ORIENT Volume 49, 2014 Stages and Aims in the Royal Historiography of Esarhaddon Israel Ephʻal The Society for Near Eastern Studies in Japan (NIPPON ORIENTO GAKKAI) Stages and Aims in the Royal Historiography of Esarhaddon1 Israel Ephʻal* The last seven years of Esarhaddon’s reign were marked by intensive and varied royal historiography. This is demonstrated in some of his Babylon Inscriptions, in three comprehensive editions of res gestae, in the Letter to God, and in several monuments that were discovered at Zincirli, Tell Aḥmar, Nahr el-Kelb and Qaqun. The study of these inscriptions with special attention to the time factor and to events of clear political significance (Esarhaddon’s rise to the throne and his struggle for royal legitimacy, his steps toward reconciliation with the Babylonians and his military campaigns against Egypt – the first disastrous, the second victorious) enables us to ascertain the stages, aims, and methods of his historiography. Keywords: Esarhaddon, historiography, royal legitimacy, chronology of military campaigns I. Introduction The royal inscriptions of Esarhaddon, with their textual, literary and historical aspects, have been discussed quite extensively.2 The contribution of this article is in according special attention, beyond that which has been given so far, to two perspectives: 1. The significance of time as a factor by which to assess the information at our disposal about the political and military episodes that took place during Esarhaddon’s reign; 2. The enormous military and political impact (as well as the economic impact, in the case of the conquest of Egypt) of the failure of the first campaign to Egypt (in the seventh year of Esarhaddon’s reign), and its conquest in the second campaign (in his tenth year).3 *Professor Emeritus, Department of History of the Jewish People, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1 The numbers of the inscriptions in this article are according to E. Leichty, The Royal Inscriptions of Esarhaddon King of Assyria (680-669 BC), The Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period, vol. 4 [=RINAP 4], Winona Lake 2011 and they appear in bold. For the reader’s convenience, below are the names and sequence of the inscriptions under discussion here also according to Borger’s edition Asarh. RINAP 4 Borger, Asarh. 33 Gbr. I-II 106 Bab. E 1 Nin. A 34 Frt. F 107 Bab. F 2 Nin. B 57 Ass. A 108 Bab. G 5 Nin. F 77 Klch. A 109 --- 6 Nin. D 93 Klch. A/Trb. A 111 --- 7 AfO 18 (1957-58), 97 Mnm. B 112 --- 114-115 102 --- 113 --- 8 Nin. E 103 Mnm. C 114 Bab. D 9 Frt. J 104 Bab. A 116 Bab. B 10 Nin. G 105 Bab. C 126 Bab. N The chronicles are noted by the edition of Grayson 1975. 2 See detailed bibliography for each inscription in RINAP 4. Vol. XLIX 2014 51 Part I: Literary Analysis of Assyrian Royal Inscriptions The dates of military campaigns were noted in the annals of the Assyrian kings by the regnal year (palû) or the eponymic year (līmu) in which the campaign took place. During Sennacherib’s reign, an innovation was introduced by which the campaign (girru) was noted according to its sequence in the list of the king’s campaigns. Esarhaddon’s historical writings use none of the three above methods for noting the dates or sequence of the campaigns in describing his campaigns and activities.4 Another prominent phenomenon is the lack of compatibility between the Esarhaddon inscriptions themselves and the chronicles with regard to the sequence of the military campaigns during his reign (see table, pp. 64-65) It can therefore be determined that our inscriptions of Esarhaddon contain no annalistic writing.5 In light of this phenomenon, as well as from scrutiny of the order in which the military and political episodes appear (see below, pp. 65-67), historical Inscriptions 1 and 2 can be defined as summary inscriptions and they may be studied as such in terms of the way they were composed and their intent.6 Although most of Esarhaddon’s inscriptions – except for Nin. S (but see reservations in note 4) – lack distinct chronological markers regarding his military activities, we have some chronological data that is significant for our discussion: (a) The wording of dates at the end of Esarhaddon’s inscriptions noting the period they were copied: It is sometimes clear that these wordings were intended to provide the reader with more than an ordinary date for the act of the copying itself. That is the case for the wording “accession year of Esarhaddon king of Assyria” that appears in the Babylon Inscriptions. That wording was intended to show that Esarhaddon felt favorably toward Babylon and sought to appease it from the beginning of his reign (see below, p. 56). The same is true for the wording of the date “Iyyar, eighteenth day, eponymy (līmu) of Nabu-beli-uṣur governor of the city of Dur-Sharrukku, when the oath concerning Ashurbanipal, senior