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
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. Similarity may be noted between it and an inscription of Merodach-baladan, as follows: “[At that] time, the great lord, the god Marduk, had turned away in divine wrath from the land of Akkad and the evil enemy, the Subarian (a notorious name
11 For the destruction of the city by Sennacherib, see descriptions in his writings OIP 2 83-84:43-54; 137-138:36-47. For details of the archaeological evidence about the extent of the actual destruction and a survey of Esarhaddon’s reconstruction work in Babylon, see Porter 1993, 47-60, 67-68. 12 In this series are included Inscriptions 104-109, 111-114, 116 eight of which are on prisms, one on a cylinder (113), one on a black basalt cuboid monument (114) and one on a clay tablet (116). 13 A comparison of the variants in the descriptions of the sins of the people of Babylon in the Babylon Inscriptions reveals a variety of versions rather than the adaptation of a single text. For details of these topics in the various versions and the extent of their expansion or abbreviation in the inscriptions in question, see Brinkman 1983, 35-42. 14 104 ii 9-23; 105 ii 22-40; 109 i 13'-24'; 114 ii 19—iii 8. In the inserted segment the identity of the deity in question was not specified, but considering its place in the inscription, it is clearly Marduk. 15 The extraordinary nature of the paragraph in question is particularly prominent in light of the fact that all the Babylon Inscriptions are dedicated to Esarhaddon’s activities as the governor (šakkanakku) ruler of Babylonia, while in the paragraph in question he is presented as the “shepherdˮ (rē’û) of Assyria.
Vol. XLIX 2014 53 Part I: Literary Analysis of Assyrian Royal Inscriptions for an Assyrian, here Tiglath-pileser III), exercised the rule over the land of Akkad for [seve] n [years, unt]il the days had elapsed, the appointed time has arrived, (and) the great [lord], the god Marduk, became reconciled with the land of Akkad, with which he had become angry. He looked (with favor) upon Merodach-baladan, king of Babylon, prince who reveres him, to whom he (the god) stretched out his hand, legitimate eldest son of Eriba-Marduk, king of Babylon, who has made firm the foundations of the land. The king of the gods, the god Asari (=Marduk),16 duly named him [to] the shepherdship of the land of Sumer and Akkad (and) personally [sa]id: ‘This is indeed the shepherd who will gather the scattered (people).’”17 This parallel in motifs and wording makes it possible, ostensibly, to state that the inserted paragraph is based on a Babylonian inscription (and as such, it fits in well with Esarhaddon’s Babylon Inscriptions). In contrast, in terms of content, a clear association can be seen between the paragraph in question and the Apology of Esarhaddon (see below, p. 56) in which Esarhaddon’s enthronement is described. And in light of the statement that the god (whose name, as noted, is not mentioned), chose Esarhaddon to shepherd Assyria, we may assume that the source of this segment is Assyrian. If this conclusion is correct, then this is a sophisticated implant of a section that was intended originally for the god Ashur in a work at the heart of which is the god Marduk.18 The destruction of the city of Babylon as ordered by Sennacherib is interpreted in his writings as retaliation for the unacceptable political behavior of its inhabitants (seeking help from the king of Elam by sending him a bribe taken from the treasury of Esagila, Marduk’s temple in Babylon).19 In Esarhaddon’s inscriptions, in contrast, not once is it said that Sennacherib, his father, was the one who destroyed Babylon.20 The destruction of the city by flooding it with the water of the Arahtu Canal is described as a punishment by Marduk, god of Babylon,21 the result of his anger over the removal of the treasures of Esagila and their sale cheaply, as a bribe, to Elam,22 but also because of the people’s transgressions against each other and the damage to the social order in Babylon.23 In exemplars of the Babylon Inscriptions whose date of composition has survived, that date appears as: “Accession year of Esarhaddon king of Assyria.”24 However, this date is impossible because Esarhaddon did not accede to the throne until Addar of that year.25 The “accession year”
16 For use of the name Asari as a designation for Marduk in Esarhaddon inscriptions from Babylon, see RINAP 4 126. 17 RIMB 2 137:8-15. 18 For a different interpretation of this section, see Porter 1993, 94. 19 For details concerning the sins of the people of Babylon, see RINAP 3/1 22 v 31-37; 35 rev 32'-35'. 20 According to 104 i 18ff., 105 i 20ff., 114 i 7-8, the event occurred “in the reign of a previous king” and according to 106 i 10ff. and 113 8ff. “before my time” (ullanûa). 21 See 104 i 34—ii 9; 105 i 37—ii 22 and 106 i 10-26; 114 i 19—ii 11; cf. also 116 obv. 13'-14', 18'-19'. According to 113:8-15, the angry gods were Marduk and his consort Zarpanitu. 22 104 i 28-33; 105 i 31-37; 111 i 6'-10'; 113:11; 114 i 14-19; 116 obv. 5'-6'. From the close proximity of the text concerning the damage to the temple treasury and the giving of it as a bribe (ṭa’tu) to Elam it may be understood that this action, too, was understood first and foremost as a religious infraction and not necessarily a hostile political act. 23 “People replied “yes” instead of “no” and frequently lied” (104 i 22-24; 105 i 22-26; 111 i 1'-10'; cf. also 109 ii 13'- 23'; and 113:10). “They were afflicted by [thie]ving (and) murdering. They were stealing from [the poor] and giving to the mighty. There was oppression (and) the taking of bribes in the city. Every day, without ceasing, they stole goods from each other. A son cursed his father in the street, a slave…to his owner” (108 i 1'-16'). Cf. also 116:1',“[the slave girl] did not lis[ten to] her mistress.” 24 This version of the date is found in Inscriptions 104-106, 111. In Inscription 108 it appears as “Iyyar, accession year of Esarhaddon, king of Assyria.”
