Chapter 26

(M780) Ammi-zadûga’s letters, five in number, all happen to be concerned with the annual sheep-shearing at Babylon. They differ slightly, in the person addressed, and the date assigned for the shearing. Thus one(841) reads:

To Ibni-Sin, son of Marduk-nâṣir, say, thus saith Ammi-zadûga: A sheep-shearing will take place in the House of the New Year’s Festival. On receipt of this note, take the sheep ... and the sheep which are sealed, which thou shall set in motion, and come to Babylon. Delay not, reach Babylon on the first of Adar.

(M781) The one letter written by Sin-iddinam(842) is addressed to the _rabiânu_ of Katalla, ordering him to send the plaintiff in a suit to him. Very interesting is a letter from Tabbi-Wadi and Mâr-Shamash to Aḫâti, the wife of Sin-iddinam,(843) asking her to intercede for them with Sin-iddinam. He had himself referred them to her, perhaps because their offence immediately concerned her. They say that they are ill acquainted with the ways of the court. From several unusual forms of expression it may be concluded that they were strangers who had settled in Babylonia. They do not state either their offence or the grounds on which they would be excused, but ask for an interview, that they may remove Aḫâti’s resentment against them.

(M782) Some letters are addressed to “the man whom may Marduk make to flourish.”(844) Some have taken this as a proper name. But that seems very unlikely. Others regard it as a sort of polite address to a superior. Winckler(845) suggested that it was an address to the king. The Code has made it clear that the _amêlu_ was the “gentleman,” or “noble,” who lived in a “palace,” or “great house.” Hence, these letters may be addressed to any great official. But many turns of expression support the view that the king is really meant; he was thus the “First Gentleman” of Babylonia. It was not till Ḥammurabi that the title “king” was generally given. Perhaps the old nobles were slow to admit a king over them.

(M783) As an example we may take:(846)

To “the man whom may Marduk make to flourish” say, thus saith Ashtamar-Adadi: May Shamash and Marduk ever make thee flourish. The gardeners, inhabitants of Sippara, have spoken concerning their servants who fled and have been recaptured. Therefore I have sent a note thus to thee, I sent those men to thee. Accept their petition (?) and may they be acceptable to thee before Shamash. Grant their entreaty and set them free. If they come not to Babylon, do this in my name.

It is probable that recaptured runaway slaves, who would not name their owners, were forfeit to the State. The king is the only one who would have power to release such slaves. It is clear that the recipient of the letter was at Babylon.

IV. Private Letters Of The First Dynasty Of Babylon

(M784) In these cases, as a rule, we know neither the sender nor receiver, beyond their names, and what we can gather from the letter itself. Hence a great deal must always remain uncertain. Here is a letter which comes from a prisoner, who says he is nearly starved and does not know why he was imprisoned:(847)

(M785)

To my lord say, thus saith Bêlshunu, thy servant: From the time that I was shut up in the house of the _abarakku_, thou, my lord, hast kept me alive. What is the reason that my lord has neglected me for five months? The house where I am imprisoned is a starvation-house. Now have I made the jailer carry a letter to my lord. When thou, my lord, shalt make an end of my misery, send, and the imprisonment, since it has been ended by thee, I will cause to conduce to thy blessing (I will even thank thee for). I am ill ... ten _ḲA_ of _SU-DA_, thirty-one _ḲA ZAG-ḤI-LI_ ... two _ḲA SAR-SAR EL-SAR_ send me that I die not; and clothing send me that I may cover my nakedness. A _ḫubidu_ has come upon me on account of thee, my lord. Either half a shekel of silver, or two minas of wool, send to me, for my service, let him bring it. Let not the jailer be sent away empty-handed. If he comes empty-handed, the dogs may eat me. As thou, my lord, and the people of Sippara and Babylon, all of them know, I am imprisoned, not for robbery, nor was I caught at burglary. Thou, my lord, didst send me with oil across the river, but the Sutû fell upon me and I was imprisoned. Speak a friendly word to the servants of the king’s _abarakku_. Send, that I die not in the house of misery. Send a _ḲA_ of oil and five _ḲA_ of salt. That which thou didst lately send no one gave me. Whatsoever thou sendest, send it fastened up (?).

