in the midst of the city Uesi, he and his forces are assembled;
that with his troops he has set out and driven him out of Uesi,
that he has not seen the roads (to some place), that he has made
good the bridges, that as he has heard, whatever takes place,
whether he comes with his forces, or whether he goes off free, I
will quickly send to the king’s son.”
These fragments of the report are difficult to disentangle, as the person
referred to seems sometimes to be the King of Armenia, sometimes another
person. But all may be news sent from the Mannai to Ashur-riṣûa.
This is the news from Ashur-riṣûa: The land of Arzabia sends word,
saying, The land of the Ukkai has broken away from me (?), that
now they are killing me; you care for yourselves. I have sent my
body-guards to the Ukkai. The messengers of Arzabia said, ...
Then follow a few traces from which we gather that a messenger came to the
writer and brought a present; that the “Mannai said” something, someone
“returned” and “I appointed him” something, that a messenger from the land
of Sadudai came to Kalaḫ, that “I received and sealed” something, and “I
appointed” something. Again we have a reference to the month of Elul, a
letter, and the word “brought.”
(M796) This letter is very obscure from the many lacunæ. We naturally turn
to the letters of Ashur-riṣûa. This man may well be the same as the
witness, _shaḳû_, and scribe of the queen, at Kalaḫ in B.C. 709. We have
nine letters of his referring to Armenian affairs. In one of them(862) he
announces that “at the commencement of Nisan the King of Armenia set out
from Ṭurushpîa and went to Eliṣada, that Ḳaḳḳadânu, his tartan, went into
the city Uesi, that all the forces of Armenia have gathered to Eliṣada.”
The rest of the letter is obscure. At the end of another(863) he says: “I
have heard, saying, ‘the king has come into the midst of Uesi, as yet he
has not left.’ ” In the same letter he reports that “three thousand
foot-soldiers, with their officers, belonging to Sêtini, his military
commander, have set out to Muṣaṣir, crossed the river by night, that
Sêtini has camels with him, and that Sunâ, who is in command among the
Ukkai, has started with his troops for Muṣaṣir.” It is clear from these
that the movements here refer to the beginning of the year after that in
which, in Elul, the King of Armenia was in Uesi, and before the defeat of
Armenia by the Gimirri.
A mere glance at the contents of his other letters will show their
connection with these events. In one,(864) he sends Naragê, a colonel,
with twenty men who had plotted against the king and were caught. He
mentions the capture of a second tartan, Urṣini, in Ṭurushpîa and the
mission of Urṣini’s brother, Apli-uknu, to see him there. The King of
Armenia had entered Ṭurushpîa with a number of restless men. In
another,(865) he reports the return to Assyria of a messenger from the
Ukkai, who had gone up into Armenia; and mentions Muṣaṣir. In a
third,(866) he reports that “Gurânia, Nagiu, the fortresses of Armenia and
Gimirri, are giving tribute to Armenia.” But that “when the Armenians went
to Gimirri, they were badly defeated.” The rest is so injured as to give
little sense. In another,(867) he names Ariê and Ariṣâ, Dûr-Shamash,
Barzanishtun, the city of Ishtar-dûri, and Shulmu-bêl-lashme; but the text
is so defective that one cannot discern what he had to say about them. In
another,(868) he acknowledges the king’s order to send scouts into the
neighborhood of Ṭurushpîa. In another,(869) he writes that “the Mannai in
the cities of Armenia on the coast of the sea rebelled, that Apli-uknu,
the commander of Muṣaṣir, and Ṭunnaun, the commander of Kar-Sippar, went
to the borders of the Mannai, to garrison Armenia and made a slaughter