54 ORIENT Stages and Aims in the Royal Historiography of Esarhaddon therefore, lasted less than a month. There is no doubt that the exploits described in the series of inscriptions regarding the reconstruction works in the city of Babylon – including the restoration of Esagila (the main temple to Marduk), other temples and the walls of the city – would have required much more than a month.26 It appears, therefore that the mention of the “accession year” in the inscriptions as the date of their composition is none other than an intentional “pseudo-date,” the purpose of which is to present Esarhaddon as seeking the god of Babylon and rebuilding it right at the beginning of his reign.27 The body of the inscriptions contains additional evidence of the lateness of the composition relative to the date at the end: (a) Some of these inscriptions relate that the signs that Marduk and other gods revealed, which spurred Esarhaddon to rehabilitate the city of Babylon, appeared “at the beginning of my kingship, in my first year, when I sat in greatness on my royal throne”28 and note that one of the prominent signs was the location in the heavens of the planet Jupiter in the month of Sivan and in the month of “Opening of the Door,” which is Tammuz.29 (b) Inscription 113:30-34 mentions Ashurbanipal and Shamash-shumu-ukin as Esarhaddon’s successors. Thus, this inscription was composed after Iyyar of Esarhaddon’s ninth year. Inscription 112 depicts Esarhaddon as king of Egypt, which means that it was composed after the conquest of Egypt in Tammuz/Tishri of year 10.30 The restoration of Babylon was not discussed at all in Inscriptions 1 and 2, in which Esarhaddon’s scribes detailed the military and political exploits that took place during the first four years of his reign. The Babylon Inscriptions may thus be regarded as an independent corpus in the historiography of Esarhaddon, whose political intent is clear – to speak to the Babylonian portion of his kingdom. The religious horizon of these inscriptions is Babylonian. The god Marduk is mentioned in all of them as the controller of Babylon’s history, he who punishes and forgives. The repetition of the same text in all of them (that is, until after the conquest of Egypt), albeit with variants in wording but not in content, shows their great popularity with their Babylonian target audience.31
25 According to Esarhaddon’s Apology (1 i 87– ii 2) he ascended on the eighth of Addar; and according to the Babylonian Chronicle (Chron. 1 iii 38), on the eighteenth or the twenty-eighth of Addar. 26 For details on the restoration see 104 iii 17-22, 34 – v 9; 105 iv 7-14, 26–vi 2, 27–vii 4; 106 iii 17-19, 29-53, iv 18- 32; 111 vi 1'-10'. According to 106 iii 29-36, bricks were made for an entire year (see CAD Š/2 200 šattu 1b,d'). 27 Cogan 1985, esp. 199-201. For “pseudo-dates” in the context of building and restoring temples, see also Tadmor 1981, 21-25. 28 See 104 ii 23ff.; 105 ii 41ff.; 106 ii 4; and 116 obv. 20'ff. Cf. also the statement that the gods Shamash and Sin (i.e., the sun and the moon), in their appearance “every month,” responded affirmatively to Esarhaddon’s queries concerning the avenging of the land of Akkad (=Babylonia) (104 ii 45-49; 105 iii 24-29). 29 See 104 ii 34-41; 105 iii 10-18; cf. also 116 rev. 2-4. 30 On an attempt to correlate the letters involving Babylon that were sent to Esarhaddon and the dates of his inscriptions concerning the reconstruction of the city, its temples and its population, see Streck 2002. This study reveals that the building and reconstruction activities mentioned in the Babylon Inscriptions – except for the calling together of the scattered Babylonians and the restoration of their privileges (which took place at an earlier phase of Esarhaddon’s reign, cf. RINAP 4 105 vii 12-42 with SAA X 169) – took place during the last two years of his life. Thus, the composition of Inscriptions 104, 105, 111 and 116 should be attributed to that same period of time. 31 Inscription 113 contains the portions concerning the destruction of Babylon and its restoration by command of the god Marduk with no changes. However, also mentioned are the gods of Assyria who inspired Esarhaddon to refurbish the temple of Nabu in Babylon (lines 20-28).
Vol. XLIX 2014 55 Part I: Literary Analysis of Assyrian Royal Inscriptions
III. Completion of a great construction project (Inscription 2) During the first four years of Esarhaddon’s reign, no historical inscriptions were recorded that summarized his military and political exploits. The episodes recounted in the royal inscriptions of those years included the restoration of temples and local, limited administrative-economic activity. Two inscriptions of this type are Inscription 57, from Esarhaddon’s second year32 and Inscription 10 from the fourth year of his reign. The first was devoted to the rebuilding of the Esharra Temple in the city of Assur and to the granting of privileges to the city and raising of its status (including exemption from the tax on straw and barley as well as from customs) by Esarhaddon. The second describes the restoration of the temples to the goddess Mullissu and the god Shamash in Nineveh. The first inclusive text of the military episodes and actions that took place during Esarhaddon’s reign appears in Inscription 2, dated the 22nd Iyyar, eponymy of Banba, year 5 of Esarhaddon.33 This text details 13 military and political episodes in geographical order (see table, below).34 The expansion of the armory (ekal māšarti) in Nineveh is then described in great detail (2 iv 32—vi 9). The scope and importance of this multi-faceted project35 is shown by the fact that it constitutes the only construction mentioned in Inscription 2 as well as Inscription 1, which was composed three years later (see 1 v 40—vi 43). It thus emerges that the expansion of the armory was the most significant building project during the first eight years of Esarhaddon’s reign. The end of this project (including the celebration of the event, see 2 vi 10-24) was the cause for the composition of Inscription 2, which constitutes a summary of the first four years of Esarhaddon’s reign. Inscription 2 makes no mention of how Esarhaddon dealt with the problem of the legitimacy of his reign and the struggle between him and his brothers. It is therefore reasonable to assume that this challenge – which was the reason for the composition of Inscription 1 – became more severe after year 5.
IV. Esarhaddonʼs legitimacy crisis (Inscription 1 and the Letter to God) 1. Inscription 1 Inscription 1 was written in Esarhaddon’s eighth year.36 Its first part (1 i 1–ii 11), known as the Apology of Esarhaddon, is devoted to his succession. It tells of his investiture by the great gods of Assyria and his selection by his father Sennacherib as the latter’s successor, preferring him over his older brothers. It further describes actions taken by the brothers to thwart Esarhaddon’s succession and that the gods stood by his side, protecting him from his brother’s machinations and encouraging him not to fear them. It also stresses the fact that the inhabitants of Assyria swore an oath of loyalty to him (adê māmīt ilāni rabūti), “an oath by water and oil,” and did not
32 In addition to the wording of the date that survived in ex. 1 of the inscription in question, see also ibid., v, line 29. 33 For this synchronism see the double date in SAA VI 212:13-15. 34 For details concerning the episodes in Inscription 2, according to geographical order (as usual in many summary inscriptions), and not according to chronological order (as usual in the annals), see Tadmor 2004, 270-272. 35 The armory is at Tell Nebi Yunus, in the southern part of Nineveh. Its area is approximately fifteen hectares and it served, among other things, for the storage of weapons, booty and to train horses. Its renewed construction began in the days of Sennacherib and most of the work was completed during the reign of Esarhaddon. On the archaeological investigation of this complex see Reade 2000, 419-420. 36 See RINAP 4, p. 26.
