Chapter V: A. Th. denotes a text in the Berlin Museum (12)

The title “over five” seems to be meant literally. He was a superior merchant. Like many another hint, this speaks for the strict organization of each class of the community. The _Šakkanak_ was usually the superior official, “governor,” of a city, or of a ward of a city. We are not told what was Sin-mâgir’s district. But it was under Sin-iddinam’s rule. In other letters we read of a Sin-mâgir being sent to Babylon.(828) Perhaps he refused to give up the corn.

Another letter illustrates the incidence of taxes and the relations of landlord and tenant:(829)

(M769)

To Sin-iddinam say, thus saith Ḥammurabi: As to what I sent to
thee about the corn that is the tax on the field of Ibni-Martu,
which is in the hands of Etil-bi-Marduk, to be given to
Ibni-Martu; thou didst say, “Etil-bi-Marduk hath said thus, saith
he, ‘I have cultivated another field together with the field of
Ibni-Martu, and the corn is all garnered in one place, let them
declare on oath before God how much corn was from the field of
Ibni-Martu and let them take the tax.’ Thus he said. But
Ibni-Martu did not agree. Saith he, ‘Without Ibni-Martu one can do
nothing.’ Thus he said, and went away.” As to what thou didst
send, “the corn, as much as was in his field, should be declared
before God and the tax given him.” As thou didst send, let them
declare before God how much corn was in the field of Ibni-Martu,
and pay Ibni-Martu the corn that is the tax on his field.

The case is not quite clear, but Ibni-Martu owed a tax on his field. He had either mortgaged or let his field to another. This tenant had not given him the corn to pay the tax and excused himself on the ground that the produce of the field was now mixed up with that of another field. Hence he could not say how much the tax should be; clearly it was proportionate to the yield. The method of solving the difficulty was that a sworn estimate had to be taken from competent witnesses and the tax levied on that basis. This course was recommended by Sin-iddinam in a previous report on the situation. The amount was to be given to the landlord, who then had to pay the tax. He clearly had no rent in corn from the land; but he could not sell or mortgage his crop except subject to the tax. The mortgagee was liable for the tax and the owner was bound to pay. The mortgagee must furnish him the means to do so; he had no right to claim the part of the crop due as tax, whatever bargain he had made with the owner of the land.

(M770) (M771) While agriculture was in the hands of free men who only paid on produce, there are indications that commerce was very strictly controlled by the State. The merchant was the only money-lender as a rule. He also seems to have acted as contractor, or farmer of taxes. The merchant, or factor, was under the king’s protection and also directly responsible to him. Hence some have regarded him as a royal official. But this is hardly correct. He was to Ḥammurabi what the Jew of the Middle Ages was to the king then, or the Stock Exchange or Bourse is now. Probably we should not be far wrong in applying to him the term “publican,” in the New Testament sense. He owed a certain amount to the treasury, which he recouped from the taxes due from the district for which he contracted. If he did not secure enough, he had to make up the deficit. The following letter(830) deals with what was probably common, namely, an evident reluctance on the part of such officials to settle accounts:

To Sin-iddinam say, thus Ḥammurabi: Concerning the chief
collector, Shêp-Sin, I wrote to thee, saying, “send him with one
thousand eight hundred _GUR_ of sesame and nineteen minas of
silver, due from him, as well as Sin-mushtal, the chief collector,
with eighteen hundred _GUR_ of sesame and seven minas of silver,
due from him, send them to Babylon, and send with them the market
rates (?)...” But thou didst say that these chief collectors had
said, “Just now is harvest-time, after harvest we will go.” Thus
they said, and thou didst tell me. Now the harvest is over. On
receipt of this tablet, when I have sent to thee, send Shêp-Sin,
the chief collector, with one thousand eight hundred _GUR_ of
sesame and nineteen minas of silver, his due, and Sin-mushtal, the
chief collector, with one thousand eight hundred _GUR_ of sesame
and seven minas of silver, his due, to Babylon; and with them thy
trustworthy guard, and with all their property let them come and
appear before me.

The title which I have rendered “chief collector” may be read “scribe of the merchants.” The sign _PA_, read _aklu,_ does in some of its connections mean “scribe,” as _tamkaru_ does mean “merchant.” But the sign often denotes merely an overseer. Hence we may take it that this was the derived meaning. The reason may well be that over a group of shepherds or merchants, one was always set who could keep accounts. Hence the term _aklu_, properly a “scribe,” came to be an “overseer.” Such a high official as the _PA Martu_ would be the Superintendent of Martu. The person referred to in this letter, Shêp-Sin, occurs also in two other letters of Ḥammurabi.(831) In one, Sin-iddinam is told to send him to Babylon with money; in the other, he complains of not being able to collect money due to a temple, and having to make up the deficit himself.