there, that all the commanders are present.” But these are not the only
references to him. Ṭâb-shâr-Ashur(870) writes to the king that he has
received a letter from Ashur-riṣûa: “Thus it is written in it, saying, a
messenger of the Ukkai went to Armenia, he has sent a letter to the
palace, and these are the contents of the letter, on the morning of the
sixth, this letter came to me; he sent, saying, the Ukkai have heard
concerning Ariê that he went against him (the king of Armenia) and his
city.” Then the letter becomes very defective, but we hear again of Kumai
and Eliṣ (clearly the Eliṣada above). Ṭâb-shâr-Ashur again mentions
Ashur-riṣûa,(871) saying that a letter of his was brought, which referred
to the King of Armenia entering some city. But too little is preserved to
make out the message. In a report(872) about beams of wood, collected by
Ashur-riṣûa, he is associated with Ariê, and Uriṣâ, evidently the Ariṣâ
above, and the city Kumai. Finally, on a letter by Gabbu-ana-Ashur he is
mentioned in a most significant way. The writer says: “Concerning the news
which the king gave me about the garrisons of Armenia, from the time that
I entered the city Kurban, my messengers went to Nabû-li’, to
Ashur-bêl-danân, to Ashur-riṣûa; they came to me.” After a break he goes
on, “Like this I have heard; the Armenian (king) has not gone out of
Ṭurushpîa.” After some more uncertain traces, he adds: “On the
twenty-third of Tammuz I entered into Kurban, on the twentieth of Ab I
sent a letter to the king, my lord.” It is evident that Nabû-li’,
Ashur-bêl-danân, and Ashur-riṣûa were the commanders most concerned in
these events. Nabû-li’, we have already seen, sent reports to Sennacherib;
no letters of Ashur-bêl-danân, yet published, seem to refer to these
events. But clearly the king was concerned to hear from other quarters
than Kalaḫ, where Sennacherib evidently was. Ashur-riṣûa is also named
elsewhere on fragments not yet published.
We may now pursue the clew given by the fact that Uesi was the city which
seems to have been the bone of contention. Thus Urzana, whose name recalls
that of the King of Muṣaṣir, who may have been reinstated as a vassal by
Sargon, writes(873) to the _nâgiru_ of the palace:
“What thou didst send me, saying, Has the King of Armenia with his
troops moved away? He has gone. Where is he dwelling? The
commander of Uesi, the commander of the district of the Ukkai,
came, they sacrificed in the temple, they say that the king has
gone, he is dwelling in Uesi; the commanders returned and went
away. In Muṣaṣir they sacrificed. What thou didst send, saying,
Without the king’s order let no one put his hand to the work, when
the king of Assyria shall come, I will serve him, what I have
[always] done I will keep doing, and this according to his hand
(?).”
Evidently Urzana lived in Muṣaṣir and was anxious to be thought a faithful
vassal. An unknown writer(874) tells the king that
“five commanders of Armenia entered the city of Uesi, Sêteni [_of
whom we heard above_] commander of ... teni, Ḳaḳḳadânu of the
writer’s district, or of Ukkai, Sakuatâ of Ḳaniun, Siblia of Alzi,
Ṭutu of Armiraliu, these are their names. With three underlings,
they entered Uesi. Now their forces are weak and weakening (?),
the forces are (?), the king has set out from Ṭurushpîa, he has
come into Kaniun. What the king, my lord, sent me, saying, ‘Send
scouts,’ I have sent a second time. The spies (?) came, these are
the words they say, and the spies as yet have not started.”
The whole tone of the letter and the fact that Ashur-riṣûa above
acknowledges having received an order to send scouts make us think he is
the unknown writer. But, of course, the king may have sent the order to
other commanders as well. In an unpublished text we read that the
commander of Uesi was slain.
