The arrival of the sar puhi on the 14th of the month was reported to Esarhaddon by Mar-Ishtar, who adds that on the 15th, when an eclipse took place, he was already in the palace.38 An ornamentation for an image which had been made for the Sar puhi is subject matter of a letter sent to Esarhaddon by Adad-shum-usur.39 One detailed text which sheds more light on the problem is a letter to Ashurbanipal from Mar-Ishtar, doubtless dated to the early years of the monarch. An unfavorable eclipse was approaching and the people of Akkad in particular were fearful. A certain Damqi was to be appointed as a sar puhi, presumably for Shamash-shum-ukin who was then the king of Babylon. A mausoleum had been prepared, the body had been wept over, and the lamentations were properly done; the letter also proves that Damqi and his consort died, in all probability, by a natural death.40 Two of the letters refer to the making of an image which could be used as a substitute for the king; the phrase could hardly in these instances refer to an actual substitution of the king. Other letters, however, clearly suggest the practice of having such a substitute king late in the reign of Esarhaddon and in the early part of Ashurbanipal's rule. The association of the installation of a substitute with an eclipse, which would be interpreted as an ill omen for the king, is clear throughout, but the several occurrences cannot all refer to a single occasion.41 " ABL, 594 ; Pfeiffer, 338. The presence of the sar puhi is also referred to in ABL, 676. Also, in a report sent to Ashurbanipal by a certain Munnabiti concerning an eclipse there is a reference to the king substitute (ABL, 1006, Pfeiffer, 322). 38 ABL, 629; Pfeiffer, 323. " ABL, 653, refers to the king substitute in addition to his image. 40 ABL, 437. The phrase used in the text referring to their death is ana simti it-ta-lak, which could mean either that they died a natural death or that they were put to death. For Mar-Ishtar's time and activity cf. Von Soden, Festschrift Viktor Christian (Vienna, 1956), pp. 103-104; and B. Landsherger, Bischofs Von Esagita an König Asarhaddon (The Netherlands, 1965), pp. 45-49. 41 The connection between the appointment of the sar puhi and the eclipses has been discussed by A. Schott and J. Schaumberger in "Vier Briefe Mar-Ishtar an Esarhaddon über Himmelserscheinungen der Jahr 670/668", ZA, XLVII (1943), pp. 89-130. E. Ebeling, in Tod und Leben den Vorstellungen der Babylonier (Berlin, 1931), p. 62 ff. states that the King substitute is a ceremony belonging to the New Year festival. This theory, which may be true for earlier periods (as in the case of the king Ira-Imitti and the gardener Enlil-bani, is untenable for the late Assyrian period. R. Labat, "Le Sort des Substituts Royaux en Assyrie au Temps des Sargonids", RA, 41 (1945-46), pp. 123-42,

ASHURBANIPAL AND SHAMAS-SHUM-UKIN

73

When Esarhaddon departed for Egypt on his second Egyptian campaign he left Ashurbanipal in charge of the state,42 but en route the Assyrian monarch fell ill and died. 43 Zaquti then hastened to exact an oath of fidelity from Shamash-shum-ukin and the other brothers of Ashurbanipal, from the remainder of the family (which probably included the monarch's uncles and their sons), from the officials, and finally from the Assyrian people. 44 The oath seems to have been required also of the Babylonians; a letter informs us that an oath was taken in Nippur and Uruk before being taken in Babylon. 45 Although Ashurbanipal and Shamash-shum-ukin were simultaneously appointed to the crown princehoods of Assyria and Babylonia, respectively, they ascended their thrones at different times. Ashurbanipal began his reign immediately following the death of his father, but it was not until the New Year festival, 668/667 B.C. that he "appointed" Shamash-shumukin to the Babylonian throne and the older brother held the hands of Marduk at Ashur, according to his father's wishes. Thus began the first ruling year of Ashurbanipal and Shamash-shum-ukin as joint kings. 46 As soon as Ashurbanipal ascended the throne, he had dispatched to the

argues that there is a direct connection between the occurrence of an eclipse and the installment of a king substitute. In addition, he argues that there is no reference to any destruction of the king substitute in the Sargonid period. 42 AGS, 66ff.; KPRT, 44; HA, pp. 388-89. 43 See p. 14. chapter 2. 44 S e e p . 15, chapter 2. 46 ABL, 202. Pfeiffer, 212. 48 ARAB, II, 989, "Shamash-shum-ukin, my full brother, laying hold of the hands of his great deity, marched at his side from the quay of Ashur to the quay of Babylon." Here it is stated that Shamash-shum-ukin held the hands of Marduk in Ashur and accompanied his image south to Babylon — the first official trip recorded for Shamashshum-ukin. Other evidence comes from a prayer of Ashurbanipal to the sun god (AGS, no. 149, p. 267), in which he inquires about the sending of Shamash-shum-ukin with Marduk to Babylon: "I ask you Shamash great lord about Shamash-shum-ukin son of Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, in this year will he grasp the hand of Marduk the great lord and before Bel will he go . . . ; " this is dated to the 23rd of Nisannu, 668. In Shamash-shum-ukin's inscriptions (Lehmann, Samassumukin ..., second part, p. 6ff.) he states that " M a r d u k king of the gods joyfully accompanied me from Ashur to the seat of life." In a recently published text by W. G. Lambert, "Two Texts F r o m the Early Part of the Reign of Ashurbanipal", AOF, 18, (1957), pp. 382-87 and Pis. XXIII-XXV, Col. I, obv. 1 . 1 4 we find "... Shamash-shum-ukin ... your descendant, who to kingship ... in the month of Nisannu." Here the month of Nisannu surely refers to the month that Shamash-shum-ukin was officially placed upon the Babylonian throne. F o r the return of Marduk, see E. Ebeling, KAR, no. 360, translated in JRAS (1929), pp. 553-55 by C. J. Mullo-Weir, "The Return of Marduk to Babylon with Shamashshum-ukin" ; Streck, II, pp. 264-68.

74

ASHURBANIPAL AND SHAMAS-SHUM-UKIN

Babylonians a letter of good will in which he seems to refer to the return of their god to his abode. Ashurbanipal apparently kept part of the spoil taken from Babylon and belongs to Marduk, which has been taken along with the god from Babylon, until 655-654. The new chariot of Marduk was sent back to Babylon the year after. 47 At about the same time he may have ordered the work on Esagila to continue, probably so that it would be ready to receive the image of Marduk when it was brought out of captivity.48 Marduk started his journey from the city of Ashur, and Ashurbanipal, who seemingly was happy to see this occurrence taking place at the beginning of his reign, left a vivid description of that holy journey. In the company of Marduk was Shamash-shum-ukin, who had just completed the ceremonies of his installation upon the throne of Babylon : ... "From the quay of Assur to the quay of Babylon... lambs were slaughtered, bulls sacrificed (cut down), sweet smelling (herbs) scattered about ... all my troops going around it" The journey was by water, and Marduk and his company sailed from Ashur down the Tigris to Opis; from there, they transferred through the Sirtu canal down to the Euphrates and then on to Babylon via the Arahtu canal.49 Apparently a great welcoming celebration was held in Babylon for the arrival of the great deity after his twenty-one years of absence. The images of Nergal and Nabu were brought from Cutha and Borsippa for the occasion.50 *' ABL, 926. See Appendix B, in which this text is assigned to the period prior to Shamash-shum-ukin's ascendancy to the Babylonian throne. A. R. Millard, op. cit., p. 16 lines 4-5. 48 For the building of Esagila, as Ashurbanipal has reported, see PEA, Col. I, Is. 25-54, p. 30, which mentions the use of aurichalcum and plane wood, mulberry and sidaru wood, gold and lead, and his completion of the ceremonial chariot of Marduk which he had adorned with gold and silver, presumably for the arrival of the god. He also records giving a couch of mulberry and sidaru wood as an offering to the god. See also AAA, XX, op. cit., Is. 42-59; ARAB, II, 957; Streck, II, p. 230; ARAB, II, 979; Streck, II, p. 246; ABL, 120, deals with wood to be brought from the west for the Esagila temple. In ABL, 1340, the sender tells most probably Ashurbanipal about putting in the Esagila a new gate, which people went in groups to see ( R C A E , III, p. 347). " ARAB, 989. Mullo-Weir, op. cit., I. II, "Which puts to the test of the Arahtu canal, the luxury of whose surroundings is complete". 60 For the trip of Marduk see ARAB, II, 989; Streck, II, 264; HA, pp. 405-06. The arrival of Marduk was recorded in the Babylonian Chronicle, Col. IV, Is. 35-36, as taking place on the 12th of Ayyaru. The Esarhaddon Chronicle (S. Smith, BHT) recorded the event as occurring on the 25th of Ayyaru. The journey, in all probability, started on the 1st of Ayyaru, and if we consider what has been recorded concerning the trip, the halts of Marduk on the way and the festivities held every double hour, a 25 day journey sounds most reasonable.

ASHURBANIPAL AND SHAMAS-SHUM-UKIN

75

In addition to the gifts received from his father, Shamash-shum-ukin — according to Ashurbanipal's claim — was the recipient of other rewards : ... Every imaginable thing that kingship calls for, I made and gave him; soldiers, horses, chariots, I equipped and put into his hands; cities, fields, plantations, people who live in them I gave him in larger number than my father had ordered.51 We may with reason, however, doubt the claim. There is evidence that Ashurbanipal and Shamash-shum-ukin at the beginning of their reigns granted the cult cities of Babylonia exemption from encumbrances and other rights; this may justify their claim of maintaining justice and peace in Babylonia.52 Soon after Shamash-shum-ukin took up his post at Babylon, an incident of such importance occurred in that city that it was recorded in the Babylonian Chronicle. A certain Shuzub of the Gahul family had murdered one named Eteru and his sons. Not only had a group of Babylonians met with the king of Babylon, but they had also written a letter to Ashurbanipal and Shamash-shum-ukin, the text of which has been preserved in its nearly complete form. In the letter the Babylonians reminded the two kings of their rights of protection as citizens ofthat city and apparently demanded that justice be done. They also stated that Eteru had once kissed the feet of the father, Esarhaddon: Eteru and his sons embraced the feet of the king of Assyria, your father, and ... that Shuzubu, the son of Gahal, came and slew them all.53 The pro-Assyrian tendencies of Eteru are evident from this message. Similarly, the anti-Assyrian sentiments of Shuzub are implied, perhaps indicating that he had killed Eteru because of political differences. But, since Shuzub seems to have suffered no harm, a more plausible explanation is that he, in order to escape punishment for his crime, had claimed that Eteru was not an Assyrian supporter. The Babylonians, indignant at this outward lie, took steps to inform the kings of the truth and demanded their attention to the matter. Although the latter supposition seems the most logical, in either case the incident and its aftermath certainly point to instability within Babylon. Another incident which probably occurred sometime during the beginning of Ashurbanipal's reign is also an indication of unrest in the city. Huíala, the erib bid priest of Shamash, had stolen the gold canopy from 61 52 53

ARAB, II, 789; Streck, II, p. 28. ARAB, II, 957; Streck, II, pp. 230. ABL, 878, obv. Is. 12ff., Pfeiffer, 62.

76

ASHURBANIPAL AND SHAMAS-SHUM-UKIN

the Esagila temple. In the report thereof it is stated that within the temple itself $ulala murdered probably whoever had witnessed his abhorrent crime.54 At probably this same time, a case of theft, which had apparently caused an unrest within Uruk, was reported to Ashurbanipal.55 The men who took part in the affair are sharply distinguished from the natives of Uruk. They had "sinned" against the crown and their action had been witnessed by certain citizens. When the latter threatened to expose their misconduct to the central authorities, they countered by hurling insults at the king and at whoever else the witnesses might complain to. The exact nature of the incident is not clear, but it is probably that the king had become the culprits' target for insults. The reporter of the incident to the Assyrian king expressed his desire to be questioned by the king's messenger concerning the nature of the gossip which so personally involved the monarch. This may explain the unpleasantries to which the correspondent refers in his letter. The letter suggests a rather unstable state of affairs in the city of Uruk. Also indicative of the general disorder prevailing in Babylonia at the time Ashurbanipal assumed the throne, was another theft, which occurred in Nippur, and which may have been reported to Ashurbanipal early in his reign. The kálu priest of Ea had taken the "mass" (?) of gold from the vessel which stood before Ishtar in the Ekur temple.56 Another witness to the disorder in Babylonia is a message to the king from the contemporary governor of Nippur, who had sent his brother and ten noblemen from that city to meet with the king. He states:57 64

ABL, 468, Pfeiffer, 247. It could be dated to the beginning of Ashurbanipal's reign. In the phrase, "Surely the king will speak, saying, 'wherefore did you not send a report' no other king can be meant than Ashurbanipal, since it is known that it was Ashurbanipal's desire to be informed of all activities in the South. Since the letter does not make any reference to Shamash-shum-ukin, he may not yet have taken his post in Babylon, for the incident occurred in the most holy shrine in Babylon and if he had been king at that time, his name would surely have been mentioned. 65 ABL, 472. The letter is assigned to the beginning of Ashurbanipal's reign on the basis that it mentions the oath which was taken after the death of Esarhaddon to Ashurbanipal. 66 ABL, 1389; RCA E, III, p. 358. The writer of the letter is Ashur-hamatia, who is in all probability the sender of ABL, 1249. The distinctive gods invoked in both letters favor the reign of Ashurbanipal. Although Nippur is not designated as the city from which the letter was sent, it did probably originate from there since it contains reference to conditions in Nippur. " ABL, 327; Pfeiffer, 123. Waterman (RCAE, III, p. 126) and Pfeiffer (p. 265) assume that this letter belongs to the time of Esarhaddon since it contains a reference to Ubaru, the governor of Babylon who had probably been appointed to that post by Esarhaddon in the third year of his reign. It is known, however, that Ubaru continued

ASHURBANIPAL AND SHAMAS-SHUM-UKIN

77

The king knows, all countries hate us on account of Assyria; we cannot set foot in any (other) country. Wherever we go we risk being killed, (for people say) why have you sworn allegiance to Assyria? So now we have completely shut our gates, we do not go out at all... May the king not leave us at the mercy of anybody. From this, too, we see that Assyria was not popular in Babylonia and it seems apparent that those who professed Assyrian support were not only despised, but in actual danger. Unfortunately, very few of Shamash-shum-ukin's inscriptions have been preserved. This, doubtless, is to be attributed to Ashurbanipal's ruthless destruction of his brother's remains and effects after the collapse of Shamash-shum-ukin's revolt in 648 B.c.. It is substantiated, however, that the first years of Shamash-shum-ukin's reign witnessed the continuation of building activities at the various temples and shrines throughout Babylonia. The Esagila temple at Babylon was rebuilt and a certain Arad-aheshu was appointed by Ashurbanipal to supervise the work and report to him on its progress.58 Also in Babylon, Eturkalamma, the temple of Ishtar, the Ninmah temple, and that of Ea were all rebuilt. The inner and outer walls of Babylon as well as the ziggurat Etemenanki were repaired.59 The sanctuary of Shamash at Sippar and the Eanna temple of Ishtar at Uruk were restored.60 The wall of the Ezida in Borsippa was rebuilt and four colossal silver bulls were placed within;81 and the temples of Nippur were rejuvenated.62

to hold this position until about 655 B.C. In obv. 1. 8 Belusatu is mentioned, who probably is the same Belusatu referred to in ABL, 1111, dated to the time of Ashurbanipal. " ABL, 119. 89 Brick inscriptions found in Babylon, Uruk, Ur, and Nippur all bear the name of Ashurbanipal, but none refer to Shamash-shum-ukin. For bricks referring to Ashurbanipal's rebuilding of Etemenanki and Esagila, see F. Wetzel, "Das Hauptheiligtum des Marduk in Babylon", WVDOG, no. 59 (Leipzig, 1938), p. 36. For the material bearing the name of Ashurbanipal from the Kasr see F. Wetzel, "Die Stadtmauren von Babylon", WVDOG, no. 48 (Leipzig, 1930), pp. 66-67. ARAB, II, 958. eo ARAB, II, 968; J. Jordan and A. Schott, "Erster Bericht über die von der Notgemeinschaft der Deutschen Wissenschaft in Uruk-Warka", Unternommenes Ausgrabungen, APAW, no. 7 (Berlin, 1930), p. 60, ls. 25-29. 61 ARAB, II, 976; PEA, Col. II, ls. 1-6. *2 L. Legrain, Royal Inscriptions and Fragmentsfrom Nippur and Babylon, The Museum of the University of Pennsylvania Publications of the Babylonian Section, XV (Philadelphia, 1926), no. 74, p. 43. For bricks bearing Ashurbanipal's name found in the ziggurat see J. P. Peters, Nippur or Explorations and Adventures on the Euphrates, II (New York, 1898), pp. 126,152. H. V. Hilprecht, BE, I, Series D (Philadelphia, 1904),

78

ASHURBANIPAL AND SHAMAS-SHUM-UKIN

Although it is apparent that there was a certain amount of internal disorder in Babylonia during these first years of Shamash-shum-ukin's reign, the wave of building activities could only have been carried out during a period of peace and comparative stability.63 However, in 663 B.C. the tranquility was somewhat interrupted by the revolt of the Gambulian leader, Bel-iqisha. In conspiracy with Nabu-shum-eresh, the governor of Nippur, and with Marduk-shum-ibni, Urtaku, the Elamite monarch, was somehow persuaded to attack Babylonian territory. Exactly what had incited Urtaku to co-operate with the Gambulian chief and his cohorts is uncertain, for until that time he had been on good terms with Assyria. The reasons which prompted Bel-iqisha to revolt may have been several. He had been appointed by the Assyrian king as the satammu official for his area, which means that he had direct responsibilities to the Assyrian crown. According to one of his reports to the king, he had been mocked by an Assyrian official who apparently had distributed bribes among people surrounding the leader. Bel-iqisha felt that his rights had been impinged upon and that some of his supporters had been lured from his side. He also objected to the fact that the aforementioned official had insulted him by threatening to remove him from the palace.64 In another instance, Bel-iqisha complained of officials whom Ashurbanipal had recently promoted, and he expressed his contempt for their drunken conduct. 65 It seems altogether plausible that the Gambulian shiekh pointed out the shortcomings of these men who were causing him difficulty in the hope that they would be removed from their posts. A little later Bel-iqisha reports that he had been imprisoned by Assyrian authorities. He writes to Ashurbanipal claiming that there was no reason for his arrest and ill treatment (he was without food for nine days). A pp. 461-62. Also, Bulletin of the University Museum, 16 (July, 1951), "The New Nippur Excavations"; Peters, op. cit., p. 157 for bricks found in the Ekur. Also see ARAB, II, 1019. 63 Lehmann, op. cit., second part, p. 6ff. 64 ABL, 84; Jaos, XVIII, p. 168; HA, pp. 433-34. 65 ABL, 85; ZA, 24, op. cit., pp. 219,220; Johnston, JAOS, XVIII, p. 168; HA, p. 434 ; Pfeiffer, 191. Perhaps ABL, 698 also refers to some further grievances of Bel-iqisha. It seems that on this occasion Bel-iqisha was disturbed because his sons, whom he had sent to Calah, had not received there the same exalted welcome as the sons of another official. This official has presumably created some difficulties for Bel-iqisha, the exact nature of which are not known, but it seems that he had been responsible for prompting certain Gambulians to seek refuge. Bel-iqisha was also disturbed because the king had closed a certain road which must have been of importance to Gambulian communications. Also see RCAE, II, p. 220; Streck, I, pp. CCLXXXVI-CCLXXXVII.

ASHURBANIPAL AND SHAMAS-SHUM-UKIN

79

phrase in the letter sum-ma ina hur-sa-an la-al-lik "if in the mountains I have surely gone", may imply that he had been accused of a questionable relationship with Elam.66 The explanation for Bel-iqisha's predicament may perhaps be found in a letter to Ashurbanipal from Shamash-shum-ukin. The Babylonian monarch seemingly had directed those in charge of certain ships to allow them to proceed. Contrary to his order, the ships had not gone out, because Bel-iqisha had told the officials to hold the ships where they were. Bel-iqisha's letter to this effect afterwards had been taken to the king of Babylon who now forwarded it, together with his own report, to his brother in Assyria.67 On the basis of this evidence it may be concluded that Bel-iqisha felt persecuted by his Assyrian overlords because they had forced him to relinquish a certain amount of his authority. He had also been made to feel insecure because the authority of his chieftainship had been challenged. Thus, the combination of all these things forced him to revolt. Although the Annals bear no direct reference to Bel-iqisha's insurrection, a letter from Nabu-ushabshi, the governor of Uruk, suggests that Bel-iqisha did lead a revolt against Ashurbanipal. For the letter is a reply to Ashurbanipal's order to Nabu-ushabshi to direct a counter attack against the Gambulians. The governor relates that Bel-iqisha had revolted, had brought Elam into the scene against Assyria, and had destroyed Nabu-ushabshi's father's house, although there is little evidence that the revolt actually caused much damage. The governor then assures his lord that he intends to mobilize the entire land of Akkad against Bel-iqisha.68 When Ashurbanipal heard of the Elamite attack upon Babylonia 66

ABL, 390 (rev. Is. 16-17). ABL, 1385; RCAE, III, 357; Waterman thinks that the reference to a letter from Bel-iqisha to which Shamash-shum-ukin refers is either ABL, 84, ABL, 85, or ABL, 698. It is impossible to consider letters 84 and 85 since both deal with entirely different subjects. As to letter 698, although it does not mention ships (the subject of ABL, 1385) this fact could be explained by the incompleteness of the text, etc. This is the order from Bel-iqisha to the officials to bar the ships from proceeding. If the letter had been sent to Ashurbanipal, as has been suggested, then there would have been no reason for it to be brought to Shamash-shum-ukin or to have him forward the message to his brother. The letter probably had fallen by accident into the hands of certain persons who then forwarded it to the king of Babylon. The letter informed him why his orders had not been carried out. He then sent the dispatch on to his brother. 67

Shamash-shum-ukin's message bears reference to Ummanigash, who must have been Ummanigash II, crown prince of Elam, who began rule in 655 B.C. Therefore, the text must belong to the early part of the two brother's joint kingship ; cf. Waterman, loc. cit. 68 ABL, 269; Pfeiffer, 17.

80

ASHURBANIPAL AND SHAMAS-SHUM-UKIN

he seemingly dispatched Nabu-shar-usur to meet the threat. It is conceivable that at this same time he directed Nabu-ushabshi to subdue the Gambulians.® 9 Sometime in the course of these affairs Bel-iqisha was killed by a boar and Nabu-shum-eresh died of dropsy. Bel-iqisha was succeeded by his son Dunanu, who apparently surrendered to Assyria with little or n o resistance in 663 B.C.. 7 0 Dunanu and his brother Samgunu, probably in agreement with Elam, revolted in 653 B.c.. 71 They were no doubt already in rebellion when Teumman advanced towards Babylonia in Abu of that year. After the Assyrian army had defeated Elam, it descended upon the Gambulians and waged utter destruction. Shapibel, Dunanu's capital, was flooded, many people were slaughtered, and booty of cattle, sheep, horses, asses, and mules was taken. The Gambulian leaders were transported to Assyria and punished, and Dunanu, his brothers, and family were killed. 72 69

AGS, no. 153, p. 273, where Ashurbanipal prayed for his leader, Nabu-shar-usur, and his armies which had been sent against the Gambulians. It is known that this general retired in 655 B.C., as mentioned above. 70 Piepkorn, Edition B, p. 58, Is. 28-35; Edition B, Col. IV, Is. 59ff., p. 60f. Here, in what is termed the 6th campaign in this edition, Ashurbanipal discussed the affairs of the Gambulians and the rise and death of Bel-iqisha, but without mentioning Beliqisha's successor, Dunanu. There is no reference here to any warlike activities with the Gambuli. However, it is known that Ashurbanipal was intending to fight the Gambulians because he sent an army headed by Nabu-shar-usur to their area (see no. 69 above). There is no mention of any clash with Dunanu, which may indicate that he surrendered at the approach of the Assyrian army. In addition (in ARAB, II, 866, Col. IV, Is. 70ff., Streck, p. 122), Ashurbanipal reported the activities of Dunanu but did not mention Bel-iqisha's earlier exploits. He records that Dunanu and Nabuusalli had spoken against the gods, which should mean that they were the ones who had revolted. Here it seems very evident that we are dealing with another rise of the Gambuli against Assyria, and so two campaigns were sent against that tribe, one in 663 when Bel-iqisha sided with Elam, and a later one in 653. After Bel-iqisha's death his son and successor, Dunanu, surrendered to Assyria with no resistance. The other revolt was instigated by Dunanu, Samgunu, and Nabu-usalli, no doubt at the time the Assyrians were fighting Teumman in 653. This may account for the fact that the two Gambulian rebellions were found in the Annals under different campaigns. The second defeat of the Gambulians occurred very near the time of Shamash-shum-ukin's rebellion and the blow which befell the Gambulians may have been severe enough to account for their apparent lack of participation in the Babylonian revolt (Streck, p. CLXXXIV; contrast HA, p. 435). 71

ARAB, II, 788 ; Streck, p. 26ff. Cylinder A has omitted the revolt of Bel-iqisha and the supposed surrender of Dunanu. The later insurrection of Dunanu is recorded together with the war against Teumman, in the account of the 5th campaign. 72 AAA, XX, op. cit., Is. 105-107. In ARAB, II, 1040; Streck, II, p. 320, Ashurbanipal states that his warriors arrested Dunanu and sent him to Nineveh. In ARAB, II, 1042, he claimed that his own hands captured the Gambulian leader, while in ARAB, II, 1061 he recorded that Dunanu surrendered to his deputation and kissed his feet. In ARAB, II, 1062 he also stated that he was at Milkia when Dunanu was brought hither.

ASHURBANIPAL AND SHAMAS-SHUM-UKIN

81

After Dunanu's death the way was paved for Assyrian intervention in the choice of a new chieftain for the Gambulians. The Gambulians themselves had apparently requested that one Rimutu be placed over them. It seems that Ashurbanipal considered their proposal and asked Nabu-dur-usur to meet with Rimutu to discuss the amount of tribute he would pay to Assyria if he received the appointment. A favorable agreement was apparently reached and Ashurbanipal wrote to the Gambulians expressing the desire to meet with Rimutu himself.73 The Gambulians' answer to the king's message is unfortunately very fragmentary, but it is evident that they were greatly pleased with Rimutu's appointment. A phrase "let him bind the land", which occurs in the letter, may mean that Rimutu, however distant his relationship, was a member of Bel-iqisha's family. Therefore, the tribesmen believed that he was the only one who could indeed prevent disunity among them.74 Shamash-shum-ukin began his reign in 668/667 B.C. It had presumably been his father's desire that his domain include all of southern Mesopopotamia. Contrary to this plan, the cities of Nippur, Ur, and Uruk, and the Sea Land were strongly held by Ashurbanipal. The governors of these cities and the Sea Land considered Ashurbanipal their monarch and consequently, ignored the existence of the king of Babylon, as we shall see. During his reign, Shamash-shum-ukin held Babylon and the immediate vicinity, but documents pertaining to his activities in this area are sparse and, therefore, may not give the complete record of his activities. According to these documents, Shamash-shum-ukin rebuilt the collapsed wall of Sippar and participated in the New Year festival at Babylon.75 A kudurru dated to the ninth year of Shamash-shum-ukin's reign is a grant of land near Borsippa to a certain Adad-ibni.76 Shamash-shum-ukin's confirmation of the offerings for the temple of Shamash at Sippar has been preserved and may be support for his claims 73

ABL, 910, a letter from Rimutu to Nabu-dur-usur, which strongly suggests that Rimutu had agreed on the amount of tribute he was to pay to the palace. ABL, 293, a letter from Ashurbanipal to the Gambulians is an answer to a request by the Gambulians, in which he agrees to appoint Rimutu over them presumably after the agreement on the tribute required (Pfeiffer, 83). 74 ABL, 915 appears to be an answer to Ashurbanipal's agreement to appoint Rimutu. Ashurbanipal's destruction of Bel-iqisha's family, as stated, indicates that the chieftainship of the Gambulians was not to be preserved within that house. 75 S 1 ; L5, Lehmann, SamaSSumukin..., op. cit., second part; also S. A. Pallis, The Babylonian Akitu Festival (Copenhagen, 1926), p. 6. 76 BBS, p. 70, no. 87220. Adad-ibni's father, Mushezib-Marduk, was the original owner; after the property had been taken from the Dakkuri, Esarhaddon returned it to him, but had failed to do so under seal. A new deed was drawn up and sealed by Shamash-shum-ukin, which now made the grant valid.

82

ASHURBANIPAL AND SHAMAS-SHUM-UKIN

of establishing the temple offerings." He also granted a piece of land to the Ishtar temple at Uruk — further indication of the considerable attention he gave to the temples in his area.78 It has been assumed that parts of the bit rimki series were introduced into Babylonia during the reign of Shamash-shum-ukin. These rituals were intended to protect the king from evil which threatened him on some specific occasion or occasions, but the exact nature or dates cannot be determined.79 The relative peace which Babylonia enjoyed for over a quarter of a century (except for the Gambuli uprisings) now terminated, and the reasons which prompted Shamash-shum-ukin to revolt after a period of apparent co-operation are numerous. One is that although Esarhaddon's assumed "will of succession" clearly indicated that Shamash-shum-ukin's domain was to be all of southern Mesopotamia, this portion of the "will" had not been respected by his brother. Business documents bearing the name of Shamash-shum-ukin have been preserved from most Babylonian cities, i.e. Babylon, Borsippa, Dilbat, Uruk, Nippur, Sippar, Ur, and Nagitu.80 This would seem to indicate that Shamash-shum-ukin was acknowledged as king throughout much of Babylonia. At the same time, however, at least two business transactions probably dated after the reigning years of Ashurbanipal Another kudurru comes from the beginning of Shamash-shum-ukin's reign which lists prices of products which prevailed at that time (BBS, no. XXXVII, Pis. XCIIIXCIV); B. Meissner, "Eine Babylonische Stele Assurbanipals (?)", OLZ, XXI (1918), pp. 119-123, argues, on the basis of the scene of the relief on the kudurru and the language of the text, that it belonged to the early part of Ashurbanipal's reign in Babylonia. " F. Steinmetzer, Epitembion, Heinrich Swoboda dargebracht (Reichenberg, 1927), pp. 319-327; the kudurru has been published again by the same author with some corrections under the title: "Die Bestallungsurkunde König SamaSsumukin von Babylon", Ar. Or., VII (1935), p. 314ff. '· NBAD, pp. 16-18, no. 13. ™ J. Laessoe, Studies on the Assyrian Ritual and Series bit Rimki (Copenhagen, 1955), pp. 94ff. He argues that Kh. 338 of the bit rimki series, as preserved in Rit. 26, was introduced into Babylonia in the time of Shamash-shum-ukin. 80 The following table lists only a few of the known tablets dated to Shamash-shumukin. The figures in column 2 refer to year, day, and month. Babylon 6/18/XI VAS, 4, no. 2; NRVU, no. 656 Borsippa 1/14/IX E RM, I, no. 33 Dilbat 2/23/1 ΒRM, I, no. 34; BR, no. 6 Uruk 10/9/VIII TCL 12, no. 10; NBAD, no. 10 Nippur 8/19/1 Kr. no. 10; BR, no. 10. Ur 11/7/1V UET4. no. 32; BR, no. 41 Himeru 12/25/XI BR, no. 52. Hura 15/7/1 Unger, Sargon II von Assyrien, p. 23 (unpub.) Nagitu 15/1/VI Delaporte, ZA, 19, pp. 386-88; ΒRM, I, no. 36

ASHURBANIPAL AND SHAMAS-SHUM-UKIN

83

81

from the South, thus implying that the Assyrian monarch had negated his brother's authority in those areas which had been bequeathed to Shamash-shum-ukin by his father, and that at least some people in these localities looked to Ashurbanipal as their supreme ruler. Since no business transactions dated by the years of Ashurbanipal have been found at Babylon, Dilbat, Borsippa, and Sippar, the first impression is that Shamash-shum-ukin's realm of authority extended over the immediate vicinity of Babylon. However, there is ample evidence to prove that Ashurbanipal had, throughout much of Babylonia, placed authorities who were to report directly to him all that they saw and heard in the land, including the activities of Shamash-shum-ukin. One of these informers in Uruk states the case clearly: ... As to what the king repeatedly sent to us saying, "Everything you see and hear, send to me."82 Since this letter mentions the oath (presumably that taken in connection with Ashurbanipal's kingship) it is probably to be dated to the beginning of his reign. Arad-aheshu, the supervisor of work on the Esagilain Babylon, not only informed Ashurbanipal about the work in progress, but also about Shamash-shum-ukin's most recent orders to him. His letter does not imply that the workers took orders from Ashurbanipal ; neither does it imply that the king of Babylon's requests were carried out; but it does seemingly indicate that any orders from Shamash-shum-ukin needed to be verified by the Assyrian king.83 Also, one Zakir, evidently a member of or a frequent visitor to the Babylonian court, reported the latest happenings in Babylonia and Shamash-shum-ukin's actions on the matters to Ashurbanipal.84 Another person connected with the Babylonian court, Nabu-ushabshi, is referred to in a letter to Ashurbanipal: Daily Nabu-ushabshi, the seer, ascertains the news of the palace and to Kudurru he sends. It is here inferred that Nabu-ushabshi reported the affairs of the Babylo81

Unfortunately, many of the business documents which are dated after Ashurbanipal have the dates broken (see Streck, p. CLVIII). Nippur 2/(?)/-/BE, VIII, 159 Uruk 18/21/VI BR, no. 53 82 ABL, 472; (Pfeiffer, 66), Is. 3ff. 83 ABL, 119. 84 ABL, 702.

84

ASHURBANIPAL AND SHAMAS-SHUM-UKIN

nian court to the governor of Uruk, who then transmitted the information on to Ashurbanipal.85 Not only did Ashurbanipal have his informers report on his brother's activities, but it seems that Shamash-shum-ukin himself was obligated to report on all matters to the king of Assyria, for he says: And the king knows that, as many as we are, and as much as we learn, I report. ...86 Nabu-shar-aheshu and his three colleagues were in Borsippa by the official appointment of Ashurbanipal and were members of an Assyrian garrison stationed there. The correspondent reports an insurrection in the city but swears that he and his colleagues did not take part in it : At the watch where the king our lord had appointed us, we stood firm.87 Although the letter does not indicate the nature of the upheaval in Borsippa, it may have been a conflict between members of the Assyrian community, which had perhaps split into factions. If the trouble had been between Assyrians and Babylonians, the Assyrian garrison would naturally have intervened. In any case, the message seems clear indication that Ashurbanipal had stationed a garrison in Borsippa, which was well within the area of Shamash-shum-ukin's greatest authority. It also indicates that the Assyrian population of Borsippa were not as united as they should have been. Evidence also shows that a rab shaqi was attached to the Babylonian court. As far as available records indicate, the rab shaqi was the highest military official in Babylonia during this period. Since he was primarily responsible to the turtan in the North, we may assume that the armed forces in Babylonia were directly connected with Assyria.88 Two inscriptions from Babylon, neither of which is complete, are of great importance in this connection, for they mention two officers whose posts were respectively the chief of corps (amêl rab püdu) and the chief of guards, (amêl rab masari). The fact that these inscriptions are from Babylon proper and are dated after the reigning year of Ashurbanipal suggests that these two personnages were directly responsible to the Assyrian king. The obvious importance of their posts and their probable 85

ABL, 1247; cf. CAD, H, p. 94b. ABL, 1385. 87 ABL, 349; Pfeiffer, 64. A "garrison of the king" stationed in Uruk has also been reported (ABL, 1366). It seems that Ashurbanipal had placed troops in a number of Babylonian cities and it seems equally possible that they took their orders directly from him. 88 Steinmetzer, op. cit., see n. 77 above.