There are many obscurities about this letter. Some are caused by the difficulty of reading the defaced characters. Some by the fact that the signs, printed here in capitals, are ideograms whose meaning is not yet clear. The prisoner, if his plea is true, was sent on an errand for his master, apparently to trade for him. He was either robbed by the nomad Sutû, or compelled to give up his oil to them. Why this led to imprisonment is not clear, unless it was regarded as furnishing supplies to the enemy. But though his master did not get him out of prison, it seems that he had sent him supplies from time to time. The word rendered “jailer” is perhaps a name, Mâr-abulli, “son of the gate.” But it may be a title used as a name, “Mr. Jailer.” The prisoner thinks that it is in the power of his master to put an end to his imprisonment and promises to be grateful. But he does not seem sure whether his master can do this. He asks, however, for further supplies, if he is to live. Let us hope he was released or at least fed. We may perhaps conclude that imprisonment was the punishment due for robbery and burglary.

(M786) Here is a letter reminding a father of a broken promise:(848)

To my father say, thus saith Elmeshu: Shamash and Marduk fill with well-being the days of my father perpetually. My father, be thou well, flourish; the God that preserves my father direct my father’s source of grace. I have sent to greet my father. May my father’s peace endure before Shamash and Marduk. From the time that Sin Amurrû named my father’s name, and I answered for my fault, thou, my father, didst say, “When I shall go to Dûr-Ammi-zadûga, which is on the River Sharḳu, I will forward a sheep and five minas of silver, in a little while, to thee.” This thou saidest, my father, and my expectation was from my father. But thou hast not sent; and now, my father, thou hast returned to the presence of Taribu, the Queen. I have sent a note to my father’s presence. My father, thou shalt not ask the purport of my note, until Lashêr has brought me my father’s note. My father has not sent one to bring even a single shekel, in accordance with thy promise. Like Marduk and Sin Amurrû, who hearken to my father, my ears are attentive. Let my father send and let not my heart be vexed. Before Shamash and Marduk, may I pray for my father.

The letter suggests that the father was king, by the phrase so common in the historical inscriptions, “named his name,” usually equivalent to “nominated” to rule. The word rendered “fault” is _sardu_, which may be for _sartu_. There is nothing to show whether Elmeshu is a man or woman. There was an Elmeshu (the name means “Diamond”) who was daughter of Ammi-ditana.(849) But the mention of Dûr-Ammi-zadûga seems to demand a date at least as late as that in which this wall or city was built. But Ammi-zadûga succeeded Ammi-ditana. Unless the latter built Dûr-Ammi-zadûga and called it after his son, we can hardly identify this Elmeshu with the daughter of Ammi-ditana. The mention of Sin Amurrû is not quite clear. We may suppose two gods, Sin and Amurrû, or take the latter name as an epithet, “Sin of the Amorites.” To have “the ears attentive,” is to be in a state of expectation. In the last sentence, Elmeshu seems to hint that, if she does not have a favorable answer, she will not be able to pray for her father. This may be regarded as an un-Christian attitude, but people then thought more of the efficacy of prayer; and it was a threat, if so meant, likely to have great weight with the father. But it may mean that Elmeshu being vowed to a religious life, yet needed material means to maintain her alive, and she merely hopes, by her father’s continued sustenance of her, to be long spared to pray for him.

(M787) Another letter is apparently from a tenant, or serf, to his landlord:(850)

To my lord say, thus saith Ibgatum thy servant: As, my lord, thou hast heard, the enemy has carried off my oxen. Never before have I sent to thee, my lord. Now I have caused a letter to be brought to thee, my lord. Do thou, my lord, send me one young cow. I will weigh out and send five shekels of silver to thee, my lord. My lord, what thou sayest, under the command of Marduk, thy protector, what pleases thee, no one can hinder thee, my lord. My lord, do thou make her worth the five shekels of silver that I have weighed out and sent to thee. Do thou, my lord, treat seriously this request, do not trifle with my wish. Let my lord not wonder at this request, which I send my lord. I am thy servant. I will do thy will, my lord. As to the young cow, which thou, my lord, dost send, let her be on credit, and either to Baṣu, or wherever is convenient to my lord, do thou send. With Ili-iḳîsham, my brother, let the young cow come. And I, in order that my lord should quickly consent and send the young cow, will forthwith weigh out and send fifteen shekels of silver to thee, my lord.