The references to Ṭurushpîa are also significant. We know that this city
was once the stronghold of Sardaurri, King of Armenia, and was doubtless
still attached to its old rulers. We have a letter written by Upaḫḫir-Bêl,
doubtless the Eponym of B.C. 706, and governor of Amedi. He writes in the
same style as Sennacherib and Ashur-riṣûa:(875)
Concerning news of Armenia I sent scouts, they have returned; thus
they say: “The commander of that district, and the
deputy-commander with him, in Ḥarda, the district of the
_sukallu_, keep ward from city to city as far as Ṭurushpîa;
weakness is written down, the messenger of Argista has come,”
and so on. The rest does not concern us here. But another letter,(876)
evidently from the same writer, gives news from Armenia and a message from
Argista, which the writer says he has answered, as the king directed. It
also states that the commander keeps ward in Ḥarda. Ṭurushpîa is also
mentioned on fragments not yet published.
Other fragments occur which clearly belong to this group. Thus(877) a
letter from an unknown writer names Ashur-riṣûa in connection with Kumai,
Babutai, Ukkai, and Uliai, and narrates something about ten commanders.
The loss of nine commanders in Armenia, at one time, is the subject of a
very fragmentary letter,(878) but it is not clear that it refers to this
period.
To the same period seems to belong another letter of Sennacherib, probably
to his father Sargon.(879) It begins with precisely the same formulæ of
greeting in the first seven lines. Then it goes on:
The chieftains of the land of Kumuḫai (Commagene) have come and
brought tribute. Seven mule mares apiece they brought and tribute
with the mules. The chieftains are in the house appointed for the
Kumuḫai. They are fed at their own expense, they would journey on
to Babylon [where Sargon evidently is]. They have brought _šaklâ_
(?), they have received them here. As we have told the king, my
lord, let him send quickly. They brought cloth and fruit each of
them. The factors say that we have received seven talents from
them, that the Kumuḫai are not contented, saying, “Our produce is
reduced, let them bring the king’s weavers and let them take
charge.” Let the king, my lord, send word to whom they shall
assign them.
(M797) Another letter-fragment only preserves the opening address.(880)
Another very defective letter(881) with the same introduction refers to
Dûr-Sargon,
“in the district of Kurban are excessively great floods, they go
on.”
We know from another source that this was the case, in B.C. 708, when the
floods came into the lower part of the city, and the tribute could not be
levied in the district.(882) Yet another fragment, opening in precisely
the same manner, refers to a certain Nabû-eṭir-napshâte and the city of
Kalḫu.(883) Here also we have too little left to make out any connected
sense.
VI. Letters From The Last Year Of Shamash-Shum-Ukîn
(M798) Another period on which the letters throw considerable light is the
close of the reign of Shamash-shum-ukîn in Babylon. This was coeval with
the suppression of a great combined rebellion against the rule of Assyria.
From the historical texts of Ashurbânipal’s reign we know the names of
many of the actors in that great struggle. They are frequently referred to
in the letters. Already G. Smith, in his _History of Assurbanipal_, 1871,
had used the information given by some of the letters. This was utilized
by C. P. Tiele in his _Babylonisch-assyrische Geschichte_.
(M799) But much more may be made out when the letters are fully available.
Thus Nabû-bêl-shumâte, grandson of Merodach Baladan II., had been made
King of the Sealands on the death of his uncle, Nâ’id-Marduk. When the
revolt broke out, Ashurbânipal sent Assyrian troops to help
Nabû-bêl-shumâte to repel Shamash-shum-ukîn. During the long process of
suppressing the revolt, it is clear that Nabû-bêl-shumâte conceived the
idea of reasserting the independence of the Sealands. He endeavored to
gain the alliance of the Assyrian garrison, some he imprisoned, others may
have joined him. On the fall of Babylon, in B.C. 648, he saw that
Ashurbânipal’s vengeance must overtake him, so he fled to Elam. He took
with him a certain number of Assyrians, evidently to hold as hostages.