86

ASHURBANIPAL AND SHAMAS-SHUM-UKIN

85

allegiance to the Assyrian monarch also suggests that they were in Babylon by royal appointment from Ashurbanipal.89 On another occasion, when the governors and elders of Nippur wanted to present a petition for something concerning the city, it was to Ashurbanipal that they turned.90 A complaint of a certain astrologer sent directly to Ashurbanipal from Babylon, quite likely dated about 655, contains no reference to Shamashshum-ukin, but asked the king of Assyria to contact the governor of Babylon in order to evict a certain person from the city, and all so requested that he and his son be permitted to meet the king in person.91 From all this data it would seem that if Shamash-shum-ukin had universally been recognized as the supreme authority in the areas which supposedly were under his rule, it would have been to him, and not his brother, that the people of Babylonia would bring their petitions and requests. In 655 B.C. Ashurbanipal presented and estate to his retiring general Nabu-shar-usur,92 and a certain Bultai was also the recipient of a royal land grant; 93 these lands were planted with a quantity of palm trees, signifying that they were located in Babylonia. Since there is no evidence that Shamash-shum-ukin granted property to anyone, it is possible that he did not possess the right to do so.94 If this was the situation, Ashurbanipal's authority to present land in gratitude for services would surely have been an effective tool not only to retain adherents, but to draw others to his side. 89

E. Nassouhi, "Texts divers relátifs a l'histoire de l'Assyrie", MAOG, Band III-Heft I-II (Leipzig, 1927), pp. 33 ff. 90 ABL, i l l . 91 Thompson, Reports ... op. cit. p. lvii, no. 124. The similarity this letter to no. 136 which is dated to Tishriti, 655, does imply an approximate date for the letter. 92 ADD, IV, no. 741, p. 200. 98 ADD, IV, no. 647, p. 201. Palm trees hardly ever grow north of Babylonia proper. Dr. I. J. Gelb of the Oriental Institute, University of Chicago, kindly informed me that as far as present evidence indicates, the palm trees growing outside of Babylonia were few in number and did not yield fruit. The deed to Nabu-shar-usur's property states that there were 40 orchards of female palms on the estate. Therefore, the land must have been in Babylonia. 94 An exception is one piece of property which was given by the governor of Uruk to the temple of Nana for the life of Shamash-shum-ukin (V. Scheil, "Nouvelles Notes d'Epigraphie et d'Archéologie Assyriennes", RT, XXIV (1902), pp. 188-90, Ex-voto de dirigeant de Uruk au roi Shamash-shum-ukin). Another document refers to the same land but names Shamash-shum-ukin as the granter. This perhaps indicates that the land may have been part of the property given to the king of Babylon by his father. He perhaps ordered the governor of Uruk, in whose jurisdiction the land was, to dedicate it to the temple of Nana. The governor did so on behalf of the Babylonian monarch, and recorded his presentation ( N B A D , no. 13, pp. 16-18).

86

ASHURBANIPAL AND SHAMAS-SHUM-UKIN

Most royal records form Babylonia dated to the period of the joint kingship contain the names of both monarchs, but inscriptions o f the same date from Assyria never mention Shamash-shum-ukin. 9 5 In those documents in which both names appear, the phrase ahu tallmu, "my partner brother" is used to denote the type o f relationship that existed between them. 9 6 Even though he had a partner brother in Babylonia, the most frequent title by which Ashurbanipal was addressed was sar matäti "king of the Lands". 97 Kudurru, the governor of Uruk, whose territory was well within the sphere of Shamash-shum-ukin's authority, preferred to address the Assyrian king as sar matäti. The governor's usage of this particular term would indicate that he considered Ashurbanipal the true head of state and did not recognize the overlordship of Shamash-shum-ukin. 9 8 In his letters to his lord in Assyria, one Marduk, a high official in Babylonia, also employed the same term, 99 and references in his correspondence to ,δ

In the bilingual inscription commemorating the building of the wall in Sippar, Shamash-shum-ukin did not mention Ashurbanipal (Lehmann, op. cit., second part, p. 6ff.). In the Sumerian inscription of Ashurbanipal from Nippur (published by Legrain, PBS, XV, 74.) Shamash-shum-ukin's name is also not mentioned. These are building inscriptions, and, as noted, building activities took place early in Ashurbanipal's reign. " The word, Talimu, (etymology uncertain) possibly from the root tlm, "to split", Albright, RA, 16, 193 ; Haupt, BA, Χ (1913), pp. 114-120 (full brother), perhaps related to talämu; Streck, VA Β, III, p. 629ff. (full brother). Tallqvist, AGE, p. 242, talimu, as "brother". Ungnad, NRVU, p. 162, as "twin". The term is also used in the feminine case, talimti. In the Gilgamash Epic, Table VII, 1. 40. e-nin-na-a-na GlS.GlNMAS ib-ri ta-li-me-ka, "and now my friend Gilgamash your own brother". In ABL, 330, obv. 1. 14, IVtalimeme umu lkam sa ITI, "4 duplicates (I shall complete) on the first of the month". In the history of Nabopolassar, ZA, IV, 129ff., Col. III, 1. 6. Na-bu-umsu-ma-li-si-ir 7. ta-li-im-su 8. sa-ir-ra-am 9. si-it lib-bi-ia, "Nabuumshumalishir his full brother, a youth offspring of my loins". G. R. Driver and J. C. Miles (The Babylonian Laws, II, pp. 129-130) translated it as companion, next in order. D. J. Wiseman (Iraq, XX, op. cit., p. 61) agrees that it refers to sons of equal status, but not necessarily of the same mother or to be twins. Wiseman's explanation seems reasonable. An interesting text, published by S. A. Smith (Ashurbanipal, III, Pl. IV, (K 2652) may illustrate the relationship between two whose relationship is termed as being tallmu. 1. 18. as-su mTe-um-man Sar kuTElamkt sa a-na Assur sar iläni 19. u a-na Marduk ahi ta-li-me-ki ih-tu-u, "concerning Teumman king of Elam, who had sinned against Ashur king of the gods and Marduk your brother". Here Ashur was designated as a brother of Marduk, and it is actually known that they were not. The text then could mean nothing other than partner brothers of equal rank. Thus, this text may indeed give a good clue to the real meaning of talimu: to denote equality of rank (even theoretically), not necessarily meaning brotherhood. For the meaning of this term, the files of the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary at the Oriental Institute, University of Chicago, were consulted. ·' ABL, 238, 240, 259, 266, 267, 269. ββ ABL, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279. ,β ABL, 804, 807, 808.

ASHURBANIPAL AND SHAMAS-SHUM-UKIN

87

the cities of Dilbat, Sippar, and Babylon imply that he was stationed in the very heart of Shamash-shum-ukin's area.100 Shamash-shum-ukin addressed Ashurbanipal simply as "my brother", never as "my lord". 101 It is interesting to compare this form of address with that found in Shamash-shum-ukin's letters to his father, whom he addressed as "the king, my father", referring to himself simply as "your servant".102 Therefore, since Shamash-shum-ukin did not use an equally respectful title for his brother, the king of Assyria, it is evident that he saw Ashurbanipal as no more than a brother and a partner. Thus, we may conclude: although he realized that Ashurbanipal and acquired the "lion's share", he did not consider him his overlord. No correspondence from Ashurbanipal to his brother in Babylon has been preserved and in Shamash-shum-ukin's letters to the Assyrian monarch there is no indication that he was answering a previous message. Ashurbanipal may have found it difficult to acknowledge the authority of Shamash-shum-ukin or to address him as one of equal rank. His network of informers throughout Babylonia kept him informed of the land, the court, and his brother's actions; perhaps on that account he eliminated the necessity of writing the ruler of Babylonia. Although Esarhaddon had designated the area of kingship for Shamashshum-ukin and Ashurbanipal simultaneously, Ashurbanipal claimed to have appointed his brother as king of Babylonia: Shamash-shum-ukin, my partner brother, I appointed to the kingship of Babylon. Since Ashurbanipal did come to the throne of Assyria a few months prior to Shamash-shum-ukin's assumption of rule over Babylonia, the Assyrian monarch may indeed have considered himself his brother's benefactor, for he could have prevented him from ascending the throne. 103 The oath of allegiance to Ashurbanipal at the time of his ascension was taken not only by the people of Assyria, but also by the Babylonians as well. No such oath, so far as we know, was taken to Shamash-shumukin. Consequently, Ashurbanipal, in presenting himself as the source 100 ABL, 804 deals with the affairs of Dilbat and Babylon. ABL, 808 indicates affairs concerning Sippar; ABL, 807 concerns Babylon and Shamash-shum-ukin, but the text is fragmentary. 101 ABL, 426, 809, 1385. 102 ABL, 535, 536. 103 ARAB, II, 789, Cylinder A, where it is stated : "(Shamash-shum-ukin) I treated well (and) set up as king of Babylon". ARAB, II, 954, Cylinder L 1 ; Streck, II, p. 228; "Shamash-shum-ukin my partner brother, I appointed to the kingship of Babylon". L 2 , ARAB, II, 957; P \ ARAB, II, 962; Streck, II, p. 234. The Akkadian verbs here employed are sakätiu and paqädu.

88

ASHURBANIPAL AND SHAMAS-SHUM-UKIN

of all authority and the supreme head of state, would seemingly have the support of the South, since allegiance had been sworn to him alone. In this light it is understandable why Kudurru addressed him as "king of the lands" and why people dated business documents after his reigning year. People who had sworn the oath of fidelity to Ashurbanipal would be most inclined to view the king of Babylon as no more than an Assyrian vassal. Shamash-shum-ukin boasted in building inscriptions of restoring Esagila and Ezida and re-establishing their sacrifices.104 In other building inscriptions, Ashurbanipal claims the credit.105 Each in his own document has mentioned the other as ahu talïmu, and each invokes curses against anyone who erased the two names. There is nothing conflicting about these statements because it was the custom of Oriental kings to make such claims without mentioning others who had participated in the creditable action. Therefore, since these building activities took place at the very beginning of their reigns, it is possible that at the time Ashurbanipal and Shamash-shum-ukin considered themselves equals. In inscriptions and in the kudurru mentioned earlier, Shamash-shumukin never accords to his brother the exalted title with which he addressed Esarhaddon in the kudurru. 106 He refers to himself as "king of Sumer and Akkad and king of Babylon". Ashurbanipal, however, claims a number of titles, i.e., "the great king, the mighty king, king of the Universe, king of the four regions (of the world), king of kings, unrivalled prince, who holds sway from the Upper to the Lower Sea, and subdued all princes beneath his feet".107 These inscriptions date to the beginning of Ashurbanipal's reign, and we find that several of his titles, especially rubu la sanan "the unrivaled prince", may conflict with the titles his brother had assumed. Shamash-shum-ukin's increasingly hostile attitude towards his brother is evidenced by a message sent to Ashurbanipal from Zakir, who must have been closely attached to the court of the king of Babylon. He reported that in the presence of Shamash-shum-ukin and Ubaru, the governor of Babylon, visitors from the Sea Land had complained about the Assyrian monarch. Zakir had even written the very words the guests used: "This is not a word of a king"! ul a-mat sarri si-i. Although the king of Babylon became angry, he and Ubaru apparently did not take any action against the men involved, indicating that the conflict between 104 105 106

107

L 5 , Lehmann, II, op. cit., p. 12; S \ ibid., p. 14. S 3 , L 2 , ibid., second part. BBS; see ftn. 76 above; S \ L 5 ; Lehmann, op. cit., second Part.

S3, Ibid.

89

ASHURBANIPAL AND SHAMAS-SHUM-UKIN 108

In Ashurbanipal and Shamash-shum-ukin had become clear to all. 655 B.C. Amianu was recorded as the governor of Babylon, and Ubaru is never heard of again. Ubaru, then, must have been replaced sometime prior to 655 and his involvement in the affair which Zakir reported probably was responsible for his leaving the post.109 A letter written on a potsherd in Aramaic was sent by Pirawurr (Pir Amurru), who resided in Arabia, to his brother, Bel-etir, in Uruk. The writer had apparently just returned from a visit with his brother. He relates that a messenger was sent from the king of Babylon to the Amraukani, and also that the "enemy" was in Bit-Ammukani.110 Since the letter is dated 660, and the writer refers to the Ammukani as an enemy of Assyria, and infers that this tribe was on friendly terms with Shamashshum-ukin, it may imply that hostilities between Ashurbanipal and Shamash-shum-ukin had begun not long after their ascendancy, and that their rivalry had become apparent. Ashurbanipal received numerous astronomical and astrological reports from Babylon, Uruk, Borsippa, and Nippur. Nothing of this nature has been preserved which is addressed to the king of Babylon. The returning of Marduk's couch and new chariot to Babylon at such a late date, 655654 B.C. strongly indicate the gravity of the situation and that the Assyrian monarch was trying to please the dissatified Babylonians.111 In resume, it is evident that Esarhaddon had provided for only one oath of allegiance to be sworn throughout Assyria and Babylonia, and that was to Ashurbanipal. Although Ashurbanipal had taken an oath to treat his brother as an equal, Shamash-shum-ukin was completely at his mercy. The treaty with Ramatala had failed to mention any intervention to be taken by the Median king against Ashurbanipal if he prevented Shamashshum-ukin's ascendancy to the throne of Babylon. It would seem to be obvious that Ashurbanipal's continuous involvement and great interest in the area which had been assigned to his brother, and his desire to be the unrivalled king and the absolute head of the entire state, was bound to lead to a clash. Shamash-shum-ukin's dissatisfaction under these circumstances may be attested to, perhaps, by Ashurbanipal's statement: "against my father my begetter he (Shamash-shum-ukin) 108

ABL, 702 ; cf. Oppenheim, JOAS, 61, (1941), p. 264. ADD, II, p. 135; ARAB, 1014, and p. 439. 110 Lidzbarski, ZA, XXXI, p. 193 if. ; HA, pp. 462-63. 111 R. Campbell Thompson, The Reports of the Magicians..., op. cit., Vols. I-II; notice letter ABL, 137 which is dated by astronomical computation to the 18th of Tebetu, 653 B.C.; Weissbach, O LZ, VI, pp. 482-84; Pfeiífer, 324. For the return of Marduk's couch and new chariot see Millard, op. cit., p. 16, lines. 4-5. 109

90

ASHURBANIPAL AND SHAMAS-SHUM-UKIN

uttered a great curse."112 The implication here is that the revolt alone was not a curse against his father, but that Shamash-shum-ukin had indeed cursed Esarhaddon's name, which he would not have done had he not been in extreme distress. The southern monarch's ill-treatment by Ashurbanipal, viewed against the background of the non-popularity of Assyria in Babylonia, the intrigues of Elam (whose monarch was ready to render assistance to anyone who raised an arm against Assyria and who welcomed escaping leaders from Babylonia), and the unfriendly relationship existing between the two brothers prior to their ascendancy, must all be considered factors leading to the ultimate revolt. Shamash-shum-ukin had ruled Babylonia for nearly sixteen years and had no doubt acquired a certain amount of insight into the Babylonians' desire for separation from Assyria and establishment of an independent state. By this time he must also have realized that his father's plan to satisfy the Babylonians was but a relief and not a cure. This awareness, together with his own unhappy situation, prompted him to begin scheming to break away from Assyria and to seek allies. A message to Ashurbanipal relates that a deputy had been sent by Shamash-shum-ukin to seek another person's alliance. A talent and twenty mina of gold were taken from a temple with which to pay the bribe. The sender of the message probably requests the king to seek the people involved in this affair.113 A letter of Shamash-shum-ukin to Ashurbanipal may relate to the same incident.114 In the letter the king of Babylon seems to attempt to defend himself and to declare his readiness to present the accused men before his brother. He probably was implying that they will confirm his words and testify to their own innocence.115 This incident may have revealed to Ashurbanipal that his brother was quite capable of independent action and that he was attempting to gain 112

R. Campbell Thompson, Iraq, VII, no. 34 (TM/1931-2, 26 1. 19). ABL, 1247. 114 ABL, 809. 115 There exists another letter from Shamash-shum-ukin to Ashurbanipal which has drawn the attention of many scholars (ABL, 426; RCAE, III, 159; also IV, 181 and 253 ; Pfeiffer, 61). They have assumed a great deal concerning the nature of the incident which led to Sin-balatsu-iqbi's arrest. The message, after the salutations, reads: "Sin-balatsu-iqbi is here. Before my brother, there is gossip about him. I have heard Let my brother wait (?) him. N o w I shall investigate. Whatever it amounts to I shall write to my brother." The letter simply implies that there was talk against Sin-balatsuiqbi who was now with Shamash-shum-ukin. Whatever the charge against Sinbalatsu-iqbi really was, is hard to determine, but the letter hardly implies that he was accused of an attempt to revolt. 11S

ASHURBANIPAL AND SHAMAS-SHUM-UKIN

91

the support of various groups. Shamash-shum-ukin, in the meantime, may have feared punishment or even deposition and saw this as the proper moment to take action. Just prior to the outbreak of the Babylonian revolt, the king of Babylon, according to Ashurbanipal, sent a deputation of Babylonians to Nineveh: Outwardly, with his lips, he was speaking fair (lit., good) (words) while inwardly his heart was designing murder. The Babylonians, who had been loyal to Assyria, and (faithful) vassals of mine, he deceived, speaking lies to them. He sent them to me, to Nineveh, according to (his) deceitful plan, to pay me their respects (lit., ask my peace, to greet me) (and) I, Ashurbanipal, king of Assyria, for whom the great gods decreed a favorable destiny, whom they fashioned (created) in truth and uprightness, invited (lit., caused to stand) those Babylonians to a sumptuous banquet, clothed them in linen (and) brightly colored garments, put rings of gold upon their gingers — as long as those Babylonians were staying in Assyria, they were mindful of my command.116 It is of course possible that the delegation went to Nineveh a few months prior to Shamash-shum-ukin's uprising merely in order to congratulate the Assyrian liege for the victory over Teumman, but the most appropriate time for such a good will visit would have been in Nisannu, at the New Year festival of 652/651 — the first after the triumph over Elam. The most probable explanation for the delegation, however, is that its actual purpose was to reassure the Assyrian king of his brother's loyalties even while the Babylonian was hoping to take his brother unprepared. At an unknown date, Ashurbanipal imposed upon Babylonia a certain tribute (biltu), the exact nature of which is not apparent. The decree to this effect dissatisfied the Babylonians and Shamash-shumukin took advantage of their discontent to rally them to his side. From both Ashurbanipal's letter to the Babylonians and the Annals, it may be deduced that Shamash-shum-ukin addressed the citizens and incited them to join him in revolt. Exactly what the king of Babylon said is not clear, but Ashurbanipal quoted him as saying upon one occasion: "(Ashurbanipal) will cover with shame the name of the Babylonians. ...," and the Assyrian liege terms his brother's statements "wind" and "lies".117 Soon afterwards, Shamash-shum-ukin declared his insubordination and the South was now in open revolt which soon spread into the whole of southern Mesopotamia, from Aqaba, perhaps near Sippar, to Babsalimeti, on the Euphrates, two hours distance from the Persian Gulf. In all probability Ashurbanipal tried to force Shamash-shum-ukin out and "« 117

ARAB, II, 789; Streck, II, p. 28, ARAB translation. ABL, 301 ; RCA E, III, p. 118 ; Pfeiffer, 81 ; ARAB, II, 789.

92

ASHURBANIPAL AND SHAMAS-SHUM-UKIN

have him replaced peacefully. It seems that he sent an Assyrian force hither to implement his decision, when Shamash-shum-ukin was out o f the city. U p o n hearing this, Shamash-shum-ukin perhaps hurried t o Babylon and thus the attempt was d o o m e d to failure. 118 The uprising, in all probability, started around the middle of May, 652/651. 1 1 9 In the face of these circumstances it was probably Zaquti, n o w very old, and quite worried, w h o directed to her deity prayers which reveal her emotional strain and fear that she might be killed or taken prisoner. Since Zaquti was the grandmother of both kings, and seemingly should have been equally respected by them, there seems no reason for her 118

The location of Bab-salimeti is well established as having been on the Euphrates only one double hour from the Persian Gulf (AS, p. 74, 1. 70; p. 76, 1. 100). As to Aqaba, Olmstead (HA, p. 442) suggests a location near the north line of the alluvium. This view is also expressed in RLA, I, p. 124, and earlier had been adopted by Hommel, Grundriss, ..., op. cit., p. 348. In KS, XVI, 24:8, the city Ak-ka-bi is mentioned as having been situated at the foot of the mountains, which Kraus (MVAG, XXXV, p. 20) suggests are the Zagros Mountains. Another text recorded the city of A-Ka-bi kl (MVAG, XXXV, 2, p. 20). VS, XVI, 24:8 indicates that Aqaba was situated in the vicinity of Sippar. Thus, in all probability, there existed two cities which bore such name: one near the mountains, the other near Sippar. In a letter (ABL, 418; Pfeiffer, 60) we find the expression "From Sippar to the edge (?) of the nar marrât," which may be similar to "from Aqaba to Bab-salimeti". For the attempt of Ashur-banipal see A. R. Millard, op. cit., p. 16 line 6 which reads, "In year 16, on Tabetu 8th, the king entered Babylon is the face of the enemy." See Millard's interpretation, ibid, p. 24. 119 The Chronicle of Years 680-625, BHT, p. 25, BM 86379, obv. 1.11: "In Tebetu on the 19th the war broke out between Assyria and Akkad." Dubberstein (JΝ ES, III (1944), p. 39), on the last mentioned evidence, adopted the date Tebetu, 651 B.C. for the beginning of Shamash-shum-ukin's revolt. Wiseman (Iraq, XX, op. cit., p. 9) agreed with Dubberstein's date based on the Chronicle of years. ABL, 301 (RCAE, III, 118; Pfeiffer, no. 81; Johnston, JAOS, XV, pp. 314-16; A. J. Delattre, "Quelques Lettres Assyriennes", PSBA, XXIII, pp. 344-48; Streck, I, CXXVIII-CXXIX) is a letter sent from Ashurbanipal to the Babylonians in which he told them not to rally around Shamash-shum-ukin, whom he called in the text la ahu aga ("not brother" - i.e. pseudo brother). He quoted Shamash-shum-ukin's remarks to them which presumably had incited them to revolt. Ashurbanipal again reminded the Babylonians that their revolt was an action against the gods, for it was a breech of the oath they had sworn to him by the gods. The letter is dated the 23rd of Ayyaru of the eponymate of Ashurdur-usur, 652/51. Thus, this letter leaves no doubt that Shamash-shum-ukin was already in open revolt at that time. The contents of the letter make it clear that this was a first attempt on the part of Ashurbanipal to bring the Babylonians to his side without bloodshed if possible. The message was doubtless dispatched to Babylon right after the news of the insurrection had reached the ears of the Assyrian king, probably only a matter of a day or so after its outbreak. Thus, the middle of May seems to be an acceptable date for the beginning of the revolution. The Chronicle of Years doubtless was written in the New Babylonian period, and it may have recorded the rebellion when it started to be in the close proximity of Babylon, a few months before the city came under siege. Olmstead (HA, p. 442) has accepted the date of the letter (23rd of Ayyaru) as the starting day of the hostilities, while it is evident by the date indicated that the revolt had already begun.

ASHURBANIPAL AND SHAMAS-SHUM-UKIN

93

distress unless she was apprehensive that Shamash-shum-ukin might seek revenge against her.120 According to Ashurbanipal, Shamash-shum-ukin was successful in his search for allies. The Assyrian distinguishes between three groups who assisted Shamash-shum-ukin in his revolt: 1) people of Akkad, Chaldaea, the Aramaeans, the Sea Land, all of southern Mesopotamia who were vassals of Ashurbanipal. 2) Ummanigash, king of Elam, and 3) the kings of Gutium, Amurru, and Meluhha.121 The claim of Ashurbanipal concerning the help Shamash-shum-ukin received from these groups perhaps was exaggerated. Not all of southern Mesopotamia was loyal to the Babylonian king; there is as yet no evidence of any active Elamite assistance to Shamash-shum-ukin other than Ashurbanipal's claim, nor that any aid ever reached him from Egypt (Meluhha?). The Gutian mentioned by Ashurbanipal as rendering aid to Shamash-shum-ukin may have been Medes, but for this there is little evidence. Huban-nugash (Ummanigash) received Shamash-shum-ukin's ambassador who came seeking his assistance, and who may have presented the Elamite monarch with gifts, which Ashurbanipal termed "bribes". The Elamite leader responded favorably and sent his forces, under the leadership of Undashe, the son of Teumman, to Shamash-shum-ukin's aid. Included in the Elamite army were apparently regiments from the Pillatu and Hilmu tribes under their governors, Zazaz and Paru, as well as Attametu, captain of the archers, and Nashu, the commandant of the 120

ABL, 1367, rev. Is. 2-3: "Shall I die? Will they take me prisoner?" ABL, 1368; also cf. Streck, CDXCIII; HA, 443; Schiffer, OLZ, 17, 401; Meissner, ZA, 29, 222, which are two prayers of Zaquti. 121 Amurru, Sum. Martu. mat Amurru in the cuneiform sources was the land located to the west of Babylonia. The Assyrian royal inscriptions seem to designate it as Phoenicia and the Palestinian coast. By the time of Sargon II it included Damascus, and by Sennacherib's period it also included the regions of the Ammonites, Moabites, and Edomites (see Ungnad, Die Altesten Volkerwanderungen Vorderasiens (Berlin, 1923); RLA, I, pp. 99-133; O. Schraeder, RLV, I, pp. 163-64). As to the land of Meluhha, early sources point towards the Arabian Peninsula for its possible location (north and East of the Sinai Peninsula). In the inscriptions of Gudea, Meluhha was mentioned as the source of gold dust. It is also thought to have been the Indus Valley. The Amarna Letters seem to point towards Nubia as its location. The inscriptions of Tukulti-Ninurta I, make it possible that Arabia was Meluhha, while those of Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal again point to Egypt and Nubia (Edw. Meyer, Geschichte des Altertums, I (1913), 401, 407, 410; H. Winckler, "Muçri, Meluha, Ma'in", MVAG, XXXI, 4 (1898); Altorientalische Forschungen, III (1905), p. 367; Streck, p. 367; J. Knudtzon, Amarna Tafelen (1911), p. 1154; RLV, VII (Berlin, 1926), pp. 348-49 by O. Schraeder. Also see A. Leo Oppenheim, "The Seafaring Merchants of Ur", J AOS, 74 (1954), pp. 6-17; E. Weidner, AOF, XI, 169; Diakanoff, op. cit., pp. 287-88, where he argues that the kings of Gutium were the Medes.

94

ASHURBANIPAL AND SHAMAS-SHUM-UKIN 122

armies of Elam. Huban-nugash's assistance to Shamash-shum-ukin was his first mark of hostility against Assyria since Ashurbanipal had helped him to gain the throne. At about this same time, there is evidence that Elam began a series of intrigues to depose Naid-Marduk, the governor of the Sea Land, who held the area for Assyria. A letter dated to the period following Shamashshum-ukin's revolt pertains to Elamite messengers who had asked the Sea Landers to forsake their governor and accept Nabu-ushallim in his place. The Sea Landers reported to Ashurbanipal that they had rejected the offer and had warned that is Nabu-ushallim entered their area he would be placed under arrest and sent to the Assyrian king. They go on to say that they had received a threat to the effect that if the elders of the Sea Land failed to accept Nabu-ushallim, troops would be sent from Elam to tear down their houses.123 At the beginning of the hostilities between Babylonia and Assyria, officials had been sent by Natnu, the Nabataean, to Shamash-shum-ukin. The Babylonian monarch reportedly forwarded to Natnu as a pledge 100 Itua, together with five Assyrians who had been captured in the area of Cutha where they may have been members of an Assyrian garrison. Since a "pledge" was given to Natnu, it would seem that his emissaries had come to Babylon to make some agreement with Shamash-shum-ukin — perhaps to assist him in his struggle against Ashurbanipal.124 One of Shamash-shum-ukin's first actions in his rebellion was apparently to close the gates of the cult cities, Sippar, Babylon, and Borsippa, barring Ashurbanipal from offering sacrifices at their shrines. These cities were put under heavy guard to ward off Assyrian attacks.125 The king of Babylon first endeavored to take control of northern Babylonia and was successful, at least temporarily. At the very outset of the struggle, he had seemingly sent forces into the marshes, perhaps to gain control over these areas and prevent any possible penetration therein by Assyrian troops.126 He devastated Birtu, which was probably 122

ABL, 1309; ARAB, II, 867. ABL, 576, Pfeiffer, 20. There is no reason to assume with Waterman (RCAE, III, p. 198) that this letter was written after the death of Naid-Marduk; cf. obv. 1.15. "as long as our lord Naid-Marduk is alive". 124 ABL, 1117; Pfeiffer, 63. 126 ARAB, II, 789; Streck, II, p. 30. 1M ABL, 259; Pfeiffer, 22. A letter of Nabu-shum-lishir, who reports that after the destruction of Birtu by the forces of Shamash-shum-ukin, he had sent soldiers into the swamps. He reported that they had been attacked by Babylonian forces but were able to kill four and capture nine, whom he is now sending to Ashurbanipal. 123

ASHURBANIPAL AND SHAMAS-SHUM-UKIN

95

an Assyrian fort not far from the marshy region, since its general was able to send his troops into the swamps. On the 17th of Second Elul 651 B.c., Shamash-shum-ukin led his forces personally and sent up and captured the city of Kutha, after inflicting a defeat upon the combined forces of Assyria and their Kuthan mercenaries the statue of Nergal was captured and taken to Babylon.127 Another battle took place at the city of Bab-Same. A document provides us with a list of persons taken prisoner, which included the woman of Iddua, the chief builder of Bab-Same, and the son of Apia, governor of Arrapha.128 The forces of Assyria and Babylonia met again in the city of Kar-Nergal, somewhere in northern Babylonia.129 The city of Sippar and its surrounding area must have witnessed intense warfare. By the end of Tammuzu, 652 B.c., Ashurbanipal inquired of the god Shamash whether Shamash-shum-ukin would finally surrender so that the Assyrian troops could then cross the Euphrates and enter Babylon.130 This doubtless indicates that at the time of the inquiry Babylonian and Assyrian forces were fighting in the region of Sippar, but from another inquiry to the god, which must be dated early in 651, we may surmise that the battle around Sippar had not yet been concluded.131 Sippar was finally secured for Assyria and direct communication between Elam and Babylon was cut oif. Assyrian forces may then have proceeded south to block the road between Babylon and Borsippa.132 Arabian armies under Abiate and Aimu, on their way to Shamashshum-ukin's aid, according to Ashurbanipal, were intercepted and completely defeated by the Assyrians. Nevertheless, a remnant who survived were able to enter Babylon, but soon left the city because of food shortage — an indication that Babylon was suffering from a shortage of food even at the beginning of the war. Abiate escaped, found his way to Assyria, and surrendered.133 Not long after the Babylonian uprising began, Naid-Marduk of the Sea Land died and Ashurbanipal filled the vacancy by Nabu-bel-shumate. For the taking of Kutha see Millard, op. cit., p. 16, Ins. 7-10. ADD, 891. 129 ABL, 326; Pfeiffer, 21. wo KpR T y n o . 102, pp. 97-99. 131 Ibid., no. 139, pp. 153ff. Though there is no date preserved, it may be definitely assigned to early 651 B.C. because there is in it a reference to the fact that Nabu-belshumate had just started his hostile activities against Assyria. m Pfeiffer, 21 ; ABL, 326, in which the sender asks Ashurbanipal to give an order to cut off the road between Babylon and Borsippa. 133 ARAB, II, 821 ; Streck, II, p. 68, see above p. 23. 129

96

ASHURBANIPAL AND SHAMAS-SHUM-UKIN

His preserved letters to Ashurbanipal are filled with extraordinary respect and devotion to his master.134 In one he reports the grave situation surrounding the king of Elam. The Elamite monarch, as Nabu-belshumate stated, "is oppressive and many cities have revolted against him".135 The newly appointed governor was soon reported to Ashurbanipal for communicating with Shamash-shum-ukin. The informant tells the Assyrian monarch that while he was in Babylon Nabu-bel-shumate's courier had gone to Shamash-shum-ukin.136 Before the end of 651/650 B.c., Nabu-bel-shumate escaped to Elam, taking captive with him a number of Assyrians who probably were members of an Assyrian force at his disposal. Also accompanying him on his flight were men from Kisig.137 The southern parts of Babylonia, at the beginning of the revolt, witnessed continuous assaults from surrounding tribesmen. The city of Ur became the target of attacks by the Puqudu, yilmu, and Pillat, instigated by Elam and later by Nabu-bel-shumate. The initial warfare found the Gurasimmu tribe on the Assyrian side, but they soon joined Shamash-shum-ukin, apparently to save their territory from further attacks since no help had arrived from Assyria.138 The situation must have been serious for Assyria, for only Ur, Nippur, Uruk, Eridu, and Shattena had remained faithful. Kisig, at the outbreak of the war,

134

ABL, 832, 833, 834, 835, 836, 837, 838, 839. ABL, 839; Pfeiffer, 16; cf. RCAE, IV, p. 189. 136 ABL, 1326. 137 ABL, 736 (Pfeiffer, 37), a letter sent to Ashurbanipal by certain people in Kisig during the time Bel-ibni was in the Sea Land. They tell the Assyrian monarch that the men from their city, who had accompanied Nabu-bel-shumate on his flight to Elam, were now back and had been imprisoned by Bel-ibni. Millard, op. cit., p. 16, Ins. 11-16. 138 ABL, 1241 (Pfeiffer, 18), probably sent to Ashurbanipal from Ur. The senders ask the Assyrian King for aid to defend their city's temples, lest their treasures fall into enemy hands. The message affirmed the allegiance of Ur, Kisig, Eridu and Shattena to Assyria and attested to the changing loyalties of the Gurasimmu: "As to the Gurasimmu because they took their stand with us, the enemy ... marched against them. Because they saw (that)... none of the governors had come to their help, they are now giving a hand to the enemy ... all the Gurasimmu have now become hostile." (obv. Is. 6-11). A phrase in the same message, "everything is in ruin", may imply that a great deal of destruction had taken place. ABL, 942 is a letter sent to Ashurbanipal from the people of Shattena, (a city in southern Babylonia) who were on the Assyrian side at the start of the hostilities. The senders inform the Assyrian king that all the cities in the area had joined the rebellion and only their own city, Ur, Nippur, and Eridu had remained faithful to Assyria. They also mentioned that dates had been carried off, probably by the attacking forces. 135

ASHURBANIPAL AND SHAMAS-SHUM-UKIN

97

may have decided to follow a neutral policy, watch the struggle, and then join whichever side proved to be the victor.139 Hard pressed by attacking tribes, which may have been supported by troops of the king of Babylon, the Assyrian vassals asked Ashurbanipal for help, a fact which may indicate the strength of Shamash-shum-ukin at the outset of his rebellion.140 Ashurbanipal gave orders to the governors of Arrapha and Lahiru to hasten to the aid of Nabu-ushabshi.141 Nabu-ushabshi in turn warned the two governors to endeavor to keep their own areas well defended because Shamash-shum-ukin's troops were marching against them. Any assistance the governors might render to Nabu-ushabshi would indeed have been a drain on their strength and weakened their position against the oncoming Babylonians.142 Assyrian troops, under the leadership of Ashur-gimil-tirra, were finally sent to Nabu-ushabshi, and Ashurbanipal gave the latter full authority to deal with the situation in whatever way he thought best, without contacting the central government in Assyria: Whatever is desirable to do, that do, whether to dam up the Harra river or to tread down those people; ... An additional contingent of 200 horses was also dispatched at this time to be stationed in Uruk. 143 Thus, at the beginning of the struggle, Ashurbanipal mustered his loyal governors in Babylonia, together with those of Arrapha, Lahiru, and Zamua, and sent them reinforcements from the North to meet the existing danger. m

ABL, 210, a letter from the people of Kisig to the Assyrian king, quotes the latter as telling them to accept any deserter from the side of the enemy and have him sent to Nineveh. (Deserters are usually welcomed by their enemy and a city with neutral inclinations does not ordinarily accept deserters from either side). Ashurbanipal apparently left the people of Kisig to deal with the matter of defense according to their own judgement. (ABL, 1121). 140 ABL, 1089. A letter to Ashurbanipal from an unknown but apparently important person. It attests to the strength of the enemy, but indicates that people still gave heed to the troops of the Assyrian king. 141 ABL, 543, nearly a duplicate of 1108 and, in part, of 273. 142 ABL, 1106. The letter refers to Bel-ibni's disappointment at not receiving the post which Ashurbanipal had promised his father. Thus, the letter no doubt had been sent sometime during Nabu-bel-shumate's governorship and prior to the appointment of Bel-ibni. ABL, 1244, from Ashurbanipal to Nabu-ushabshi is an answer to a letter from the latter. Nabu-ushabshi was under pressure and Ashurbanipal assures him that the governors of Arrapha, Lahiru and Zamua (on the Median border) will come to his aid. Cf. Streck, CXVff. 143 ABL, 273, 543, 1108, cf. also 1244 (above η. 142).