56 ORIENT Stages and Aims in the Royal Historiography of Esarhaddon collude with his brothers.37 The inscription goes on to describe Esarhaddon’s progress, after his father’s death, from the place to which he had fled from his brothers who had plotted against him (while his father was still alive) to Nineveh, with the support of the people of Assyria and the assistance of the gods, who revealed their support for him by various signs, until, on the eighth of Addar, he ascended to his father’s throne. Throughout this part, Esarhaddon’s triple claim of legitimacy is presented, a claim based on the support of the gods, on his selection by his father and on the oath of the people of Assyria. The second part (ii 12–iv 77) repeats the description of the episodes reported in Inscription 2, with a certain amount of reworking and expansions stemming from other sources.38 These elaborations are of technical details, but do not enrich our knowledge about the essence and unfolding of the episodes themselves. The episodes added in Inscription 1 about what had already been reported in Inscription 2 are marginal in their importance. The main episodes are the rending from the kingdom of Sidon of the two cities, Ṣarepta and Maʼarubu, and their annexation to the territory of Baal, king of Tyre (iii 5-8), and the intervention of the Assyrian army on the side of Iataʻ son of Hazael, king of the Arabs, in his struggle with Uabu over leadership of the Arabs (iv 23-31). The third part (iv 78–v 25) is a poetic summation of the extent and magnitude of Esarhaddonʼs control. The literary style of this part is particularly prominent and is rich in poetic imagery. With the sea as a key topos, this part expresses Esarhaddon’s complete control over the kings and peoples inhabiting the midst of the sea, who regard the sea as refuge and protector,39and of others who trust in mountains. This control is compared to sunlight that a fox cannot hide from. But, as noted, in terms of content, this part adds no real information about the campaigns and exploits described in Inscription 2. The section added after the poetic summation tells of the non-aggression pact with the Elamites and the Gutians (v 26-33).40 Under the difficult military and political conditions at the time Inscription 2 was composed, this was considered quite an accomplishment, worthy of mention among Esarhaddon’s achievements, and may be interpreted as a kind of compensation for his failure in Egypt.41 As usual in the Assyrian royal inscriptions, many of which were composed to mark the completion of building and development projects, the two inscriptions, 1 and 2, go on to focus on the construction of the armory (ekal māšarti) of Nineveh (1 v 40—vi 64; 2 iv 32 – vi 43).
37 The subject here is the loyalty oath of the inhabitants of Assyria to Esarhaddon upon his investiture by his father. This is known as Sennacherib’s Succession Treaty or Esarhaddon’s Accession Treaty, see Parpola 1987, 170-174 = SAA II 3 and Nissinen 1998, 108ff. This document and the loyalty oath to Ashurbanipal (SAA II 6) indicate that loyalty oaths by subjects of the kingdom to the crown prince were made as early as the declaration of the designated crown prince, sometimes years before his actual coronation. According to Ashurbanipal, the loyalty oath to him included all inhabitants of the Assyrian empire (Streck, Asb. A i 11-22). On the nature of the oath by oil and water, see Deller 1965. 38 On these expansions, see Ephʻal and Tadmor 2006, 159-163. 39 According to Tadmor (ibid., 161-162), this part of Inscription 1 was inspired by descriptions of Esarhaddon’s war against Sidon and by the organization of Assyrian rule there. 40 The term “Gutians” in Esarhaddon’s inscriptions usually stands for the Manneans (1 iii 59; 2 ii 21; 77:30; 78:28; 79:28). Only in 1 v 26 does it refer to the Elamites. Mentioning that the treaty was enacted on Elamite initiative (line 30) was intended to show Assyria’s superiority. 41 See Tadmor, ibid., 162-163.
Vol. XLIX 2014 57 Part I: Literary Analysis of Assyrian Royal Inscriptions
In this part of Inscription 1, the names of the kings and vassals were added who took part in the armory’s construction as well as a number of architectural details involving this complex. However, other than this, there are no essential differences between the two inscriptions. From the above detail, it emerges that the Apology is the main new historiographical element in Inscription 1; it was doubtless the only reason for the composition of this text. Over the three years that separated the composition of Inscription 1 and its predecessor, Inscription 2, there were no great military achievements in which to take pride (see, table, below, pp. 64-65) and no major construction projects are known to have been completed that would have necessitated the preparation of a new edition of royal historiography. As will be suggested below, the reason for the composition of Inscription 1 was the crisis over the perception of the legitimacy of Esarhaddon’s reign. As noted, the Babylonian Chronicle states: “The seventh year (of Esarhaddon): On the fifth day of the month of Addar the army of Assyria was defeated in Egypt” (Chron. 1 iv 16). This report of the failure of the first campaign to Egypt is the only testimony we have of the event that was to have a key impact on Assyria’s political activity and on the royal inscriptions of Esarhaddon in the years after his army returned home. The crossing of the Sinai Desert by a large army required major logistical efforts that involved great risk. Therefore, the retreat of the Assyrian army after the defeat, even if it managed to survive without serious injury in the battlefield, had grave significance.42 Naturally, this failure is completely absent from Esarhaddon’s royal historiography.43 In the reality of non-annalistic historiography customary in his day, the failure could easily be ignored. In this way it could thus be removed from the perplexity evident in the work of the royal scribes before his time over how to present embarrassing episodes in the framework of the royal historiography in which they composed their reports.44 While the debacle in Egypt is not mentioned in Esarhaddon’s inscriptions, as we will see below, the magnitude of the political shock and the major impact on their consciousness can be felt in the intensive scribal activities that occurred in Esarhaddon’s eighth and ninth years. For this reason, we will briefly describe the compositions written during those years and examine the motives for writing them. The designation of Ashurbanipal as crown prince of Assyria is well documented in Esarhaddon’s scribal activity. Alongside the tablet of the loyalty oath to him (adê) (SAA II 6) and the mention of the conclusion of the oath (adê) at the time of his entrance to bīt redûti on the dates of Inscriptions 77 ex. 6 and 93:40, the event is mentioned (sometimes in detail) in the inscriptions themselves.45 The names of Ashurbanipal and Shamash-shumu-ukin are not mentioned in Inscription 1 and the text bears no evidence of an intention to bequeath the regime
42 See Kahn & Tammuz 2008. A sampling of the harsh consequences of the army’s defeat in Egypt can be found in what happened to Nebuchadnezzar following his campaign in 601 BC, see Ephʻal 2003, 180-183. 43 One might wonder who composed the segments of the chronicles concerning Esarhaddon’s reign and the sources of their knowledge about the failed campaign to Egypt, its consequences and precise timing. It was certainly not from the royal inscriptions. Moreover, these inscriptions make no mention of the campaign against Melid (year 6) and the killing of the officers at Esarhaddon’s command (year 11), that occur in the chronicles. 44 Cf., e.g., the way in which Sennacherib’s scribe dealt in his inscription with his failure to capture Jerusalem during his third campaign, see Tadmor 2011, 666-672; and the way in which Sargon’s scribes created a picture of continuous successes year after year, although such continuity did not exist in fact, see Tadmor 1958. 45 60:29'; 64:7-8; 79:4'-6'; 93:22-39; 94; 95; 113:30-34. Nos. 60 and 95 were written after the conquest of Egypt.