Evidently, the wise man sent only five shekels on deposit with his brother, holding back the rest of the price, till he had seen what sort of a cow he was to get for his money. It was from this letter that Winckler(851) deduced a meaning for _ṣamâdu_ something like “weigh out,” “pay,” whence a better meaning for _ṣimittu_ than “yoke” was readily obtained. As Dr. Peiser pointed out, the word is also used in the Cappadocian tablets in a way that leaves small doubt of its meaning. It may have come to mean simply “pay,” but must have ordinarily meant “measure,” or “weigh,” according as it was applied to grain, or money.

(M788) Here is a very interesting example showing how the merchants of those days transacted business at a distance:(852)

To Erib-Sin say, thus saith Ibni-Nabû, I am here (?): As to the case of Ardi-ilishu, son of Ibni-Dibbara, I gave him two-thirds of a mina of silver, and it was acknowledged in writing, in the presence of my witnesses. He went to Assyria. He did not give the money to Shamaiatu. I and Shamaiatu met in Daganna and disputed over the affair. Said I, “I sent thee money by Ardi-ilishu.” He said, “If Ardi-ilishu has paid the money, let him [_here come some uncertain signs_].” And concerning what thou didst send about Shamash-bêl-ilâni’s fourteen shekels, I did not give him the money. There is two-thirds of a mina due from Ardi-ilishu; take Ardi-ilishu and cause him to weigh out the money, and its interest, more or less, and from that take the fourteen shekels and send the surplus.

The two, Erib-Sin and Ibni-Nabû, are either partners, or agents. The former had asked the latter to pay over fourteen shekels to a certain Shamash-bêl-ilâni, either because the latter had money of his, or had promised to honor his order. But this particular order was not honored. Ibni-Nabû had intrusted a sum of forty shekels to one Ardi-ilishu, with which to pay Shamaiatu. But Ardi-ilishu had gone off to Assyria without discharging the obligation. So Shamaiatu had demanded payment and perhaps the doubtful signs express the fact that Ibni-Nabû had to pay a second time. Fortunately, he could prove that Ardi-ilishu had had the money, having taken a receipt. He seems to think that Erib-Sin can find Ardi-ilishu. Was the former resident in Assyria? If so, this must be a copy of the letter sent him. But perhaps Erib-Sin was to arrest the defaulter on his return to Sippara. At any rate, this was a warrant for so doing. That, perhaps, is why the letter was kept. If Erib-Sin could get forty shekels and the interest, he had a fair margin from which to pay the fourteen shekels, due to him from Ibni-Nabû. But he had to take risks. If Shamash-bêl-ilâni had given Erib-Sin consideration for his order on Ibni-Nabû for fourteen shekels, he was badly served.

(M789) Here is a letter, warning a man of a suit brought against him in his absence:

To my lord, say, thus saith Sin-taiar: May Shamash and Marduk give thee health. As to the case of the field about which thou didst send, belonging to the sons of Sin-rêmêni, which is in Bitûtu, which my lord sold me for five minas of silver; Sin-aḫam-iddinam, Marduk-taiar, and Nabû-malik, have gone about to the king, and have turned over this title to Nûr-parim. Hasten, come, save thy title from Nûr-parim.

The word of most difficulty is _nistu_, rendered “title.” It may mean something different, but the “title” seems the most likely thing to be disputed.

(M790) A letter to a father from an absent son(853) is interesting for its personal character:

To my father say, thus saith Zimri-eraḫ, may Shamash and Marduk give thee health forever. Be thou well. I have sent for thy health. Tell me how thou art. I am located at Dûr-Sin on the canal Kashtim-sikirim. There is no meat fit to eat. Now I have made them bring two-thirds of a shekel of silver to thee. For this money send some nice fish and something to eat.

(M791) The following is what may be fairly described as a love-letter, though the real relation between the correspondents is not certain:(854)

To Bibêa say, thus saith Gimil-Marduk: May Shamash and Marduk for my sake preserve thy health forever. I have sent for thy health. Tell me how thou art. I went to Babylon and did not see thee. I was greatly disappointed. Send me the reason of thy leaving, and let me be cheered. In Marchesvan do thou come. For my sake keep well always.

It is certain that Bibêa was a lady, perhaps the writer’s wife.