98

ASHURBANIPAL AND SHAMAS-SHUM-UKIN

Pro-Assyrian individuals who resided in Babylonia naturally feared what would happen if Assyria were to be the loser, and one report to Ashurbanipal gives insight into the activities of such groups at this time. Two minas of gold had been collected and nine volunteers assembled by such people in Uruk. After naming a number of individuals, the text reads : ... And the nobles of Uruk have made a request of my brother (?) saying, "We are with you. Slay the officer in charge of the palace. We are collecting two minas of gold. We have locked the gate. As of old, we turn our faces towards Assyria in prayer to the gods of the king. I have collected nine soldiers ,..144 The money and volunteers had naturally been gathered to be placed at Assyrian disposal for the defense of Uruk, which at this time faced a serious situation. The tribe of Bit-Dakkuri had sided with the rebelling king of Babylon. Initially, their forces had probably attacked the nearby cities which had declared their allegiance to Assyria, i.e., Uruk and Nippur. Marad may have been used as the tribe's base from which to wage attacks.145 At the beginning of the war in Babylonia, the Bit-Ammukani were apparently undecided whether to join Assyria or to align themselves with Shamash-shum-ukin. An inquiry by Ashurbanipal to the god, dated after the outbreak of the war, states that the Ammukani had not yet declared their loyalties;146 perhaps two years after the outbreak of the war, they joined the king of Babylon.14' 144

ABL, 1387; Pfeiffer, 67, rev. Ins. 3-13; RCAE, IV, pp. 207, 271; GAG, 98r. ABL, 853, Pfeiffer, 68, sent to Ashurbanipal (see RCAE, III, 248), before the rebellion had begun, reports that the Bit-Dakkuri had taken Marad. ABL, 1363 deals with the efforts of the city of Marad at the beginning of the war and records its loyalty to the Bit-Dakkuri. Throughout the war years Marad gave allegiance to the king of Babylon. ABL, 588 definitely belongs to the period of the Babylonian rebellion. The sender is asking for horsemen to guard against a possible attack from the Bit-Dakkuri, who, as the letter infers, have been destroying cities and seizing grain and dates. ABL, 886 also deals with the gathering of the Bit-Dakkuri and a possible attack by them. 146 KPRT, no. 139, p. 153. The mention of Nabu-bel-shumate as an enemy of Assyria dates the inquiry after the outbreak of the war. 147 ABL, 1115, a letter from Nabu-shum-lishir to Ashurbanipal which indicates that a messenger had been sent by the Assyrian king to the Ammukani, doubtless early in the war, in an attempt to bring them to his side. ABL, 517 from Ashurbanipal to Nabuushabshi (dated the 13th of Ayyaru, 650) mentions the son of Ea-zer-kisha, a member of the Ammukani. The son was captured in 648 when Ashurbanipal entered Babylon (ARAB, II, 1093). The letter reads: "In regard to the son of Ea-zer-kisha, and the elders of Bit-Ammukani, of whom you wrote, it is well what you have done." This may imply that at the time the letter was written, the Bit-Ammukani had not yet 145

ASHURBANIPAL AND SHAMAS-SHUM-UKIN

99

The Ru'ua tribe joined Shamash-shum-ukin and took active part in attacks upon Assyrian territories in southern Babylonia.148 The Gambuli tribe evidently did not assist either side throughout the war years. The blow which they had received a year prior to the outbreak of the rebellion must have been so severe that they had not had time to recover. At the beginning of the revolt, Ur was under the governorship of Ningal-iddina, who soon died, and the matter of his succession became a question of importance. His son, Sin-tabni-usur, had a natural claim, and Ashurbanipal consulted the omens about his appointment. The omen proved favorable and sometime in Abu, 651, Sin-tabni-usur must have become governor of Ur.149 Sin-tabni-usur's term began with strife against the neighboring tribe of Gurasimmu, and the new governor asked Apia of Arrapha and Nabuushabshi of Uruk for assistance. He claimed that the Gurasimmu had been incited by Shamash-shum-ukin's agents to attack Ur. Nabuushabshi, heading five or six hundred bowmen, went to Sin-tabni-usur's aid. His force was joined by others forwarded by Apia and Nurea, governor of Zamua, and some were probably sent by Bel-ibni, governor of the Sea Land.150 The endeavor was successful, and the Gurasimmu were completely defeated, as we may deduce from their protest to the Assyrian monarch. In their letter, they deny ever siding with an anti-Assyrian army and remind the king of the assistance they had once given to his father, Esar-

joined Shamash-shum-ukin, and this may have been Assyria's last attempt to acquire their loyalty. It is probably that the Ammukani soon joined the king of Babylon because the sons of Ea-zer-kisha {ABL, 517) were captured in Babylon in 648 B.c.. 148 ABL, 1380, a letter to Ashurbanipal from Menana. It states that: "To the land of the Rau I have sent messages ... These things which you do, which are against God and men, are they good?" This may imply that the hostilities of members of the Rau tribe were directed against Assyria. It is here assumed that the Rau is the well-known Ru'ua tribe. 149 C. J. Gadd, History and Monuments of Ur (New York, 1929), p. 218; HA, p. 445. Κ 4696, KPRT, no. 135, pp. 148ff. The name of the eponym is not preserved except for the day, 11 of Abu. G. Smith, History of Ashurbanipal, p. 186 (see also KPRT, p. 149, "Commentary") has the eponymate of Saggab (651). Κ 29 + Κ 3960, KPRT, no. 129, pp. 142-44, is another omen in which the name of Sin-tabni-usur is preserved. It may be dated to Tammuzu, since it recorded: "from the XXII of ... until XXII of Abü". The mutilated month may be Tammuzu. Here Sin-tabni-usur's name is recorded, with no reference to Ur. This, in all probability, dates Omen no. 129 to the 22nd of Tammuzu, 651, when Sin-tabni-usur had not yet been appointed governor of Ur. 150 ABL, 754 mention's Bel-ibni's name, but the text is too fragmentary to give much meaning. The fact that his name is mentioned may possibly lead to the assumption that he had sent help.

100

ASHURBANIPAL AND SHAMAS-SHUM-UKIN

haddon, and the great amount of booty they had acquired for him.151 Sin-tabni-usur's raid against the Ekushai was also successful and prisoners were taken. Soon, however, he learned that the plundered tribe was an old client of his father's house and loyal to Assyria.152 The Puqudu advanced into the suburbs of Uruk and took ten prisoners. Nabu-ushabshi moved against them, killed several, and took captive their commander who admitted that they had been sent by Sahdu, Nabu-ushezib's brother, to obtain news concerning the gathering of troops at Uruk. Perhaps simultaneously, a force of Puqudu bowmen attacked the town Bit-Ihtir, allied to Sin-tabni-usur.153 Nabu-ushabshi informed Ashurbanipal that one Sin-ibni had attacked Uruk, carried away plunder, and caused a great deal of unrest in Ur and Eridu.154 Sin-tabni-usur and his brother, Sin-shar-usur, were not on good terms. A letter sent by Ashurbanipal to Sin-tabni-usur dating, in all probability to 649, states that Sin-shar-usur had brought accusations against him, and states that famine and danger had prevailed in Babylonia during the past two years. Sin-tabni-usur, it stresses, had withstood these for the sake of his Assyrian overlord. Although shortly afterwards, Sin-tabniusur deserted and took refuge with Shamash-shum-ukin, there is apparently no indication of disloyalty prior to his disertion.155 After their governor's insubordination, the people of Ur sent a letter to Ashurbanipal which revealed why Sin-tabni-usur had gone to the side of Shamash-shum-ukin. The letter began by relating the great effort by the people of Ur and Sin-tabni-usur to defend the Assyrian cause; it states that nothing had forced their governor to align himself with the Babylonian king except hunger, which doubtless resulted from continuous attacks upon him by Babylonian forces.156 151

ABL, 947; Pfeiffer, 77. RCA E, III, p. 272. ABL, 920; Pfeiffer, 72. 143 ABL, 1028; Pfeiffer, 23. 154 ABL, 753; Olmstead (HA, pp. 445-46) took Sin-ibni's name as an abbreviation for Sin-tabni-uçur. Gadd (op. cit., p. 219) addopts the same view. So also Waterman (RCAE, III, p. 229). However, Sin-ibni and Sin tabni-usur were probably two different persons. ABL, 1236, obv. 1. 15 mentions Sin-tabni-usur, and in rev. 1. 10 of the same letter the name of Sin-ibni appears. 165 ABL, 290; Pfeiffer, 203. The letter mentions, as one of the accusers of Sin-tabniu$ur, Ummanigash, one of the three sons of Urtaku and who had taken refuge at the Assyrian court when his father was dethroned and murdered by Teumman. With assistance from Ashurbanipal he defeated Teumman and became king of Elam, but afterwards sided with Shamash-shum-ukin (See Part I). Here, Ashurbanipal may have been referring to an earlier accusation by Ummanigash against Sin-tabni-usur (For his desertion, see n. 156 below). 156 ABL, 1274; Pfeiffer, 19: "In my hunger will you feed me the flesh of our sons and daughters", is an indication that it was the famine which had forced their governor to 162

ASHURBANIPAL AND SHAMAS-SHUM-UKIN

101

The Assyrians finally succeeded in placing Babylon under siege, perhaps sometime in the Fall of 650, and for two years the New Years festival was not held: 157 In the 19th year of Shamash-shum-ukin, Nabu did not come, Bel did not march out. In the 20th year of Shamash-shum-ukin, Nabu did not come, Bel did not march out.168 This may indicate also that the road from Babylon to Borsippa was cut, or that Borsippa was captured. Ashurbanipal may have dispatched a message to the pro-Assyrians within the besieged city, reproaching them for not having taken a more active part: ... when you see this (happen), why did you not kill those that should have been killed, (and) capture those that should have been captured? He further informs them that he (probably referring to Shamash-shumukin) is entirely shut up within the city, and that it is their duty to watch over the city's temples (probably those of Babylon).159 A deed concerning the sale of a house in Babylon dated to the twentieth year of Shamash-shum-ukin terminated with the words: In these days the enemy laid siege to the city and there was a famine in the country, so that for one shekel of silver (only) three qa of grain could be bought in secret.160 Thus, the price of grain had gone up ninety times its normal price at the beginning of Shamash-shum-ukin's reign. Another document dated in June of the twentieth year of Shamash-shum-ukin records the sale of a make a deal with Shamash-shum-ukin. Another phrase: "Sin-tabni-usur, whom hunger and want, endured in our common watch for the king, have forced into rebellion, has sought refuge with Shamash-shum-ukin". Olmstead (HA, pp. 446-47) and Gadd (op. cit., p. 219) argue for the prior disloyalty of Sin-tabni-usur. A document dated to the 13 th of Marcheswan from the 18th year of Shamashshum-ukin relates that need and misery were laid upon the land and a mother would not open the door to a daughter ( P S B A , X, p. 146; HA, p. 471). This may mark the beginning of the siege of Babylon. Millard, op. cit., p. 16 In. 19, "9-year 18, on the 11 of Teumman, the enemy approached is-sa-ati-qa" Babylon. For the rest of the see Millard, op. cit., p. 30. " 8 S. Smith, Chronicle of Years, BHT, p. 25, rev. Ins. 2-3. 16 » ABL, 1186, Pfeiffer, 25; HA, p. 470. »· BR, no. 20; OLZ, XXII (1919), p. 209; Strassmaier, The Acts of the Eighth Congress of Orientalists, II, 8 (Stockholm and Christania, 1889), no. 6. The price of 270 qa of grain is recorded as being one shekel of silver in the kudurru from the beginning of Shamash-shum-ukin's reign (BBS, no. XXXVII).

102

ASHURBANIPAL A N D

SHAMAS-SHUM-UKIN

son and reports: "On that day, Maqratum told Apia "Save me, verily I will be your maid." 161 These two texts are further testimony to the famine and distress prevailing in Babylon, with conditions so acute that people began selling themselves as well as their children into slavery. However, Ashurbanipal's account of the Babylonians' conditions during the siege may have been slightly exaggerated : (As for) the people of Akkad, who had cast in their lot with Shamash-shum-ukin and plotted evil, famine laid hold upon them. They ate the flesh of their sons and daughters for their hunger, they gnawed leather thongs.162 In Elam, Indabigash successfully revolted against Tammaritu in 649, and Ashurbanipal sent his congratulations to the new king. 163 Indabigash appeared to be friendly with Assyria for a short period of time, but then rendered help to Shamash-shum-ukin and encouraged Nabu-bel-shumate in his attacks upon Assyrian territories. 164 A group of Shamash-shum-ukin's prayers, doubtless dated to the years of his revolt, contain a vivid reflection of his feelings throughout the struggle. The prayers had evidently not been written for a single occasion, but for the whole period of the war. Shamash-shum-ukin's sentiments vary in each, according to the war situation at the time they were offered. Ond clearly belongs to the beginning of or just prior to his insurrection, for he consults the god Shamash to ask if he would favor such a step. 165 Another prayer reveals Shamash-shum-ukin's despair during the last stage of the war. His troops had deserted, his citadel was under siege, the city was hard-pressed, and evil overlooked him: I moan like a dove night and day I bemoan myself, I weep bitterly Tears are forced from my eyes.166 The Assyrian assault upon Babylon continued for about two years.167 161

BR, no. 37. ARAB, II, 794; Streck, pp. 32 ff. 163 ABL, 1151 ; Cameron, op. cit., p. 193. 164 Piepkorn, p. 80; Cameron, op. cit., p. 194. íes Myrhman, op. cit., no. XII; Prince, op. cit., no. XII. we Myrhman, op. cit., no. XIV; Prince, op. cit., no. XIV, Is. 12-14. 16 ' A document dated to the 13 th of Marcheswan from the 18th year of Shamashshum-ukin (See above n. 157) may indicate that the siege of Babylon was then in its beginning (November, 650 B.C.). AS indicated, the Chronicle of Years states that for the years 649 and 648 there were no celebrations of the New Year, doubtless due to the siege. BR, no. 37, dated to Simänu, the 20th year of Shamash-shum-ukin, indicates that Babylon was still under siege. 162

ASHURBANIPAL AND SHAMAS-SHUM-UKIN

103

Shamash-shum-ukin was finally deserted by his own troops who probably surrendered to the enemy. Rather than be left to his brother's mercy, the king of Babylon cast himself into the fire,168 and the city fell to the Assyrians, in all probability, in the Fall of 648 B.C..169 Shamash-shum-ukin's captured courtiers were transported to Assyria and killed between the colossi where Ashurbanipal's grandfather, Sennacherib, had been murdered. 170 Thus came to an end Shamash-shum-ukin's revolt which had shaken Assyria's stability and order and transformed southern Mesopotamia into a battleground for more than four years.

ARAB, II, 1101 ; 794, Streck, p. 34. The last tablet dated to Shamash-shum-ukin was written on the 15th of Tammuzu, 648 B.C., but it is difficult to assume that the date of the last tablet marked the end of the revolt with Olmstead (HA, p. 475). The first document dated to Kandalanu, who succeeded Shamash-shum-ukin to the throne of Babylon, is Tebetu, 648/647. Thus the revolt must have ended sometime between these two dates. l n ARAB, II, 795; Streck, pp. 34-36; ARAB, II, 1092, 1036, 1101-1106. 168

1,9

ν KANDALANU IN BABYLON AND BEL-IBNI, GOVERNOR OF THE SEA LAND

The victorious Assyrian king was apparently not in favor of inflicting any kind of violence upon the conquered city. In his call to the proAssyrians who, perhaps, were themselves in Babylon during the siege, he had requested them to keep watch over his temples.1 When he heard that the temples of Babylon had not escaped damage, he was quite moved, and soon wrote to his general, Merodach-baladan (who possibly led the Assyrian forces into Babylon in 648 B.C.), asking for an explanation regarding their devastation.2 The Assyrian king's statement in a dedicatory inscription to Marduk, "I destroyed his (Shamash-shum-ukin's) land and made it into a ruin" was probably exaggerated.3 It is evident, however, that Babylon did not escape violence. A text apparently dated after the end of the rebellion may provide some information on this matter.4 The destruction was apparently so abhorrent that the sender of the letter felt that the occurrence of such things could only have been the will of the gods. In Merodach-baladan's answer to Ashurbanipal's request for information regarding what he had heard of the damage to Babylon's temples, the Assyrian general defended his soldiers and accused the native Babylonians of despoiling their own temples. The general reported that when he ordered his troops to stand beside the wall, the citizens of Babylon attacked them. He claimed that 1

ABL, 1186; Pfeiffer, 25; HA, p. 470; ARAB, II, 796. Ashurbanipal mentioned that at his entry to Babylon, the streets were blocked by the bodies of people who had died of starvation, presumably during the last part of the siege. The description is probably exaggerated, but Ashurbanipal did not mention any actual destruction or that he was in favor of it. ' ABL, 1339. The name of the city is not mentioned, for it apparently was well known to both the sender and the recipient of the letter, but Babylon was probably the city referred to. Merodach-baladan is, in this letter, evidently a commander of Assyrian soldiers. See RCAE, III, pp. 346-47. ' F. Martin, Textes Religieux Assyrienes et Babyloniens, Transcription, Traduction et Commentaire "première série" (Paris, 1903), p. 46, ls. 18-19. 4 ABL, 1165.

KANDALANU IN BABYLON AND BEL-IBNI

105

the Babylonians' arrows had damaged the temple's walls. He also related that his troops, presumably prior to their entry into the city, had agreed among themselves that "no one shall smite anyone and no one shall take away any tiara". The extremely dramatic account of the incident by Merodach-baladan suggests that his soldiers were in no way at fault for the destruction. By such a description Merodach-baladan probably hoped to curb Ashurbanipal's anger against him for not fulfilling his responsibility to protect the city and its temples.5 A wave of terrorism swept the South in the period following the death of Shamash-shum-ukin. This naturally was directed against all who had assisted the king of Babylon. A letter is preserved from Ea-zer-kisha of the Ammukani tribe to his mother, in which he relates that he and a friend, Nabu-ushezib, were accused of siding with Shamash-shum-ukin. Ea-zer-kisha told her that he had defended his friend who, he explained to Ashurbanipal, had been attacked by the Puqudu, taking the part of the king of Babylon; Nabu-ushezib had remained loyal to Assyria. Ea-zerkisha then asked his mother to write to Ashurbanipal and testify to the loyalty of the Ammukani to Assyria.6 The existence of this private letter within the royal correspondence is unusual, and it would seem that it never reached its destination, but was intercepted by Assyrians who sent it to Ashurbanipal. In actuality, Ea-zer-kisha must have been quite a strong ally of the Babylonian king, for when the Assyrians entered Babylon in 648 B.c., two of his sons were among the prisoners taken. 7 At that time their father must have been in hiding; he may later have been caught and killed, for he is never heard of again. After the fall of Babylon and death of Shamash-shum-ukin, Ashurbanipal appointed Kandalanu to the vacant throne of Babylonia.8 A number of scholars, particularly in the last century, adopted the view that Ashurbanipal and Kandalanu were one and the same person. According to this premise, Ashurbanipal entered Babylon in 648, sat on the throne of Babylonia, and there assumed the name.9 This assumption was based 5

ABL, 1339. ABL, 896; HA, pp. 478-79. ARAB, II, 1093. β Aside from references to Kandalanu as sovereign, the name has come down to us five times so far : "twice as a slave name" {ADD, III, no. 58, and 230), and once each as the name of a witness {ibid., no. 51), Tallqvist, APN, p. 112) and of a scribe in the temple at Arbela; I. J. Gelb, "Two Assyrian King Lists", JNES, XIII (1954), no. 4, p. 222, 1.34. The name is known also from the Kassite period (see A. T. Clay, "Personal Names from Cuneiform Inscriptions of the Cassite Period", YOS, I (New Haven, 1912), p. 96). • G. Smith, History of Ashurbanipal (London, 1871), p. 323; E. Schräder, "Kineldan and Ashurbanipal", ZK, I (1884), pp. 222ff. Their views have generally been accepted • '

106

KANDALANU IN BABYLON AND BEL-IBNI

solely upon the statement of Berossos-Polyhistor-Eusebius which reads : After Sammuges (Shamash-shum-ukin) who ruled 21 years, his brother reigned 21 years and then Nabopolassar ruled for 20 years.10 The view that they were identical has, however, been challenged by some scholars.11 Nowhere in Ashurbanipal's inscriptions is there a reference that he had assumed the name Kandalanu, or that he had ever claimed the title "king of Babylon". No documents have been discovered in either Babylonia or Assyria dated after Ashurbanipal's thirty-eighth year (631 B.C.), but those dated to Kandalanu continue until 627 B.C., thus indicating that Ashurbanipal died shortly after 631 and that Kandalanu outlived him by about four years. After the death of Ashurbanipal, business documents in Babylonia began to be dated after his sons, Ashuretil-ilani and Sin-shar-ishkun, but those from Babylon and its immediate vicinity continued to be dated to Kandalanu. 12 A new and better copy of an inscription by the mother of Nabonidus, discovered at Eski Harran in 1956, does in fact give some support to the possible identification of Ashurbanipal with Kandalanu, for it gives the following statements : (1) From the 29th year of Ashurbanipal king of Assyria, that I was born (in) until the 42nd year of Ashurbanipal, the 3rd year of Ashur-etillu-ilu his son, the 21st year of Nabopolassar, the 43rd year of Nebuchadnezzar, the 2nd by Assyriologists and historians; cf. Murdter and Delitzsch, Geschichte Babyloniens und Assyriens, p. 230; Lehmann, Samassumukin ..., op. cit., p. 6; H. Winckler, Geschichte, pp. 135, 289; Tiele, Geschichte ..., pp. 368-369, 412-14; Winckler, ΚΑΤ, p. 50; Rogers, History of Babylonia and Assyria, II, pp. 268, 297; Bezold, Nineveh und Babylon, p. 61 ; B. Meissner, Könige Babyloniens und Assyriens, p. 239; S. Pallis, The Antiquity of Iraq, p. 632. 10 Eusebius, Chronik, p. 13, 18-15 in F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker (Leiden, 1958), Dritter Teil C, p. 386, no. 53, 1. 32 p. 387, 1, 2. Also see P. Schnabel, Berossos und die Babylonisch-Hellenistische Literatur (Berlin, 1923), p. 269, 1s. 29-30. 11 J. Oppert, RA, I, pp. Iff.; A. Sayce, Assyria, Its Princes, Priests and People, pp. 53, 159; HA, p. 476. 12 E.g.: Babylon 1/6/X VAS, 5, no. 3 (NRVU no. 45) Uruk 71—I— BR, no. 14, Col. V. Borsippa 4/3/VII BR, no. 46 Sippar 6/4/VI Oppert, RA, I, p. 3f. Bit-iltammash-ilu 7/25/XII Pohl, An. Or., 9, no. 4, 44ff. Dilbat 19/14/1 JRAS, (1928), p. 321 Sabitti-sha-lu 20/23/VII Weidner, AOF, XVI, (1952), p. 38f. shakin-mati

KANDALANU IN BABYLON AND BEL-IBNI

107

year of Awel Marduk, and 4th year of Neriglissar, in 95 years of the god Sin, king of the gods of heaven and earth.13 (2) From the time of Ashurbanipal king of Assyria until the 9th year of Nabunaid, king of Babylon, the son, the offspring of my womb 104 years of happiness.14 (3) ... In the 21st year of Nabopolassar, in the 43 years of Nebuchadnezzar, son of Nabopolassar and 4 years of Neriglissar king of Babylon (when) they exercized the kingship for 68 years with all my heart I reverenced them.15

There is, obviously, a discrepancy in the number of years she claims to have lived, but, in any event, she does not mention Kandalanu, and assigns forty-two years of reign to Ashurbanipal, which would appear to indicate that Kandalanu was identical with Ashurbanipal. It is known that Kandalanu ruled until 627 B.C. If one adds the three years she has assigned to Ashur-etil-ilani, the result dates the accession of Nabopolassar to 624 B.C. It has, however, been definitely established that Nabopolassar came to the throne in November, 626 B.C.. Again, she assigns three years to Ashur-etil-ilani, but that he actually ruled more than four years is indicated by a document dated the eighth month of his fourth year.16 Also, Ashur-etil-ilani never ruled Babylon and the mother of Nabonidus fails to mention Sin-shar-ishkun, who is known to have preceded Nabopolassar. Her chronology does not fit any of the known southern Mesopotamian cities, and in view of these facts, it may be disregarded.17 A fragment of a two-columned list of Assyrian and Babylonian kings, which very likely was compiled during the time of Ashurbanipal, concludes as follows : Ashurbanipal, king of Assyria Shamash-shum-ukin, king of Babylon Ashurbanipal, king of Assyria Kandalanu, king of Babylon 82 kings of Ashur from Erishu to Ashurbanipal 98 kings of Akkad from Sumulailu to Kandalanu.18 13

C. H. Gadd, "The Harran Inscriptions of Nabonidus", An.SL., VIII (1958), p. 35ff. Found by D. S. Rice in August-September, 1956. There is an old copy found by H. Pognon in 1906 at Eski Harran (Pognon, Inscriptions Sémitiques de la Syrie, de la Mésopotamie et de la région de Mossoul (Paris, 1907); it is reviewed by E. Dhorme, Rev. Bib. (1908), pp. 130-35; "La mere de Nabonide", RA, XLI (1947), pp. 1-21. Col. I, Is. 29-32. 14 Ibid., Col. II, Is. 26-28. 15 Ibid., Col. II, Is. 40-44. 16 BE, VIII, 1, no. 5; cf. BR, no. 61, Dubberstein, JNES, III (1944), op. cit., p. 41. 17 The chronology of Nabonidus' mother is found to fit well with that of the history of Harran (E. Von Voigtlander, a draft of a doctoral dissertation). 18 E. F. Weidner, "Die grosse Königsliste aus Assur", AO F, III (1926), 66-70; E. Ebeling, AOT, 333-335; Dubberstein, JNES, III (1944), p. 40; AN ET, p. 274.

108

KANDALANU IN BABYLON AND BEL-IBNI

This list places Ashurbanipal as king of Assyria at the same time that Kandalanu was king of Babylon. A text from Babylon, dated to the year 639 sheds some light on the non-identification of Ashurbanipal with Kandalanu. It is dated to the regnal years of Ashurbanipal, who has only the title "king of Assyria".19 If Ashurbanipal was Kandalanu, the text would have mentioned him as the king of Babylon, not as the king of Assyria only. In the Canon of Claudius Ptolemius, Saosdouchinos (Shamash-shumukin) is succeeded by Kandalanu. Thus Kandalanu may be that "brother" of Sammuges to whom Berossos refers. Furthermore, the treaty with Ramatala contains the clause: (You swear) that you will (if necessary) await the woman pregnant by Esarhaddon king of Assyria (or) the wife of Ashurbanipal the crown prince.20 The woman, here referred to as being pregnant, may have given birth to a son sometime in 672 B.C., and it is possible that this son was Kandalanu. If this assumption is tentatively adopted, Ashurbanipal and Kandalanu were indeed brothers, and Kandalanu would be twenty-four years of age when he ascended the Babylonian throne. Thus far, fifty business documents have been discovered which date to the reign of Kandalanu. This is an inadequate number to be used as criteria to reconstruct the extent of the area over which he ruled, since about half of them are preserved with the name of the city broken or mutilated. Those on which the names of cities do appear, given the conclusion that Kandalanu's area included Babylon, Uruk, Borsippa, Sippar, and Dilbat in addition to other cities whose locations are unknown, i.e. Sabitti-sha-lushakin mati and Bit-iltammash-ilu.21 No business transactions dated to Kandalanu's reign have been discovered at Nippur or Ur. It can consequently be tentatively assumed that Kandalanu did not reign over all of southern Mesopotamia, but only over the area around Babylon and Uruk. Indeed, were it not that Uruk is the place of origin of one text (and that only in the seventh year), the city would not be within his jurisdiction. Nippur most probably was strongly held by Ashurbanipal, but with the possible exception of that city, Kandalanu's territory may have been equal to that theoretically ruled by Shamash-shum-ukin. It may be that Ashurbanipal, in assigning Kandalanu the same area 19 E. Nassouhi, "Prisme d'Assurbanipal daté de sa Trentième année provenant du temple de Gula à Babylone", AO F, II (1924-25), p. 96ff. 20 D. J. Wiseman, Iraq, XX, op. cit., ls. 249-250. 41 See η. 12 above.

KANDALANU IN BABYLON AND BEL-IBNI

109

that had been ruled by Shamash-shum-ukin, continued to see Babylonia ruled as Esarhaddon had willed. If, before the rebellion, some Babylonians thought that Shamash-shum-ukin and Ashurbanipal were equals, now they had no doubt that Ashurbanipal was their true overlord. This, then, may be the reason why more business documents from the South begin to be dated to the regnal year of the Assyrian king; in any event, it is clear that most transactions are dated to him in those areas which he held during the war. Ashurbanipal summoned the Babylonians, and the nobles of Babylon and Borsippa went to greet the Assyrian king and declare their joy that affairs in their cities were once again normal. In Babylon, the sacrifices to Marduk continued as in former days.22 Probably at the Spring festival of 647/646 B.c., Kandalanu held the hands of the god Marduk and became the legal king of Babylon. After the defection to Shamash-shum-ukin of Sin-tabni-usur, the governor of Ur, Ashurbanipal filled the post with another of Ningaliddina's sons, Sin-balatsu-iqbi. Ashurbanipal may have been convinced that circumstances had forced Sin-tabni-usur to desert; or, perhaps he discovered that Sin-tabni-usur was not characteristic of the house of Ningal-iddina. The citizens of Ur had written the king after the flight of their governor praising the latter's loyalty to Assyria. This, together with the possibility that Sin-tabni-usur may not have been warmly welcomed at Babylon, may have caused Ashurbanipal to have no qualms about giving his brother the governorship.23 Sin-balatsu-iqbi was appointed governor of Ur probably in 649 B.c., despite rumors about him which circulated before the outbreak of the Babylonian rebellion. He was, in all probability, a wealthy man, for long since, when Ashurbanipal was still crown prince, he sent one mina of gold to a member of the royal household.24 The future building restorations of Ur may in some way have been connected with his wealth. He distinguished himself in the defense of the South, captured 500 of the enemy and gave them to Natanu, king of the Tamudi (?) who must have been pro-Assyrian since Ashurbanipal had favored his appointment. 25 22

ABL, 971 ; Pfeiffer, 225. RCAE, III, p. 271. ABL, 1274, op. cit. ; Pfeiffer, 19, is a letter from the citizens of Ur to Ashurbanipal. ABL, 1236, rev. 1 ff. "Before the king of Akkad he (Sin-tabni-usur) beseeches (?)". 24 ABL, 445; Pfeiffer, 130. 25 ABL, 839; Pfeiffer, 16. A letter from Nabu-bel-shumate to Ashurbanipal in which he reports on the activities of Sin-balatsu-iqbi. The military endeavors of the latter must have occurred at the very beginning of Shamash-shum-ukin's rebellion in order to be mentioned by Nabu-bel-shumate, presumably before his flight.

23

110

KANDALANU IN BABYLON AND BEL-IBNI

One of the great builders in the history of Ur was Sin-balatsu-iqbi and almost all that is known about him comes from discoveries made in that city. He restored a number of public buildings which had received scant attention since the days of Kurigalzu, about seven centuries prior to his own governorship. Several inscriptions record the buildings erected which he dedicated for the life of his Assyrian overlord. His work, presumably, began soon after the collapse of the Babylonian revolt, at which time he was able to direct his full attention to building activities because he did not have to be involved in warlike exploits. He relates that all the buildings he repaired were in ruin, probably as a result of the damage the city had suffered during the war years from the attacks of near-by tribes. He also relates that the city's ziggurat had not been repaired since the time of Shulgi, the second king of the Third Dynasty of Ur. According to Sin-balatsu-iqbi, he rebuilt the ziggurat; excavations have revealed that he repaired at least the top stages, but the later rebuilding of the structure undertaken by Nabonidus has made it impossible to see the exact extent of Sin-balatsu-iqbi's repairs.26 It is also probable that Sin-balatsu-iqbi rebuilt the Giparu. Evidence for this is provided by the character of the mud brick used in the second level of the Giparu, measurements of baked bricks, and the fact that Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian figurines date to the Assyrian period, and thus probably to the time of Sin-balatsu-iqbi's governorship.27 Another of his building accomplishments was the entrance to the É.DUB.LAL. MAH, which was situated at the east corner of the ziggurat terrace.28 In this same location Sin-balatsu-iqbi found an ancient temple of Ningal in ruins, also said to be untouched since the time of Kurigalzu. This temple too, was rebuilt, but its main ground plan differed from that of the Kassite, even though the outer walls followed the line of the earlier ones. Thirteen cones were found on the spot where the statue of Ningal had originally stood. Sin-balatsu-iqbi made a new image and installed it in the temple, later rebuilt by Nabonidus. 29 Except for the governor's 26

C. J. Gadd and L. Legrain, VET, Part I, Royal Inscriptions XXIV (London, 1928), nos. 168, 170. 27 P. N . Weadlock, "The Giparu at Ur, A Study of the Archaeological Remains and the Related Textual Material", unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Oriental Institute, University of Chicago (1958), p. 27. 28 The door to the É.DUB.LAL. M A y was decorated with copper, gold, and silver, and turned upon a green serpentine block in the form of a coiled snake (The Royal Inscriptions of Ur, op. cit., no. 169, Pl. V; Gadd, History and Monuments ..., p. 223 and pi. 31. 29 For the building activities of Sin-balatsu-iqbi, see C. L. Woolley, "Excavations at Ur, 1924-1925", AJ, V (1925), pp. 358-59, 368, which reports the discovery of Sin-

KANDALANU IN BABYLON AND BEL-IBNI

111

building activities, very little information exists concerning the city of Ur during the post-war years until it fell to Nabopolassar. A second personage of importance during these years was Bel-ibni, who had a distinguished career in the protection of the Sea Land during Shamash-shum-ukin's rebellion, the wars with Elam, and subsequently. In May, 650 B.c., after the escape of Nabu-bel-shumate, Ashurbanipal appointed him governor of the Sea Land. It will be recalled that the governorship had apparently been previously promised by Ashurbanipal to Bel-ibni's father, Nabuchadnezzar, who seemingly died during Naid-Marduk's lifetime and that when Ashurbanipal appointed Nabu-bel-shumate, Bel-ibni, as Nabuchadnezzar's natural heir, felt mistreated.30 When Nabu-bel-shumate ran away, Bel-ibni finally received the long awaited position. In a letter dated the 5th of Ayyaru, 650, Ashurbanipal informed the Sea Landers of Bel-ibni's appointment.31 It has hitherto been assumed that Bel-ibni was the son of a Nabuchadnezzar who sent a message to the Assyrian king dealing with the affairs of the temple at Borsippa, which was, then, the family home.32 This is scarcely tenable. There is no more reason to believe Bel-ibni the son of this Borsippa official than to see him the son of a Nabuchadnezzar who, from Uruk, addressed the king at a time when Nabu-bel-shumate was still governor.33 balatsu-iqbi's cones. They were set upright in a bed of bitumen in holes under the sanctuary's pavements (Woolley, ibid., 11. XXV, 1). These cones carry dedicatory inscriptions to Ningal. A number of Sin-balatsu-iqbi's stamped bricks were found on the upper casing of the courtyard well. These inscriptions record the dedication of eightchapels or statue bases to various subordinate gods. Sin-balatsu-iqbi's unstamped bricks, identified by their size, were found in pavement III of the southwest annex. F o r the É.DUB.LAL.MAIJ see Woolley, ibid., pp. 377, 388,390, Pl. XL1. Also see Woolley, AJ, III (Oct., 1923), no. 4, pp. 311 if., p. 324, Pis. XXIX, XXXIII, U3-5, U304. 30 ABL, 1106. A letter from Nabu-ushabshi to Ashurbanipal in which he relates Bel-ibni's dissatisfaction and abusive words presumably against Ashurbanipal, which Nabu-ushabshi asks his lord to ignore. Rev. 1. 12, "he is a liar" does not refer to Bel-ibni since prior to that phrase, his name had not been mentioned. (HA, p. 454). 31 ABL, 289. 32 HA, p. 453, which states that the Nabuchadnezzar of ABL, 858 ; Pfeiffer, 227, is the father of Bel-ibni, that the letter had originated from Borsippa, and therefore, that Bel-ibni's family was from Borsippa. 33 ABL, 858. The Nebuchadnezzar who is the sender of this letter, mentioned the affairs of the temple of Tashmetum, the consort of Nabu, which may indicate that the letter originated in Borsippa. But it is difficult to conclude upon such evidence that this Nabuchadnezzar was Bel-ibni's father, or that Borsippa was the home city of Bel-ibni's family. The other Nabuchadnezzar's letter (ABL, 859) deals with affairs in U r u k and the style of the text differs from that of the first letter sent when Nabu-bel-shumate was governor. As has been mentioned above, Bel-ibni's father died prior to Nabu-bel-

112

KANDALANU IN BABYLON AND BEL-IBNI

Among the witnesses to a document dated to the fifteenth year of Shamash-shum-ukin, and drawn up at Nagitu by Nabu-bel-shumate, is Shamash-iddina, doubtless the son of that Bel-ibni who was the later governor of the Sea Land. This may suggest that Bel-ibni, prior to his appointment, had resided in Nagitu; it also suggests that the families of Nabu-bel-shumate and Bel-ibni were from the same city. The fact that Shamash-iddina's name appears among the witnesses also intimates that Nabu-bel-shumate and Bel-ibni were on good terms during the governorship of Naid-Marduk. 34 The beginning of hostilities between Nabu-bel-shumate and Bel-ibni may be traced to the taking of Bel-shunu, Bel-ibni's brother, captive to Elam by Nabu-bel-shumate when the latter fled. Bel-shunu was a prisoner for a considerable length of time. Ashurbanipal's proclamation to the Sea Landers refers to Bel-ibni as manzaz pani, implying that he had acquired a favorable position in the Assyrian court prior to his appointment — a position which would mollify him for not being named governor of the Sea Land.35 Nabu-belshumate probably knew that Bel-ibni was to succeed him as governor of the Sea Land, which may account for his coercing Bel-ibni's brother to come with him to Elam. Many of Bel-ibni's letters to Ashurbanipal have been preserved, some from the Assyrian king to him, and one from Bel-ibni to Ashur-etil-ilani. All of these provide a considerable amount of insight into the problems and warlike activities which took place during Bel-ibni's term in office. His language reflects the direct manner of a military man who was selfsufficient, capable, and especially practical. Soon after he had assumed his post Bel-ibni apparently sent Ashurbanipal a full report of conditions in the Sea Land. The Assyrian king answered his new governor cordially: The man who loves the house of his lord, whatever he sees or hears, he immediately imparts to his lord. ... what you have written is good, in that you have informed me.36" In a message to Ashurbanipal expressing his gratitude for the governorship of the Sea Land, Bel-ibni told his lord that the favors he had received from him are even greater than those granted him by Merodach-baladan shumate's appointment, so this Nabuchadnezzar who sent a message from Uruk, could not have been the father of Bel-ibni either. 34 Delaporte, ZA, 19, pp. 386-88; BRM, I, no. 36; Delitzsch, BA, I, p. 233; Streck, pp. CVIII-CXV; HA, p. 453. 35 ABL, 289. 38 ABL, 288 ; Pfeiffer, 86.