Ashurbânipal had a long score to settle with Elam. He began by demanding
of Indabigash the surrender of Nabû-bêl-shumâte and the Assyrians with
him. But before the ambassador could deliver the message, Indabigash had
been succeeded by Ummanaldash. Nabû-bêl-shumâte was evidently a difficult
person to lay hands upon. At any rate, Ummanaldash’s land was invaded and
devastated. But when the Assyrian troops were gone, he again returned to
his capital, Madaktu, and Nabû-bêl-shumâte joined him there. Again
Ashurbânipal sent to demand his surrender. Rather than further embarrass
his host, and quite hopeless of protection or pardon, Nabû-bêl-shumâte
ordered his armor-bearer to slay him. Ummanaldash attempted to conciliate
Ashurbânipal by sending the body of the dead man and the head of the
armor-bearer to him. Such is the story as Ashurbânipal tells it in his
great cylinder inscription.
(M800) The letters make no less than fifty distinct references to him. The
officers write many bad things of Nabû-bêl-shumâte, and it is plain that
he had been a very vicious enemy. We have a number of letters from a
writer of his name, who may well be the King of the Sealands before he
broke with Assyria. Thus we read:(884)
(M801)
To the king, my lord, thy servant Nabû-bêl-shumâte. Verily peace
be to the king, my lord; may Ashur, Nabû, and Marduk be gracious
to the king, my lord. Cheer of heart, health of body, and length
of days may they grant the king, my lord. As I hear, the King of
Elam is deposed and many cities have rebelled against him, saying,
“We will not come into thy hands.” According to what I hear I have
sent to the king, my lord. I have inhabited the Sealands from the
time of Nâ’id-Marduk. The brigands and fugitives who came to the
Gurunammu, five hundred of them, did Sin-balâṭsu-iḳbi, when he
caught them, lay in fetters and hand over to Natânu, the King of
the Uṭṭai, their ruler, whom the king had given them.
Then come a number of defective lines, from which not much can be made
out. But there can be little doubt that this letter was written in the
days when policy still kept him faithful to Assyria. There was another
Nabû-bêl-shumâte, whose letters(885) begin quite differently, and refer to
horses and troops. There is even a third, a _ḳêpu_ of Birati, named by
Tâb-ṣil-esharra,(886) who was concerned in repelling a raid on Sippara,
and is named in a contract of B.C. 686.(887) It is just possible that the
second and third are the same man. But while we must exercise care in
assigning the references of the letters, we have a guide in the historical
connection.
(M802) Bêl-ibnî was a very important officer who held the position of a
_manzâz pâni_, having the right of access to the royal presence and a
place near the king on all state occasions. He is probably to be
distinguished from the Bêl-ibnî set on the throne of Babylon by
Sennacherib in B.C. 702. He is a frequent writer to the king during this
period. Ashurbânipal placed him over the Sealand after the flight of
Nabû-bêl-shumâte. The king’s proclamation to the Sealanders(888) reads
thus:
(M803)
Order of the king to the Sealanders, elders and juniors, my
servants: My peace be with you. May your hearts be cheered. See
now how my full gaze is upon you. And before the sin of
Nabû-bêl-shumâte, I appointed over you the courtesan of Menânu.
Now I have sent Bêl-ibnî, my _dubašu_, to go before you. Whatever
order is good in my opinion which is [written] in my letters
[obey].
Then after some defaced lines, he threatens that if they do not obey,
“I will send my troops.”
This order is dated the fifth of Iyyar, B.C. 650. By that date
Nabû-bêl-shumâte had fled. It is not easy to say whether Ashurbânipal had
appointed a lady, once the _ḫarimtu_, or courtesan, of Menânu, as ruler of
the Sealand before Nabû-bêl-shumâte, or whether he means to call
Nabû-bêl-shumâte by this opprobrious epithet. Who is meant by Menânu is
hard to see, unless it be the Elamite King, Umman-minana, the contemporary
of Sennacherib, who had protected the family of Merodach-Baladan II.