(M792) The interest which these ancient letters inspire in us was felt in the seventh century B.C., for there are two Assyrian copies of early Babylonian letters, preserved in the remains of Ashurbânipal’s library. One was a letter from the Babylonian King Adadi-shum-uṣur to Ashur-nirari and Nabûdaian, kings of Assyria, about B.C. 1250.(855) It is too fragmentary to translate. Another(856) is a letter from a King of Assyria to his father, who is King of Babylon. The names are lost, and its contents cannot now be made out. It was a copy made for Ashurbânipal, and has his “library mark.”(857)

V. Sennacherib’s Letters To His Father, Sargon

(M793) Among the Ninevite collections we can single out several periods where the history is supplemented by the letters. Thus Sennacherib’s letters to his father, Sargon, chiefly deal with events in Armenia, which must have transpired during Sargon’s last few years, when his annals and other historical inscriptions are silent. This view of them was first worked out by the present writer,(858) and later with increased material by R. C. Thompson.(859) Briefly put, the argument from them is this: a person called Sennacherib, who might be any officer from the times of Sargon onward, writes to the king, whom he does not address as his father, on the reports which have reached him from a number of officials, concerning events in Armenia. We have, however, two letters which refer to the same events, naming the same officials and certainly from the same Sennacherib. In one of them he is twice referred to as the king’s son. The officials named are all found in documents of the reign of Sargon, or the early part of Sennacherib’s reign. The King of Armenia is named Argista in one of these reports to the king, which belongs to the same group. The King of Assyria himself is said to be at Babylon at the time. One report quoted comes from Tabal, and is brought by the major-domo of the Princess Aḫat-abisha, probably the daughter of Sargon, who was married by him to the King of Tabal. We have independent copies of these reports, quoted by Sennacherib, which enlarge our knowledge of the events. Hence, there can be no doubt that we have here Sennacherib’s letters to his father, Sargon, while that king was absent in Babylonia. We are, therefore, able to reconstruct a chapter of Assyrian history, on which the historical monuments have nothing to say. The first letter reads thus:(860)

(M794)

To the king, my lord, thy servant Sennacherib. Peace be to the king, my lord. There is peace in Assyria, peace in the temples, peace in all the fortresses of the king. May the heart of the king, my lord, be abundantly cheered. The land of the Ukkai has sent to me, saying, when the King of Armenia came to the land of Gamir, his forces were utterly defeated; he, his commanders, and their forces were driven off; [_then comes a broken space from which the few traces left refer to __“__two commanders,__”__ someone who __“__came,__”__ someone or something __“__was captured,__”__ someone __“__came to me,__”__ something __“__of his country,__”__ something __“__he appointed.__”_] This was the news from the land of the Ukkai. Ashur-riṣûa has sent, saying, “News from Armenia. What I sent before, that is so. A great slaughter took place among them. Now his land is quiet. His nobles are dead. He has come into his own land. Ḳaḳḳadânu, his tartan, is taken, and the King of Armenia is in the land of Uazaun.” This is the news from Ashur-riṣûa. Nabû-li’, the commander of Ḥalṣu, has sent to me, saying, “Concerning the garrisons of the fortresses which are on the border, I sent to them for news of the King of Armenia. They report that when he came to the land of Gamir, his forces were all slain, three of his nobles together with their forces were killed, he himself fled and entered into his own land; but that as yet his camp is not attacked.” This is the news from Nabû-li’. The King of Muṣaṣir, his brother, and his son, have gone to greet the King of Armenia. A messenger from Ḥupushkia has gone to greet him. The garrisons of the fortresses which are on the boundary all send news like this. The letter of Nabû-li’, the major-domo of Aḫat-abisha, brought from Tabal; to the king, my lord, I have sent it on.

(M795) The second letter(861) began in exactly the same way, so far as one can judge from the traces of the first seven lines. As before, Sennacherib quotes reports, which he has received, in the sender’s own words. From what is left of the first report we learn that the King of Armenia had ordered the forces at his command to capture the commanders of the King of Assyria and bring them alive to him. The city of Kumai is named as the place where these commanders were. As yet the sender “is cut off” and has not withdrawn from his post. But, as he has heard, so he has sent to the king’s son:

“Now let him quickly send forces. This is the news from Ariê: On the fourteenth of Elul, a letter came to me from Ashur-riṣûa, saying that the King of Armenia, when the Zikirtai brought things to him, at least obtained nothing, they returned empty-handed; that he went to the city Uesi with his forces and entered it, that his forces are in the city Uesi, that he and his forces are few, that they are with him with their possessions.”

This seems to be the end of Ashur-riṣûa’s news. A few traces refer to news from the Mannai concerning some “letter,” “as yet” something has “not” happened.

“As I have heard I have sent, that the commander in the district, 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.