58 ORIENT Stages and Aims in the Royal Historiography of Esarhaddon to them. Their official appointment was made about nine months after this inscription was composed. Among the many exemplars of Inscription 1,46 there are four whose date formulations state that they were copied in the eponymy (līmu) of Atar-ili, governor of Lahiru that is in Esarhaddon’s eighth year. The earliest of these (nos. 2 and 16) state that they were copied in the month of “Opening of the Door” (itupêt bābi), that is, in Tammuz of that same year. The two others (nos. 1 and 27) state that they were copied in Addar of that year. This means that the inscription was composed four months, at the most, after the defeat in Egypt, which was four to six months before the conquest of Shubria.47
2. Letter to God (RINAP 4 33) The Letter to God is devoted to the conquest of Shubria and to the organization of the Assyrian rule there. It has come down to us on two broken tablets. The date of this composition is not inscribed in the text we have, but there are clear signs that 33, Tablet 2 = Borger, Gbr. II is a draft written shortly after the event.48 Of this inscription, 158 lines have survived (including Tablet 1), constituting about half of the original text. The language and style of the composition are highly ceremonial. Shubria was a small kingdom adjacent to Assyria and Urartu, whose conquest seems not to have posed an extraordinary challenge to Assyria’s capabilities even after the Egyptian debacle. From a military standpoint, this was a fairly modest achievement. However, in light of the circumstances, i.e., the failure in Egypt, it had great propaganda and political significance. It was intended to convince all the peoples of the empire that Assyria’s power had not been impaired as a result of the failed Egyptian campaign.49 Another composition written a few months after the conquest of Shubria and the organization of Assyrian rule in that land is the loyalty oath, intended to assure that, after Esarhaddon’s death, the kingdom would be properly passed down to Ashurbanipal and Shamash- shumu-ukin, his successors. Exemplars of this composition were discovered in the temple of Nabu in Calah, in the city of Ashur, and recently in the temple at Tell Tayinat in northern Syria.50 In a query to Shamash Esarhaddon queries the god about the loyalty towards Ashurbanipal of various ethnic and territorial units throughout the empire (such as the Arameans, Hittites, Philistines and the Itua’ people), on its borders (such as the Yasbuqeans) and even beyond them (such as the Elamites, Egyptians and Nubians).51 From the wording of the oath and from letters
46 RINAP 4 contains 33 exemplars of Inscription 1. In Tadmor’s opinion the fragment of the Zurich Prism – defined, according to Leichty, as ex. no. 7 of Inscription 1 (that is l ex.7) – is part of Prism Nin. S (see Tadmor 2004 274). Thus, the damaged version of the date at the end of this copy of “month of the goddess Bēlet ili (Weissert: dMAḪ), eponymy …the year in which…of the booty” relates to the conquest of Egypt and not the eighth year of Esarhaddon. The month of Bēlet ili is Sivan, see Reynolds 1996, 91. 47 According to the Babylonian Chronicle, Shubria was conquered in the month of Tebeth, the eighth year (Chron. 1 iv 19-20) and according to the Esarhaddon Chronicle, the conquest took place on the 18th of Addar of that year (Chron. 14:27). On the problem of reconciliation between the data from the two chronicles, see Brinkman 1990, esp. 88-95. 48 Ephʻal and Tadmor 2006, 163-168. 49 For the possibility that the campaign against Shubria was also motivated by Esarhaddon’s struggle with his brothers and their supporters, who found shelter in Urartu and subsequently also in Shubria, see Leichty 1991. 50 On the copies from Calah see SAA II 6; from Ashur, see Weidner 1939-1940, 215, and Frahm 2009, 135-136; from Tell Tayinat, see Lauinger 2012.