KANDALANU IN BABYLON AND BEL-IBNI

113

(II). In this same message Bel-ibni reports an insurrection in Elam which had resulted in the murder of the Elamite king's son. Bel-ibni asked for riding horses, probably to reinforce his position. He also reported that he had gone to Kisig and met with numerous soldiers of the Sea Land, who took an oath, presumably of allegiance to Assyria. This oath was taken at the beginning of his governorship, which may indicate that Kisig had given up its neutral policy and sided with Assyria at the time when Nabu-bel-shumate had taken some of its citizens with him to Elam.37 Bel-ibni stated that Nabu-bel-shumate had transferred his possessions to the Elamite city of Hudimiri, apparently located some distance from Babylonian borders.38 Bel-ibni hastened to confiscate the posessions which Nabu-bel-shumate had left behind, and in another report he listed the ex-governor's properties which had originally come from Dilmun.39 In 649 B.C. Indabigash deposed the Elamite monarch, Tammaritu. The ex-king of Elam fled, only to be captured by Bel-ibni, who forwarded him to Nineveh along with his family and courtiers.40 Shuma, Tammaritu's nephew, apparently followed his uncle and was taken into custody by Bel-ibni, who informed Ashurbanipal that Shuma was ill, but that whenever he recovered he would forward him to Nineveh. In the same dispatch, Bel-ibni stated that Nadan, a chief of the Puqudeans, and whose area was within Assyrian territory, had exchanged oaths with Nabu-bel-shumate. The chieftain had sold fifty or sixty oxen to the escaped governor of the Sea Land and had apparently received permission for his tribesmen to cross the Elamite borders and graze their herds in the land of Ubaianat. It is evident that Bel-ibni had no jurisdiction over Nadan, for he asked Ashurbanipal to warn the Puqudu leader that: If you send anything into Elam for a price, and if a single sheep crosses over the border to the meadows of Elam, I will not let you live.41 Ashurbanipal dispatched a message of good will to the Elamite king, presumably at the time of his ascendency to the throne, and addressed him as "brother". 42 At the beginning of his reign, Indabigash appears to have 37

The loyalty of Kisig probably had later been doubted by Bel-ibni. In a letter to Ashurbanipal, the people of Kisig complained that the troops they sent to the Sea Land, presumably to aid Bel-ibni, had not been treated as well as the contingent which had been sent to Bel-ibni from Uruk. (ABL, 210). 38 ABL, 521; RCAE, III, pp. 184-85; Pfeiffer, 39. 39 ABL, 791. 40 ABL, 284; Pfeiffer, 29; Cameron, op. cit., p. 193. 41 ABL, 282; Pfeiffer, 30; HA, p. 464. 42 ABL, 1151; Cameron, op. cit., p. 193.

114

KANDALANU IN BABYLON AND BEL-IBNI

responded favorably to these overtures, but he soon adopted the policy of his predecessor and assisted Nabu-bel-shumate in attacking Assyrian territories.43 Two fragmentary letters are preserved, which if complete, would no doubt give valuable information regarding the assistance Indabigash gave to Nabu-bel-shumate.44 In an attack, Marduk-shar-usur, a general who had distinguished himself in the service of Assyria, was seized by a number of important personages including Nabu-bel-shumate's envoy, who evidently led the assault and made a slaughter in the land.45 In 649 B.c. Elam was again in political upheaval. Huban-haltash revolted and successfully gained the Elamite throne. The new monarch continued to assist Nabu-bel-shumate in his raids upon Babylonia's borders and also received Shamash-shum-ukin's deputation.46 The Elamite king's policy of helping Nabu-bel-shumate probably motivated the governors of the South to ask Ashurbanipal for military reinforcements, particularly for Nippur and Uruk. This is proven by a letter whose sender asks the Assyrian king for horses, and mentions the name of Indabigash.47 In a letter to Bel-ibni and the people of Nippur, Ashurbanipal expressed concern over the flight of an unnamed but apparently important individual. It is improbable that the Assyrian king was referring to Nabu-belshumate, since the letter was addressed to bel-ibni who had been appointed to the position after the former governor's flight.48 A similar letter was sent from Ashurbanipal to Nabu-ushabshi and the people of Uruk.4® The person referred to in this letter is very likely Sin-tabni-usur, the governor of Ur who deserted to Shamash-shum-ukin about 649 B.C.. Ashurbanipal, by sending various messages to Bel-ibni and the people of Nippur and Uruk, was probably trying to prevent Sin-tabni-usur from fleeing to Elam or to Shamash-shum-ukin. Bel-ibni attacked the Gurasimmu, an action which angered Ashurbanipal.50 He had probably waged the attack to assist Nabu-ushabshi 43

Piepkorn, Edition B, Col. VII, p. 80; Cameron, op. cit. p. 194. ABL, 1167, 1323. ABL, 963; Cameron, op. cit., p. 194; contrast Pfeiffer no. 36. For Marduk-sharusur see ABL, 960, 961 ; he was probably the Assyrian who was appointed over Susa after its destruction. (ABL, 1007). 46 ABL, 462; Pfeiffer, 41. " ABL, 622. 48 ABL, 292; RCAE, III, pp. 115-16; Pfeiffer, 35. " ABL, 297. This letter is extremely fragmentary. 50 ABL, 291 ; Pfeiffer, 202. 44 46

KANDALANU IN BABYLON AND BEL-IBNI

115

and other governors in aiding Sin-tabni-usur against the Gurasimmu. 61 It is probable that the attack by Bel-ibni occurred after the Gurasimmu had sent their protesting letter to the Assyrian king. This would then explain the condemning letter Bel-ibni received from his master.52 After this time the Gurasimmu probably joined the side of Assyria for a text reports an attack against the Puqudu and mentions the Gurasimmu. 53 This tribe's allegiance to Assyria, however, was not permanent.54 Probably in the Fall of 649 Bel-ibni was in the region of Der, advancing slowly on Elam.55 While he was occupied around Der, Nabu-bel-shumate seems to have seized the opportunity to attack the interior of Babylonia. From the poverty-stricken £Iilmu, Pillat, Gumguhu, Iashian, and Lakabra tribes, and from the Gurasimmu and one Zabidu of Ur, he hired individuals, each of whom was to receive ten gur of dates and apparently two slaves; together, they plundered two clans inside Assyrian territory and "stripped the slain". In retaliation, Bel-ibni crossed the Nar Marrat with 400 bowmen, attacked the Hilmu and the Pillat, and slaughtered several hundred of their cattle. But Bel-ibni did not regain the gods or the captives that Nabu-bel-shumate had taken with him to Elam and deposited in the city of Hupapanu, twenty hours distance from the Sea Land.56 He proudly informed his monarch that he would send the treasures he had secured in the "land" of Nahal from Admanu, the chieftain of the land Mananu, and one of Admanu's servants, an Assyrian, to Nineveh. He also sent a band of 150 men against the Elamite regions of Akbanu and 'Ale, across the Takkatap river. They captured 130 prisoners, killed many Elamite soldiers, and burned their land. In another skirmish seventeen Elamites were killed and sixty or seventy were wounded. Bel-ibni, apparently encouraged by these victories, led a force of 600 archers and fifty horsemen to confiscate 1,500 cattle belonging to the Elamite monarch and the chief of the Pillatu tribe. Part of this great pillage was forwarded »

ABL, 754. ABL, 291, Pfeiffer, 202. 63 ABL, 790. 51 The position of the Gurasimmu had been precarious. At the beginning of the Babylonian revolt they sided with Assyria, but soon they joined forces with the king of Babylon and began attacking Assyrian territories. When Sin-tabni-usur, with assistance from Nabu-ushabshi, Nurea, and Bel-ibni probably went to the aid of Sin-tabniusur later). But once again they shifted the direction of their friendship, and provided Nabu-bel-shumate with "250" men {ABL, 1000, Pfeiffer, 42). See also ABL, 1342. 65 ABL, 1063; HA, p. 167. ABL, 462, 292, Pfeiffer, 41, 46. 56 ABL, 1000; Pfeiffer, 42; Cameron, op. cit., p. 196. It is difficult to believe that Nabu-bel-shumate had indeed given two slaves to each man he hired. He may have promised, that in the case of victory, each would be entitled to two captives of the enemy's forces. 62

116

KANDALANU IN BABYLON AND BEL-IBNI

to Ashurbanipal along with a report concerning the fate of the rest.57 Bel-ibni claimed that his advance into Elam and the slaughter he made there had been responsible for the revolt of many Elamite cities against their new king, Huban-haltash. 58 It was probably at this time that Belibni ordered 500 men from the Sea Land garrison at Zabdanu to attack Elam. They marched deep into Elamite territory to a point only two double hours away from Susa, killed important personages, among whom was the chieftain of the Iashian tribe and his immediate relatives, and took 150 prisoners. The Lahiru, at the approach of the Assyrians, hastened with their chieftains to pay homage to Ashurbanipal.59 Bel-ibni then sent a message, perhaps to the Elamite monarch, asking him to surrender Nabu-bel-shumate as well as Shamash-shum-ukin's messengers who had gone to Elam to seek additional assistance.60 The king of Elam apparently agreed to surrender Nabu-bel-shumate, and Huban-shibar, the Elamite commander, may have directly contacted Ashurbanipal concerning this matter. Ashurbanipal's reply to the commander, dated the 25th of Tammuzu, 648 B.C., requested him to conduct his negotiations with Bel-ibni.61 Huban-shibar and his confederate, Bel-upahhir, forwarded a confidential letter to Bel-ibni to declare their willingness to relinquish Nabu-bel-shumate.62 In the Fall of 648 Babylon fell and negotiations over Nabu-bel-shumate temporarily ceased. After the fall of Babylon, Ashurbanipal may have forwarded his victorious armies from Babylon to Bel-ibni. We hear that at this time troops from the city of Kisig were sent to the Sea Land and that Nabu-ushabshi also led an army to the area and stationed them there for several months to guard against any possible attack from the Puqudu. 63 The purpose of these troops was probably to protect the Sea Land while Bel-ibni was away. Bel-ibni thus was able to advance into Elam. Madaktu was taken and its treasures were sent to Assyria. Tammaritu, the deposed king of Elam who had sought refuge in Assyria, was placed on the throne at Susa.64 57

ABL, 520; Pfeiffer, 43; Cameron, op. cit., pp. 196-97. ABL, 462, obv. Is. 14ff. 59 ABL, 280; Pfeiffer, 40; Cameron, op. cit., p. 198. 60 ABL, 462; Pfeiffer, 41. 61 ABL, 1170; Cameron, op. cit., p. 194. 62 ABL, 792; Pfeiffer, 46. 63 ABL, 210. The letter contains the phrase: "And now since Sin and Nirgal your gods have completely delivered your enemy into your hand", which implies that the letter must be dated to the period following Shamash-shum-ukin's revolt. ABL, 752. The army headed by Nabu-ushabshi may have been the one from Uruk which was referred to in the letter from the people of Kisig (ABL, 210). M ARAB, II, 802, Streck, II, p. 44ff. 58

KANDALANU IN BABYLON AND BEL-1BNI

117

Ashurbanipal's report of the campaign probably is a combination of Bel-ibni's activities, both alone, in his attacks upon the Elamite borders, and in conjunction with the Assyrian army which came to his assistance after the defeat of Babylonia.65 However, Nabu-bel-shumate was still alive, protected by Huban-haltash, and popular among the Elamite nobles.66 Now that Elam's power was declining, the Babylonians who had taken refuge there were probably afraid that they might be caught by the Assyrians, since it was apparent that Assyria would emerge victorious from any future war. Those who were taken from Kisig by Nabu-bel-shumate and kept prisoner in Elam sought the chance to escape.67 Nabu-ushabshi related in a message to Ashurbanipal that a certain Bel-etir and his son, Pir'-Bel, originally from Uruk, had gone to Elam ten years previously. On one occasion they returned to Uruk for a visit and "they practiced in Uruk everything that was despicable against the land of Assyria". At another date Bel-etir again went to Uruk, presumably intending to settle there permanently. He took important letters with him, whose authenticity was questioned by the governor of Uruk. The letters were then sent to Ashurbanipal. It is believed that Bel-etir had forged these letters himself, perhaps making them become recommendations which would allow him to resume residence in Uruk. 68 A short time later Tammaritu, the Elamite king, sought refuge in Assyria as the result of the activities of Huban-haltash. To put an end to the Elamite hostilities as well as Nabu-bel-shumate's border attacks, Ashurbanipal apparently ordered Bel-ibni to march against Elam. Belibni led his forces through the land of Rashi in the north and entered the cities of Bit-Imbi and Hamanu. In the meantime Huban-haltash fled from Madaktu to Talah. The Assyrian army moved down the Ulai Valley, entered Madaktu and Haltemash, and headed towards Susa. Bel-ibni reported that Nabu-bel-shumate was in the custody of Huban65

ARAB, II, 799-804; Cameron, op. cit., p. 197 seems to make this campaign solely the work of Bel-ibni and his fellow governors. This, however, would have been an extremely great accomplishment on the part of the governors, for they would have necessarily been dependent upon their own militias, part of which had to remain in their cities to repulse unexpected attacks and keep internal order. 66 ABL, 281 ; Pfeiffer, 44; Johnston, J AOS, XVIII, no. 2; Cameron, op. cit., p. 202. Bel-ibni reports to Ashurbanipal concerning the various methods employed by Nabubel-shumate to gain popularity among Elamite nobles and officials. Nabu-bel-shumate was apparently buying security by a discreet use of money and he reportedly gave freely to his followers. «' ABL, 210. ββ ABL, 266; Pfeiffer, 194.

118

KANDALANU IN BABYLON A N D

BEL-IBNI

haltash, who might be persuaded to give the fugitive to Assyria in return for Ashurbanipal's sealed order of absolute pardon. 69 Early in 646 the Assyrians utterly ruined Susa, tore down the temple of Inshushinak and sent its god, along with other gods, to Assyria. The entire country was devastated, and the Elamite king's family, together with much booty, was sent to Assyria. Thus, Susa, "the mound which strikes terror" had been destroyed. Excavations undertaken late in the last century at Susa and more recently at Tchoga Zanbil, give evidence that the utter destruction and desolation referred to by the Assyrian monarch was not hollow boasting.70 In this way Ashurbanipal settled an issue of long standing, and caused Elam immeasurable damage. Huban-haltash returned to the desolation of Madaktu and informed Bel-ibni that Nabu-bel-shumate was with him. Ashurbanipal's letter arrived and so Huban-haltash prepared to relinquish the fugitive to the approaching Assyrian soldiers. Preferring death to the wrath of Ashurbanipal, Nabu-bel-shumate had his shield-bearer slay him. Thus came to an end the life of the man who had created so many complexities in Assyria's relationship with Elam. But Huban-haltash, intent upon fulfilling his part of the transaction, had the body packed in salt and dispatched to Nineveh around Tishritu, 646, where Ashurbanipal apparently mutilated the corpse.71 The fragmentary remains of a letter to Ashurbanipal probably from Bel-ibni indicate that Marduk-shar-usur was appointed temporary prefect in Elam and that the statue of the goddess Nana, probably carried to Elam 500 years earlier by Kudur-Nahhunte, had been returned to ··

ABL, 1286; Cameron, op. cit., p. 209; Klauber, AJSL, XXX, pp. 245-46. See Cameron, op. cit., p. 206-07, nos. 71, 72; the site of Dur-Undasi has been identified with that of Tchoga Zanbil (see R. Ghirshman, "Troisième Campagne de fouilles à Tchoga-zanbil près de Suse Rapport Préliminaire", Arts Asiatiques, Tome I, 1954 fas. 2, p. 83). For the destruction by Ashurbanipal see R. Ghirshman, "The Sacred Bull of Tchoga Zanbil, Destroyed in 640 B.C. and N o w Repaired", ILN, 235 (Sept. 26, 1959), no. 6269, p. 319, where he relates that in the pillage caused by the campaign of Ashurbanipal, precious metal objects were taken and everything not of metal was pitilessly destroyed. The great bull of glazed terra-cotta which guarded one of the entrances of the ziggurat was shattered into fragments. See R. Ghirshman, "Nouveaux Travaux à la Ziggourat de Tchoga-Zanbil, près de Suse," RA, 46 (1955), pp. 63-67; "The Ziggurat of Choga-Zanbil", Archaeology, 8 (1955), pp. 260-63; "Travaux de la Mission archéologique en Susiane en hiver 1952-1953, (Tchoga ZanbilSuse)", Syria, 30 (1953), pp. 222-33. ,0

71

For the death of Nabu-bel-shumate, see ABL, 1284; ARAB, II, 815. The letter of of the Elamite king to Ashurbanipal which concerns the surrender of Nabu-bel-shumate is dated the 26th of Tammuzu, the eponymate of Nabu-shar-aheshu, 646 B.C. TWO and one-half months is a reasonable length of time for Ashurbanipal to receive the letter and send a deputati on after the Chaldaean prince. {ABL, 879).

KANDALANU IN BABYLON AND BEL-IBNI

119

72

Uruk. The return of the image probably took place in Ayyaru, 646. Ashurbanipal perhaps had ordered the people of Uruk to observe a day of lamentation on the day of the goddess' return and the nobles of Akkad to observe a day of lamentation a month later. The lamenting was to please the goddess who, upon returning, accompanied by the goddess Usur-matsa, would find her people mourning her absence. Then her arrival would turn their unhappiness into joy. 73 While there are very few letters preserved relating to Bel-ibni's last years, one had evidently been addressed to Ashur-etil-ilani, Ashurbanipal's heir (as a reference to "the king's father" suggests),74 and is almost identical with another written by him to a general during Ashurbanipal's lifetime.75 Both demonstrate that Bel-ibni had been the target of accusations near the end of Ashurbanipal's reign, the accusers being people from Elam. Bel-ibni confesses that he had been afraid to see the king, apparently because he feared punishment. However, Ashurbanipal must have disregarded the gossip, for Bel-ibni continued in his post through the first part of Ashur-etil-ilani's reign. Shortly afterwards Bel-ibni probably died, for the governorship was given to Nabopolassar.76 The area of Babylon and its vicinity continued to be ruled by Kandalanu. Even though there are few inscriptions from his reign, it still seems unusual that none of them mention him personally.77 The absence of 72

ABL, 1007; Cameron, op. cit., p. 209. ABL, 518 ; HA, p. 488. Ashurbanipal's letter is dated the 24th of Ayyaru, 646 B.C. The text states that the goddess was accompanied by the goddess Usurmatsa. In ARAB, II, 812, Ashurbanipal mentions the later return of the statue of Nana which occured after the fall of Susa. The Assyrian King gives the years of captivity as 1,635, but this is apparently an exaggeration. In ARAB, II, 919-920 Ashurbanipal relates that he had asked Huban haltash to return the statue of Nana, but the latter apparently rejected the demand at the time (ARAB, II, 926, rev. 1. 16). The number of years given to Nana's sojourn by Ashurbanipal is 1,635 (ARAB, II, 926), and also as 1,535 (ARAB, II, 941). It is certain, however, that substitute images of the goddess Nana and other deities which had been taken to Elam, were placed in their temples. When the statue of Marduk had been returned to Babylon in Ayyaru, 668/667 B.C., the statues of both Nana and Usuramatsa, which supposedly were in Elam, were placed on the river bank to welcome the god when he arrived (ARAB, II, 989; PEA, Prism of Ashurbanipal, Col. II, Is. 1-6). 74 ABL, 793. 75 ABL, 283; Pfeiffer, 201. 76 Schnabel, op. cit., p. 271. 77 A text from Babylon, dated to 639 B.C., deals with building activities in Babylon: E. Nassouhi, "Prism d'Assurbanipal daté de sa Trentième année provenant du temple de Gula à Babylone", AOF, II, op. cit., pp. 96-106. The editor has taken it as evidence that Ashurbanipal is to be identified with Kandalanu, but he has neglected the fact that throughout the text, Ashurbanipal never claims the title "king of Babylon", but only "king of Assyria". (Col. VIII, 1. 15). Contrary to Nassouhi's conclusion, the text supports the theory that Ashurbanipal and Kandalanu were not the same person. 73

120

KANDALANU IN BABYLON AND BEL-IBNI

such inscriptions may imply that Ashurbanipal assumed complete authority over the entire state of Assyria, including Babylonia. We have seen that he previously claimed to have appointed Shamash-shum-ukin to the throne of Babylonia, but that this was in accordance with his father's wishes. He now had no reason to boast of appointing Kandalanu to the Babylonian throne because he was installed just as was any other vassal of the empire. This may account for the fact that, after 648 B.C., Ashurbanipal never mentions Kandalanu. During Kandalanu's reign, building and restoration probably occurred in Babylon, for, as we have observed, there is evidence that Babylon's temples had been damaged. The temples of Nergal at Borsippa, the Ezida, and the temple of Gula at Babylon were probably restored. 78 As shown by business documents, Kandalanu continued to rule in Babylon until 627 B.c.79 but he may have died a year prior to Nabopolassar's ascendency to the Babylonian throne in Marcheswan, 626, and probably during the Fall of 627 B.C., since business documents then started to bear the date "after Kandalanu".

' 8 E. Nassouhi, op. cit. The text dated to 639 B.C. reports rebuilding activities m Babylonia, but includes some buildings which had been restored early in the reigns of Ashurbanipal and Shamash-shum-ukin. " Langdon, J RAS, 1928, p. 322, 4; Oppert, CR, 26, 1898, p. 418.

VI T H E S T R U G G L E OVER BABYLONIA

Because of the scarcity of sources the situation which existed toward the end of Ashurbanipal's reign and at the beginning of his successor's reign is, unfortunately, shrouded in mystery. The Annals, which have been our main source for the reign itself, do not go beyond the year 636 B.C.. It is true that during the last years there were no warlike activities to record, but this does not seem sufficient cause for the little information that has come to us. The reason may, perhaps, be found in matters directly involving the monarch (such as illness), of which, however, there so far exists no knowledge. Ashurbanipal probably died sometime after Simanu 631 B.C., for the last known document dates to his thirty-eighth year.1 Business documents from the north have been preserved in considerable number, but since they date by the eponymate it is impossible to gain any information concerning the date of his death, since we do not know the eponym in whose term Ashurbanipal died. A single tablet which seems to bring a glimmer of light to these dark years is a charter of a land grant from Ashur-etil-ilani to Sin-shum-lishir. The inscription appears to suggest that Ashurbanipal died a natural death, and mentions one Nabu-rihtu-usur (probably the same person who was recorded earlier as selling his daughter by proxy for sixteen shekels of silver). The latter presumably acquired the assistance of Sin-shar-ibni, a high Assyrian official, and then attempted togain the throne. But Sin-shum-lishir, the rab shaqi, or the general who had perhaps been attached to Ashur-etil-ilani since the prince's boyhood, may 1 CCK, p. 92 mentions a tablet which is dated the 20th of Simanu, 631 B.C. The phrase used by Ashur-etil-ilani regarding his father's death is: il-li-ku nam-mu-si-su. Previously the phrase had been read: il-li-ku NAM mu-si-su (which simply would mean "his nocturnal death"). Borger ("Mesopotamien in den Jahren 629-621 V. Car.", WZKM, 55 (1959), p. 69 ff.) draws attention to the fact that this term was usually used to denote the fate of an enemy.

122

THE STRUGGLE OVER BABYLONIA

have assisted Ashurbanipal's natural heir in putting down the efforts of the two plotters.2 Recent excavations at Nimrud reveal that the level apparently dated to the end of Ashurbanipal's reign was damaged by conflagration and destruction; 3 quite possibly, therefore, the revolt resulted in violence done to the city. In any event, however, we may hazard the opinion that Sin-shun-lishir was successful in his endeavor, for Ashur-etil-ilani became the king of Assyria. An unusual document from Nippur dated to the accession year of Sinshum-lishir, records the loan of thirty talents of silver from the temple of Shamash to six individuals whose positions are not clearly indicated, but who were probably influential within the city. This extraordinary amount of money may very well have been a forced loan negotiated at the time Sin-shum-lishir began his efforts to frustrate the attempted usurpation. The six men referred to were probably able to obtain the specified sum under the pretext of promising to secure the city for Sin-shum-lishir in case of resistance.4 As mentioned above, it is known that in 672 B.C. Ashurbanipal's wife was pregnant. Early in his reign he reportedly was the father of more than one son, probably two; 5 these were, possibly, Ashur-etil-ilani and Sin-shar-ishkun. It has been assumed that Ashur-etil-ilani was probably quite young at the time he ascended the throne, and the assumption has been based solely on the phrase,"(my) father did not rear me" which occurs in one of his inscriptions.6 The phrase, however, seems to have been a stereotype.7 2 ADD, IV, 807, partially reconstructed by Borger, WZKM, 55 (1959), op. cit., η. 36. ADD, II, 307; HA, p. 627; ADD,IV, 807, p. 217, Is. 7-12. cf. Olmstead, loc. cit. 3 M. Mallowan, "The Excavations at Nimrud", Iraq, XVI (1956), p. 60ff. (Level III). 4 A. Clay, BE, VIII, part 1, no. 141. Dubberstein ( J N E S , III, p. 41, n.) suggested that the name be read Sin-shar-ishkun. A. Leo Oppenheim read the tablet however (see the same n.), and the name is quite certain. Sayce, in his comment on this document in the editorial notes to Maspero's Passing of the Empires, p. 481, suggested that Sinshum-lishir was the predecessor of Sin-shar-ishkun. Olmstead, HA, p. 627, assumed that Sin-shum-lishir was dissatisfied with the land grant he had received as a gift from Ashur-etil-ilani, revolted, and for a short time was acknowledged as king in Sippar. 5 D. J. Wiseman, "The Vassal Treaties ..." op. cit., Is. 249-250; ABL, 9, rev. Is. 6-7. 6 ADD, IV, 807; see above n. and cf. Borger, WZKM, op. cit., p. 72. ' In one of Ashurbanipal's prayers (Sidersky, "A Hymn of Ashurbanipal to the Queen of Nineveh and Arbela", JRAS (1929), pp. 772-79, obv. 1.13), it is said: "Although I knew not father and mother, in the palace unto my ... I grew up, even I." In ABL 926, a letter from Ashurbanipal to the Babylonians, obv. 1 . 1 3 occurs the phrase: "father and mother did not rear me." Additional support for the fact that Ashur-etil-ilani was not a minor when he ascended the throne is that during his reign he had male children (E. Ebeling, "Eine Weihinschrift

THE STRUGGLE OVER BABYLONIA

123

Ashur-etil-ilani had evidently been appointed crown prince sometime prior to 660 B.C., for documents which date to that and the following years mention people who bear the titles mükin-apäti and shalshu of the crown prince.8 The date of Sin-shar-ishkun's succession is not known, and had been the subject of much discussion.9 Documents dated to his reign have been discovered at various Babylonian sites.10 Ashurbanipal had apparently chosen his successor sometime prior to 660 B.c.. As mentioned above, it was probably understood that if Shamash-shum-ukin died leaving no male heir, one of Ashurbanipal's sons would be the candidate for the Babylonian throne. Thus Ashurbanipal's other son (Sin-shar-ishkun) was perhaps destined to succeed his uncle as king of Babylonia, if the latter died leaving no male heir, and presumably, if Ashurbanipal was not alive. A prayer of Shamash-shumukin, cited earlier, "to him who is not worthy you gave a male heir" may support this view. Since Ashurbanipal was still living when Shamashshum-ukin died without a male heir, the Assyrian king was free to appoint whomever he wanted to the position. Hence it seems probable that when Shamash-shum-ukin died, Kandalanu was placed on the Babylonian throne to rule until his own death and then to be succeeded by one of Ashurbanipal's sons. Prior to his death in 631 B.C., Ashurbanipal had perhaps settled the matter of succession in the same manner his father had done : Ashur-etililani, the crown prince, was to succeed him on the throne of Assyria; Sin-shar-ishkun, upon the death of Kandalanu, was to be king in Babylon. Thus the will of Esarhaddon would have been adopted by Ashurbanipal: one son of the reigning Assyrian king would, as king of Assyria, be the real master, but a second son would continue to be king of Babylon. In the present instance, however, as during the troubled times of Shamashshum-ukin's revolt, Babylonia was no real unity; Babylon and its environs formed one portion, but Nippur, the Sea Land, and other areas were more strongly attached to Assyria than to Babylon proper. Ashurbanipal may, therefore, have willed the latter region to that princely fur Marduk", An. Or., 12, pp. 71-73,1.13 (a prayer for Ashur-etil-ilani's male children). Early in Ashurbanipal's reign he had at least two sons, of whom Ashur-etil-ilani was probably the eldest. (ABL, 9). 8 ADD, III, 440, 444, 445. * For references see W. Dubberstein, JNES (1944), p. 41. The author concluded that the reign of Sin-shar-ishkun began in 629 B.C. 10 The following table presents the business documents dated to the rival kings in Babylonia from the death of Ashurbanipal until the accession of Nabopalassar

THE STRUGGLE OVER BABYLONIA

124

CN J3 δ

| νm ΰΖ e'S vo rt „ ce · ss c , U

BO •O ri 5 M 'Ξ ce ce , ·

«

Q. O,

c tq a 09 o 3 g J3 > C

is. U s a «s o t i te

.as 00 CU V» ca Oh —\ vj m Ö x¡ u a oy ¡π •a Λ o

126

THE STRUGGLE OVER BABYLONIA

son who would, upon Kandalanu's death, become king of Babylon. This theory is here tentatively adopted, therefore : that Ashur-etil-ilani ascended his throne sometime after June, 631, and in Ayyaru, 630 began his first regnal year;11 at about the same time Sin-shar-ishkun was probably sent south to rule in the area which was strongly held by Assyria, making his capital at Nippur. Business documents dated to the reigns of Ashur-etil-ilani and Sinshar-ishkun have been found in most Babylonian cities, but the majority of those not from Babylon itself derive from cities which were not under Kandalanu's jurisdiction. Seemingly, the situation was similar to that which existed during Ashurbanipal and Shamash-shum-ukin's joint kingship prior to the latter's rebellion. However, it now seems clear that Kandalanu, Ashur-etil-ilani and Sin-shar-ishkun began struggling and claiming each other's territory. It is quite likely that as soon as Sin-sharishkun reached the South, he declared his independence and claimed authority over the entire state of Assyria since he boasted of the title "king of Assyria". Some scholars have assumed that Sin-shar-ishkun had been called by the name Ashur-etil-ilani. It is true that documents are dated to the reigns of both Sin-shar-ishkun and Ashur-etil-ilani simultaneously, but our hypothesis disposes of the contrary assumption that the two names are necessarily to be taken as referring to the same person.12 11 The text from Babylon (see previous n.) is dated to the accession year of Sin-sharishkun. It is probable that the people of Babylon thought that Sin-shar-ishkun was destined to rule all of Babylonia; thus we find only one tablet dated after him. (Goetze, JNES, III (1944), p. 44). 12 R. Borger, WZKM, 59 (1955), op. cit., p. 68: "Assuretililani und Sin-scharischkun waren keine Bruder, es handelt sich vielmehr um zwei Namen für dieselbe Person." According to this suggestion: "Das heisst also, dass der Enkel Sinscharischkun den fünfteiligen wenig gebrauchten Thronnamen seines Grossvaters übernommen hat, diesen jedoch auf einen dreiteiligen reduzierte, indem er die letzten zwei Elemente fortliess." (Ibid., p. 69). The principal support for this view was apparently the inscription of Nabonidus' mother, in which she mentioned only Ashur-etil-ilani. If, however, the latter had been called by the name Sin-shar-ishkun also, Nabonidus' mother would surely have used that rather than the name Ashur-etil-ilani. Furthermore, the documents on which Ashur-etil-ilani's name appear do not go beyond the 4th year, 8th month of his reign, but the name of Sin-shar-ishkun continued till 612 B.C.. Borger has also assumed that one of Ashur-etil-ilani's inscriptions from Calah, which reports that the king had restored the temple of Nabu (Iraq, XII, p. 197, ND, 284; Iraq, XIV, p. 67 ; ND, 1130) is similar to the introduction of Sin-shar-ishkun's building inscriptions found at Nineveh. He also argues that Sin-shar-ishkun restored the Nabu temples at Ashur and Nineveh, and that since a land endowment document substantiates Sin-shar-ishkun's care of the temple of Nabu at Nimrud, therefore in the course of the temple restorations, Ashur-etil-ilani had changed his name to Sin-shar-

THE STRUGGLE OVER BABYLONIA

127

Perhaps in an effort to placate the Babylonian citizens who were under the rule of Sin-shar-ishkun, Ashur-etil-ilani sent the coffin of Shamashibni from Assyria to the deceased's tribal area, Dakkuri, for burial. This may have been the coffin and bones of that Shamash-ibni whom Esarhaddon carried to Assyria and killed in the latter's third year.13 Our assumption, then, is that Sin-shar-ishkun made his capital at Nippur, since Babylon was controlled by Kandalanu. Nippur, as we have seen, had been a strong military base upon which Assyria depended to maintain dominance over other parts of Babylonia. In addition, it was advantageously located, both militarily and commercially, in the center of the land, and not too far from the recently overpowered Elam. As indicated above, Bel-ibni continued as governor of the Sea Land through Ashurbanipal's reign and during the early part of Ashur-etililani's rule, but his fate is not known and he may have died or been deposed. Berossos reports that Nabopolassar was appointed governor of the Sea Land by Sin-shar-ishkun.14 Since southern Mesopotamia was under the jurisdiction of Sin-shar-ishkun, according to the hypothesis here advanced, it is reasonable to assume that he would issue the appointment of a governor for the Sea Land. It is suggestive that Bel-ibni, as well

ishkun (Borger, WZKM, op. cit., p. 70). Every king endeavored to restore the temples of the gods, including that of Nabu. Ashur-etil-ilani may have begun the restoration, but his reign, we would suggest, came to an end before the work was finished. Borger also mentions that none of the Assyrian king lists carried Sin-shar-ishkun's name; this, of course, may simply mean that the lists are not complete. Other inscriptions, however, do mention both Ashur-etil-ilani and Sin-shar-ishkun, respectively. Only once before, in the time of Esarhaddon, had the king been known by two names within Assyria. The name Ashur-etil-ilani-mukin-palia was indeed Esarhaddon's other name and was perhaps given to him at the time he became crown prince. Inscriptions from his reign bearing this name are, however, very few, belong only to the early part of his reign, and the name was never used on business documents. By contrast, the names of Ashur-etil-ilani and Sin-shar-ishkun were used concurrently for at least four and one-half years after Ashurbanipal's death. Thereafter only Sinshar-ishkun's name occurs. Were they the same person, the two names would have been used simultaneously with no sharp discontinuation in the use of one name. Thus, there seems to be no concrete evidence to support Borger's views. There are no inscriptions from this period or later to confirm his conclusions, for which such sources could be taken as a basis. Furthermore, evidence from the beginning of Ashurbanipal's reign reveals that by that time he had at least two sons, presumably with very little difference in their ages {ABL, 9 and see above). 13 A NET, p. 303, no. 2; BHT, p. 12ff.; YOS, I (New Haven), no. 43, pp. 60-62. The cylinder was discovered at Tell-Khalid, a few miles to the southeast of H[\\a\\ \ ARAB, II, 1133-1135. 14 Schnabel, op. cit., p. 271.