(M804) We have a fragmentary letter(889) from the King of Elam,
Ummanaldash, to Ashurbânipal, which says:
Letter of Ummanaldash, King of Elam, to Ashurbânipal, King of
Assyria, peace be to my brother. From the beginning, the Martenai
[_Elamite name for the Sealanders, from Marratu, __“__the Salt
Marshes__”_] have been sinners against thee. Nabû-bêl-shumâte came
from there. The crossing of the land ... over against Elam I broke
down, [to keep him out]. Thou hast sent letters [_or forces?_]
saying, “Send Nabû-bêl-shumâte.” I will seize Nabû-bêl-shumâte and
will send him to thee. The Martenai whom from the beginning
Nabû-bêl-shumâte brought us ... they are people who came by water
from ... it entered into their minds and they came, they broke
into Laḫiru and there they are. I will send to their border my
servants against them and by their hands I will send those who
have sinned against us. If they are in my land, I will send them
by their hands; and, if they have crossed the river, do thou [take
them].
The rest of the letter is hard to make out. It was dated on the
twenty-sixth of Tammuz, in the Eponymy of Nabû-shar-aḫêshu, probably B.C.
645.
(M805) Bêl-ibnî had a great hatred for Nabû-bêl-shumâte. For the latter
had years before laid hands upon Bêl-ibnî’s eldest brother, Bêlshunu, and
put him in prison. This we learn from a letter to the king,(890) which,
although the name of the writer is lost, is clearly from Bêl-ibnî. The
first few lines yield no connected sense, but name Umman-shimash and the
nobles with him:
When they assembled they spoke evil words against their king. From
those days they kept on plundering his land. Before the forces of
the lord of kings, my lord, want, like a pestilence, entered the
land. When the forces of the lord of kings, my lord, have arrived
at Dûr-ili, they shall not take a holiday; that smitten of Bêl,
accursed of the gods, Nabû-bêl-shumâte, and the sinners with him,
they shall capture and give them to the lord of kings, my lord.
And the Assyrians, as many as are with them, they shall release
and send to the lord of kings, my lord. Bêlshunu, my eldest
brother, a servant of the lord of kings, my lord, now four years
ago, did that smitten of Bêl, that accursed of the gods,
Nabû-bêl-shumâte, when he revolted, bind hand and foot with bronze
and imprison him.
The rest is obscure, but names Ṣalmu-shar-iḳbi as sending news to the
palace.
(M806) The Bêlshunu here named is probably the Eponym of B.C. 648, who was
then governor of Ḫindana, who also dates a letter from the king to
Umman-shimash, which names Bêl-ibnî. There are over fifty references in
the letters to Bêl-ibnî, most of which directly connect him with these
events. His duties in command of the Sealand brought him into relations
with the many Elamites, who in the frequent revolutions in that land, fled
for refuge to the Assyrians. Here is one of the best of his letters to the
king:(891)
(M807)
To the lord of kings, my lord, thy servant Bêl-ibnî. May Ashur,
Shamash, and Marduk decree length of days, cheer of heart, and
health of body to the lord of kings, my lord. Shumâ, son of
Shum-iddina, son of Gaḫal, sister’s son to Tammaritu, fled from
Elam and came to the Daḫḫai. From the Daḫḫai, when I had taken
him, I made him cross over. He is ill. As soon as he has
completely recovered his health, I will send him to the king, my
lord. A messenger is here from Natan and the Pukudu, who are in
Til-Ḥumba, to say that they came before Nabû-bêl-shumâte at the
city Targibâti. They took an oath, by God, one with another,
saying, “According to agreement we will send thee all the news we
hear.” And according to contract they furnished fifty oxen for
money at his hands, and said to him, “Let our sheep come and among
the Ubânât in the pasture let them graze among them. Thou mayest
have confidence in us.” Now let a messenger of the king, my lord,
come and make Natan learn in his mind, that “if thou dost send
anything for sale to Elam, or one sheep be allotted to pasture in
Elam, I will not suffer thee to live.” I have sent trustworthy
reports to the king, my lord.