son of the king (mār šarri rabû),7 who (resides in) the House of Succession was taken,” found at the end of Inscriptions 77 (ex. 6) and 93, which were composed on the occasion of the completion of various building projects.8 It involves the allegiance ceremony held on that day, and the fact that it was appended to the building inscriptions shows the importance of this date in the life of the kingdom.9 Compare, likewise, the wording of the date at the end of Prism Nin. S: “In the month of dMAḪ (=Bēlet ili) the lī[mu of …], in the year when [Memphis was captured] (and) its booty [was ta]ken.”10 3 Esarhaddon’s army has conquered Memphis in 671 BC (98 rev 41ff.; 103 7ff.; 1019 12). Thus we may assume that his realm in Egypt extended over the delta of the Nile. Ashurbanipal, his son, extended his realm up to Thebes, at least, in 663 BC. See Onasch 1994. 4 Nin. S, which was composed after the conquest of Egypt in Esarhaddon’s year 10, did note the campaigns by number (see 6 ii 10'; 8 i 12'; 34:6). However, because it relies on Inscription 1 with regard to the details of Esarhaddon’s first campaigns (see below, p. 61), Nin. S should not be defined as an annalistic inscription. 5 The decision to avoid annalistic writing has nothing to do with ignoring the failure of the first campaign against Egypt in Esarhaddon’s seventh year, about which, for understandable reasons his scribes could not write. This decision was made beforehand. See, e.g., the campaigns to Bazu and against Sidon, which could certainly be considered campaigns according to the format of writing before Esarhaddon, and which were mentioned in Inscription 2, which was composed at the beginning of year 5. 6 On the nature of the Assyrian summary inscriptions, see Tadmor 1973: 141. 7 See letter to Esarhaddon on this matter, SAA X 185; see also Weissert 1998, 161-162. 8 Inscription 77 was composed on the occasion of the expansion of the armory (ekal māšarti) of Calah, which was built during the reign of Shalmaneser III. Inscription 93 was composed on the occasion of the construction of the palace of Ashurbanipal in Tarbiṣu. 9 SAA II 6, 664-670. For the ceremony in question as a seminal event, see below, pp. 59. 10 For this wording see Weissert, in Tadmor 2004, 274. 52 ORIENT Stages and Aims in the Royal Historiography of Esarhaddon (b) The Babylonian Chronicle and the Esarhaddon Chronicle contain dated details of military and political episodes that took place during Esarhaddon’s reign. Some are mentioned in the chronicles in a different order than they appear in his writings (see table, below). Episodes are also recorded in the chronicles that are not mentioned in Esarhaddon’s inscriptions. That is the case in the text of the Babylonian Chronicle: “The seventh year (of Esarhaddon): On the fifth day of the month Addar the army of Assyria was defeated in Egypt)” (Chron. 1 iv 16), which, as will be shown below, is of critical importance for our discussion. That is also the case for the text of the two chronicles: “The sixth year. The Assyrian army <marched> to Melid” (Chron. 1 iv 10; Chron. 14:15). A study of the content of Esarhaddon’s inscriptions in light of the data on the periods of their composition allows us to discern distinct political circumstances – which represent milestones in his reign in the framework of which these circumstances came into being – and to understand the needs that led to the composition of each of them, as elucidated below. II. Pacifying a nearby and suspicious subject (the Babylon Inscriptions) As is known, King Sennacherib of Assyria destroyed the city of Babylon in 689 BC after besieging it for fifteen months at least.11 Esarhaddon took the opposite tack from his father toward Babylonia. The series of Esarhaddon’s inscriptions known as the Babylon Inscriptions describes the reconstruction work in the city and stresses his favorable attitude toward its inhabitants.12 All the inscriptions include a number of topics: (a) details of the sins of inhabitants of Babylon; (b) Marduk’s anger at Babylon; (c) details of the punishment coming to Babylon: its destruction as ordered by Marduk; (d) signs of the appeasing of Marduk’s anger; (e) details of Esarhaddon’s reconstruction of Babylon and amelioration of the status of its inhabitants. These topics appear to a greater or lesser extent in the different texts of the Babylon Inscriptions.13 In some of the versions of the Babylon Inscriptions, between topic (d) and (e), a paragraph was inserted, worded as direct speech, containing gratitude to a god (whose name is not mentioned) for selecting Esarhaddon from among his brothers, for saving him from all his adversaries and for appointing him to shepherd Assyria.14 This paragraph obviously differs from the assemblage of the Babylon Inscriptions and seems to have been borrowed from another work.15 Its wording is that of a hymn.