128

THE STRUGGLE OVER BABYLONIA

as Nabopolassar, called himself "son of nobody", 15 hence it is indeed possible that Nabopolassar was Bel-ibni's natural heir,16 and that when the father died a natural death he was succeeded by a son. A text from the Seleucid era which is doubtless a copy of an earlier tablet, states that Nabopolassar, who is called "king of the Sea Land", returned to Elam a number of ritual tablets which had been kept at Uruk.17 The use of this title may indicate that Nabopolassar declared his independence in the Sea Land prior to his assumption of the Babylonian throne in the Fall of 626 B.C.. If so, he probably took advantage of the divisive influences within the land and declared himself king of the area over which he served as governor. If this conclusion is correct there were now four kings in the Assyro-Babylonian land: Ashur-etil-ilani in the north who, at least theoretically, had broad authority over the south; Sin-shar-ishkun in Nippur; Kandalanu in Babylon; Nabopolassar in the Sea Land. The text states that Nabopolassar had plundered Uruk, which at this time was properly an Assyrian territory though under Sinshar-ishkun's jurisdiction. This, again, may indicate that soon after Nabopolassar had assumed the title "king" he began attacking areas held by his nominal master. Such activities were possibly those reported in some confusion, by Abydenus, quoted by Eusebius : When Sarocus (Sin-shar-ishkun) heard that a very great multitude of Barbarians had come up from the Sea, he sent Busalossorus (Nabopolassar) against them.18 The incident may have been the first of Nabopolassar's warlike activities against Assyria, and Sin-shar-ishkun may have sent Nabopolassar hither before he knew that the attack was actually directed by his governor of the Sea Land. Ashur-etil-ilani, king of Assyria proper, has left too few inscriptions and documents from which we may gain insight into his individual character. The remains of his palace at Nimrud suggest that he was less ostentatious than his father and grandfather had been, for, although the palace was built on a higher level than the previous palaces, it contained no reliefs such as those his ancestors had used to depict their strength and 15

Nabopolassar asserts : "In my childhood I was the son of nobody". (F. Weissbach, Babylonische Miscellen (1903), pl. 8, WVDGG, IV), Bel-ibni, in a letter to Ashurbanipal, stated: "I am... the son of nobody" (ABL, 521). Olmstead (HA, p. 633) and Gadd (History... p. 226) have assumed that Nabopolassar was Bel-ibni's son. 16 There is evidence that Bel-ibni had male heirs (ABL, 793, rev. Is. 16ff. ... "and I, my brothers, my sons, and my friends will come and kiss the feet of the king our lord". 17 Thureau-Dangin, Rituels Accadiems, op. cit., pp. 65, 80, 86, AO, 6451, rev. Is. 46ff., which reads : "According to the tablet which Nabopolassar plundered from Uruk". 18 I. P. Cory, Ancient Fragments (London, 1832), p. 64.

THE STRUGGLE OVER BABYLONIA

129

valor. This was natural since he seems to have made no conquests and most likely participated in no hunting campiagns worthy of commemoration, — a fact which may imply that he was not powerful, and therefore was incapable of maintaining the empire in the way his father had done. The palace, covering a small area, was erected with characteristically small bricks, and had extremely small rooms ; the interior bears no decorations, the ceilings are low, and the wainscotting, instead of being richly carved alabaster, consisted of roughly cut limestone slabs. If Ashur-etililani's remains reveal anything, it is the king's apparent ascetic inclination, to which may have been added a necessary economy in personal expenses and state financing.19 It is interesting that Ashur-etil-ilani should select for his restorations, a temple of Urash at Dilbat, which seems to have been neglected by all other late Assyrian, and all subsequent Babylonian, kings. He rebuilt it "with burnt brick which is the hand work of the plain, ... The "body" of that floor he made bright as the Tigris and the River (i.e., the Euphrates)".20 The discovery of this text at Dilbat, which was well within Kandalanu's area, makes it probable that the forces of Ashur-etil-ilani had attacked Dilbat and for a time held that city.21 He also is credited with presenting to Marduk, surely in Babylon, a sceptre of red gold.22 Throughout his reign, it is probable that some vassals, who had hitherto feared Assyria, seized the opportunity while Assyria had a weak monarch, to begin attacking Assyrian territories.23 Thus, Josiah, king of Judah, feeling that Ashur-etil-ilani was too weak to oppose his activities, in about 628 B.C. seems to have moved towards the coast to extend his domination over the Assyrian territory of Ashdod and settle some Judaean farmers there.24 In the third year of Sin-shar-ishkun, 627 B.c., the city of Nippur was besieged, probably by Nabopolassar. The attack, which continued through the months of Simanu, Tammuzu, Abu, Ululu, and Tishritu, must have been quite acute since people, presumably of the poor classes, 18

A. Layard, Nineveh and Its Remains, II, pp. 39ff.; Nineveh and Babylon, p. 558. S. Langdon, OECT, I (Oxford, 1923), p. 38. 21 Contrast Wiseman, Chronicles, p. 5. Texts dated to Kandalanu from Dilbat have been preserved (Langdon, JRAS (1928), p. 321, dated to his seventeenth and eighteenth years). 22 E. Ebeling, Eine Weihinschrift ..., op. cit. 23 F. Cross and D. Freedman, "Josiah's Revolt Against Assyria", JNES, XII (1955), p. 56ff. 21 J. Naveh, "A Hebrew Letter From the 7th Century B.C.", IE J, X, no. 3 (1960), pp. 129-139; cf. and contrast W. Hallo (Biblical Archaeologist, XIII (I960), no. 2, p. 61, no. 53), who dates the letter to the reign of Ashurbanipal 20

130

THE STRUGGLE OVER BABYLONIA

sold their children. The price of barley is recorded in one of the documents as being one shekel of silver for one qa, or three times higher than the price of grain during the siege of Babylon in 648.25 This would indicate that the city of Nippur was very hard pressed, even though the siege lasted only six months. Babylon's siege lasted for two years and involved the Babylonian and allied armies which were forced to retreat to the capital, as well as the citizens of the city. The Babylonian Chronicle26 reports the coming of Assyrian troops to the South, most probably forwarded by Ashur-etil-ilani to recover Nippur while it was under siege lest the city fall to Nabopolassar. On the 12th of Ululu, the Assyrian army was at the city of Shaznaku (probably to be located in the Diyala region), and set its temple on fire.27 It is here assumed that the Assyrians ravished Shaznaku and its surrounding area.28 These events apparently frightened the people of Kish, situated on the road to Nippur, since in the month of Tishriti the gods of Kish were taken to Babylon.29 We may surmise that the inhabitants of the city were evacuated at the same time. The Assyrian armies probably spent little time at Kish since Nippur was their real destination. As soon as the northern forces approached Nippur, Nabopolassar raised the siege and retreated to Uruk. The retreating army, apparently pursued by the Assyrians, fought a battle in the vicinity of Uruk, Nabopolassar's presumed base of operations and whose citizens assisted him, after which the Assyrians again withdrew to Nippur in the Fall of 627 B.C.30 The withdrawal of the Assyrian army may indicate that Sin-shar-ishkun had refused to submit his city to the forces sent by his brother. 26

The siege documents reviewed by A. Leo Oppenheim ("Siege Documents from Nippur", Iraq, XVII 1955, p. 69ff.), mention that a famine (dannätum) prevailed. Two contain the phrase "During (the time when) the gate of Nippur was closed", indicating that the city was under siege. Contrast the normal interpretation of locking up the city. The children sold were mostly girls; their prices ranged from 6 to 22 shekels. Two of the documents deal with the sale of sons (2 A T 301,2 NT 302). These siege documents deal merely with Ninurta-uballit and his two business associates, Arad-Gula and DanniNergal, who may have been only three of many who were thus engaged. M CCK, Is. 4ff. (BM 25127). 27 Ibid., obv. Is. 4-5 (BM 25127). 28 This is deduced from the fact that the Assyrian army, advancing slowly and apparently without opposition (there is no reference to such in the Chronicle), entered Shaznaku on the 12th of Ululu and yet by early Tishriti had not reached Kish. The distance between the assumed location of Shaznaku and Kish could have been covered in three days march at an average speed of two and one-half miles per hour, eight hours per day; during the intervening period, the surrounding area could be thoroughly ravished. 29 CCK, obv. 1, 6 (BM 25127). 30 Ibid., obv. Is. 8-9.

THE STRUGGLE OVER BABYLONIA

131

Early in 626 B.C. (Ayyaru) Assyrian reinforcements again marched into Babylonia.31 By this time, it appears, Kandalanu was dead, and the Assyrian purpose was probably to take over Babylon and re-establish authority there.32 Not improbably, the Assyrians had heard of an encroachment by Nabopolassar, which would account for the sending of troops so early in the year. A business document from Sippar dated to Ululu of Nabopolassar's accession year may indicate that this city had aligned itself with Nabopolassar by that time.33 The alignment of Sippar with Nabopolassar angered the Assyrians, and their forces advanced towards Babylon, probably planning to take that city and then move north to Sippar. On the 12th of Tishriti, 626, they approached Babylon, but the Babylonians repulsed their assault, inflicted a great loss upon the army, and confiscated much spoil. This victory paved the way for Nabopolassar to ascend the throne of Babylon in Marcheswan, 626 B.C. and thus began his accession year and the era of the Chaldaean dynasty.34 At the New Year festival of 625/624 B.c. Nabopolassar held the hands of Marduk and thus began his first year of reign.35 In Adaru, 626, Nabopolassar returned to Susa the gods which Ashurbanipal had probably carried off after the destruction of that city in 646 B.c. and which had since been deposited at Uruk 36 — action which was probably a gesture of gratitude to the Elamites. Warlike activities are reported for Nabopolassar's first year. On the 17th of Nisannu there was panic in Babylon, and the image of the god 31

Ibid., ob. lOv. 1. As indicated above, Kandalanu must have died in the Fall of 627 B.C.. A number of documents are dated "X year after Kandalanu", and the Babylonian Chronicle (CCK, ibid., obv. 1. 14) states that for a year there was no king in the land meaning, presumably, the year prior to Nabopolassar's ascendency to the throne, which occurred in Marcheswan, 626 B.C., but after the year of Kandalanu's death. 33 The text from Sippar is dated the 22nd of Ululu (BM 496 56, CCK, Pl. XXI, pp. 93-94). Wiseman thinks that this date may be a scribal error; if not, it means that Nabopolassar was acknowledged in Sippar two months earlier than in Babylon. 34 Parker and Dubberstein, Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C.- ... p. 9. BHT, The Chronicles of Years, p. 25, rev. Is. 4ff. gives the date of Nabopolassar as the 26th day of Marcheswan. Only twenty days after the writing of the tablet from Sippar, dated the 22nd of Ululu, the accession year of Nabopolassar, the Assyrian army was on its way to Babylon. 35 Parker and Dubberstein, op. cit., p. 9; BR, 14, from Uruk is dated the 23rd of Ayyaru of Nabopolassar's first year. A text from Babylon is dated Ayyaru 14, of his second year (VAS, VI, 3). 3 « CCK, obv. Is. 15-17, p. 50. 32

132

THE STRUGGLE OVER BABYLONIA

Shamash along with other statues of the deities of the city of Shapazu (probably located north of Sippar), were brought to Babylon. The following day the Assyrians entered Sallat, also presumably north of Sippar. The Assyrian army halted at Sallat, probably to await additional troops and information concerning Nabopolassar's preparations to meet their advance. Since the troops did not move for about two and one-half months, this apparently encouraged Nabopolassar to lead his forces in an attack upon the city. However, upon word that Assyrian reinforcements were on the way southward, he withdrew.37 Business documents alone provide the criteria for dating the extent of the reign of Ashur-etil-ilani. The last tablet is dated in the eighth month of his fourth year.38 Therefore, his reign may have ended shortly after Marcheswan, 625 B.C.. The period between Abu, 625 and Ululu 624 seems to have been one of relative peace.39 Nabopolassar was probably not yet in a position to advance upon the Assyrians who still held many Babylonian cities, whereas Assyria was now confronted with internal difficulties. Babylonian business documents at this time began to be dated solely to the reign of Sin-shar-ishkun, which probably indicates that he had become king of Assyria. There is no evidence from these years, but since Sin-shar-ishkun had clearly challenged his brother's authority in the South and bore the title "king of Assyria", it is probable that he did usurp the Assyrian throne. Additional evidence for his usurpation may indeed be found. It is known that Ashur-etil-ilani had male children ; if the order of succession, as established by Esarhaddon, had been followed, one of them would have been his successor. None of them were; it appears, therefore, that Sin-shar-ishkun was in reality an usurper. The city of Ur must have acknowledged Nabopolassar's authority in his second year, 624 B.C., for documents from Ur dated to his reign begin to appear at this time, suggesting that the people of this city had expelled the Assyrian representative and aligned themselves with Nabopolassar.40 There is, however, no evidence to suggest that he coerced the city or rendered any assistance to the citizens of Ur to rid themselves of Assyrian domination. In 624 B.C. an Assyrian army advanced into Babylonia and encamped by the Baniti canal. Since it apparently found itself in no position to defeat

37 38 39 10

Ibid., Is. 18-24, p. 52. BE, VIII, no. 5 ; BR, no. 61. CCK, rev. Is. 22-25, p. 52. H. H. Figulla, Ur Excavation Texts (London, 1949), IV, no. 56.

THE STRUGGLE OVER BABYLONIA

133

Nabopolassar, it retired to Assyria to prepare for another endeavor the following year.41 In 623 the city of Der revolted from Assyria, which thus lost an important outpost on its border as well as a significant route into the mountains of Elam. Uruk must have been strongly held by Nabopolassar until at least his third year (623 B.C.)· It is possible, however, that for a short time the city may have been lost to Assyria, for a text from Uruk is dated to the seventh year of Sin-shar-ishkun and this was the third year of Nabopolassar.42 This episode may have resulted from the activities of the Assyrian army which came South in Nabopolassar's third year, for in Tishriti of the same year, the Assyrian monarch led an army directly to Nippur, and, in all probability, attempted to gain Uruk. After the attempt failed, part of the Assyrians probably remained to strengthen the garrison at Nippur, lest it too fall to the enemy, and the king returned North with the rest of his troops. The fragmentary nature of our source makes it impossible to determine successive events; we know only that some person (perhaps someone who had attempted to replace Nabopolassar and failed), was killed after ruling 100 days.43 Nor is it known when Nippur was won by the Babylonians, but it was probably besieged when Sin-shar-ishkun withdrew to Assyria after his unsuccessful attempt against Uruk. It may be assumed that, after a fierce battle, the city fell at the end of 623 or early 622. Nabopolassar thus gained Assyria's last stronghold in southern Mesopotamia and with it Assyrian domination in the South came to an end. By 622, therefore, Nabopolassar controlled all Babylonia. Until this date his policy had been to gain the whole of southern Mesopotamia and to defend it against Assyria. The subsequent years, until the fall of Nineveh in 612, witnessed a change in his policy from the defensive to the aggressive. During these years he sought allies, assaulted Assyrian territories, and finally participated in the destruction of Nineveh.

41

CCA", rev. Is. 25-28, p. 52. See comment, p. 9 if. L. W. King, ZA, IX, pp. 398-99; J RAS (1921), p. 383; BR, no. 71. 13 Wiseman also assumed that it was probably an attempt to replace Nabopola ssar (CCK, p. 10). Another possible explanation may be that it was an attempt to rep lace Sin-shar-ishkun while absent with his forces ; his failure in Babylon and the grad ual loss of Babylonian cities may have encouraged someone to try to usurp the thro ne (CCK, Is. 38-41, pp. 52-55). "

VII S O C I A L STRUCTURE, E C O N O M Y , AND ART

As noted in the preface, the major attention in this study has been devoted to an analysis of the historical developments withing Babylonia during the reign of Ashurbanipal. It is a fact, however, that even a brief glimpse into the prevailing economic and artistic trends and the social structure of the time will add considerably to our understanding of the period in question and to that end this chapter is directed. However, the main difficulty in reconstructing the social structure, economy, and art of the period in Babylonia, is the scarcity of sources. Nevertheless, scattered examples, and other insights of information found in documents, are of considerable number and have of course been utilized. A.

SOCIAL STRUCTURE A N D ADMINISTRATION

Babylonia in this period could well be described as a melting pot of socially distinct groups. On the basis of their way of life they may be classified into three major divisions: 1) Inhabitants of large urban centers; 2) tribal communities inhabiting areas outside towns ; and 3) those who confined themselves to the swampy region.1 Owing to the religious and commercial importance of the cities, their inhabitants enjoyed a more advantageous position. Among these cities, Cutha, Borsippa, Sippar, Babylon, Nippur, Uruk, and Ur were significant religious centers, being the seats of Nergal, Nabu, Shamash, Marduk, Enlil, Ishtar, and Sin. One may assume that a vigorous priesthood attached to each of these cult centers was active in Babylonian politics. Babylonian monarchs had the right to offer sacrifices in the temples ; in times of political decline, Babylonia's actual overlords usually had this privilege.2 1 There seems to be no reference to the nomadic groups in this period, but it is difficult to assume their non-existence. 2 Shalmaneser III and Tiglath-pileser III had acquired the privileges (ARAB, I, 624,

SOCIAL STRUCTURE, ECONOMY, AND ART

135

In the Sargonid period major Babylonian cities had special exemptions which were respected by the ruling monarchs.3 The nature of these exemptions is well exemplified in an inscription of Tiglath-pileser III: The freedom of that city I have established. Its grain-levy shall not be taken, its straw shall not be taxed, its water (let) none drain off into another channel; boundary and boundary-stone let (none) seize; on the people dwelling therein, let (none) impose feudal dues or taskwork; let none send out any other man to be over them, let nobody else rule over them.4 Sargon II relates that he had established freedom from encumbrances for many Babylonian cities and thus had pacified their people: The rehabitation of Sippar, Nippur, Babylon, and Barsip I undertook. I made good the losses of all their subjects and ... I pacified the people of Der, Ur, Eridu, Larsa, Kullab. Kisig, and Nimid-Laguda.6 He called himself he "who established the freedom of Sippar, Nippur, and Babylon".6 This "freedom" had been reaffirmed by Esarhaddon: "As for the enslaved Babylonians, who had been the feudatories, the clients, of the gods Anu and Enlil, their freedom I established anew."7 In another inscription he asserts: (whoever) does away with Babylon's freedom, or tears asunder the bond (made fast) by the lord of lords, may Marduk ... look upon him in anger.8 ... Their clientship which had lapsed, which had slipped out of (their) hands, I restored. The tablet (charter) of their freedom I wrote anew." Elsewhere Esarhaddon referred to himself as he "who established the freedom of Nippur, Babylon, Borsippa, Sippar, and Der", 10 which may indicate that in the time of Sennacherib the Babylonians' exemptions had not been respected. In any event, it is clear that the people of these cities were distinguished from others by their possession of these exemptions. A letter addressed to both Shamash-shum-ukin and Ashurbanipal by the inhabitants of Babylon confirms the impression that the people of 788). At the beginning of his revolt Shamash-shum-ukin prevented Ashurbanipal from offering sacrifices at the main Babylonian temples (ARAB, II, 789). Thus the privilege apparently had political connotations. 3 See CAD, Vol. Ζ (Chicago, 1961), p. 32ff. 4 ARAB, I, 826; cf. CAD, E, p. 217, citing Unger, Bel-harran-beli-ussur, 1. 23. 6 ARAB, II, 54, 69, 92. 6 ARAB, II, 78, 92, 102, 182. ' ARAB, II, 655, 659E. 8 ARAB, II, 657. 9 ARAB, II, 659E. 10 ARAB, II, 668.

136

SOCIAL STRUCTURE, ECONOMY, AND ART

Babylon had privileges other than the freedom from encumbrances which were respected by the two monarchs during their joint reign: Since Babylon is the "bond" of (all) lands, the privilege of kidinnu-status is assured for anybody who enters it, and an allotment to λκή/ί-status is certain for any Babylonian citizen; not even a log which enters it is killed.11 Thus Babylon was apparently considered holy ground upon which bloodshed of any kind was strictly prohibited; furthermore, it appears that both men and women enjoyed these "rights". 12 Apparently each of the Babylonian cities during this period had a city assembly but the problems presented before it were, probably, merely of a judicial nature. 13 Judging from references in the letters and Annals, the areas around the urban centers consisted of distinct communities organized into tribal groups following a pattern of living that probably differed very little from that of contemporary tribal groups in Iraq. If this be so, their means of livlihood depended chiefly upon agriculture and the herding of domestic animals. In times of trouble and disorder, they often descended upon the near-by cities, causing plunder and destruction, and sometimes even appropriating their lands. 14 Each tribe lived within its own region, but members of the same tribe could acquire territory far from the regular abodes of the tribe, which may account for the fact that the same tribal name is sometimes carried by two groups whose territories were far apart. 15 The area inhabited by a tribe usually expanded or diminished according to such current circumstances as the tribe's strength and number of members. A small tribe dwelling 11

ABL, 878, obv. Ins. 9,11 ; RCAE, IV, pp. 189, 263; CAD, E, p. 261a; Pfeiffer thinks this is not what the Babylonians said of themselves, but what two alien kings, in flattery, said about the Babylonians. 12 HA, pp. 526-27. There seems no basis for the presumption that the rights were previously restricted only to men and that Shamash-shum-ukin and Ashurbanipal were responsible for their extension to include women. 13 BR, p. 146 refers to the assemblies of Babylon and Uruk; UET, IV, 200, 5 and 8 records the assemblies of Babylon and Ur; Kohler-Peiser, op. cit., II, p. 17, to the assembly of Cutha; BR, no. 85 mentioned the assemblies of Dilbat and Babylon. BR, no. 85, dated to the sixteenth year of Shamash-shum-ukin, deals with a case brought by Bel-etir against Nabu-shum-eresh. Bel-etir claimed that Nabu-shum-eresh had taken twenty-seven of his cattle and had not paid for them. Afterwards the case was raised to the assemblies of Babylon and Dilbat and the principals were sent to the water ordeal (hursänu). This indicates that one of the functions of these assemblies was judicial. 11 ARAB, II, 37, 40, 517. 16 In modern Iraq, the territory of the Al-Jubur tribe is usually in the Mosul area, but part of the tribe resides in the area southwest of Hillah. The abodes of the Al-'Azza

SOCIAL STRUCTURE, ECONOMY, AND ART

137

near a stronger and larger one would often be in danger of annexation by its more powerful neighbor. 1 6 The tribes were constantly assaulting each other. 17 Letters preserved in the royal correspondence furnish detailed information regarding intertribal contentions and their split allegiances. The third group of the Babylonian populations were the marsh dwellers. The marshes were occupied by various tribes, such as the Gambulians, the Bit-Iakin, the Puqudu, Ru'ua, Hilmu, Pillat, and others. The marsh dwellers may have been called by a specific term which, perhaps, ridiculed them just as does the modern Arabic (Iraqi dialect) Ma'dan, by which people of the area are called today; 1 8 they perhaps lived a life very similar to the modern marsh dwellers. Each tribe was headed by a chieftain k n o w n as the sharru or nasiqu, but the same title was borne by the heads of each of the many sub-tribal divisions. 1 9 It is very difficult to ascertain h o w the tribal chief was selected. D u n a n u succeeded his father, Bel-iqisha, as chieftain of the Gambulu, and following the defeat and subsequent murder of Dunanu, tribe are ordinarily in the Diyala region, but part of this tribe lives southeast of Hillah. The same conditions may be indicated for the Ur'ua tribe, which occupied the region east of the Tigris in north Babylonia, but they are also heard of in the extreme south of the country. Cf. H. W. F. Saggs, Iraq, XVI, op. cit., Letter VIII. 18 An example of this circumstance is provided by the Bit-Silani tribe, whose capital, Sarrabanu, is mentioned by Tiglath-pileser III; but in the Annals of Sennacherib, Sarrabanu is said to be one of the cities of the near-by and powerful Bit-Ammukani tribe. It can therefore be assumed that the small tribe had been absorbed by its southern neighbor. As another example the Annals of Tiglath-pileser III name Nadinu as an independent Chaldaean prince in the city of Larak, while in the Annals of Sennacherib, Larak appears as an Ammukani city; Larak was listed among the allies of Shuzu, indicating that it slipped out of the control of the Ammukani who did not support Shuzub. " E.g., ABL, 275, where the Puqudu tribe attacked the Ammukani. 18 ABL, 258; Pfeiffer, 74, a letter from Nabu-ushabshi; it states that "those people dwelling in the swamps are all called basihi (basiti)". (Of unknown meaning). This makes it probable that they were distinguished from other tribes, as is the case today. 19 The Annals of Sargon, e.g., indicate that the Puqudu had five nasiqus the Gambulu, eight, the Hindaru, four, and the Ru'ua, one (see Streck, MVAG, XI (1906), no. 3, p. 203 ff). Later, Bel-iqisha is the only "sheikh" of the Gambulu ever mentioned, and we must assume that he was the head. The Gambulu tribe apparently was composed of two clans, the Urbe and the Tebe; cf. ARAB, II, 788. Most of the tribes of today, particularly the larger ones, consist of many sub-tribes, each under its own chief who is called sheikh. All of these chiefs regard themselves as being under the jurisdiction, at least theoretically, of the chief of the entire tribe who is also called sheikh. The Shammar tribe, for instance, consists of numerous subtribes, each having a sheikh who is under one head sheikh, who is usually of the AlYawir family. There is only one exception, and that is in the Rabi'a tribe in the Kut province; there the sheikh of the entire tribe is called amir (prince).

138

SOCIAL STRUCTURE, ECONOMY, AND ART

the Gambulians very likely selected a member of Bel-iqisha family for the position.20 The pleasure of the Gambuli at the appointment of Rimutu may have been expressed in the phrase "let him bind the land" contained in their letter to Ashurbanipal. His assumed blood relationship with Bel-iqisha's family may be the reason the Gambulians sought Ashurbanipal's approval for the appointment. Ashurbanipal states that he desired to meet the new tribal ruler and "instruct him," in other words, to assure himself of Rimutu's political tendencies. Ashurbanipal stated in a letter to the Gambulians that he would clothe Rimutu in royal robes and set him over them. By this the new chieftain would be made to feel that Assyria was the source of his authority. It may be recalled that the chieftainship of the Chaldaeans was retained by the descendants of Merodach-baladan. Since every tribe had its own district (pihätu) and chief,21 each probably possessed its own laws which its members followed. This law perhaps regulated the relationship among members of the same group as well as its associations with other tribes. The little evidence available — and, if it may be trusted, modern custom — would seem to indicate that each tribe had a council of elders, the members of which would possess seniority of age, experience, influence, and profound knowledge of the tribal law. With this council the chieftain could discuss all important matters concerning the tribe.22 The tribe, then, was a more or less cohesive unit headed by a chieftain, resided within its own territory, and probably possessed its own body of laws and way of life. A tribe's allegiance would be first and foremost to its chieftains, rather than to the state authorities or to the king, and to the doctrine rather than to official state regulations. Its loyalty to the central 20

ABL, 293, a letter from Ashurbanipal to the Gambulians which indicates that the Gambulians had desired to have Rimutu as their new chieftain. Cf. Oppenheim, J AOS, GI (1941), p. 264; ABL, 915. 21 BR, no. 14° from Uruk dated to the first year of Nabopolassar, mentions Bit-Kina as a part of the Bit-Dakkuri district. Ibid., Col. II, dated to the first year of Nabopolassar, also mentioned Dur-Sha-Barihi as a part of the Bit-Dakkuri district. Ibid., Col. V, dated to the seventh year of Kandalanu records Bit-Kina as situated in the district of Bit-Rahe, presumably another tribe around Uruk. 22 ABL, 517 (Pfeiffer, 82), a letter dated 650 B.C. (see discussion above) which appears to be Ashurbanipal's last attempt to bring the Ammukani to the side of Assyria during Shamash-shum-ukin's rebellion. Ea-zer-kisha, whose sons were captured after the fall of Babylon in 648 B.C., is mentioned along with the "elders" of the Bit-Ammukani tribe. It seems very likely that Nabu-ushabshi, Ashurbanipal's governor at Uruk, in attempting to secure the allegiance of the Ammukani, talked to Ea-zer-kisha, who probably was their chief, and the elders of the tribe. This may indicate that the chief and the elders were responsible for decisions affecting the entire tribe.

SOCIAL STRUCTURE, ECONOMY, AND ART

139

government therefore was only secondary and indirect through its chieftain, and herein, we may assume, was the great danger to state security. Tribesmen would obey their chieftains in preference to any other authority ; therefore, any dissatisfaction of these leaders with the state would eventually lead to their tribesmen's insubmission to government authority. This situation would create, of course, a disunited nation of diversified groups, each following its o w n leaders and laws. Babylonia was divided into several administrative districts, k n o w n as pihätu ( N A M ) , which were independent units with their governments functioning directly under the king. The administrative units of the Assyrian empire are known, and Babylonia was divided into fifteen administrative provinces : 23 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Babylon ... Barsip, Bursip Nippur, Cutha Uruk, TE-UNOG-KI Larak, Larsa Ur, Kullab Sippar, Dilbat

9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

BI-BI-DA-KI uru Sahrina uru Apshu, ^ U p i EVidu, Dilmun 24 Kisik, Kassura Isin, Ishshakku Der, kur Itu'a kur Labadudu, kur Iasubu

23 E. Forrer, Die Provinzeinteilung des assyrischen Reiches (Leipzig, 1920), Col. IV, pp. 50, 100, 101. In the time of Ashurbanipal, the city of Eridu probably came under the authority of the governor of Ur. Sin-balatsu-iqbi referred to himself as the governor of Ur and Eridu {Ur Royal Inscriptions, op. cit., nos. 170 and 173). Lahiru and Arrapha in this period also were still the southern boundary provinces of the Assyrian empire. 24 The location of Dilmun has been a subject of controversy among scholars. One group located it along the eastern shore of the Persian Gulf as far as and including the islands of Bahrain (so Jensen, Poebel, and Langdon). A second group identified Dilmun with the Bahrain islands (so Albright, Landsberger, and Burrows). S. N. Kramer ("Dilmun, the Land of the Living", BASOR, 96 (1944), proposed that Dilmun was located somewhere to the southwest of Iran. In a challenging article P. B. Cornwell ("On the Location of Dilmun", BASOR, 103 (1946), p. 3ff.) proved beyond doubt that Dilmun is the Bahrain islands. A. Leo Oppenheim (JAOS, 74 (1954), op. cit.), basing his arguments mainly on economic sources, also established that Dilmun is to be identified with the Bahrain islands. Assyrian sources made it clear that Dilmun is located south of the region of Bit-Iakin (RLA, II, p. 43; Delitzsch, Wo lag..., op. cit., p. 203). As pointed out by Cornwell, a distinction ought to be made between the mythological and legendary Dilmun and the actual Dilmun, which is definitely the Bahrain islands; Geoffrey Bibby, Four Thousand Years Ago (New York, Alfred A. Knopf, 1963), p. 44 if. For the excavations done at Babran see P. V. Glof, "The Prosperity of Bahrain Five Thousand Years Ago: solving the riddle of the 100,000 Burial Mounds of the Island", ILN, 232 (Jan. 4, 1958), pp. 14-16; Geoffrey Bibby, Excavating a Bahrain Citadel of 5,000 years ago; and (Seal) links with us and Mohenjo-Daro ILN, 232 (Jan. 11, 1958), pp. 54-55. P. V. Glob and G. Bibby, "A Forgotten Civilization of the Persian Gulf", Scientific American, Vol. 203 (Oct. 1960) No. 4 pp. 62-71.

140

SOCIAL STRUCTURE, ECONOMY, AND ART

While this list cites the divisions for the time of Tiglath-pileser III, there is no evidence to indicate that they changed subsequently; the list will therefore be understood to name the provinces at the time of Ashurbanipal. The name of the first province is not preserved but may be the one north of modern Baghdad which, with Kar-Ashur as its capital, was incorporated into Assyria during the first campaign of Tiglath-pileser III. The province names on line 2 of the list (following Babylon) is also missing, but Akkad may well be the name of the city to be restored. Line 3 has Borsippa and Bursip, the latter which could possibly be another name for the same city, or a reference to a particular part of it. Thereafter the list includes two cities in each unit, i.e., Nippur and Cutha, Larak and Larsa, Ur and Kullab, etc. It may be that each of these two cities were the largest and important ones within the province and that the entire area could not justifiably be named for only one of them. In addition, some of the cities mentioned are not recorded anywhere else, such as Apshu, Ishshakku, and TE-UNUG-KI. The city of Kassura definitely refers to that represented by the ruins of Abu-Hatab. But Kassura, as excavations have shown, was not inhabited in the period under discussion; perhaps a city was built near the ancient Kassura and took its name. The province of Der is mentioned for the first time in the third year of Shalmaneser IV.25 The last is that of Labadudu, which was situated in northern Babylonia and extended south to include Dur Kurigalz, which also had been incorporated by Tiglath-pileser III early in his first campaign. The province had also included parts of Media. The provinces are not arranged in geographical order, although it begins in this manner,

The placing of Dilmun and Eridu together as a provincial unit on the list would mean the land extending from Eridu as far as Dilmun. This encompasses, probably, the Al-Hammar region and part of the southern marshy area which was north of the land which extended along the Persian Gulf between the Euphrates and the $arru river (Forrer, op. cit., p. 101, no. 11). Probably the whole area stated was termed the Sea Land in the time of Ashurbanipal and even earlier. The governor of the Sea Land probably had jurisdiction over Dilmun during this period. One of Bel-ibni's first actions as governor of the Sea Land was the confiscation of what Nabu-bel-shumate, his predecessor, had taken out of Dilmun. The taking of possessions from Dilmun by Nabu-bel-shumate and the confiscation by Bel-ibni may indicate that Dilmun was under their jurisdiction (ABL, 791). In another letter Bel-ibni mentioned a certain Idru who brought tribute (mandattu) from Dilmun (ABL, 458; Pfeiffer, 98; see Oppenheim's article, JAOS, 74, op. cit., p. 16-17). Dilmun might have detached itself during the period of Sennacherib, who records that part of Babylon's ashes reached Dilmun (ARAB, 1,438) and who made the people of Dilmun bring their treasures, a fact which may indicate their insubordination prior to this period. 25 VAS, 1, 70.

SOCIAL STRUCTURE, ECONOMY, AND ART

141

but directly after Ur and Kullab comes Sippar and Dilbat which are not even close geographically. In my judgment the chief official of the province was called indiscriminately shäkin, shákin-temi, or bêl-pihâti. The title shäknu "governor" {originally perhaps shäkin mäti) apparently held the office by royal appointment, and therefore took orders directly from the king and owed responsibility to him alone ;26 the monarch could dislodge or transfer him from one province to another. The duties of the shäknu were to put the orders of his monarch into practice, to keep his province peaceful and well-defended, and to officiate at the signing of land transactions rendering the sale document legal.27 At a lesser administrative level appears the hazánu, the "mayor" of a town or chief magistrate of a quarter of a larger city. The bitu may have been an extensive tribal area at the head of which was the räb bîti, who may also have been called sha muhhi bìti or sha eli bîtï,28 The resh sha bitäte may have been responsible for a group of the räb bítis of a certain area.29 Villages probably were placed under an official who bore the title sha eli äli, also sha Muhhi âlï or bèi äli. These men, in turn, were usually responsible to the räb aläni.30 A document from Sippar presents considerable information concerning the court officials of the Babylonian king.31 One of the members of the court was the sukkälu, "supervisor", "ambassador", who was the high civil official, and supervised the machinery of government; his duties may 26 On the bel-pihäti see E. Klauber, Assyrisches Beamtentum nach Briefen aus der Sargonidenzeit (Leipzig, 1910), p. 105. References from Babylonia are: ABL, 266, 272, -543, 746, 754, 771, 790, 830, 839, 846, 998, 1047, 1052, 1059, 1067, 1106, 1108, 1124, 1236, 1239. The shäknu, ABL, 238, 270, 287, 473, 540, 833, 846, 863, 965, 1215, 1244, 1431. BR, no. 37 is a document in which Ningal-iddina is called shäkin Ur. Cf. VET, IV, nos. 9, 27, 90, Sin-balatsu-iqbi is also called shakin Ur (ibid., no. 200). For the shäkin mäti, ABL, 60, 473. The association of the title shakin temi with that of bel piháti is based upon the evidence in which Nabu-ushabshi, Kudurru, and Ubaru (whom we know to have been governors of Uruk and Babylon) were called shäkin temis on business documents (VET, IV, 15; BR, no. 11, p. 22, 1. 26; BR, no. 15, p. 40,1. 27; BR, p. 142). 27 Cf. a document from Babylon (Budge, ZA, III (1888), p. 221); also BR, no. 84, dated to the fourteenth year of Shamash-shum-ukin, in which a man claimed his land had not been sold before the shäkin temis, and thus the sale was not legal. 28 ABL, 228, 281, 415, 746, 1009. 29 ABL, 221. 30 For references from Babylonia for the sha eli äli see: ABL, 710, 1034, 1230; for sha muhfyi ali: ABL, 1407; for räb aläni: ABL, 1185. The bei aläni doubtless was a variant of the räb aläni. 31 F. Steinmetzer, "Dir Bestallungsurkunde königs ¿famas-sum-ukin von Babylon", Ar. Or., VII (1935), p. 314ff.