The incident here referred to, the reception of the fugitive Shumâ, who
probably on account of his illness was unable to join his uncle Tammaritu,
is very similar to that related of Tammaritu himself. This King of Elam
succeeded his cousin Ummanigash, whom he dethroned, but after a short
reign was himself dethroned by the usurper Indabigash. He and his brothers
and family and eighty-five princes of Elam, his supporters, fled by sea
from Elam to the marshes at the mouths of the Tigris and Euphrates. There
he fell sick. But Ashurbânipal sent him a friendly message, and he came
before the Assyrian governor, and kissed the ground in token of
submission. We learn that Marduk-shar-uṣur was the officer who received
him, and a very mutilated letter seems to refer to it. He was probably the
Rabshakeh to whom Bêl-ibnî wrote(892) complaining of certain slanders
about him. So even the faithful servant was not entirely free from court
intrigues. In another letter Bêl-ibnî refers to his having received and
sent on to the king, Tammaritu, his brothers, family, and nobles.(893)
(M808) Like Ummanigash and Indabigash, Tammaritu corresponded with
Ashurbânipal. We have letters from him to the King of Assyria and from
Ashurbânipal to him. Unfortunately these letters are very imperfect, or
not yet published. He is mentioned continually in the letters. There were
several of the name: (1) son of Urtaku, third brother of Teumman, (2) son
of Teumman, slain with his father, (3) son of Ummanigash, King of Elam,
succeeded his cousin Ummanigash, whom he dethroned, (4) son of Attamitu.
To which of these a reference is made is often hard to decide.
VII. Letters Regarding Affairs In Southern Babylonia
(M809) (M810) Another group refers to the events at Ur, in the far south
of Babylonia. Sin-tabni-uṣur, son of Ningal-iddina, was governor there
during the time of Shamash-shum-ukîn’s great rebellion. This we learn from
some of the forecast tablets, published in George Smith’s
_Assurbanipal_.(894) The greater part of these tablets is unintelligible,
containing a record of the omens observed, probably on inspection of the
entrails of the slaughtered sacrifices. What these symptoms were cannot
yet be determined. Much has been done by Boissier in his _Textes Assyriens
relatifs au Présage_, and many articles contributed to various journals.
The omens are generally such as also occur in the tablets published by Dr.
Knudtzon in his _Gebete on den Sonnengott_, and ably discussed by him
there. The tablet evidently was meant to submit these omens to some oracle
that a prediction might be given on their authority. The king also usually
stated his cause of anxiety and asked for guidance and direction. These
forecast tablets, many of which are dated, are of the greatest service for
the chronology of the period. They have been partly discussed by the
present writer.(895) Thus the two, which refer to Sin-tabni-uṣur, announce
that he is governor of Ur, and seem to inquire whether he can be relied
upon to prove faithful. We may conclude that his appointment took place in
Ab, B.C. 648.
(M811) From a letter,(896) which G. Smith(897) ascribes to Kudur, governor
of Erech, we learn that he had heard from Sin-tabni-uṣur, who reports that
a messenger had arrived from Shamash-shum-ukîn, inciting the people to
rebel against Ashurbânipal. As a result,
“the Gurunammu have rebelled against me. Re-enforce me at once.”
The good Kudur sent five or six hundred archers and joined Aplîa, the
governor of Arrapḫa, and Nûrêa, governor of Ṣameda, and went to Ur. He was
able to seize the leaders of the revolt, among them Nabû-zêr-iddin. But
someone had captured Sin-tabni-uṣur. Bêl-ibnî is named, and later
Nabû-ushêzib, the archer, but the text is too mutilated to make out a
clear account. But it seems likely that Sin-tabni-uṣur was rescued, and
being re-enforced, held out well for his master. Ashurbânipal writes to
assure him of his continued confidence.(898)
(M812)