(M772) The officials who were under obligation to furnish men for public work and the army, doubtless often found a difficulty in making up their quota, and impressed men who were not strictly liable for duty. Such men as those called _KA-DUR_, _KAPAR_, _MU_, _PATESI_, are named on the letters as exempt from the service. But even this is not conclusive. They are not exempted because they are of these ranks, but because they have been wrongly assigned to the service. Their masters may have been exempt from the liability to furnish a man; or already engaged in royal service. Slaves and poor men were subject, as we know from the Code. Here is one of the letters on the question:(832)

To Sin-iddinam say, thus saith Ḥammurabi: Naram-Sin, the shepherd,
hath said thus, saith he, “The herdsmen in my hands have been put
in the _corvée_.” Thus he said. The herdsmen which are the
property of Apil-Shamash and Naram-Sin shall not be put in the
_corvée_. Now summon Etil-bi-Marduk and the officials and order
them to return the herdsmen of Apil-Shamash and Naram-Sin, whom
they have taken.

Here the _KABAR_, or herdsmen, are the employees of the shepherd, his “sheep-boys.” Their absence would be a danger to the flocks. The delinquent Etil-bi-Marduk was often in fault. Several other complaints against him appear in the letters, in his capacity of money-lender.(833) On two occasions he was sent for by the king, evidently with a view to punishment. Further, a _patêsi_ in his service appealed to be transferred to another master.(834)

III. The Letters Of Samsu-Iluna And His Immediate Successors

(M773) The discovered letters of Samsu-iluna are as yet comparatively few. They are not all addressed to one man. We may take one or two specimens.

(M774) Like his father Ḥammurabi, Samsu-iluna cared for the health of the goddesses, providing them with an occasional change of scene. This time it is the goddess Anunitum, who makes a journey:(835)

To Haiab ... say, thus saith Samsu-iluna: Concerning Anunitum’s
going to Sippar-edina, I have sent an officer. Forthwith let
Anunitum go to Sippar-edina.

The name of the official to whom the letter is sent is broken and it could be completed in several different ways. Sippar-edina was one quarter of Sippara.

(M775) The following letter is concerned with the supply of corn for the Shamash temple at Larsa. It is addressed to three officials:(836)

To Sin-ilu, Bîtu-rabi, and Nîḳ-Sin say, thus saith Samsu-iluna:
The corn for the treasure-house of the temple of Shamash of Larsa,
the property of Igmil-Sin which ye deliver, verily ye shall
deliver. Forthwith, from the corn that is in your hands, give corn
for the supply of food for the treasure-house of the temple of
Shamash; what is now standing due make up.

The “treasure-house” may be only a “store-house” in general. Instead of “make up,” we may render “buy.”

(M776) Samsu-iluna looked into the details of his government quite as closely as his father. We see him regulating fishing rights:(837)

To Sin-iddinam, Kâr-Sippar, and the judges of Sippara, say, thus
saith Samsu-iluna: They tell me that the ships of the fishermen go
down to the districts of Rabî and Shamkâni and catch fish. I am
sending an official of the palace-gate; when he shall reach thee
[summon] the ships of the fishermen (who have been catching fish)
in the districts of Rabî and Shamkâni, and let it not occur again
that the ships of the fishermen go down to the districts of Rabî
and Shamkâni.

Clearly each district owned its own fishing rights, as it was responsible for the repairs of the banks and scouring the beds of the water-ways in it. It is far from unlikely that Kâr-Sippar denotes some ruling body in Sippara, for in the contracts we find that cases were brought before the Kâr-Sippar. As they are associated with the judges of Sippara, they may be the town elders. Sin-iddinam here is hardly the official of Larsa to whom Ḥammurabi usually wrote, though he might have been promoted to Sippara in the meantime.

(M777) Two other letters were addressed to him by Samsu-iluna,(838) one about corn due from certain persons, the other about a contingent of men sent to strengthen the walls of Sippar-Amnanu. In another letter, the king summons to Babylon, Sin-iddinam, Ibni-Marduk, the Kâr-Sippar, and the judges of Sippara, but the letter(839) is too defaced for us to determine the reason. It was to be “at seed-time.”

(M778) The letters of Abêshu’ are somewhat more numerous. Mr. King published thirteen. They are all more or less defective, and add nothing to our knowledge beyond the fact that the same policy of centralization went on.

(M779) The letters of Ammi-ditana, two in number, are more interesting. One deals with the supply of corn for men at work on the citadel of Shagga, a town probably near Sippara. The king orders the authorities of Sippara to make up and send on the supply, and adds that the soothsayers were to be consulted as to favorable auspices for sending the corn.(840) The other deals, as do three letters of Abêshu’, with tribute due in wool from Sippar-iaḫruru. The report from the superintendent of this source of revenue in each case is that the tribute is over-due and the king sends a peremptory order for it to be sent forthwith to Babylon.

(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.

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.