Vol. XLIX 2014 59 Part I: Literary Analysis of Assyrian Royal Inscriptions to Esarhaddon it appears that the oath encompassed governors, officials of various types and ranks, military men and experts (such as scribes, haruspices, exorcists, physicians and augers).52 All these reveal a large-scale political-administrative operation that embraced the entire Assyrian empire.53 According to Ashurbanipal’s Prism A, the oath encompassed “the people of Assyria, small and great, from the Upper Sea to the Lower Sea.”54 It emerges, then, that the three works – the Apology, the Letter to God and the Loyalty Oath – were composed over a period of eleven months, between Tammuz of year 8 and Iyyar of year 9, during a period of great danger to the stability of the regime. It may be argued that if military successes are an indication of the king’s legitimacy and evidence for divine support to him, then conversely, the lack of military accomplishments for some four years and continuous failures during years 6-7 (see Appendix, below), could be interpreted as a sign that the grace of the gods was absent. To sense something of the political conditions and atmosphere in Assyria at that time, we may point out similarities between Esarhaddon’s reign and the character of his writing in the period under discussion, with those of Nabonidus, the last of the Babylonian kings. The accession of both took place during a time of severe crisis in the leadership of their empires;55 neither was in line for the throne based on the normal order of succession.56 According to their inscriptions, they were welcomed by the inhabitants of their countries who crowned them57 and both were required to fight ongoing opposition.58
51 See SAA IV 142. 52 See Lauinger 2012, 91 i 4-12; SAA X 6, 7. 53 The discovery at Tell Tayinat precludes former opinions that the treaty was designed for remote Median leaders or for the Median sector of the royal guard (for which see Wiseman, Chron and Liverani 1995, respectively). 54 Streck, Asb. A i 11-22. The date inscribed at the end of the oath is noted in two other Esarhaddon inscriptions – 77 ex. 6 and 93 – as the date of their composition and as the day on which Ashurbanipal entered into bīt redūti. The swearing-in was held at several places on the same day. The different dates of this ceremony found in our sources – 2nd, 12th, 16th and 18th Iyyar 672 BC (Borger, Asb., p. 15; 77 ex. 6 and 93; SAA II 6:644-665; Lauinger 2012, 112 viii 63-65, respectively; ) – are nothing but copying variants. For another example of this feature, cf. the date of Esarhaddon’s enthronement – 2nd, 18th/28th Addar 681 BC – 1 i 87—ii 2; Chron. 1 iii 38, respectively. On the execution of governmental events that encompassed the entire empire, cf. Esther 3:12-15; 8:8-11, 17; 9:1. 55 Esarhaddon’s accession took place after the murder of Sennacherib by his son. In less than six years (562–556 BC) prior to Nabonidus’ accession, Babylonia was ruled by three kings, two of which, Evil-Merodach and Labashi- Marduk, were murdered. 56 Esarhaddon was the “youngest of the sons” of Sennacherib and Nabonidus was a usurper. By his own admission, he never dreamed of reigning; it was the god Sin who called upon him to rule (see the Harran Stele, Schaudig, Nabonid, 487-488, i 1-14. According to the Babylon Stele, from the beginning of Nabonidus’ reign, it was Marduk who commanded his accession (ibid., 518, v 8-25). 57 On Esarhaddon see 1 i 50-52, 80-81. For Nabonidus see the Babylon Stele, Schaudig, ibid., 517-518 v 1'-7'. Because the text is broken, the identity of “they” who crowned him did not survive. However, it is clear from the context that they were people of Babylonia or their representatives. 58 Esarhaddon had to deal with his brothers immediately after the murder of his father (and even before), when he fled Nineveh (see Leichty 1991) until he was able to accede to the throne in Nineveh, 1 i 23ff. His brothers (and their supporters) fled to Urartu (and from thence, perhaps, to Shubria) and continued to be a threat. This means that this opposition lasted for at least eight years, see 1 i 82-84; cf. 33 Tablet 1 ii 1-8. Among Esarhaddon’s adversaries who fled to Shubria were provincial governors, foremen, commanders and soldiers (33 ii 3). Even after the conquest of Egypt in Esarhaddon’s year 10, the chronicles report that in year 11 Esarhaddon put to the sword many of his dignitaries (GAL.MEŠ) (Chron. 1 iv 29; Chron. 14:27'). When he returned from Arabia, Nabonidus removed temple administrators and other functionaries. Despite opposition, he held power for a few more years.
60 ORIENT Stages and Aims in the Royal Historiography of Esarhaddon
V. Relief after a great victory: the conquest of Egypt (the report on the conquest of Egypt; the monuments) In year 10 of Esarhaddon’s reign, about two and a half years after the first failed campaign to Egypt, his army returned. This time, his forces were able to vanquish the northern part of the country. This accomplishment reflects a marvelous ability to rebound and to prodigious military prowess. From then on, historiographic efforts were devoted to depicting the difficult passage of Esarhaddon’s army through the Sinai Desert from Raphia to the entrance of Egypt, the huge booty taken from that country, the deportation from it, and the imposition there of Assyrian administration.
1. Report on the conquest of Egypt (Inscription Nin. S) The report on the conquest of Egypt has not come down to us in its complete form. We have six fragments of a prism (Nin. S) and another fragment of a clay tablet; together they bear some 300 lines.59 The surviving segments include the recounting of Esarhaddon’s selection as king by his father and his progress from his hiding place to Nineveh,60 the end of the Nabu-zer-kitti-lishir episode and the latter’s flight to Elam, his killing there and the surrender of his brother Na’id- Marduk to Esarhaddon; Esarhaddon’s actions against Abdi-Milkuti king of Sidon and Sanduarri king of Kundu and Sissu, their killing and the bearing of their severed heads in a procession in Nineveh,61 the subjugation of Ishpaka the Scythian, the action against Bit-Dakkuri and the receipt of tribute from Bel-iqisha the Gambulian,62 the restoration of the gods that Sennacherib had taken from Dumah to Hazael king of the Arabs, the appointment of Tabua as queen of the Arabs, the tribute imposed on Iataʻ son of Hazael and the intervention of the Assyrian army on behalf of Iataʻ in his struggle with Uahbu for hegemony over the Arabs,63 the acceptance of an offering from the three leaders of the Medes who sought Esarhaddon’s help against their neighbors, the campaign to the land of Patusharri and to the land of Bazu.64 All the segments thus far are based on Inscription 1 and are arranged according to it. 65 Next comes the story of the war with the land of Shubria66 and in the end, the (second) campaign to Egypt is described at length (no less than 200 lines), in which Esarhaddon’s forces defeated the Egyptian army, the conquest of the country and the imposition of the Assyrian rule there, detailing the booty and the exiles deported from there.67 There is no doubt that the main part of Nin. S and the pretext for composing it was the conquest of Egypt.68 59 According to Tadmor 2004, 273–276, the report on the conquest of Egypt includes six fragments of an octagonal prism (Nin. S 1-6 = RINAP 4 5-9 + 1 ex. 7) and a clay tablet (K3082+K3086+Sm 2027 = Borger, Frt. F = RINAP 4 34). Leichty’s descriptions indicate that the fragments attributed to the Nin. S edition belong to a number of prisms of different shapes: hexagonal (5, 9), octagonal (6), hollow (8), undefined (7). In the discussion below on the date of the composition of Nin. S, the Tadmor method has been used. 60 Cf. 1 i 8-22, 56-68. 61 Cf. 1 ii 57– iii 35. 62 Cf. 1 iii 60-75. 63 Cf. 1 iv 3-39. 64 Cf. 1 iv 42-68. 65 Thus the mention of the first eight campaigns by number in Nin. S still does not make it an annalistic edition; fundamentally, this is a summary inscription, like Inscription 1 on which it is based. 66 7 ii' 1'-10' parallel to segments of the Letter to God (33 Tablet 1 ii 1ff.). 67 See 8 ii' 1'-28'; 9 i' 1'-17', ii 1'-21'. 68 The victory in Egypt was also perpetuated artistically, see Nadali 2006.