142

SOCIAL STRUCTURE, ECONOMY, AND ART

resemble those of a vizier.32 Another was the ráb shäqe, who doubtless was head of the armies in Babylonia and who was quite likely under the jurisdiction of the turtän in Assyria since there is no record of a turtän in the South.33 Other officers were: the tupshär ekälli, scribe of the palace; 34 the tupshär mäti, who may have been the person who recorded the affairs of the land (doubtless many men bore such a title);35 and the räb tupshärri who, in all probability, was head of the scribes.36 The titles of many other officials appear, such as the qëpu, who very likely was a superintendent of an agricultural district, and the räb haliti, who may have been an official with duties similar to those of the qëpu; other official titles were the lumu-kil ap-pa-ä-ti, the lusha-ma-al-lu, and the daiänu, (judge).37 Also recorded was the shakkanakku, a title which had apparently begun to be obsolete in government, but which governors sometimes bore; 38 an official bearing the title shatämmu, who was probably a seer responsible for the supervision of a certain area which was under the governor; 39 and the ba'tánu kaspi (inspector of the silver) presumably responsible for the inspection of currency and weights used in daily business.40 B.

ECONOMY

Business documents of the period from Babylonia reveal an active economic life. Some of the business transactions preserved include bills of sale of houses, fields, gardens, stores, offices and slaves. Others deal with various kinds of loans, with or without interest, advance of money to be used as capital, and exchange of houses and fields. Include also are documents dealing with the settlement of land issues involving pledges of houses, sons, and land. Unfortunately the sources relating to business 32

For the post of sukkälu see Klauber, op. cit., p. 54. Steinmetzer, op. cit., 1.18; ADD, II, p. 75; Klauber, op. cit., p. 75. 34 Steinmetzer, op. cit., text, 1. 20. 35 ABL, 779. 36 ABL, 307, 1344. 3 ' For the qepu offiial, A. H. Godbey, Notes on Some Officials of the Sargonid Period (Chicago, 1906), p. 60ff.; ABL, 88, 95,437, 868, 963, 968, 1115, 1198, 1214, 1275, 1455. For the office of judge, ABL, 340,403, 815, 1274. For reference to the lumu-kin ap-paa-ti, 1. 19, Ar. Or. (1935), op. cit.,·, the lusa-ma-al-lu, ibid., 1.17. 38 V. Scheil, Ex-voto from the prefect of Uruk to the king Shamash-Shum-Ukin, "Nouvelle Notes d'épigraphie et d'Archéologie Assyriens," RT, XXIV, p. 188, 1. 1. 39 ABL 412,437, 476, 964, 1000, 1247. 40 A. T. Clay, Legal and Commercial Transactions Dated in the Assyrian, New Babylonian and Persian Periods (Philadelphia, 1908), no. 2, p. 19. 33

SOCIAL STRUCTURE, ECONOMY, AND ART

143

which have been preserved from this period are few in number, and many of the documents are in poor condition. This makes a fully comprehensive view of the contemporary economy and business activity impossible at present. In the transactions which deal with the simple loan of money, the receiver of the loan ordinarily acknowledged his receipt by recording the name of his creditor, his own name, and the amount borrowed. The document also contains the date on which repayment of the loan is to be made, the rate of interest charged (if any) and many mention a penalty in case of the debtor's failure to pay at the specified date. However, if payment was not then made, interest usually was charged at a specified rate per month. On such records the names of the witnesses often do not exceed six. The document was sealed, and the name of the town and the current date (usually by the year, month, and the day of the ruling monarch) are set forth.41 A document was rendered legal by affixing the seal or by impressing the nail mark, ordinarily that of the thumb. In the latter case the following phrase is usually added: supur kima kunukki-su, i.e., this was a substitute for a seal impression.42 It is an interesting phenomenon that the loan business at this time was distinctly Babylonian in character and had not been influenced by Assyria which was exercizing political supremacy over Babylonia.43 The current interest rate was apparently twenty per cent,44 although instances of higher 41

Some documents are dated by governors, examples of which from Ur are: BR, no. 37, dated to the eighth year, 11th of March of the rule of Ningal-iddina, governor or Ur: VET, IV, nos. 9, 27, 90. Once document (ibid., no. 200) is dated after Sinbalatsu-iqbi. 12 G. Boyer, "§upur Kima Kunikkiäu", Symbolae ad iura Orientis Antiqi Pertinentes Paulo Koschaker Dedicatae", Studia et Documenta, 11 (Leiden, 1939), pp. 208-18. 43 W. Dubberstein, AJSL (1939), pp. 20ff. discusses the various aspects of Babylonian economy for the New Babylonian and Achaemenian periods. An attempt is also made to establish the ratio of value between labor, property, and the necessities of life. The products of the land, recorded by Dubberstein for the later periods are the same as those for the period under discussion. For the measures of weight and capacity the studies of Thureau-Dangin (JA, 10 Series, XIII (1909), p. 79; also RA, XVIII, pp. 123 if.) may be referred to. Both articles contain the various measures and a bibliography on the subject. For the differences existing between Babylonian and Assyrian loan transactions, compare the southern documents with ADD, III, nos. 4, 7, 24, 27, 35. 44 E.g. VAS, IV, no. 3 (NRVU, no. 160) dated to the ninth year of Shamash-shumukin; Strassmaier, 8th Congress, no. 7; BR, no. 57 from Babylon dated to the sixteenth year of Shamash-shum-ukin; BR, no. 53 from Uruk, dated to the eighteenth year of Ashurbanipal ; Kr. 37 from Nippur, dated to the thirty-fourth year of Ashurbanipal ; Kr. 35 from Nippur, dated to the second year of Sin-shar-ishkun ; BE, VIII, no. 5 (BR,

144

SOCIAL STRUCTURE, ECONOMY, AND ART

and lower premium are preserved.45 One loan document reports that the amount of one-half mina and one shekel of silver was loaned on interest, but the rate of interest is not indicated — perhaps it was understood to be at the current interest rate, doubtless twenty per cent.46 Sometimes money was loaned at no interest,47 and occasionally loans could be paid by produce.48 At other times the debtor was given a choice of repayment in either silver or produce.49 A number of loan transactions testify that money was often advanced on security. For example, a man borrowed a mina of silver and pledged his home as security; his dwelling was apparently estimated at two-thirds mina, but for the remaining one-third he was required to pay twenty per cent interest.50 Again, for a loan at the regular twenty per cent the debtor pledged his right to a temple income.51 Again, three and one-half mina of silver are borrowed on the security of an orchard and a son ;52 and a pledge of an orchard as security bears the stipulation that if repayment is not made in full by the end of one year, the creditor may confiscate the property.53 Another transaction records the advance of one and one-half minas of silver, and another loans one mina of silver, both

no. 61) dated to the fourth year of Ashur-etil-ilani; BE, VIII, no. 157, dated to the time of Sin-shar-ishkun; Fognon, JA, 11 Series (1917), p. 403 from Nippur dated to the fifth year of Sin-shar-ishkun, and other documents. 45 K r . 36; BR, 59 from Nippur dated to the thirty-fourth year of Ashurbanipal. Although the amount of money given as capital is not preserved, the sign minas is preserved. However, the ratio of one half shekel of silver to be paid per month seems quite low. Another document, Jr. 39 from Nippur (BR, no. 60) dated to the third year of Ashur-etil-ilani gives the ratio as eighteen per cent. A document from Babylon is dated to a little over a month after the outbreak of Shamash-shum-ukin's revolt, and the amount of money is three minas of silver advanced to six men on a very low rate of interest ( N R V U , no. 161, pp. 196ff.). " CT, IV, 31C (BR, no. 54) dated to the fifteenth year of Shamash-shum-ukon. 47 BR, no. 52, from Himeru, dated to the twelfth year of Shamash-shum-ukon. The ratio of interest in Assyria at this period however, was apparently twenty-five per cent; see ADD, III, no. 4, p. 37, dated by the eponym to 660 B.C. ; no. 7, 24, 35, 48. These and many others give the rate of interest as twenty-five per cent, and one transaction (ADD, III, no. 57, p. 72) gives the interest rate as thirty-three and one-third per cent. 48 Weidner, AOF, 16, no. 5, where one and one-third mina and two and one-half shekels of silver were given as an advance for 200 kur of barley. The transaction is dated to the thirteenth year of Kandalanu. 49 Weidner, AOF, 16 (1952), no. 8, dated to the twentieth year of K a n d a l a n u ; NBAD, no. 5, dated to the thirty-first year of Ashurbanipal f r o m Nippur. 50 Kr. 104 (BR, no. 80) from Nippur, dated to the third year of Ashur-etil-ilani. 51 NBAD, no. 15, p. 21, dated to the fifth year of Sin-shar-ishkun. 6a Weidner, A OF, 16, no. 3, dated to the tenth year of Kandalanu. M BR, no. 21, from Borsippa, dated to the twentieth year of Shamash-shum-ukin.

SOCIAL STRUCTURE, ECONOMY, AND ART

145

54

t o be used as business capital. In such documents the kind of business that is to be engaged in is often recorded. 55 Grain and dates were occasionally advanced as operating capital for business. In one instance the amount of three kurs of dates was given, and in another the advance of four kurs of barley. 56 Bills dealing with the sale of slaves have been preserved in limited number. W e have, for example, a bill of sale recording the price of t w o male and four female slaves (one with two sons), as five minas o f silver. 57 Another states that a slave w o m a n and her three sons sold for a sum in excess of one and one-third minas of silver. 58 A deed to a house lists the characteristics of the dwelling, e.g., as "firmly locked", etc. Then the exact location, the names of the neighbors o n each of its four sides, and the price at which it was sold, are recorded. A n added formula declares that if the contract is broken by either buyer or seller, the responsible party must pay a fine, which in most of these transactions is twelve times the original price. 59 A document recording the 54

BR, no. 69, from Nippur, dated to the sixth year of Sin-shar-ishkun. BR, no. 68 from Nippur, dated to the sixth year of Sin-shar-ishkun. NR VU, no. 656, p. 567, dated to the sixth year of Shamash-shum-ukin. 58 BR, no. 65, from Borsippa, dated to the fourteenth year of Kandalanu. BR, no. 76, dated to the twelfth year of Shamash-shum-ukin, from Nippur. 57 BE, VIII, part 1, no. 3, p. 190 from Nippur dated to the thirteenth year of Shamashshum-ukin. 58 Weidner, AOF, 16, no. 7, p. 41, dated to the fifteenth year of Kandalanu. From the North, sufficient data is preserved to reveal that slave prices had gone up considerably. ADD, III, no. 190, dated to 668 B.C. recorded the sale of a slave for one mina of silver; another, dated 667 {ADD, III, no. 200) recorded the sale of a slave for one-half mina of silver. Op. cit., no. 233, dated 659 B.C. records the sale of two female slaves for one mina and six shekels of silver. No. 237 records the sale of two slaves for one mina of silver in 665 B.C.; no. 284 records the sale of a slave and his mother for one and onehalf minas in 668 B.C. ND 2315, p. 40 (B. Parker, "The Nimrud Tablets (1952) Business Documents", Iraq, 16 (1954), states that a woman was sold in 666 B.C. for thirty shekels of silver. Another, ND 2328 ibid, p. 43. records that a slave was sold in 664 B.C. for thirty-six shekels of silver. ADD, III, no. 197, dated to 645 B.C., records the sale of a slave for one mina and seven shekels. In comparison, for the period after 640 B.C., ND 3426 (Nimrud Documents, Iraq, XII (1950), p. 141), two slaves sold for two minas and one shekel of silver; ND 3427,629 B.C., for one and one-half minas of silver (p. 141); ND 2323 (B. Parker, Iraq, 16 (1954) op. cit., p. 42) where in 626 B.C. a slave girl was sold for one mina and thirty-four shekels of silver. Another comparison may be seen in a sale of a son for one mina of silver and one-half mina of copper for the period post 648 B.C., in comparison with an advance of thirty shekels of silver, dated 672, on the security of a son. It is probable that in an earlier period the standard price for a slave in Assyria was fifty shekels. In II Kings, 20, Menahem gave the Assyrian king fifty shekels for each man, an amount which may have been the current price for slaves. 65

59

BR, no. 13, dated to the twentieth year of Ashurbanipal, records the sale of a house in Uruk. The price was one mina and fifteen shekels of silver and the area of the house

146

SOCIAL STRUCTURE, ECONOMY, AND ART

sale of a warehouse offers evidence that this type of sale followed the same general pattern as that for houses.60 The location of a certain piece of property, and whether it had buildings or warehouses, or was just barren land, was influential in determining its sale value. A piece of unimproved property in Nippur, consisting of an area of a little over 900 square ammäti, sold for an unknown number of minas and fifteen shekels of silver;61 another, twenty five ammäti wide (length is not preserved) sold for four and five-sixth minas. 62 In both cases the price seems rather high compared to the sale price of other unimproved land, and the reason for the high cost may have been a favorable location, perhaps near the market place. A piece of unimproved property in Dilbat, for example, and whose total area is not preserved, sold merely for two shekels of silver, probably indicating land which was poor or in an unfavorable location. 63 Sale transactions of orchards and fields are also common. The exact location and the sources of irrigation are usually mentioned and follow the same general procedure as the documents for sale of houses. An orchard whose area was 435 seah's sold for one-half mina and five shekels of silver, and names the sources of irrigation. 64 Another transaction deals with the sale of a half share in an orchard whose total area is not recorded, at the price of five minas and ten shekels of silver. The location of the property in the middle of Uruk and its close proximity to the temple of Ninurta, no doubt had something to do with its high price.65 One document is of particular interest. Property measuring four kur of orchard land sold for nineteen minas of silver, while a piece of land with a total area of thirty kur sold for seven and one-half minas of silver. Each kur of orchard land sold for four minas and forty-five shekels of

was 350 square ammäti. A house at Uruk with an area of 540 square ammäti sold for nineteen shekels of silver (Strassmaier, 8th Congress, no. 6; (BR, no. 20) dated to the twentieth year of Shamash-shum-ukon. Cf. also AOF, 16, p. 43, from Uruk, dated to the second year of Shamash-shum-ukin; NBAD, no. 10, p. 12, to be dated to the tenth year of Shamash-shum-ukin. ,0 BE, VIII, no. 3 (BR, no. 16) from Babylon, dated to the fifth year of Kandalanu. Part of the price was paid in silver, and the other half by the exchange of half a piece of land. 61 BE, VII, 1 (BR, no. 17) dated to the twenty-sixth year of Ashurbanipal, from Nippur. 62 Dr. 10 (BR, no. 10) dated to the 8th year of Shamash-shum-ukin. 63 BRM, I, 34 (BR, no. 6) dated to the second year of Shamash-shum-ukin, from Dilbat. u PSBA, 10 (1838), op. cit., p. 146 (BR, no. 19). 65 VET, IV, 15, from Uruk, dated to the tenth year of Shamash-shum-ukin.

SOCIAL STRUCTURE, ECONOMY, AND ART

147

silver, while each kur of ordinary land, on the average, sold for fifteen shekels.66 Land in Babylonia may be assigned to four ownership divisions of which the first is crown or state land. Through the administration of the governors and officials the king could bestow portions of this land upon anyone he considered worthy, such as a general who had distinguished himself in war, or a governor who had acquired the king's favor. An example of a royal land grant is seen in the presentation of an estate by Ashurbanipal to his general, Nabu-shar-usur, doubtless on the latter's retirement, and dated to Marcheswan, 655. This estate was apparently situated within Babylonia, as has been observed.67 Property granted to Sin-shum-lishir by Ashur-etil-ilani is also to be located in Babylonia for the same reason.68 The second division is temple land. During this period the temples doubtless possessed a good deal of land and received much of it as gifts.69 The third division is land which, apparently, belonged to each separate tribal group. Although private property is attested in tribal territories, it is probable that common tribal properties existed also.70 The fourth division is private land which of course belonged to individuals. As seen from private business documents, the right of an individual to property ownership is clear. Other forms of business records are those concerning sale of offices, shares in special rights.71 Transactions recording the exchange of property are preserved; one records the exchange of a house for a smaller one, a field, and fifty shekels of silver.72 Documents dealing with settlements of claims concerning estates73 and leases of land to be planted74 are also preserved. ββ

NR VU, p. 71 ff. no. 46, dated to the eighteenth year of Kandalanu. ADD, IV, p. 200, no. 741 ; see above p. 27. Ibid., p. 217, no. 807. See also ABL, 416, 421. 69 NBAD, no. 13, pp. 16-18. ,0 BR, no. 14, Col. I-V. 71 UE, IV, no. 23 records a man selling his office for one-half mina of silver. A man sold his shares of the slaughtering in the Esagila temple, dated to the sixth year of Kandalanu. (AOF, 16, p. 45) from Babylon. Another sold half of his share of the slaughter offering for one mina of silver. The document bears no date, but it is from the time of Ashurbanipal. BR, no. 36, from Ur. 72 UE, IV, no. 32. 73 BR, no. 84, dated to the fourteenth year of Shamash-shum-ukin where a person claims that a piece of land had not been sold in the presence of the shàkin temi of Babylon and thus he was able to lay claim over it. This fact indicates strongly that the sale of land properties had to be made in the presence of such an official. The settlement 67 68

148

SOCIAL STRUCTURE, ECONOMY, AND ART

In Mesopotamia in previous centuries, various metals such as lead, copper, silver, and gold were used for currency. But during this period silver was used as the basic monetary metal, and gold was used only rarely. Lead and copper did not circulate as money. A kudurru preserved from Babylonia and dated to the beginning of Ashurbanipal's reign lists the prevailing prices of products. The price of grain is recorded as being one shekel for one gur and a half (270 qa); 390 qa of dates sold for one shekel; thirty qa of a special kind of oil could be bought for one shekel; and 110 qa of sesame sold for one shekel.75 An interesting document dated to the twentieth year of Shamash-shum-ukin, during the siege of Babylon, records the price of three qa of grain as one shekel.76 Another from the third year of Sin-shar-ishkun dates to the time that city was under siege; the price of grain is recorded as one shekel of silver for one qa.77 This comparison of prices reveals that the prices of these foods went up ninety times during the siege of Babylon and 270 times higher during the siege of Nippur. The same is true of dates, for the average price of dates in the Chaldaean period was one shekel for slightly more than one gur, while the price in the period given in the kudurru was only one shekel for two gur and thirty qa.78 A text dating to the eleventh year of Ashurbanipal records, in addition to other matters, the sale of seven sheep for one shekel of silver.79 This is inexpensive and may have been an unusual case. It is obvious from the inscriptions that temples were quite wealthy at this time, but there is insufficient evidence to present an entirely clear

finally was made and the claimant had to receive one-half mina and three shekels of silver from the present owner in order to sign for him in the presence of the shàkin tèmi. Another example preserved in a boundary stone, dated to the ninth year of Shamashshum-ukin (BBS, p. 70, Pis. 6-10) records the confirmation under seal of a certain Adad-ibni, a claim to the possession of an estate. 74 One document (BR, no. 46, dated to the fourth year of Kandalanu) records the giving of land to two men for planting. 75 BBS, no. XXXVII; Meissner, OLZ, XXI (1918), op. cit., Col. 119-123. 78 Strassmaier, 8th Congress, op. cit., no. 6 (BR, no. 20) 77 A. Leo Oppenheim, Iraq, op. cit., p. 88, 2NT 297. See above. 78 W. H. Dubberstein, "Comparative Prices in Later Babylonia (625-400 B . C . ) " , AJSL, 56 (1939), p. 25, n. 17. 79 NR VU, no. 721, p. 624. It is difficult to take this as an example of the current price for sheep although there are no other documents from this period which may shed light on prices. Owing to the great difference in the price of sheep from the New Babylonian period, where on the average a sheep sold for two shekels, the price recorded in the above text seems quite exceptional. But this may represent a real fall in prices at this time.

149

SOCIAL STRUCTURE, ECONOMY, AND ART 80

picture of the temple economy or its role in economic life. A tablet dated to about 631 B.c. from Nippur records a loan by the temple of Shamash of thirty talents of silver to six men. This considerable amount of money is surely indicative of the great wealth of at least one temple in Babylonia.81 Documentations from this period for temple engagement in business are few in comparison with subsequent periods. Direct references to importing and exporting are also few, but it must be assumed that Babylonia maintained a substantial commercial relationship with the outside world. Esarhaddon said that when he restored Babylon, he encouraged traders and "opened up their ways towards the four winds" for "establishing their tongue in every land", 82 this indicates his encouragement of foreign trade and his renewal of an active trade relationship which had been paralyzed by the warfare during his father's reign. Another reference to foreign trade is found in a letter addressed to Ashurbanipal in which it is said that Ammeni-ilu, a merchant of the important trade center, Tema, visited Shamash-shum-ukin.83 Archaeology furnishes us with other indications of foreign commercial relationships. Phoenician art objects found at Ur include an ivory pyxis decorated around the carved surface with a row of Egyptian dancing girls. The temple of É.NUN.MAH yielded the lid of an ivory jewel box bearing a Phoenician inscription relating that it was dedicated by Amat-Baal, the daughter of Pat-es to Ashtarata. Other objects which point to Phoenician manufacture are an ivory toilet set, a plain comb, a comb with an engraving of a bull, a sphinx-shaped paint-pot, a lotus-shaped mirror handle, a kohl pot and the lid of a round box decorated with a rosette.84 If the people who presented these gifts were western traders in Ur their presence in Babylonia is an indication of an active commercial relationship during this period. 80 ABL, 1247 is a report to Ashurbanipal which stated that Shamash-shum-ukin had given one talent and twenty minas of gold from the treasures of a certain temple. In ABL, 1241,-Pfeiffer, 18) the sender asked Ashurbanipal to send assistance to Ur, lest the treasure of the temples be secured by the enemy. Also see ARAB, II, 184. Records of gifts to temples are also preserved. Sargon recorded that he gave to Marduk, Sarpanitum, Nabu, and Tashmetum 154 talents, twenty-six minas, ten shekels of gold, 1,604 talents, twenty minas of silver, as well as iron, bronze, and lapis lazuli. {ARAB, II, 70). Also see ARAB, II, 649,659D; PEA, Col. I, Ins. 21-42; ABL, 464,1246; NBAD, no. 13. For other sources of income for the temples see ARAB, II, 962, 963; NRVU, no. 722, p. 625 dated to the twelfth year of Kandalanu; ABL, 219. 81 BE, VIII, part I, no. 141. See above, p. 158. 82 ARAB, II, 659E. 83 ABL, 1404. 84 C. L. Woolley, "Excavations at Ur", A], V (1923), p. 382; VII, (1925), p. 410.

150

SOCIAL STRUCTURE, ECONOMY, AND ART

Other evidence of foreign trade may be found in the lists of objects and goods received by the Assyrian kings as tribute from the chieftains of the Sea Land. Tiglath-pileser III, for instance, reported that Merodachbaladan sent him : ... gold, the dust of the land in great quantity, utensils o f gold, necklaces o f gold, precious stones, the product o f the Sea Land, logs o f maple . . . , colored garments, all kinds o f (aromatic) herbs. 8 5

The list of objects acquired by Sennacherib when he opened Merodachbaladan's treasure house confirms the same fact.86 Thus, these products and the gold clearly point toward the outside as their source and indicate theat southern Mesopotamia was during this period, as previously, still actively engaged in foreign trade. Trade with Dilmun, in all probability, was active, and references to tribute brought from Dilmun and gifts given by its ruler to the Assyrian king are preserved.87

C.

ART

A general view of Babylonian art from the period of Ashurbanipal reveals that in many ways the art of the era is not separated from the political and social history of the time. Certain peculiarities of the art of the relief sculpture may be noted. Most apparent is the general style of execution. The reliefs tend to be shallow, forms rounded and soft, with very little attention given to muscular structure. The Babylonian artists remained true to their own technique, with little or no Assyrian influence at a time when the Assyrian sculptors excelled in the representation of anatomy, both human and animal. This fact is even more unusual when we consider the great extent to which Assyria's other provinces copied their sculptors' style and mannerisms as well as other artistic forms.88 85

P. Rost, Keilschrifttexte Tiglath-pileser III, II, p. 23, PI. XXXV, Ins. 26ff.; ARAB, I, 794. 88 ARAB, II, 234, 260. 87 ARAB, II, 41, 43, 70, 81, 92, 99, 185, 438. ABL, 458; Pfeiffer, 98; Oppenheim, JAOS, 74, (1954), pp. 6-17. 88 There are very few reliefs preserved from Babylonia during the period. Most noteworthy is a kudurru bearing a representation of Shamash-shum-ukin (BBS, PI XCII). Also of interest are the two nearly identical stelae which depict Shamash-shumukin and Ashurbanipal, respectively, in the attitude of basket-bearers (Lehmann, Samassumukinop. cit., Frontispiece). A Parrot, The Arts of Assyria, op. cit., Pis. 39-40, picture Ashurbanipal and his predecessors. Parrot (ibid., p. 35) states that "this

SOCIAL STRUCTURE, ECONOMY, AND ART

151

Terra-cotta figurines fall into the category of a craft rather than an actual art form and were produced in such great quantity as to be almost an industry. They vary greatly in workmanship, and therefore, a late example of poor workmanship could easily be wrongly dated to a m u c h earlier period if additional evidence of value for the establishment of its chronology were not available. The general character of the figurines n o doubt derived from religious beliefs which had been upheld for centuries throughout Mesopotamia and for this reason they remained true to their traditional forms. This also may explain their apparent lack of development in comparison to the more flexible forms of art. Vast quantities were found in all Babylonian sites in houses, graves, and temples alike was a reversion to a very ancient precedent, notably the representation of the Sumerian Ur-Nanshe, Patesi of Lagash, who also had himself depicted with a basket on his head". For other reliefs from Babylonia cf. S. Langdon, Excavations at Kish, I (Paris, 1924), PI. VI, no. 2; CFBA, p. 227, no. 1109; L. Legrain, Terra-cottas from fig. 63, p. 36, figs. 57, 58; C. L. Woolley, "Excavations at Ur of the Chaldees", AJ, III (1923), no. 4, PI. XXXIII, figs. U. 304 and U. 305. Note the extreme contrast in Ashurbanipal's palace reliefs. Cf. R. D. Barnett, Assyrian Palace Reliefs (London, 1959), Pis. 55-98. For the reliefs of the Elamite wars, see H. Frankfort, The Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient (London, 1958), Pis. 102-07; E. F. Weidner, Die Reliefs der Assyrischen Könige (Berlin, 1939), Abb. 101; Β. Meissner and D. Opitz, Nordpalast Assurbanaplis Zu Nineveh (Berlin, 1940), Taf. XVII. For the reliefs of the Arabian campaign, cf. A. Paterson, Assyrische Sculpturen (Haarlem, 1901), Pis. 72-73. J. E. Reade, "More Drawings of Ashurbanipal Sculptures," Iraq, XXVI, part 1, 1964, pp. 1-13. There are numerous archaeological evidences of Assyrian influence on the arts of their outlying provinces. Evidence of Egyptian adaptation of Assyrian motifs are found on a seal of Adoni-palet, servant of Ammani-nadab of Ammon which features a winged demon standing between the crescent and sun holding a dagger. Another seal, from Rabbath Ammon, shows a figure in a long girdled robe and Assyrian headdress (C. C. Torrey, AASOR). 11-111, p. 103ff.). In Philistine territory a seal was uncovered having the figure of a winged genius carrying with one arm a horned animal for sacrifice and holding a pendent in the other hand a three-branched flower. In front stood a single Palm branch. The device was Assyrian in every detail — co-parable with a relief of the time of Ashurbanipal (Torrey, op. cit., p. 106). Late Assyrian pottery has been found in Tell Jammeh, Tell el-Fari'ah, Tell Dothan on other sites is Palestine (W. M. F. Petrie, Jerar) (London, 1928, De Vaux, "La Troisième Campagne de fouilles à tell-el-Fari'eh près de Napoulse," RB, LVIII (1951), p. 120; J. P. Free, "the second season at Dothan," BASOR, 135 (1954), p. 18, Fig. 2). At Carchemich the bull guardians were reproduced, and the orthostates decorated with rows of striding soldiers or courtiers characteristic of Late Assyrian art (Frankfort, H. The Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient, Baltimore, 1955, p. 166). The sculptural repertoire of Tell Halaf (Guzana) reflected the motifs of Assyria more closely than other North Syrian cities (ibid., p. 178). Many sculptured lions have been found in Phoenicia, one at um el-Awamid, was derived from Assyrian models (Perrot G. and Chapier, ch., History of Art in Phoenicia and its Dependencies, translated by W. Armstrong, New York, 1885, Vol. II, p. 37). A fragmentary relief found near Ajloun has construction reminiscent of Assyrian furniture {ibid, p. 137ff.). Clay Coffins of a Type Unite common in Babylonia and Assyria were found at Megiddo, Carchemish and

152

SOCIAL STRUCTURE, ECONOMY, AND ART

and the significance they had for their owners is still a matter of conjecture. 89 The nude female, standing or squatting, holding her breasts, nursing a child, or simply standing with arms at her sides is the most c o m m o n type and has generally been termed "mother goddess". 8 0 It is interesting t o note that this type has no divine attributes although the figurines d o often stand o n a kind of pedestal. The most probable assumption is that although they were objects of an ancient cult, by the 7th century B.C. their principal connotation had come to be a symbol of fruitfulness and prosperity even when they themselves were not objects of worship. It is Zingirli (R. S. Lamon, and G. M. Shipton, Megiddo 1 (Chicago, 1939), pis. 18, 91; Von Luschan, Die Kleinfunde von Senschirle (Berlin, 1943), p. 139, Figs., 192-193; C. L. Woolley, "The Iron Age Graves of Charchemish", AAA, XXVI (1939-1940), pp. 11-37, pis. IV, XVI). The seal of Elimaaz, son of Elisha, from Rabbath Amnion, had him bearded in long gilded robe and Assyrian headdress, with his right hand in prayer to the conical cap, half moon, and star on the seal. Chemosh Yehi of Moab placed his name under the symbol of the god Ashur (A. T. Olmstead, History of Palestine and Syria (New York, 1931) p. 487-88; Fig. 176; ftn. 16). Assyrian influence upon Judah during the period of the late empire was felt in particularly every phase of life, even religion. From our period is the heavily decorated tripod bowl near Bet She'an, together with a fragmentary clay coffin of bathtub type and a small stove bowl. It is possible that they were of foreign manufacture, but they could also have been made locally under foreign influence (R. Amiran, "The Assyrian Stone Bowl from Tell-Bl-Qitaf in Bet She'an Valley", Atiqot, II (1959), pp. 129-132). The new excavations in Armenia, particularly at Toprak Kala, have revealed a number of finds betraying Assyrian influence (R. D. Barnett, "The Excavations of the British Museum at Toprak Kala near Van", Iraq, XII (1950), p. 6ff.; Barnett and W. Watson, "Russian Excavations in Armenia", Iraq, XIV, part II (1952), p. 132ff.) particularly from the time of Ashurbanipal. A relief from Adilcevez assigned to the time of Rusa II (C. A. Burney and G. R. Lawson, "Urartian Reliefs at Adilcevez on Lake Van and a Rock Relief Near the Karasu Near Birecik", An. St., VIII (1958), p. 212) shows the king wearing Assyrian garments and headdress and his position on the bull is identical with that of the Assyrian gods mounted on their dragons; the bull itself is in the Assyrian manner. 89 Some of the views as to the origin and purpose of many of the figurine types are that 1) they were votives, an extension of the owner's personality; 2) they were copies of cult statues; or 3) they had mystical powers of their own derived from ancient primitive religious beliefs in Mesopotamia. 90 For figurines of a female nursing a child see : CFBA, p. 42, no. 220 ; TBB, p. 23, fig. 23 from Babylon, dated 650 B.C. ; J. Jordan, Uruk- Warka, op. cit., p. 61, Pl. 82e; CFBA, p. 44, no. 229 from Uruk; From Babylon, CFBA, p. 44, no. 231, Pl. XI, fig. 58; L. Heuzey, Catalogue des Figurines Antiques de Terre Cuite du Musée du Louvre (Paris, 1923), nos. 30, 31, Pl. II, fig. 3 ; CFBA, p. 42, no. 217. For the standing female figurines see: R. Koldewey, The Excavations at Babylon (London, 1914), pp. 65, 277, fig. 202; CFBA, no. 106, p. 21, from the Ninmah temple at Babylon. TBB, p. 32, fig. 48 ; CFBA, p. 21, no. 107, from Babylon. CFBA, pp. 37-38, Pl. X, fig. 52, from Nippur. Also see Koldewey, Excavations at Babylon, op. cit., p. 279, fig. 209; CFBA, p. 32, no. 166 for a figurine of a nude female holding her breasts.

SOCIAL STRUCTURE, ECONOMY, AND ART

153

noteworthy that by the 7th century, although the figurines remained chiefly symbolic, they were more specifically characterized than had been the case in the immediate past. The great variety of facial types, many of them painstakingly worked, would seem to occasionally suggest crude attempts at actual portraiture. 91 If this was the case, it is found only in the figurines, for on the reliefs, there seems to be no attempt to particularize individuals. In summary, it may generally be said that in the figurine art of Babylonia from this period, pieces very often show a fineness of modelling that is well within the standards set by contemporary Assyrian sculptors, but retain the softened forms which are characteristically Babylonian. Anatomy is secondary and only rarely do we find an example which betrays any of the muscular detail or vigor which the Assyrian artisans sometimes exhibited in their figurines. It is also noticed that in Babylonia during this period, figurines of male worshippers without divine or semidivine attributes and female musicians, as far as is known at present, seems to have been omitted from the repertoire. These were ancient and well-established motifs and their discontinuance at this particular time seems unusual. We do, however, have a number of examples from the New Babylonian period testifying to the fact that if these types did actually fall completely from use they were revived. It may be significant that these two types, more than any others, can be classified as genre motifs and reference to the daily life of the common man is rare in all art forms during the period. A vast quantity of cylinder seals have come down to us offering a great range of designs which cannot be dated more precisely than by assigning them to the Neo-Assyrian period generally. After Assyria established power over Babylonia, the two traditions in the craft of seal cutting combined to form a universal style which was current throughout Mesopotamia by the period of Ashurbanipal. As far as technique of the glyptic of the period is concerned, there is very little difference between the modelled seals of Babylonia and Assyria during this period. Northern seals, however, tend to be somewhat more formal than graceful, and more direct in the quality of the design. As in

91 J. Jordan, Uruk- Warka, op. cit., p. 60, PI. 80. Compare figs, g and i. Also compare two pieces from Kish (PRAK, Pl. I, 2; CFBA, p. 67, no. 354 and PRAK, Pl. X, 3. Figurines of worshippers from as early as the third millenium B.C. from various sites, Tell Agrab, Tell Asmar, Khafaje, Telloh, etc., are much too varied and particularized to be anything but sincere attempts at portraiture.

154

SOCIAL STRUCTURE, ECONOMY, AND ART

the reliefs, details of costume, both human and animal anatomy, and action are at times powerfully expressed.92 An evaluation of Babylonian seals from this period reveals several interesting features. Although a universal Mesopotamian style existed, it also seems that there are enough seals from the period which betray traditional Babylonian motifs, techniques, and composition, to perhaps imply that a purely Babylonian school of glyptic was in existence. Its tendencies were toward the more graceful, less vigorous renditions, which are consequently less realistic than their Assyrian contemporary seals. Very often seals revert back to the traditions of glyptic of the Old Babylonian or Kassite periods. The reasons for this are, of course, purely conjectural. It has also been noted that Babylonian sculptors were not influenced by those in Assyria. It is possible that Babylonian craftsmen looked upon Assyrian art generally as unsophisticated and violent in comparison to their own refinement of technique and composition, and thought it lacking in tradition and religious impetus. In the case of cylinder seals and due to the very personal significance that a seal had for its owner, we may perhaps find in this movement toward ancient southern traditions, a subtle kind of insubordination to the present rule — that in a small way, a man's signature might identify him as Babylonian in the manner he wished to think of himself as such. The graceful and simple executions of a design which norther craftsmen would render with almost brutal forcefulness, seems to indicate a sense of pride in their ancient heritage. The seals of the Neo-Babylonian period retain many motifs from the preceding period, and for a very brief time there were only small changes in style.93 Very soon, however, Neo-Babylonian seals had fully developed their now identifying characteristics — these having a sophisticated elegance of composition and form and the revival of a style and motifs which had been long out of use. 92

For one of the finest examples of Assyrian glyptic from this period which illustrates the above remarks see D. J. Wiseman, Cylinder Seals of Western Asia, PI. 67. Β comparing this seal with one of a similar motif, but Babylonian manufacture, it is possible to see that a purely Babylonian school of glyptic still existed in its own right (W. H. Ward, The Seal Cylinders of Western Asia, New York, 1910, 612). The figures lack the conciseness and vigor typical of Assyrian works and anatomy is of very little concern; although the figures are well proportioned, there is literally no feeling for movement. 93 CS, fig. 66; Wiseman, Cylinder Seals ...op. cit., Pl. 69. Frankfort dates the seal as Neo-Babylonian while Wiseman places it in the Late Assyrian period. This piece is most probably a Neo-Babylonian transitional work.

