Chapter 27

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)

Message of the king to Sin-tabni-uṣur: It is well with me. May thy heart be cheered. Concerning Sin-shar-uṣur, what thou didst send. How could he say evil words of thee and I hear anything of them? Shamash perverted his heart and Ummanigash slandered thee before me and would give thee to death. Ashur, my god, withholds me. I would not willingly slay my servant, and the support of my father’s house. In that case, thou wouldst perish with thy lord’s house. I would not see that. He and Ummanigash have compassed thy death, but because I know thy faithfulness I have increased my favor and bestowed honor upon thee. Is it not so? For these two years thou hast not caused hostility or want to thy lord’s house. What could they say against a servant who has loved his lord’s house and I believe it? And with respect to the service which thou and the Assyrians, thy brothers, have done, what thou sendest, all that thou hast done and the guard thou hast kept, ... which is pleasing before me [I will reward] and return thee favors to thy children’s children.