Vol. XLIX 2014 61 Part I: Literary Analysis of Assyrian Royal Inscriptions
The end of the prism is devoted to the expansion and construction of the armory at Nineveh and the supplication to the descendants of Esarhaddon to continue in the future to maintain the armory and renovate it and to respect Esarhaddon’s inscription installed there.69 To sum up, Nin. S, in terms of Esarhaddon’s historiography up to year 8 of his reign (including the building projects), is clearly based on the Apology, on the poetic summation of Inscription 1 and on the Letter to God about the war against Shubria. Its text on the campaign to Egypt also reveals materials and patterns included in previous Esarhaddon inscriptions and even those of Sennacherib. Thus, the depiction of Esarhaddon’s preparation for the upcoming battle with the Egyptian army relies on that of Sennacherib’s preparations for the battle of Halule;70 and the depiction of Esarhaddon’s advance through the Sinai Desert to Egypt, describing in detail sections of the road where there were sharp stones and fiery serpents resembles the description of the campaign of Esarhaddon to the land of Bazu.71 The influence of the Letter to God on Nin. S can also be seen in the structure of the depiction of the campaign against Egypt (the “tenth campaign”) in the account of the various phases of the battle,72 details about the groups that were exiled from the conquered land,73 the appointment of governors and especially the changing of the names of cities.74
2. The monuments The period between the conquest of Egypt (Tammuz/Tishri year 10) and the death of Esarhaddon (Marheshvan year 12) is also marked by the installation of large monuments in public places, including reliefs and inscriptions. Some of these have been discovered in the western part of the empire: two stelae in Til-Barsip (Tell Aḥmar), one in Zincirli, a relief bearing an inscription carved in the rock near the Nahr el-Kelb estuary in Lebanon and a fragment of a stele found in Qaqun (RINAP 4 97, 98, 103 and 102, respectively).75 The conquest of Egypt is mentioned in text and image at Zincirli and at Nahr el-Kelb. On one of the Til-Barsip stelae, an inscription is incised only on the front and it was probably not finished, while the second stele bears no text, surely because Esarhaddon died before an inscription could be incised there. The Zincirli and Til-Barsip stelae are almost identical in layout. Both show Esarhaddon standing, above him divine symbols with two figures before him, smaller than he, in poses of supplication. One is clearly identified with Ushanhuru son of Taharqa king of Egypt. Opinions are divided as to the identity of the second individual: Is it the king of Sidon or of Tyre? Esarhaddon is holding ropes attached by rings to the lips of the other two figures. The figures incised on both
69 Cf. 1 vi 65-74. 70 Cf. RINAP 3/1 22 v 62ff. with 8 ii 1ff. 71 On the campaign to Egypt see 34 rev. 3-7; on the campaign to the land of Bazu see 2 iii 9-14, cf. also an earlier and less developed depiction 1 iv 53-56; 3 iii 13'-17'. 72 Cf. 8 ii 1'-28'; 34:15'-rev.10 with 33 Tablet 2 i 36 – ii 13. A phenomenon that requires more research: While in the compositions under discussion the god Ashur is mentioned as the first of the list of Esarhaddon’s gods and the guide of his army, Marduk appears as a miracle worker and aid to Assyria’s army at critical juncture of its actions, see 33 ii 1-7; 34 rev. 9-10. 73 Cf. 9 i' 7'-17' with 33 Tablet 2 iii 14'-22'. 74 Cf. 9 ii 1'-11' with 33 Tablet 2 iv 6'-10', 14'-22'. 75 For a description of the monuments and their reliefs and inscriptions, see Ephʻal 2005, 106-109.
62 ORIENT Stages and Aims in the Royal Historiography of Esarhaddon sides of the stele are identified as Ashurbanipal and Shamash-shumu-ukin, Esarhaddon’s sons, who were declared his designated successors at the swearing-in ceremony that took place about ten months before the departure on the second Egyptian campaign. In contrast to the similarities in layout, prominent differences can be detected between the monuments’ inscriptions. Esarhaddon’s large steles represent a new phase in Assyrian royal propaganda: Up to that time, accessibility to written royal propaganda was limited, both in terms of the size of the potential readership of the stelae (quite small) and in terms of the number of exemplars, which were found in places to which the public had limited access. The message of the steles for those who came through the gates of Zincirli and Til-Barsip was first and foremost visual, stemming from the size of the reliefs and what they depicted, whereas only secondary importance was attributed to the content of their text. Visual propaganda existed in Assyria before Esarhaddon’s time (mainly in palace reliefs and in the bronze gate bands, which were approximately 25 cm high). Such propaganda was found mainly in palaces and was intended for a limited audience of royal entourage and officials, as well as foreign envoys and vassals who came to the royal palaces.76 The innovation in installing Esarhaddon’s steles in public places (such as the gates of Zincirli and Til-Barsip) is that the message contained in this means of propaganda was intended for the masses – the entire population. The discovery of two identical Esarhaddon steles in one city (Til-Barsip) shows the broad scope of the propaganda campaign in the last stage of his reign.77 The use of public visual propaganda seems to have been an innovation in Mesopotamia in the last part of the seventh century BC, while in Egypt had been quite common for hundreds of years before. The heroic acts and military achievements of the pharaohs were widely inscribed on the walls of temples and were visible to many. Perhaps the depiction of Esarhaddon holding two of his adversaries with ropes is the fruit of the influence of Egyptian propaganda art, with which the Assyrians came into contact with their conquest of Egypt.78
VI. Conclusion The comparison of Esarhaddon’s three historiographic texts, 1, 2 and Nin. S, reveals that each is based on the previous one. The unique addition to the later texts, that is, the Apology in Inscription 1 and the “ninth” and “tenth” campaigns against Shubria and Egypt in Nin. S, added lines to the text, thus increasing its volume. Despite the similarities in the information reported and wording, it emerges that each differs from the others in the circumstances and purposes of its composition: Inscription 2 is a summary inscription composed to mark the end of a large construction project (the armory at Nineveh); Inscription 1 is basically a polemic, composed at a time of political distress due to an ongoing lack of military accomplishments and following the failure of the campaign against Egypt; and Nin. S immortalizes the great military victory and its political and economic outcomes. A study of Esarhaddon’s activities in the realm of propaganda and inscriptions, combined 76 See Aster 2007. 77 One of the Til-Barsip stelae was discovered at the Lions’ Gate and the other in the western part of the tell, 600 m away, see Thureau-Dangin 1929, 189-196. 78 For example, in this spirit, the influence of Egyptian plastic art on Assyrian plastic art has been suspected in reliefs from Ashurbanipal’s palace in Nineveh depicting the battle on the Ulai River in 653 BC, see Kaelin 1999.