SOCIAL STRUCTURE, ECONOMY, AND ART

155

The rapidity with which this style came into use, the reversion to past traditions, and the craftsmen's success in wiping away all visual traces of Assyrian style, very well illustrate their distaste for things Assyrian which might remind them of that domination. It is impossible specifically to date pottery from any Babylonian site to the 7th century B.c. The wares of the Middle Babylonian, Late Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian periods are found intermingled, each being indistinctive enough to render assignment of any piece to its own general period most difficult. Excavations carried out at Nippur by the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, however, have brought to light pottery dated by the excavators to the Assyrian level, which could serve as a guide.94 By far the most important feature of the Late Assyrian pottery from Nippur is its decoration. Many of the pieces are painted in several colors. The base glaze is usually white or pale blue and the designs are painted in grey-blue, yellow, green, brown, orange, and grey. Many bear simple bands of one color, but the more elaborate pieces have numerous bands of various colors, petalmotifs, dots, and vertical stripes. The general forms of this pottery from Nippur do not seem to be unusual in any way, and are duplicated throughout Mesopotamia. However, the painted decoration is quite distinctive and does not seem to be truly representative of Late Assyrian wares in Babylonia. So far as is known, this form of decoration has not as yet been found at other sites in the area and there is little decorated pottery from Assyria dated to the same period.95 In conclusion it may be said that the Babylonian art of the period was not as extensively influenced by Assyrian art as were the arts of other Assyrian provinces. There was a general tendency to revert to motifs and compositional style which were traditionally Babylonian, such as those from the Akkadian and Old Babylonian periods, and in some instances, perhaps even earlier. Although Assyria had exercized political supremacy over the South for some time, the art remained Babylonian in both character and concept. 94

Mr. Richard Haines kindly permitted me to use the photographs of the Oriental Institute, University of Chicago expedition to Nippur. For the pottery discovered in the Assyrian Level at Nippur, see Oriental Institute Pis. 101-108, which will appear in the forthcoming volume of the Nippur expedition. 95 See J. Oates, "Late Assyrian Pottery from Fort Shalmaneser", Iraq, XXI, p. 134, Pl. XXXVIII, 71 and XXXVIII, 81 ; P. S. Rowson, "Palace Wares from Nimrud, Technical Observations on Selected Examples", Iraq, XX (1958), part 2, pp. 128-29, no. 1.

156

SOCIAL STRUCTURE, ECONOMY, AND ART

D.

THE SPIRIT OF THE AGE O F ASHURBANIPAL

An interest in ancient culture and in scholarship which was deeply rooted in the past had already been shown by Assyrian royalty of the Sargonid period preceding Ashurbanipal's reign.96 Esarhaddon's apparent interest in scholarship may have been the reason for entrusting Nabu-ahe-eriba with the responsibility of teaching the crown prince, 94

The royal patronage of ages past may be seen as early as Sargon II (722-705 B.C.); at his coming to the throne he assumed the name Sharrukin and became quite involved in collecting what pertained to Sargon of Akkad; the period has been aptly termed a "Sargon Renaissance" (A. T. E. Olmstead, Western Asia in the Days of Sargon of Assyria (Lancaster, 1908), pp. 27 if.). With Sargon II, traces of archaism began to be seen in both art and religion. A newly found text from Nimrud written in both Akkadian and Sumerian, but not bilingual, contains the name of Sargon and may also indicate such interest (A'Û, 3474, D. J. Wiseman, "The Nimrud Tablets", Iraq, XII). Although there is little evidence of this trend from the time of Sennacherib, his claim of descendency from the old Mesopotamian heroes, Gilgamash, Enkidu, and Humbaba may suggest an interest in the past (ADD, III, p. 413). Records indicate that Esarhaddon had a similar enthusiasm. His apparent fascination with magic (rituals, oracles, and omens) and astronomy seems to have prompted him to become an avid collector of old materials dealing with these subjects. The existence of various kinds of prayers and incantations associated with Esarhaddon suggests that he too, had sent his messengers in search of old tablets in southern Mesopotamia where they were found mainly in temples. A letter from Ishtar-shumeresh tells the king that the tablet he read "does not contain any curse such as the king asked me to see" (ABL, 31). It seems evident that Esarhaddon had in his possession a tablet from an earlier period which he had sent with a letter to Ishtar-shum-eresh for reading. Another from Adad-Gula seems to indicate that he and others had been sent in search of tablets to be copied (ABL, 117). Religious literature prevailing at the time of Esarhaddon illustrates a revival of obsolete conceptions and a current interest in copying from Babylonian originals of which a good example may be seen in some copies in the Nineveh collection (E. Ebeling, Keilschrifttexte aus Assur Religiösen Inhalts (Leipzig, 1915), Erster Heft no. 14 and no. 16 preserve the name of Esarhaddon in the colophon). It seems that this act of copying old literature was widespread for it is mentioned that copies were made at Nippur, Babylon, and Akkad (Ibid., no. 16, rev. 28, duplicate 15, rev. 14; no. 43, rev. 25 ; no. 59 was copied at Babylon). Each tablet has in its colophon the name of the temple for which the work was done (ibid., no. 22, rev. 16; no. 33, rev. 13; no. 21, 62, 63). The revival of old hymns is also noticed; ibid., no. 15 is a bilingual hymn to Nin-in-si-an-na, strikingly similar to the classical Sumerian hymn to Ishtar (S. Langdon, Sumerian Grammar, p. 196). The evidence that copies were being made for the temples strongly suggests that each temple had its own collection of tablets. Esarhaddon's love for the past may also be reflected in his particular affaction for Babylonia. The discovery of the so-called game of "58 holes", of which only the game board has survived from Esarhaddon's period may shed light on the king's interest (one at the Constantinople Museum, published by E. Nassouhi in RA, VII, p. 17ff., with the name of Esarhaddon; others in the British Museum, published by C. Gadd in "An Egyptian game in Assyria", Iraq, I (1934), p. 47 ff. with the name, titles, and genealogy of Esarhaddon). These objects were known from Egypt as early as the 10th-12th Dynasties. Gadd (Iraq, 1 (1934), p. 50) concluded that Esarhaddon had perhaps come across it in Egypt and had ordered his craftsmen to make a number of these boards, and that there is no evidence of such a game in Babylonia or Assyria prior to his time.

SOCIAL STRUCTURE, ECONOMY, AND ART

157

97

Ashurbanipal. Another person was probably appointed to teach Shamash-shum-ukin, and this may have been Ikkaru who sent several letters to Esarhaddon.98 Ashurbanipal's claims of mastering the arts and knowing the obscure languages of antiquity indicate that he also revered the culture of the past.99 We may recall also his painstaking efforts to compile a systematic library at Nineveh. There is ample evidence that Shamash-shum-ukin was as interested in the past as his brother. This interest of the two monarchs, therefore, may have been a reflection of what people in general had begun to realize — that the world was old. The interests of Ashurbanipal and Shamash-shumukin in antiquity may, consequently, reflect the spirit of their age. The appearance of the phrase mär ili-su ("son of his god") in some of the prayers of the two brothers was a revival of an old religious concept which had been out of use for hundreds of years.100 A prayer of "lifting T h e game does, however, have its prototype from Babylonia from an earlier period; a similar one has been found in Nippur belonging to the time of Kudur-Enlil, about 1200 B.C. (University of Chicago field no. 2 Ν 359, Baghdad no. 57962, unpublished), treated by A. J. Hearth, Jr., " G a m e Boards in the Ancient Near East", p. 71, Master's thesis, unpublished (University of Chicago, 1961). Another from Mesopotamia, dated t o about 1200 B.C. from Tell Ailun, has been published by U. Moortgat-Correns, "Ein Spielbrett von Tell Ailun", Festschrift Johannes Friedrich, edited by R. von Kienle (Heidelberg, 1959). Another, of baked clay, f r o m the Diyala region (unpublished, University of Chicago, field no. A 17872), treated by Hearth, op. cit., p. 73, to which he assigned the date 1200 B.C. Five came from Susa and are dated to the time of ShilhakInshushinak (ca 1165-1151 B.C.) published by J. deMorgan, "Recherches Archéologiques", MDP, T o m e VII (Paris, 1905), p. 104, fig. 345; pp. 105-06, figs. 347, 348, 351). 97

HA, p. 489. So H . Lewy, JNES, XI (1952), p. 278, on the basis of ABL, 740. The letter clearly deals with the health of Shamash-shum-ukin, who apparently was sick and had Ikkaru as his physician. 99 See above, pp. 28-29. In ARAB, II, 778 Ashurbanipal mentions the bringing of two gigantic obelisks reportedly weighing 2500 talents, to Nineveh from Egypt as part of the booty after his second campaign. These objects were no doubt transported at the request of the Assyrian king, which may indicate that his fascination was not limited to Mesopotamian antiques only, since the obelisks ceased to be made in Egypt sometime during the New Kingdom only to be revived in the Ptolemaic period. In Ashurbanipal's level in the Ishtar temple at Nineveh was found the bronze head believed to be a portrait of Sargon of Akkad, and a large piece of a stone cylinder of Shamshi Adad I (C. Thompson and R. W. Hamilton, "The British Museum Excavations on the Temple of Ishtar at Nineveh, 1930-1931", AAA, XIX, no. 3, Dec., 1932, p. 72, Pl. L, figs., 1, 2 and PI. LI, fig. 2). These definitely belong to an earlier period. The former may have been brought f r o m the South, thus implying that Ashurbanipal was searching not only for tablets, but for antique works of art. It is also possible that the head may have been brought f r o m Elam along with the statue of Nana, and because of its obvious antiquity, Ashurbanipal had it transported to Assyria. Cf. also ABL, 255 and Pfeiffer, 256. 98

100

See King, Magic and Sorcery, op. cit., no. 10; see also Prince, JACS, XXXIII, pp. lOff.; S. Langdon, "The Religious Interpretation of Babylonian Seals and a Prayer of Shamash-shum-ukin", RA, 16, p. 67, 1. 8.

158

SOCIAL STRUCTURE, ECONOMY, AND ART

the hands" of Shamash-shum-ukin (and another of Ashurbanipal) contains the phrase: I am so and so, son of so and so, whose god is so and so, whose goddess is so and so. Generally the intercessor inserted his name, together with those of his father's, and his personal deity. The newly introduced phrase with the word annanna (so and so) represents a revival of an old custom, which has been abandoned for many centuries.101 Among Shamash-shum-ukin's titles was that of "king of Amnanu", a title previously employed, as far as present records permit us to conclude, only by Sin-gashid, an early king of Uruk who lived about a thousand years earlier. It is probable that the title had been out of use for many centuries; its renewal by Shamash-shum-ukin may also reflect his interest in the past and in earlier kings of the land.102 His bilingual inscription in Sumerian and Akkadian similarly may be an indication of a desire to have his inscriptions imitate those of the early kings of Sumer and Akkad as a result of his interest in the culture of the past.103 Nabu-shum-iddina, a priest of the Ningal temple at Ur, left a small clay pedestal bearing a copy of an old brick inscription of Amar-Sin of the Third Dynasty of Ur.104 Since genuine specimens of the same inscription of Amar-Sin have been discovered, a comparison with the priest's version reveals that he had miscopied the text, indicating his ignorance of its contents. In any case, it is clear that Nabu-shum-iddina was impressed by the antiquity of the inscription and wished to display it, facts which may likewise testify to the prevailing interest in the past. The art of the time is also indicative of the current trend; very often, artists reverted to ancient models for their inspiration. Two stelae from Babylonia, one bearing a representation of Shamash-shum-ukin, the other of Ashurbanipal, depict the two monarchs in the attitude of basket bearers in full-front view.105 This manner of representation would appear to revert to a very early precedent, since royalty depicted in such manner had apparently been out of fashion for centuries.106 101

S. Langdon, RA, 13, p. 102. Lehmann, Samassumukin ... op. cit., p. 29; second part, p. 6. For Sin-gashid's inscriptions see G. Barton, RISA (New Haven, 1929), p. 332, no. 2345 see above, p. 113, ftn. 18. 103 Lehmann, op. cit., second part, p. 6. 104 C. Gadd, Ur Royal Inscriptions, op. cit., no. 172, Pl. T, u; Gadd, History and Monuments of Ur, op. cit., p. 224. 106 Lehmann, op. cit., frontispiece. loe A. Parrot, The Arts of Assyria, op. cit., Pis. 39-40 popular form of the Assyrian royal portrait. 102

SOCIAL STRUCTURE, ECONOMY, AND ART

159

A number of cylinder seals from Babylonia of this period have definite affinities with ancient traditional motifs. The ritual scenes in particular very often exhibit a simple dignity which recall the ritual scenes on seals from the Old Babylonian and Akkadian periods.107 The so-called Kassite rosette occurs frequently on seals from this period.108 Representations of animals often have no affinities with contemporary Assyrian technique, for they tend to be more restrained than forceful, muscles are not emphasized, and modelling is generally more simple, as was characteristic of the traditional Babylonian technique.109 A number of seals dated precisely by inscriptions to the period of Ashurbanipal and found at Nimrud have motifs which clearly revert to earlier times.110 In most cases it is impossible to determine if these were of Assyrian or Babylonian manufacture, but their existence is further evidence of a general archaistic tendency during this time. Other artistic evidence for an interest in the past is a remarkable statue of Ashurbanipal bearing a dedicatory inscription to the god Nabu. This is the only sculpture in the round thus far discovered from the period.111 The entire piece is severely formal and contains none of the complex artistry which Ashurbanipal's sculptors were capable of, but it is also a reversion to much earlier models, such as may be seen in certain seated and inscribed figures of Gudea from the 22nd century B.C..112 The statue of Ashurbanipal has the same feeling of formality, the same heavy eyelids and protruding eyeballs, and the same stylized concept of true portraiture. The manner in which the beard is dressed dates back to at least the last half of the third millennium B.C. as seen on the head of a divinity from Telloh.113 The solidity and general manner exhibited in the Nabu statue compares also with certain works from Mari such as the well-known statue of Ishtup-ilum. In spite of the striking affinities between the statue of Ashurbanipal's time and much earlier works, it would seem that its sculptor was following no particular ancient model, but was comissioned to produce a work which would resemble the "antique". This piece then, is an electic product of the sculptor's idea of what an antique piece might be. lm

A. Moortgat, Vorderasiatische Rollsiegel, Berlin, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin (Berlin, 1940), Taf. 85, no. 723, and p. 73. 108 Ibid., Taf. 83, no. 706. 109 E. Porada, Corpus of Ancient Near Eastern Seals in North American Collections, CXIV, fig. 754; E. D . Van Buren, "Seals of the Second half of the Layard Collection", Orientalia, XXIII, no. 2 (1954), p. 110, Pl. XXIII, no. 14. 110 Ibid., p. 110, Pl. XXIII, no. 14. 111 V. Soucek, "Keilschriftliches aus Prager Sammlungen", Archiv Orientalni, XXV (Prague, 1957), pp. 563-69, Pis. I-IV. 112 A. Parrot, Sumer, the Dawn of Art, op. cit., pp. 204-05, Pis. 253. 113 Ibid., p. 185, PL 222.

APPENDIX A

SOURCES

The sources dealing with the events of the reign of Ashurbanipal in southern Mesopotamia may be divided into three parts according to the time of their writing or compiling: Primary sources : Contemporary documentation for the events narrated. Secondary sources : Those written after the occurrence of the events described. Late sources : Those recorded after a great length of time had elapsed since the occurrence of the events.

THE PRIMARY SOURCES

1. The Assyrian Royal Inscriptions: The Assyrian kings whose inscriptions are chiefly utilized are those of Ashurbanipal and Shamash-shumukin, and to a lesser extent, those of Tiglath-Pileser III, Sargon II, Sennacherib, and Esarhaddon. The interest of the Assyrians in writing history and leaving records for generations to come is apparent. They give detailed accounts of military campaigns, building activities and civil matters which provide an indispensible source for Assyrian history. The interest felt throughout is the glorification of the monarch, thus they give no room for military defeats save for some unsuccessful attempts. These inscriptions have come down to us in different forms. The display inscriptions may be the least trustworthy of them all, since they were written primarily for propogational purposes. However, they can be of assistance in matters pertaining to building activités and in reconstructing broken prisms.1 Fully trustworthy are the letters sent by the potentates to the 1

A. T. E. Olmstead, Assyrian Historiography (Columbia Missouri, 1916), The University of Missouri Studies, Social Science Series, III, n. I, p. 64.

APPENDIX A

161

god Ashur, and that of Ashurbanipal is a good example. Since the god was believed to be omniscient the king was obliged to write the true details of the event.2 In addition to the fact that the chronological order of Ashurbanipal's annals is unassured, exaggeration of facts and doubtful exploits are noticeable. Practically every battle he fought, or claimed to have fought, lays claim to the fact that his own hands captured the opposition's king or leader in battle, which is an almost certain impossibility. At times he claims victories for himself in battles at which he cannot have been present. 3 Other royal inscriptions are brick inscriptions which usually record building activities of the king. Ordinarily these mention the name of the monarch, his titles, some of his deeds, and the nature of the building. The hunting reliefs are mostly excerpts from the Annals or display inscriptions. 2. Inscriptions of the Kings of Babylonia: Within this group are the very few inscriptions of the Babylonian king Merodach-Baladan II, (721-710 B.C.), whose rarity may have been due to their elimination by hostile Assyrian kings. Also those of Shamash-shum-ukin's rule in Babylon which are dated mainly to the period preceeding his war with Ashurbanipal. 4 3. The Royal Correspondence of the Assyrian Empire: These are letters consisting mainly of reports and requests sent to the Assyrian kings of the Sargonid period or to the members of their family, and of letters of their family, and of letters and demands sent by the kings or the crown princes to their officials, important personages and chieftains of tribes.5 2

Bauer, op. cit., p. 83; CT, 35, Pis. 44-45. In the first account of the Kirbit campaign, he attributed the triumph to his general, Nur-ekalli-umi (Streck, p. 206); in another account, he mentions that he had delegated his officiais and governors for its capture (ARAB, II, 908) ; while in another text, of later date, Ashurbanipal names himself as the one who conquered the city (ARAB, II, 850). 4 The corpus of these inscriptions which had been discovered up to 1892 were published by Lehmann-Haupt (Samassumukin ..., op. cit.). 5 The major portion of these letters, with the exception of letter 924, fall in the Sargonid, extending from the beginning of Sargon II's reign to the end of the empire. The nucleus of the letters consists of the 862 letters found by Layard at Nineveh in 18461849 and belong to the Kouyunjik collection of the British Museum. The collection has been increased by additions made through the two expeditions of H. Rassam, conducted in the years 1852-1854 and 1878-1882, and those of E. A. Wallis Budge, 18891891, R. W. King, 1902-1904, and R. Campbell Thompson, 1905. Five letters of the same group come from the Yale Babylonian Collection (C. E. Keiser, Babylonian Inscriptions in the Collection of J. B. Nies (New York, 1920), 93, 36, 49; YOS, 6, 7. translated by E. Ebeling in Neu-Babylonische briefe aus Uruk (Berlin, 1930-1932),

3

162

APPENDIX A

The historical and cultural information provided in these letters is of utmost importance. They attest to the general political situation and the workings of the governmental machinery and picture the Assyrian potentate as keeping abreast of the most minute details of his domain. The keen interest the Assyrian lieges had in Babylonia, and the Babylonian strife for independence, make the vast amount of correspondence in the matter of Babylonia quite understandable, and exhibit the different aspects of the dilemma. The situation disclosed by the epistles for the southern cities and their tribal communities is of great importance for there is no other way to arrive at the facts herein revealed. Extreme caution must be maintained when dealing with these letters, however. Many contain no titles, thus rendering the identity of the sender, addressee, or both, conjectural. The assignment of many of them to particular reigns is still an open question. Their language, in many instances, is of no assistance because of the use of many strange words in Akkadian ; this may possibly indicate colloquial influence, but it effectively hinders complete understanding of many of the texts. Many of the letters bear reference to certain incidents that are dealt with only by inference since details were common knowledge to the correspondents. This presents a very difficult problem, which can be resolved only by theorizing in regard to such incidents. 4. Omens, Prayers, and Rituals: The importance of the omens as an historical source cannot be underestimated.6 The reign of Esarhaddon, for instance, was a period of almost constant military operations, but his Annals do not mention all of these encounters and it is from his inquiries of the gods that we gain insight of these events. The omens from the time

These correspondences were dispatched to the seat of the empire from every point within, while others, though few in number, arrived from beyond, namely from Elam. Numerous epistles made special mention of previous notes which had gone unanswered — a fact strongly indicating that many of the correspondences still lie buried waiting for excavation. For the letters see R. F. Harper, ABL, Parts 1-14 (Chicago, 1892-1914); L. Waterman, RCAE, Vols. 1-4 (Ann Arbor, 1930-1936); R. H. Pfeiffer, State Letters of Assyria, AOS, 6 (New Haven, 1935); Waterman, op. cit., 4, p. 9. A group of letters found at Nimrud which shed light upon the situation in Babylonia during the time of Tiglath-pileser III may be mentioned here; H. W. F. Saggs, "The Numrud Tablets (1952)", Iraq, XVI (1955), part I, p. 22ff. • The documents pertaining to omens seemingly are formed of three parts ; the omen, the inquiry, and the colophon. The omen itself, ordinarily, is not stated, but the priest records his observations. The inquiry usually stated the purpose and the question that the person wanted answered. Herewith lies the principal value of these documents, namely their marked concern with important affairs of the moment. The colophon ordinarily stated the place where the observations were taken and the date.

APPENDIX A

163

of Ashurbanipal instruct us about the problems the monarch was facing and sometimes about the sequence of the events.7 The prayers are also a most useful aid to comprehension of historical data. The prayers of the period contain references to affairs not mentioned in the Annals, letters, or other historical writings. Those of Esarhaddon, Ashurbanipal, and Shamash-shum-ukin, are clearly of importance to historical understanding. 8 The historical facts disclosed in the rituals are not of the same degree of importance as those found in omens and prayers. This, however, does not eliminate their historical use since they shed light on the character of the kings, their anxieties, the atmosphere surrounding them, and refer indirectly to the political climate.9 5. Charters and Kudurru (Boundry) stones: The Kudurru stones thus far discovered from this period are few in number. 10 The charters of Ashurbanipal are quite important, one deals with a gift of land exempted from taxation to Nabu-shar-usur, and another to Bultai. Another charter derives from Ashur-etil-ilani, and is a proclamation charter of land and donkeys. 11 6. Treaties: By treaties, we mean the contracts between Assyria and its vassal states. Only one treaty has been preserved from this period, that of Esarhaddon with Ramatala, the Median ruler of Urukazabarna, concluded in Nineveh in 672 B.c.12 It is very possible that more of these treaties will be recovered in the future. 7. Business Documents: A number of business transactions from this period have shed light on the economic life and various business procedures of the era. The numerous wars and general unrest in Babylonia during the Assyrian period, however, make these documents comparatively few in number. ' KPRT, nos. 102, 105, 109, 139, in which Ashurbanipal inquires about the fate of Shamash-shum-ukin and the war with Elam. • E. J. Banks, "Eight Oracular Responses to Esarhaddon", AJSL, XIV (1897, 1898), p. 267 ff; D. Prince, "A New Shamash-shum-ukin Series", AJSL, XXXI (1914-1915), p. 256ff. ; F. Martin, Texts Religieux — Assyriens et Babyloniens (Paris, 1903), p. 46ff. ; J. A. Craig, Assyrian and Babylonian Religious Texts, being prayers, oracles, and hymns (Leipzig, 1895), I, Pis. 10-13. β A. Ungnad, "Figurenzauber für den Kranken König Samas-Sum Ukin", Orientalia, XII (1943), pp. 293ff.; J. Laessoe, Studies on the Assyrian Ritual and Series bit-Rimki, op. cit., p. 83 ff. 10 BBS, pp. 24, 70, 128 (Meissner, OLZ, XXI, (1918), Col. 119-123); F. Steinmetzer, "Die Bestallungsurkunde König Samaäsumukin von Babylon", Ar. Or., VII (1935), p. 314f. 11 Add, IV, pp. 162, 174, 201. " D. J. Wiseman, "The Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon", Iraq, XX (1958), part I.

164

APPENDIX A

The names of the cities in which the business documents were issued reveals the extent of the king's rule and the cities under his domination. Also, when we have no other means of knowing the end of a particular king's reign, the business documents may be considered a guide. A number of such texts are cited above. 8. Miscellaneous Inscriptions: a) votive texts: These are written on objects presented by a king or governor to a god for his own life or for the life of his master, and are helpful in portraying the history of the period.13 b) mortuary inscriptions: These are of importance but examples are very rare. From this period only a small baked clay tablet records the dispatch of Shamash-ibni's coffin from Assyria for burial in the fortress of the Dakkuri. 14 9. The Archaeological Evidence: The archaeological material from this period is of great consequence. From the southern Mesopotamian cities thus far excavated, many finds have been discovered in the Assyrian level with indications of extensive rebuilding activities, especially during the reigns of Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal. Buildings bearing traces of repair during this period, as well as figurines, relief, pottery, and cylinder seals have come to us from Babylon, Nippur, Uruk and Ur. These allow us to see the artistic motifs and trends which prevailed during the time. The interest of Ashurbanipal, Shamash-shumukin, and their father in the past and their love for the antique finds support in art. THE SECONDARY SOURCES

1. King Lists: There are two types of lists of Babylonian kings of this period, the simple king lists and the synchronistic king lists. The former includes King List A which is a fragmentary tablet. It originally contained the names of the Babylonian kings from the First Dynasty of Babylon down to the New Babylonian Period, possibly having been written during Cyrus' reign. The synchronistic king lists with the name of Assyrian and Babylonian kings in parallel columns, are of importance.15 13 E. Ebeling, "Eine Weihinschrift Assuretililanis für Marduk", An. Or. XII, pp. 71-73 ; V. Scheil, "Nouvelles Notes d'Epigraphie et d'archéologie Assyriennes", RT, XXIV (1902), pp. 188-90, Ex-voto de dirigeant de Uruk au roi Shamash-shum-Ukin. 11 A. Clay, "The Small Baked Clay Cylinder", YOS, I. no. 43 (1915), pp. 60-62. 16 CT; XXXVI, Pis., 24, 25; E. Ebeling, Altorientalische Texte zum alten Testament (Berlin and Leipzig, 1926), second ed., edited by H. Gresssmann, pp. 332; ANET, p. 272. ff.

APPENDIX A

165

The Assyrian eponym lists may also be included here. They contain the names of successive governors and officials for whom the years are named. These are of great significance for dating purposes since they provided a most reliable basis for Assyrian chronology.16 2. The Chronicles: The Babylonian and Assyrian chronicles are most valuable sources for the age under discussion. a) The Babylonian Chronicle is dated to the twelfth year of Darius, 500-499 B.C. with its "exact" copying from an older text being noted by the scribe at the end.17 It contains a list of Babylonian kings from Nabunasir to Shamash-shum-ukin, but unfortunately does not go beyond the first year of Ashur bani pal. The events recorded are generally military and have direct reference to Babylonian history. The author has written in a non-biased manner giving no difference to one person or country over another. b) The Esarhaddon Chronicle enumerates events which occured during the reigns of Esarhaddon, Ashurbanipal, and Shamash-shum-ukin. The Kirbit campaign is mentioned, and the chronicle ends with the revolt in Egypt which took place in the accession year of Shamash-shum-ukin. The events recounted are often accompanied by their exact date.18 c) Chronicle of the years 680-625 B.C.: Lines 1-8 of this chronicle are similar to the Esarhaddon Chronicle, and the facts surrounding the cessations of the New Year festival at Babylon from 689-669 are summarized. The starting of Shamash-shum-ukin's rebellion is documented, but as to the following war years there is only the notation that the New Year festival was not held until 648. The chronicle then omits the following years to start from the year 625 when Babylonia and Assyria again were opposing each other.19 d) The Chronicles of Chaldaean kings: Four texts survive but only two are of use for our study. These chronicles indeed add to the completion of our knowledge of this period. One describes the military activities between the Assyrians and Babylonians.20 The second takes us from the events of the tenth year of Nabopolassar down to his eighteenth year.21 18 For a complete list until 648 B.C., see E. Ebeling and B. Meissner, RLA, zweiter Band (Berlin and Leipzig, 1938), under Eponymen, pp. 412-457; for the years from 643-612 B.C. see M. Falkner "Die Eponymen der Späteassyrichen Zeit", AOF, 17, (1954-1955), pp. lOOff. 17 F. Delitzsch, Die Babylonische Chronik; ANET, p. 301 ff. 18 BHT, p. 15ff. ANET, p. 303. 19 Ibid., p. 22 f. 20 D. J. Wiseman, Chronicles of Chaldaean Kings, 626-656 (London, 1956, pp. 50-54. 21 Ibid., pp. 54-65.

166

APPENDIX A

These events are narrated in chronological order and include seemingly inconsequential incidents. The exact date is often given, enabling us to trace the events in sequence for the years recorded. The scribe records the events with no prejudice for or against certain groups, countries, or persons.22 1. The Old Testament: The Old Testament not infrequently refers to late Assyrian kings. The activities in Palestine, of Tiglath-Pileser III, mentioned as Pul, are set forth.23 His successor, Shalmaneser V, referred to as Uhilaia, is reported as besieging Samaria for three years and deporting its inhabitants.24 Reference is also made to the embassy sent by Merodachbaladan.25 The final fate of Sennacherib at the hands of his sons is also recorded.28 The Old Testament tells us too, that Manasseh was temporarily exiled to Babylon, an event which in all probability took place under Ashurbanipal.27 The name Osnappar is generally believed to be a contraction of the Assyrian name Ashurbanipal. He is referred to as one of the Assyrian kings who settled foreign colonists in the territory of Samaria.28 2. The Greek Sources: Berossos, about 290 B.C., a priest of Bel, wrote Babylonica, in three books dedicated to Antiochus I Soter (324-262/or 261 B.C.).29 Unfortunately his book is lost and we must therefore depend upon the excerpts of Polyhistor and Abydenus, quoted by Eusebius, and upon the quotations which appear in Josephus and Syncellus. Although his chronology for the period from the flood to the reign of Phulos is most confusing, the succeeding portions fit our present conception of chronology better. Josephus, the Jewish historian (37-100 A.D.), in his Jewish Antiquities gives narratives closely resembling those in the Old Testament. He refers, for instance, to Tiglath-pileser III, whom he called Phulos,3® to the muder 22

Other chronicles are preserved which are of secondary importance for us since they are fragmentary or record only part of the Sargonid period in Babylonia, e.g., G. Smith, Eponym Canon, p. 42ff. : Schräder, Keilinschriften Bibliothek, I, p. 208ff. ; Olmstead, "The Assyrian Chronicle", J AOS, 34 (1914-1915), pp. 365-68; L. W. King, Chronicles Concerning Early Babylonian Kings, Studies in Eastern History, II (London, 1907), "the chronicle relating to events from the 11th to the 7th centuries", rev. Is. 16ff. 23 I Chronicles 5:26; Π Kings 15:19; I Chronicles 16:7, 8; 15; 29; 16:9; 15:30. " II Kings 17:3-6; 18:9. 24 II Kings 21:12-19; Isaiah 39:1-8; II Chronicles 32:31. M II Kings, 18:14-17; 19:8; II Chronicles 18:17; II Kings 19:37; II Chronicles 32:21. " II Chronicles 33:11-13. 28 Ezra 4:10. 2 » Schnabel, op. cit., pp. 251-73; PW, III (Stuttgart, 1899), pp. 309-16; F. Jacoby, FGH, Dritter Teil C (Leiden, 1958), no. 680, pp. 364-95. 90 Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews, IX, 232.

APPENDIX A

167

of Sennacherib, the envoys of Merodach-baladan, whom he called Baladas, and to the capture of Manasseh.31 Also Claudius Ptolemaeus, the Greek geographer (2nd century A.D.), in his Canon, mentioned the years for the reigns of the kings of Assyria.32 Many other Greek and Roman historians, however, have provided information relative to Assyria and Babylonia in relation to the period concerned. Unfortunately, much of their narrative is nearer to legend than to historical truth. 33 Long tales were written about Sardanapolus, •who is referred to as the last great king of Assyria, and whom many historians have equated with Ashurbanipal. He is pictured in these narratives as cowardly, effeminate, and living in great luxury. 3. Arabic Sources: These, for the first time in ancient history, now give sound data on the ancient Near East. Al-Bxrüni relates that which he acquired from sources available during his time and records his own thoughts regarding the period of Ashurbanipal.34 The Muslim historian, who seems to have been working with more than one source, retained the name Sardanapolus, after the Greek authors, but also called him Thonos Konkoleros. Also included in the work is his list of kings of the Babylonian, Late Assyrian, and New Babylonian periods.35

81

Ibid., X, 30, 40. PW, XLVI (1959), pp. 1788-1859. 88 Herodotus, 11:150; Diodorus Siculus, II, 23-29, and others. 84 Abu Al-Rayhän Muhammad bin Ahmed Al-Brruni, one of the greatest scholars of Medieval Islam and certainly the most original and profound. Born of Iranian parents in 973?. The Encyclopaedia ofIslam, New Edition, H. A. R. Gibb, J. H. Kramer, E. Levi-Provencal, J. Schacht, editors (Leiden, London, 1960). 35 Sachau, Chronology, op. cit., p. 101. 33

APPENDIX Β

CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE FOR THE INSCRIPTION O F ASHURBANIPAL

The writings of Ashurbanipal have here been divided into eight categories and an attempt is made to set them in chronological order.1 1

All important texts published in Streck, ARAB, and Bauer are of course included, as well as those significant texts which have since been published. When an inscription or letter bears an eponym date, assignment is obvious, but when no such date is included, other means must be used. A comparison of writings which follow similar styles and expressions may help to establish a date, particularly if any one text can be definitely dated, but this method can be misleading. For instance, Editions F and A are to a great extent similar in style; without looking at the eponym (preserved on Edition F) one would be inclined to assign it to about 636 B.C., the same date as Edition A ; however ten years difference exists between the two. The dates assigned to the various fragments are tentative, for in the future some of them may be found to be parts of a larger edition with a date preserved on one of its fragments and different from that here assigned. Another method of dating the texts is by the sequence of events recorded therein, for usually the last event which occurred is more detailed and lengthy than the others which are summaries of earlier campaigns. Thus the last undertaking recorded may be used as a guide for assigning a date. For instance, as mentioned above, Edition F. is so similar to A that, if its date were not recorded, we might be inclined to assign it to 646 B.C. for the Elamite campaign is discussed at length and, chronologically, it does not go beyond that event. Names of people and of witnesses recorded on business documents are of course of assistance in establishing a date for the document. The same names tend to reoccur for a certain number of years, — for perhaps a decade — so although the document may be pinpointed to a general time, it is difficult to assign a precise year by this method. Since, in later accounts, the king often claimed for himself triumphs which, in earlier ones, he gave the credit to a general, we can often tell in what part of the reign a particular document should be placed. D. J. Wiseman in "Fragments of Historical Texts From Nimrud", Iraq, XXVI, Part 2, Fall, 1964, p. 123, mentioned that 36 fragments of cylinders and prisms with inscriptions of Ashurbanipal had been found, which are under a study by Professors J. Lassoe and Ε. E. Knudsen.

CO

Sm. 2124' Κ 1290"

Epigraphs on Epigraphs Epigraphs on Divination and Brick Hunting for Historical Inscriptions Religious Texts Reliefs Sculpture Reliefs

APPENDIX Β

Year

Inscriptions with Tablet Inscriptions Babylonian Character

CA ε co pH

. te O fi £> fS „ h m υ
l+i ^ i — ce Λ s 3 S Ü ïî s t3 M J3 rce 60 3 o 00 J3 _e t> .2 O — Si -a ε Ä & - ? s S | a ε & ο · 5 * β * Γ] * s ε ^ b Ci IH ΓΗ o 'S .S fi ce ω_ -fi O J3 C t_í3 M Ö O g a Q (O ~ -M l - s S >,-5 S o % § -2 g "1-3 ï s l jä ^ 5 ! co κ ^ SΌ o υ S .. ο =3 s» Λ ÇO GO rJS ο C , « ε a • rce Ui « o S Μ Ρ «Μ ι Λ 3 Λ ° "2 e ' S .fi r. ce !S t-3 'S ω -tí 3 Sí S » S ce tí o s «60J3 . a sΛ · ?> £> o ft υ -S g S ω S u .ü û, ,ïïΛ .S S , a U -g u -κ . SS O y o 's I l I c 60Ä « ù ο h -o o 1 Q Λ Ω §« •ϊ Ρ 'S « Ρ < S 'S « Ice s o c S e " § S VO -O — •β •Ρ λ "> β \r> o ce ω c h o CS . ω ce o. ω -s Ζ c a co 'S 3 ^ · « ·5 -a 3 'S tí Λ s . s ε •Ρ a S o ce ce • o « e - •σ A Ä < u 2 g f ce ce •o i?" u 3 c r/1 ;Sω δ Ή ** ω Q. •S J •tí O 60 o I 8 5 Ζ c « X tí : < s m Ί 3 a ¡β " - .2 ό S ·§ 3 O c « S ·** ce Λ 8 ΛΛ X> 3 g ο ΛV Äa JS «¡ •S 3 η»- ^ ? S G -ο Λ ^ * „ •2 9 « « c σ\ a . Sa ι < Ό «J UN 'S Ο (β " à ι -Γ I—I bû CO 1_I I « O ir1 j S * •-Ό α Ü.2" Vi•o 2 03 Cu a γ M s - s ce C O Λq S a g X 3 S c3o s * 8: »5 2 "3 " a « O O-g S c v? ffl •S'a o a •7 ω ÍS a - β í -e .2 Ρα «tfω ce 0 3 s υ •e —

3 m— C i S H S ίΛ Ν ¿O 9*3 υ C Μ ω •S 'Sê α »-Γ vÓ tí Λi? l>> •3 O ω o „ Β "í s JS · « -m o - « 'S 5t "CδS- SO u- 1 > lä'ä s. 5 -ti > o¡X •tíTO3 X •i 1 § 1 i χ χ ^ ε < Ξ C Q« (Λ ^ i .ί « h tí PH " Χ 2 .3 ώ c 0 tí Ö α „ μ ·= t¡ 1 ε ω 13 J3 .Ω •β « 3 ^ i?' S¡ V 1_ι C υ 2 2 .2? Ό S" 8 · » r «3 S o rH »n 6 o0 ó ^ „ > m 5S ^ ce • Λ w -s S g Γ íh a υ Τ3 ω S c s e 53 m . 3 XI .S O "flj jo , . 3 ™ S(U•e 'S fi ' tí ^ < l g a a ι-, ä a ω » a ce «

§

170

APPENDIX Β

Year

Tablet Inscriptions

Inscriptions with Babylonian Character

668/667 (year 1)

Κ 3127 + Κ 4435" ARAB, 96910 OT 133"

L 412 L l 13 Κ 4449" CBS 733 + 17571516 S 2" S 318 Cyl. ρ 19 É. Mah Cyl.20

Prisms

9 Bezold, II, p. 505; Bauer, pp. 66. The text deals only with the first Egyptian campaign, thus its date can be fixed tentatively to 668 B.C.. 10 ARAB, II, 969-973; Ungnad, ZA, 31, 33-37; Lutz, Η. F., "The Warka Cylinder of Ashurbanipal", UCPSP, 9, no. 8 (Berkley, 1931); Bauer, OLZ, 35 (1932), pp. 254-255. Ashurbanipal herein recorded the surrender of Ba'ali, the restoration of Marduk and, the abundance of rain early in his reign. 11 Bezold, IV, p. 1554, Bauer, p. 54. The letter is strikingly similar in style to the writings of Ashurbanipal from his first year, commemorating the rebuilding in Babylon. 12 K3050 + 2694; Streck, XLVI, CDXXXII, 252-271, 413, 862ff.; ARAB, II, 986990 ff. The writing is confined to a boastful introduction on the part of Ashurbanipal which is followed by an account of the return of Marduk to Babylon with the newly appointed king. The date, most likely, is not later than Ayyaru/early Simanu 668 B.C.. 13 Streck, XLI, 226-229, 442, 862; ARAB, II, 953-955. It is a commemoration of the rebuilding of the temple of Ishtar in Babylon. The return of Marduk and the appointment of Shamash-shum-ukin are mentioned. On the basis of style and historical contents, the text may be assigned to year 668 B.C.. 14 Lambert, "Two Texts from the Early Part of the Reign of Ashurbanipal", AOF, XVII (1957), pp. 383 if. records the return of Marduk to Babylon, the appointment of Shamash-shum-ukin and his accompanying the god to Babylon. 15 CBS, 733 + 1757; this text seems, in all probability, to have been composed at the same time as no. 6; BE, VIII, 1, no. 142; Lambert, ibid. 16 Legrain, L., Royal Inscriptions and Fragments from Nippur and Babylon, The Museum of the University of Pennsylvania, PBS, XV, no. 74 (Philadelphia, 1926), p. 34. The text is in Sumerian and dedicated to Enlil. 17 ARAB, II, 975,977 ; Streck, XLIVf., CDLXXXII, 240-245. The text commemorates the rebuilding of the wall of Ezida. 18 ARAB, II, 979-980; Streck, XLV, 244-249, 413. The text is commemorating the building of the temple of Ea in the Esagila. It is similar to no. 9 in style as well as in events recorded.

Letters

171

APPENDIX Β

Epigraphs on Epigraphs for Epigraphs on Histerical Reliefs Sculpture Hunting Reliefs

Brick Inscriptions

Divination and Religious Texts

Κ 3813 + Κ 839426 ARAB, 11192122 Β 12β BEI, 1, no. 8223 24 Κ 3630 + Κ 4436" BW 89-4-26, 20928 Κ 241129 L 230 AGS, 147, 148, 149, 15431

19 Streck, XLII, 232-235; ARAB, II, 961, 962. Ashurbanipal here has recorded only the return of Marduk and the appointment of Shamash-shum-ukin. The text makes it clear that the work on Esagila had preceded the return of Marduk to Babylon. The renders the text to be dated, in all probability, soon after the appointment of Shamashshum-ukin, Ayyaru, 668/667 B.C.. 20 ARAB, II, 966-967; Streck, 238-241, 413, 862, XLIV, f., CDLXXXII; Meissner, OLZ (1916), 307. 21 Brick inscription mentioning the rebuilding of Etemenanki, Streck, p. 350; ARAB, II, 1118. 22 Koldewey, Tempel von Babylon und Borshippa, No. 10, p. 72. From the building of the Esagila. 23 BE, no. 8072; Streck, 350. From the Ekur temple in Nippur. 24 To Ishtar, Bauer, p. 47; Bezold, II, p. 506. 25 K3813 + K 8 8 9 4 + 79-7-8., 134; Bezold, II, p. 478. III, p. viii; IV, p. 1711; Bauer, pp. 38-39. The rebuilding of the temples of Nusku and of Sin at Harran is recorded. 26 Bauer, pp. 41-42; Bezold, II, 634; Κ 4451. 27 Bezold, II, 460; Bauer, p. 44. 28 Th. Meek, "A Votive Inscription of Ashurbanipal", JAOS (1918) p. 167. A dedicatory inscription to Ningal which doubtless refers to his earlier rebuilding of her temple. 29 ARAB, II, 1011-1018; Craig, I, Pis., 76-79; Streck, LIf., 292-303, 415, 863. 30 ARAB, II, 956-959; J. A. Craig and R. F. Harper, AJSL, II (1885), p. 87flf. A prayer of Ashurbanipal. Streck, XLI, 228-232, 412. 31 The four texts, in all probability, could be assigned to the year 668 B.C. on the basis of their striking similarity. No. 149 is dated by the limmu to the 23rd of Nisannu, 668 B.C..

172

APPENDIX Β

Year 667/666 (year 2) 663/662 (year 6) 661/660 (year 8) 660/659 (year 9)

Tablet Inscriptions

Inscriptions with Babylonian Character

Prisms

Letters ABL, 2961 33

R m 281 33 Κ 2825 34

Edit. E 36 MAOG (1927)42

667/666 32 RCAE, I, p. 206, III, p. 117. The text is too fragmentary for an assured date. Waterman dated the letter to 667 B.C. upon the basis of the identification of Nabushezibanni, mentioned in the text, with Psammetichus, as maintained in HA, p. 416 and Streck, 710. 663/662 33 ARAB, II, 944, Bauer, p. 56f.; Bezold, IV, p. 1600; Streck, XL, 224-227, 862. The text's mentioning of Urtaku's attack upon Assyria while Ashurbanipal's troops were busy in Egypt, as it has been recorded, may enable us to date it to 663 B.C.. 34 Streck, XXXVI, 206; ARAB, II, 933. The text seems to center around the flight of Urtaku's sons and Tammaritu which may enable us to place it chronologically to 663 B.C.. 35 Streck, XXXI, D I U , 154-157; ARAB, II, 892-894; Bauer, p. 27ff.; Piepkorn, I, 8ff. Ashurbanipal here begins by recording the career of his father in Egypt, and then his own. The attempt of Necho and others to bring Taharka back to Egypt, t h e Kirbit campaign, and the embassy of Gyges are recorded. It is difficult to give a precise date to this edition because Column III is missing, which may deal with the second Egyption campaign. Thus, the text in its preserved condition may be dated to the year 668 B.C.. However, on the assumption that Column III deals with the second Egyptian campaign, the probable date is 663 B.C.. 38 ARAB, II, 1117 ; Maynard J AOS, VI, 105 ; Bauer, p. 93. The coming of Teumman to the Elamite throne is recorded. 37 ARAB, II, 1021-1025; Streck, 304-308. It is difficult to assign a particular date for these inscriptions. Owing to the great similarity in style which exists among them, and to the fact that no. 1025 preserved the name of Urtaku, 663 B.C. may be a suitable date.

APPENDIX Β Epigraphs on Historical Reliefs

Epigraphs for Epigraphs for Brick Inscriptions Hunting Reliefs Sculpture

Κ 604936

ARAB, 1021 3 ' 1022, 1023 1024, 1025

173 Divination and Religious Texts

AGS, no. 15338 AGS, no. 1533» Κ 2675 + Κ 228 40 Κ 891 41 AGS, no. 15048 AGS, no. 15144

38

Ashurbanipal herein prays for the preservation of his general, Nabu-shar-usur, who headed his army against the Gambulians. 39 A prayer by Ashurbanipal for the preservation of his leader who went to fight the Gambulians. 40 A text commemorating the temple of Sin in Harran. The first and second Egyptian campaigns, the incident of Kirbit, the embassy of Gyges, the surrender of Tabal and Arvad are recorded, ARAB, II, 899-915; Bauer, 33ff.; Streck, XXXIIf., CDLXXXII, 158-175, 411, 861. 41 ARAB, II, 981-984; Streck, XLV, 248ff., The text records the building activities of Ashurbanipal in Arbela, Milkia, Tarbisu, Babylon, and Harran. The text is written in Babylonian characters. The reference to the consecration of Ashur-mukin-ballitsu for the priesthood, probably of the god Ashur, and Ashur-etil-shame-irsitim-ballitsu for that of Harran was given together with the appointment of Shamash-shum-ukin for the kingship of Babylon. In all probability, the appointment of the first two brothers did not take place simultaneously with Ashurbanipal's owing to their minority. The appointment of the younger brothers probably had taken place in 663 B.C.. 661/660 42 Nassouhi, Essad, "Texts divers relátifs a l'histoire de l'Assyrie", MAOG, III, Heft 52 (Leipzig, 1927). The date is preserved on rev. 4 as Nisännu, year 8. 660/659 48 A prayer to Shamash by Ashurbanipal for the safety of his leader, Nabushar-usur, who apparently had been dispatched to fight the Mannaeans. 44 Ashurbanipal herein is also praying for the preservation of the same general in the same campaign.

174

APPENDIX Β year

655/654 (year 14) 654/653 (year 15) 653/652 (year 16)

Tablet Inscriptions

Inscriptions with Babylonian Character

Prisms

Letters

Tm 1931-2, 264e Κ 2867 + Ki. 1904 10-9,11 Κ 305650 Κ 263251 Κ 265252 Bohl. no. 1310, 131153 Κ 267254

ABL, 29365 CT, 3566

655/654 45 ARAB, II, 1011-1018, Craig, 1, Pis. 76-79. It is dated by the eponym to the 27th of Simanu, 655 B.C.. 654/653 46 C. Thompson, Iraq, VII, figs, 19-20. The text seems to center around the defeat of Tugdamme. 47 The text seems to have been written around the time of the visit of Rusa's embassy. 48 A copy of a dedicatory inscription from Esagila. Streck, L, f. 276-287, 415,862. A reference is found to an earlier war with Elam, which might have been that of Irtaku. Then Ashurbanipal recorded the aggression and the defeat of Tugdamme. 653/652 49 ARAB, II, 934ff.; Streck, XXXVIf., CDLXXXII, 210-215, 862; Bauer, 87 ff. The attack of Artaku, the flight of his sons with those of Tammaritu, and the death of Teumman were all recorded. The text mentioned abundance at the beginning of Ashurbanipal's reign. 50 Bezold, II, 499; Bauer, 58. The text records the installation of Tammaritu and Hubanhaltash on Elamite thrones. 51 Bauer, 75f.; Bezold, II, p. 460. The death of Teumman and the installation of Ummanigash are recorded. 52 ARAB, II, 929; Streck, XXXV, CDLXXXII, 188-195. The text, in all probability, is to be dated to 653 B.C. for it centers around the death of Teumman. 53 Mededeelingen uit De Leidsche Verzameling Van Spijkerschrift-Inscripties, III, Assyrische En Νieuw-BabyIonische Oorkonden (1100-91 v. Chr.) by F. M. Bohl, (Mededeelingen Der Koninklijke Akademie Van Wetenschappen Afdeeling letterkunde, Deel 82, serie Β. no. 2) (Amsterdam, 1936), no. 1. Ashurbanipal started here with his triumphs over Iakinlu and Mugalli in the west, the installation of Tammaritu and Ummanigash, and his war with the Gambulu, in the east. Bohl, 1311, Ibid., no. 2, pp. 16-19.

175

APPENDIX Β Epigraphs on Historical Reliefs

ARAB, 10354' ARAB, 1028, 1029" 1030, 1031, 1032, 1033 Κ 263768 Sm. 135059 Kalac™ Κ 2674"

54

Epigraphs for Sculpture

Epigraphs on Hunting Reliefs

Brick Inscriptions

Divination and Religious Texts Κ 241146 ARAB, 1000 48 , 49 Craig, I, V-VI62 Κ 1609 + Κ 4699" Lehmann, Mat. 64

Bezold, II, p. 464; Bauer, p. 71. It records the death of Teumman. RCAE, III, p. 116. 6 " Bauer, 83 ; CT, 35, Pis. 44-45. It is a letter to the god Ashur, Ashurbanipal informs the god of the defeat of Teumman, and mentions a former triumph over the Umraanmanda which took place shortly before the Elamite war. 57 All of these inscriptions seem to center around the death of Teumann. 58 ARAB, II, 1040; Streck, LVIII, 320-323; Maynard, JSOR, VI, p. 100; Bauer, 104. The text reports the death of Teumman. 69 ARAB, II, 1042-1047; Streck, LX, CDLXXXIII, 340if., 419-421, 864; Maynard, JSOR, VII, 25ff.; Bauer, 101. The war with Teumman and his death, the capture of Dunanu, and the embassy of Rusa are recorded. 60 Turk Tarih Kurumu, Belleten, 18 (1954). "Son Asur Cagina ait on Kabartma Parçasa", by Mustafa Kalac, p. 35 ff. Owing to its similarity to Κ 2674 and Sm. 2010 and BM 82,2-4,186, rev. Col. 1,12-13, Streck, II, 322, the date may be given tentatively as 653 B.C.. 61 Κ 2674 + Sm. 2010 + 81-2-4-, 187 (CT35, Pis. 9-12); Bauer, p. 91 ; Streck, LVIIIf., 322-333, 419, 863; Maynard, JSOR, VI, 103; ARAB, II, 1048; The war and death of Teumman and the installation of Ummanigash are recorded. 62 ARAB, II, 1123, 1129. Although the language of the prayer is a common one indeed, we can see from the context that Ashurbanipal's kingdom was threatened. The striking similarity of this prayer with Ashurbanipal's invocation of Ishtar, as recorded in Edition B, may help us assign a date to about 653 B.C.. 93 Bauer, p. 46. The ascendancy of Teumman, followed by that of Tammaritu and Ummanaldas, are recorded. 64 A votive to Ninurta published in the Materialien zur Altern Geschichte Armeniens und Mesopotamiens, AKGW, Band 9, no. 3 (1907), pp. 55-56. The name of Teumman and his decapitation is recorded repeatedly. 55

176

APPENDIX Β Year

Tablet Inscriptions

652/651 (year 17)

651/650 (year 18)

Bohl, 13 1 5 74 , 75

Inscriptions with Babylonian Character

Prisms

Letters

ABL, ABL, ABL, ABL, ABL, ABL, ABL, ABL, ABL, ABL, ABL, ABL, ABL,

652/651 6 5 RCAE, III, p. 191. The contexts of the letter may enable us to assign it to this date. The text is also partially similar in incidents and style to ABL, 273, which could be assigned to 652. ββ RCAE, I, p. 208, III, p. 118. It is dated by the eponym to the 23rd of Ayyaru. 67 RCAE, I, p. 210, III, p. 119. It records that certain Nabataeans were before Ashipa. They probably came at the beginning of Shamash-shum-ukin's revolt. 68 RCAE, I, p. 382, III, p. 190. The circumstances seem to be at the beginning of Shamash-shum-ukin's revolt and Bel-ibni has not yet been appointed to the Sea Land. 69 RCAE, II, p. 152, III, p. 265. The name of the limmu is preserved. 70 RCAE, II, p. 270, III, p. 280. Shamash-shum-ukin is mentioned, and it seems to be at the beginning of his revolt. 71 RCAE, II, p. 366, III, p. 329. The Babylonian revolt seems to be at its onset. 72 In all probability this is dated to the beginning of the Babylonian revolt. Here Ashurbanipal is giving his governor of Uruk a wide authority to deal with the attacks upon Assyrian territories in the South. 73 These are liver reports. No. 102 preserved the date of the 27th of Tammuzu. The three are dated by the limmu. 74 All the following texts are liver reports with the dates by the limmu. The name of the limmu is Ashur-danin-sharru, whose name is not found in the eponym list from the time of Ashurbanipal. Many of the reports, however, have the same contents as those in number 8. Thus, we may give them the date 652. Number 108 is dated to the 11th of Tammuzu; 109,15th ofTishriti; 110,the 10th of Abu; 112,4th of Shabatu; 113 and 114 to the 11th and the 16th of Shabatu.

543 65 301 66 305 e7 540 68 944" 1108™ 1244 71 273"

296™ 302 77 402 78 29V 945 80

177

APPENDIX Β

Epigraphs on Historical Reliefs

Epigraphs for Sculpture

Epigraphs on Brick Inscriptions Hunting Reliefs

Divination and Religious Texts KPRT, 102, 103, 104" KPRT, 108-110 112115, 118'9

KPRT, 105-107, 111, 116-118 81

KPRT, 13582 KPRT, 12983

651/650 75 Bohl, op. cit., pp. 25-28. The beginning of the Babylonian revolt and the escape of Nabu-bel-shumate are recorded. 76 RCAE, III. p. 117. Too fragmentary; may deal with war circumstances. " RCAE, III, p. 118. In all probability to be dated to the period during the Babylonian war, and the initial military operations. 78 RCAE, III, p. 148. Most likely refers to the time when Bel-ibni first assumed his responsibilities. 79 RCAE, III, pp. 112-113. The language of the text, the strong apology of Ashurbanipal to the elders of Nippur, and the activités against the tribes mentioned may indicate a date during the beginning of the Babylonian revolt. Waterman dated it to the period after the fall of Babylon. 80 RCAE, III, p. 265. The concern over the loyalty of the Ammukani tribe may help in establishing the date. 81 These texts are liver reports dated by the limmu. Number 105 is dated to the 4th of Nisannu, 106 to the 26th of Ayyaru, 107 to the 16th of Marcheswan, III to the 4th of Shabatu, 116 to the 13th of Abu. 82 KPRT, pp. 148-149 (K 4696). The name of the eponym is not preserved in this text, except for the day, 11th of Abu. G. Smith, History of Ashurbanipal, p. 184 has the eponymate of Saggab. 83 KPRT, pp. 142-144 (K 28 + K 3960). It mentions the date 22 of a month which name is not preserved, followed by the phrase "until 22 of Abu", which makes the mutilated name of the month perhaps Tammuzu.

178

APPENDIX Β

Year

Tablet Inscriptions

650/649 (year 19)

TM, 1931-2, 1684 Κ 635685

649/648 (year 20)

TM TM TM TM

1931-2, 1931-2, 1931-2, 1931-2,

17 15 2193 2094

Inscriptions with Babylonian Character

Prisms

Edit. D 95 Edit. C9e Edit. B97

Letters ABL, ABL, ABL, ABL, ABL, ABL, ABL, ABL, ABL,

2918β 40087 51788 28989 28890 29091 29298 297" 1151, 1380100

650/649 84 C. Thompson, Iraq, VII, p. 105, no. 26. The limmu, in all probability, is Bel-harran-shadua. 85 Bezold, II, p. 781 ; Bauer, p. 59. It records the destruction of the Gambulu capital, and the help Shamash-shum-ukin acquired from Elam. From its preserved condition, the text may be dated to 650 B.C.. 86 RCAE, III, p. 114. Ashurbanipal in the letter is blaming Bel-ibni for fighting the Gurasimmu. This probably was when Bel-ibni aided Sin-tabni-usur, governor of Ur, and perhaps took place early in Bel-ibni's term. 87 RCAE, III, p. 148. The kashshuhu plant and the copper, which were mentioned in the letter are quite likely part of the property which Nabu-bel-shumate took out of Dilmun, about which Bel-ibni wrote to Ashurbanipal (see ABL, 791). The letter probably is dated to the beginning of Bel-ibni's governorship. 88 RCAE, III, p. 182. The text is dated by the limmu to the 13th of Ayyaru. 89 RCAE, III, p. 113. The Text is dated by the limmu to the 5th of Ayyaru. 90 RCAE, III, p. 113. Bel-ibni seems not yet to have enough experience and knowledge of his territory. The letter was probably written in the Summer of 650 B.C.. 91 RCAE, I, p. 200. Doubtless it was sent two years after the appointment of Sintabni-usur. Contrast, KPRT, LXIV; RCAE, III, p. 114. 92 Both are dated by the limmu; no. 120 has the month Abu preserved in the text, and no. 121 is dated to the 8th of Tishriti. 649/648 93 TM1931-1932, 17, Iraq, VII, p. 105, no. 27. The text is similar to that of Edition B, and it does not give any event beyond 649 B.C. which seems to be a reasonable date for its composition. TM 1931-1932, 15, Iraq, Ibid., pp. 103-104, no. 24 and TM 1931-1932, 21 all seem to fall into the same category with TM 1931-2, 17. 61 Iraq, Ibid., p. 105. no. 30. Although it is fragmentary, enough is preserved to enable us to classify it with number 1. 95 The similarity of this prism with Edition B, except for the orthographic value, is of importance. It mentions the establishment of bit musarti and the dur qabal ali, which were built probably at the same time. It mentions also the abundance of rain which occurred early in Ashurbanipal's reign. No event which took place after 649 has been recorded. Streck, XXX, f., 152-155, 411, 834; Meissner, OLZ (1916), p. 306; Weissbach, LZB (1916), p. 429; ARAB, II, 889-890; Piepkorn, p. 95; Bauer, pp. 24-26.

APPENDIX Β Epigraphs on Historical Reliefs

Epigraphs for Sculpture

Epigraphs on Brick Inscriptions Hunting Reliefs

179 Divination and R.eligious Texts KPRT,

120, 12192

Κ 6358 101

·« Streck, XXVII-XXX, CDLXXXI, DIU, DIV, 138-158, 408-441, 833-834, 861, 864. Meissner, OLZ (1916), 306; Weissback, LZB (1916), 429; ARAB, II, 875-887; Bauer, pp. 13-24. Ashurbanipal recorded his first Egyptian campaign, the fact that in the course of this campaign he quelled the revolt of Ba'ali, Manasseh, and the kings of Edom, Moab, Gaza, Askalon, Akron, Arvad, the second Egyptian campaign, the flight of Nabu-bel-shumate, the surrended of Uaite' by the Nabataean king, and finally the rebuilding of the wall inside Nineveh and some of the previous building activities were recorded. The failure of the scribe to mention the fall of Babylon makes the Prism definitely written during the time of the siege. Part of Prism C may be T M 1931-1932, 20, p. 105, Iraq, VII (1940), no. 31. 97 It is dated by the eponym to the month of Abu. At the beginning of the Prism and after the titles, Ashurbanipal recorded his rebuilding of the temples in Assyria, the first Egyptian campaign, the second which he dealt with rather briefly, the surrender of Tyre, Tabal, Arvad, Cilicia, the embassy of Gyges, his defeat, the campaign against Kirbit, which Ashurbanipal assigned to himself, and that against the Nennai. H e recorded also his first war with Elam, the marching against Urtaku which he called 'the sixth campaign,' and the seventh which is that against T e u m m a n ; the eighth concerns the fight of the Gambulu. Ummanigash and his aid to Shamash-shum-ukin, the revolt of Indabigash, the flght of Tammaritu and his family, the flight of Nabu-belshumate, have all been treated in this prism. It concluded by recording the building of É-kal ma-shar-ti in Nineveh and curses. A duplicate of part of this text has been found at Nimrud. It is the first recorded text of Ashurbanipal to be found at Nimrud (duplicate of Col. VII, Ins. 33-51). D. J. Wiseman, "Two Historical Inscriptions from N i m r u d " Iraq, XIII (1951), pp. 24ff. Piepkorn, p. 19ff; Streck, XXI-XXVII, CDLXXX, D i l i , 92-134, 407-418, 832-833, 860-861, 864; Meissner, OLZ (1916), 305; ARAB, II, 842-873; Bauer, pp. 8-12. 98 RCAE, III, p. 115. The person for whom Ashurbanipal is searching cannot be Nabu-bel-shumate since the letter is sent to Bel-ibni, who came after Nabu-bel-shumate had fled to Elam. The text indicates that the Babylonian revolt was near its end. References to destruction in the land are made, and Ashurbanipal was probably searching for Sin-tabni-usur, the governor of Ur who deserted to Shamash-shum-ukin in 649. 99 RCAE, III, p. 117. Although the text is fragmentary, that which is preserved is an exact duplicate of ABL, 292 (see above, no. 6). 100 ABL, 1151 is dated by the limmu. ABL, 1380 mentions Ummanigash. 101 Bezold, II, 782 ; Bauer, p. 54. The help of Elam to Shamash-shum-ukun is recorded.

180

APPENDIX Β

Year

Tablet Inscriptions

648/647 (year 21)

NO 814102 Bohl. no. 1312103 Κ 1703104

647/646 (year 22)

Κ 340511' Bohl. 131311β

646/645 (year 23)

Κ 1364123 TM 1931-2, 19124 Κ3098 + 4450125 Κ 306212β

Inscriptions with Babylonian Characters

Prisms Edit. K10S

Letters ABL, ABL, ABL, ABL, ABL, ABL, ABL, ABL,

648/647 102 Wiseman, Iraq, op. cit., pp. 24ff. The famine of Babylon, Indabigash and his ascendancy to the Elamite throne are recorded. 103 Bohl, op. cit. The siege of Babylon seems to be over. 104 This text has been reconstructed. See Piepkorn, p. 101 ; Bauer, p. 8. 105 Bauer, under Prism G. Piepkorn, p. 96. It mentioned the embassy of Rusa, the ascendancy of Ummanaldasi, and the siege of Babylon, as recorded, seems to be in its last stage. 106 RCAE, III, p. 315. The siege of Babylon is mentioned and in all probability the letter is to be dated to the last days ofthat siege. 107 RCAE, III, p. 313. Dated by the limmu to the 25th of Tammuzu. 108 RCAE, III, p. 147. It is difficult to give a date to this letter. Probably it has some relationship with the affairs in Elam and perhaps Bel-ibni was eager to acquire the orders of the king concerning matters of great importance. 109 RCAE, III, 333. This letter most likely had been sent after the quelling of the Babylonian revolt. It is a letter to a certain Ambate and the people of Rashi. It mentioned Ummanaldash. 110 Because of the striking similarity of this text with 795, Ashurbanipal might be referring to the people of Akkad. 111 Ashurbanipal here records the booty from Babylon passing before him. 112 Maynard, JSOR, VII, 22 ; ARAB, II, 1075-1085 ; Bauer, 94. The defeat of Shamashshum-ukin and the capture of Adia, queen of Arabia, were recorded. 113 ARAB, II, 1092-1095; Streck, LX, 338; Maynard, JSOR, VI, 104. 114 ARAB, II, 1109; Bauer, 98; Maynard, JSOR, VII, 23.

118610β 1170107 399108 1260109 1380110 1022119 1040120 295121

APPENDIX Β

Epigraphs on Historical Reliefs

Epigraphs for Sculpture

ARAB, 1034111 ARAB, 1036112

Κ 3096113 Rm 40 1U Κ 4453 + Κ 4819 + Bu. 89-4-26, 116115 Rm II, 120116 Κ 4457122

181

Epigraphs on Divination and Hunting Reliefs Brick Inscriptions Religious Texts Κ 2647 + Rm II, 99.

115

ARAB, II, 1110-1112; Maynard, JSOR, VII, 23; Bauer, 97. Streck, LVIII, LX, CDLXXXIII, 322ff., 843 ff; 419; Maynard, JSOR, VI, lOOff. ; ARAB, II, 1100-1108 ; S. Langdon, Tammuz andlshtar (Oxford, 1916), pl. IV, pp. 143 ff. 116

647/646 117 ARAB, II, 943; Streck, XXXIX, 222-225. See its reconstruction in Bauer, p. 45. 118 Bohl. op. cit., IV. 20-23. The text deals with the last campaign against Elam. The name of Ummanaldasi, the last Elamite monarch whom Ashurbanipal fought, is recorded. 119 RCAE, III, p. 283. The letter is to Tammaritu, the king of Elam, who was installed by Ashurbanipal. 120 RCAE, III, p. 286. This also was sent to Tammaritu, the Assyrian-installed king over Elam. 121 RCAE, III, p. 115. 122 Streck, LIX f., 334-339, 863 ; ARAB, II, 1086-1091. This text definitely refers to the last Elamite campaign. Bauer, 98. 646/645 123 Streck, XXXIII, 174; Maynard, JSOR, VI, 99; Bauer, 51; ARAB, II, 916. It recorded the war with Elam and the return of Nana to Uruk. The failure of the scribe to record the sack of Susa may establish a date just before that event. 124 Iraq, VII, no. 29, p. 105. It is dated to the 23rd of a month which is not preserved in the text, of the limmu of 646 B.C. 125 Bezold, II, 503 ; Bauer, 55-56. It mentioned the sack of Susa. 126 Streck, XXXVII, 214 ; ARAB, II, 936f. ; Bauer, 61. It refers to the spoil taken from Susa.

182

APPENDIX Β

Year 646/645

645/644 (year 24)

Tablet Inscriptions Κ 3404 12 ' Κ 2524128 Κ 3 1 0 1 + Κ 2664 + 2628129 Κ 3065130 Κ 2656 + Κ 3076137

Inscriptions with Babylonian Characters

Prisms

Letters

Th 1929-10-12, 2 131 O T 145132 Edit, F 1 3 3

AOL, 518 134

N2 138

639/638 (year 30)

AAAli0 Nassowhi 1 4 1

Lehmann, mat. 145 636/635 14 (year 33) Bohl, 1314 » T M 1931-2, 25147 Κ 2802 + V a t 5600 + Κ 3047 + Κ 3049148 T M 1931-2, 25 149

A150

646/645 127 Streck XXXIX, 222; ARAB, II, 942; see Bauer, p. 57 where the text is reconstructed. The sack of Susa is mentioned. 128 Bezold, II, 451 ; Bauer, 73-75. The return of N a n a and the sack of Susa are recorded. 129 ARAB, II, 941 ff; Streck, XXXVIII, 218, 221, 412; Bauer, 62. The sack of Susa is recorded. 130 Bezold, II, 500; ARAB, II, 928; Bauer, 35; Streck, XXXVII, 216ff. The starting line doubtless refers to the taking of N a n a from Elam and then the rebuilding of the É-hul-hul is treated. 181 PEA, Pis. 14-18, pp. 29-36. This prism is a display inscription. It is dated by the limmu to the 24th of Ululu. The prism has been re-edited by Ines Asher, A Prism of Ashurbanipal (MA thesis, Oriental Institute, University of Chicago, 1936), were she assigned it to 645 B.c. Bauer, 28 calls it Prism T. 132 Bezold, IV, 1555; Bauer, 29-30; fragment of prism type. The sack of Susa is mentioned. 133 It is dated to the 21st of Simanu by the limmu of the year. (Aynard, J. M., Le Prisme du Louvre, p. 12). It seems that it was written right after the sack of Susa. The Elamite affairs cover two-thirds of the surface of the prism, nearly four columns out of six. 106 lines are given to the sack of Susa. The scribe has omitted the Kirbit campaign, the first campaign against Egypt, and the first Elamite war against Urtaku. Thus, the first campaign in Prism F is that against Tanut-amon; the second against Ba'ali, Arvad and Tabal, and the third against the Mannaeans. Then it recorded the campaign against Teumman, and his defeat; the war with the Gambulu is regarded here as a separate campaign. It continues to record the last affairs of Elam but makes no mention of Nabu-bel-shumate. This may be that at the writing of the prism he had not yet fallen into the hands of the Assyrians. The revolt of Shamash-shum-ukin is not treated at all except for an indication to his alliance with Elam. It ends by recording the rebuilding of the bit-riduti and curses. Streck, XXXIDIII, 154, 157, 861; ARAB, II, 892-894. 134 135 136

RCAE, III, p. 182. Dated by the limmu to the 24th of Ayyaru. In all probability they were written right after the last Elamite campaign. Bauer, 43 ; Bezold, II, 460. The return of N a n a is mentioned.

645/644 137 ARAB, II, 931. The last campaign against Elam is recorded. Streck, XXV, 194-197; 411; Bauer, 65. 138 Bauer, 28 ; E. F. Weidner, "Die älteste Nachricht über das Perseische Königshaus Kyros I, ein Zeitgenosse Assurbaniplis", AOF, VII (1931), pp. pp. 1-7.

183

APPENDIX Β

Epigraphs on Hisrotical Reliefs

Epigraphs for Sculpture

Epigraphs on Hunting Reliefs

Brick Inscriptions

Divination and Religious Texts Κ 2628138

ARAB, 1037,1038135 Κ 7596142

Κ 2631, 2653, 2855139 ARAB, 992143 ARAB, 996144

139

Streck, XXXIV, 176-189, 411, 861; ARAB, II 922ff.; Bauer, 53. The return of Nana, the destruction of Susa, and the rebuilding of the Ë-mas-lam are recorded. 639/638 140 AAA, XX, (1930), pp. 90-98. Dedicated to Ninlil at the building of her temple. The text begins with a prayer to the goddess then continues with a long record of Ashurbanipal's early building activities. The two Egyptian campaigns are treated in one line. The activities against Ba'ali, Iakinlu, Sandsharme, the embassy of Gyges, the war with the Mannaeans, the installation of Tammaritu, the return of Nana, the Gambulian war, and the flight of Nabu-bel-shumate are all treated in this sequence. Then Ashurbanipal recorded the revolt of Babylon, the Aragian campaign, the coming of Cyrus, the final victory procession, the embassy of Sardur, followed by the submission of Mugallu, the pact of the latter's son with Tugdamme, and Tugdamme's advance and defeat. The prism concluded with curses. 141 Nassouhi, Essad, AOF, II (1924-1925), pp. 97-106, dated to the 6th of Ayyaru. 142 ARAB, II, 1113-1116; Bauer, 95. 143 Streck, SLVII, f., 272-275,414f.; Scheil, RA, 18, 95ff.; Bauer, 52f. 144 ' Slabs from the court of Ninlil's temple in Nineveh; the harnessing of the Arabian kings is mentioned. 636/635 145 Materialien, op. cit., p. 55. Its similarity to the Rassam Cylinder and dealing with the Arabian question may enable us to give it such a late date (notice the similarities of Ins. 1-8 with Col. VIII. Cyl. A, Ins. 78, 86, 92,93, 102, 104,106,108). 146 Bohl, op. cit., pp. 23-25. It is difficult to assign the text a definite date. The rebuilding of the bit-riduti, around which the text centers, has been recorded in Prisms F and A. Thus the date of the text may be either 646 or 636 B.C.. 147 C. Thompson, Iraq. op. cit., no. 32, p. 106. The text is similar in style to Edition A. 148 Streck, XXXVf., X., CDLXXXII, 196-207, 376-379, 862; ARAB, II, 936-950. Bauer, p. 66. It records late events and is similar in style to Edition A. 149 Iraq, op. cit., no. 34, p. 107. 150 ARAB, II, 765-837; Streck, XVIII-XXI, CDLXXX, Dili, 291, 398-407, 828-832, 858-860; Meissner, OLZ (1916), 304-305. Dated by the eponym to 636. Ashurbanipal recorded his ascendancy to the throne, education, first and second Egyptian campaign, the campaign against Tyre, Arvad, and Tabal, the embassy of Gyges, and the campaign against the Mannai. His fifth campaign, mentioned here, was that against Teumman and the Gambulu. The revolt of Shamash-shum-ukin was treated in detail and called number six. The seventh campaign is given to the second Elamite war, while the eighth was that directed against Ummanaldasi. The Arabian campaign is herein called the ninth and is treated in detail. The cylinder concluded by recording the rebuilding of bit-riduti. The kirbit campaign is omitted as well as the installation and revolt of Psammetichus.