Vol. XLIX 2014 63 Part I: Literary Analysis of Assyrian Royal Inscriptions with scrutiny of the inscriptions and attention to measurable details (time, popularity and distribution), augment our understanding of the circumstances under which they were composed. It also reveals that they were intended for differing target audiences, at least some of which can be identified, as follows: The frequent repetition of the narrative in the Babylon Inscriptions shows the popularity of their message – the appeasing of Babylonia, which did not cease throughout Esarhaddon’s reign, and the aim of rapprochement with the elite class of its inhabitants. The Apology was intended first and foremost for the empire’s highest officials and military commanders, through whom Esarhaddon ruled and who presented a danger to the stability of his rule.79 From the great number of known exemplars of Inscription 1 – no less than 32 – this segment of society seems to have been quite sizable. Its large size can also be understood from the statement in the chronicles that in year 11 of his reign, Esarhaddon killed “many of his dignitaries.”80 Oppenheim posited that Esarhaddon’s Letter to God, like Sargon’s Letter to God, were intended to be read to the inhabitants of the city of Assur, among whom, Oppenheim believed, unrest had begun to develop that was directed against Esarhaddon because he had infringed upon their rights.81 In my opinion, the Letter was not intended for the inhabitants of a particular city, but rather addressed to the same segment of society to which the Apology was addressed, i.e., senior officialdom and the military, from whom the danger of opposition was tangible. The two compositions under discussion, which were written within a few months of each other were the outcome of a concerted and focused propaganda effort at a critical juncture in time. The monuments installed in public places reveal propaganda in the mode of “realistic art.” The main message they convey is visual and is intended for all subjects (and not just local rulers) in subject lands.
Table: Military and Political Episodes during the reign of Esarhaddon** Episode Inscription 2 Inscription 1 Nin. S Chronicles Sidon 1 2 2 Year 4 Arza 2 3 Year 2 Teushpa the Cimmerian 3 4 Cilicia 4 5 Barnaki people 5 6 Manneans 6 7 ( + Ishpaka the Scythian) Nabu-zer-kitti-lishir son of 7 1 Year 1 Merodach-Baladan Bit-Dakkuri (Shamash-ibni) 8 8 Year 3
79 On the necessity of the officialdom’s acknowledgement of the ruler’s legitimacy for the stability of his rule, see Weber 1978, 212-214; Mosca 1939, 51. 80 Chron. 1 iv 29; Chron. 14:27. In the framework of the approach utilized in this article, which is based mainly on an examination of Esarhaddon’s historiographic writings, it seems that the killing of the dignitaries can be linked to his prolonged struggle against opposition to his rule, opposition that grew stronger in light of his failures and the lack of military accomplishments that characterized most of his reign. For a different approach (but not devoid of theories whose basis in the sources is problematic), based largely on letters, in which the opposition denied Esarhaddon’s right to rule because of his deteriorating physical condition, see Radner 2003. 81 Oppenheim 1960; 1979.
64 ORIENT Stages and Aims in the Royal Historiography of Esarhaddon
Hazael king of the Arabs 9 10 Bazu 10 13 Year 5 Bel-iqisha the Gambulian 11 9 Patusharri 12 12 Three Median leaders 13 11 Melid Year 6 Egypt (first campaign) Year 7 Shubria [9] Year 8 Egypt (second campaign) 10 Year 10 **The numbers in the columns of Inscriptions 2 and 1 note the order of episodes as conveyed in each inscription. The numbers in the Nin. S column were noted by the composer of this inscription. The numbers in the Chronicles column note the year of Esarhaddonʼs reign. A fragment of an alabaster tablet from the city of Assur (RINAP 4 60), which was composed after the conquest of Egypt, mentions some of the episodes included in Inscriptions 1 and 2 and others that they do not include, in the following order: Teushpa the Cimmerian, Sidon, Arza, Shubria, Tyre, kings of Iadnana (the latter brought tribute).
The table reveals the following: 1. The first four years of Esarhaddon’s reign were marked by intense military activity. All the events mentioned in Inscription 2 took place during that period. The episode that opens Inscription 2 is the conquest and destruction of Sidon, the establishment of Kar-Esarhaddon in its place, the settlement of exiles there and its organization as a province (i 14-37). The latter activities – the establishment of Kar-Esarhaddon and the settlement of the exiles there – would have taken several weeks at least. Therefore there is no doubt that the campaign against Sidon took place before the end of year 4.82 2. The military operations mentioned in Inscriptions 1 and 2 do not appear in chronological order.83 3. Except for the campaign against Sidon, nothing in Inscriptions 1 and 2 differentiates between them in terms of the sequence of the first eight campaigns. From the mention of the campaign against Sidon as the “second campaign” in Nin. S, it appears that the composer of this edition, in reporting the campaigns in sequence, based his account on Inscription 1. 4. The first military action described in Inscription 1 is the removal of Nabu-zer-kitti-lishir (son of Merodach-Baladan) who attacked the city of Ur but did not conquer it. In the Babylonian Chronicle this event is included in Esarhaddon’s year 1 (Chron. 1 iii 39-42). It seems, therefore, that this was his “first campaign.” 5. The incompatibility between the chronological order of the campaigns is particularly prominent when comparing the text of the prisms and chronicles’ account of the episodes of the first five years of Esarhaddon’s reign (see the chronicles’ report on Nabu-zer-kitti-lishir, Arza, Bit-Dakkuri and Sidon). Usually, when the information in the chronicles does not conform to the data in the royal inscriptions, the chronicles are preferred. However, with regard to the dates of the campaigns against Sidon and Bazu, the inscriptions should be preferred: Two of the key episodes in Inscription 2 – the decapitation of Abdi-Milkuti king of Sidon and Sanduarri king of Kundu and Sissu and the bringing of the heads to Assyria (i 23, 49ff.) and the campaign to Bazu (iii 9-36) – are also mentioned in the chronicles: according to them, the first event took place in Tishri/Addar of Esarhaddon’s year 5,84 and the second occurred in Tammuz/Tishri of that same year.85 From the inclusion of these episodes in Inscription 2 – the earliest date of which is Iyyar of year 5 – it must be concluded that the dates of these episodes as cited in the chronicles are off by at least one year. The preference for the data of the chronicles about the abortive campaign to Egypt in year 7 is not based on the essential reliability attributed to the chronicles in cases of incompatibility between them and the royal inscriptions, but rather first and foremost on our knowledge of Esarhaddon's activities in year 8.
82 Letter SAA X 112:13-17 seems to indicate that Sidon was conquered the year before Esarhaddon’s campaign to Mannea, and consequently the conquest of Sidon should be moved up to before year 4. 83 For the appearance of the episodes in the inscriptions under discussion according to geographical order, cf., see Tadmor 2004: 270-272. Tadmor relates here to Nin. S but his reconstruction also fits the earlier editions. 84 Chron. 1 iv 6-8; Chron. 14:14' (Chron. 14 mentions the decapitation of Abdi-Milkuti only). 85 Chron. 1 iv 5-6; Chron. 14:13'.
Vol. XLIX 2014 65 Part I: Literary Analysis of Assyrian Royal Inscriptions
Appendix: The numbering and sequence of the listing of Esarhaddon’s military campaigns Inscription 2 (and Inscription 1, which post-dates it by three years but does not include accounts of additional campaigns, see pp. 56-57) presents thirteen military and political episodes that took place in the first four years of Esarhaddon’s reign. Not all of them speak of military campaigns. Some discuss the recognition of Esarhaddon by local leaders who inhabited frontier areas of the empire – beyond the boundaries of the control of the Assyrian kings who preceded him – of requiring them to pay tribute and of arrangements made with them to ensure their loyalty to the king of Assyria. Such segments include the one about Hazael king of the Arabs and Iataʻ, his son (2 ii 46 – iii 8), Bel-iqisha the Gambulian “whose residence is located twelve leagues distance in water and swamps like (that of) a fish” (2 iii 37-52) and about the three Median leaders who sought Esarhaddon’s aid against their neighbors (2 iv 1-20). If, therefore, we exclude the three episodes in the text of Inscription 2, we are left with the following military campaigns (according to their sequence in this inscription):
1. Against Nabu-zer-kitti-lishir 2. Against Abdi-Milkuti king of Sidon and Sanduarri king of Kundu and Sissu87 3. Against Arza 4. Against Teushpa the Cimmerian 5. Against Cilicia 6. Against the Barnaki people 7. Against the Manneans and Ishpaka the Scythian 8. Against Bit-Dakkuri (Shamash-ibni) 9. Bazu (its number in the list of the campaigns in Nin. S did not survive; see 8 i 12) 10. Against Patusharri
The first eight episodes in the above list were presented consecutively in 2 i 14 – ii 45. The ninth, against Bazu, comes in 2 iii 9-36, and the tenth in 2 iii 52-61. The composer of Nin. S considered only eight of them to have been military campaigns (girrētu). As noted, Esarhaddon’s military campaigns were numbered only in Nin. S. In that text the campaign against Sidon was called the “second campaign” (6 ii 10') and the campaign in which Egypt was taken was called the “tenth campaign” (34:6'). Thus, the campaign against Shubria, the end of whose description comes right before the beginning of the text about the campaign to Egypt (see 34:1'-5') – should be the “ninth.” According to this numbering, we find that eight of the campaigns took place in the first four years of Esarhaddon’s reign.88 The Babylonian Chronicle and the Esarhaddon Chronicle mention two other campaigns that are not mentioned at all in the Esarhaddon inscriptions, as follows:
1. Both state that the Assyrian army set out for Melid in Esarhaddonʼs year 6 and according to the Esarhaddon Chronicle, the army also “encampedˮ (ittadû) against Mugallu.89 It may be assumed that this action did not end well and therefore it was not mentioned in the historical inscriptions.
86 This in light of the date of 22 Iyyar of year 5, when the copy we have was written, see 2 ex. 1 vi 44-45. 87 In Inscription 2 a dividing line separates the account of the conquest of Sidon, the beheading of Abdi-Milkuti from the construction of Kar-Esarhaddon (i 14-37), and the beheading of Sanduarri and the parading of the severed heads of the two kings in Nineveh (i 38-56). There is no evidence of the assault on the cities of Sanduarri, but rather of his capture “in the midst of the mountains.” It seems, therefore, that the military campaign in question was directed only against Sidon.
66 ORIENT Stages and Aims in the Royal Historiography of Esarhaddon
2. The other failed campaign, the first against Egypt (in year 7; see Chron. 1 iv 16).
The total number of Esarhaddon’s campaigns from all the known sources is therefore twelve, of which ten were reported in his inscriptions (eight in Inscriptions 2 and 1, plus the conquest of Shubria and the conquest of Egypt) and two more (against Melid and the first campaign against Egypt) that Esarhaddon’s scribes ignored. In conclusion, the details of the campaigns are as follows:
Years 1-4: 8-10 campaigns (as noted, only eight were considered “campaigns” in Nin. S) Year 6: against Melid (apparently failed) Year 7: against Egypt (failed) Year 8: against Shubria Year 10: against Egypt
The above list reveals that from the end of year 4 until around year 8 the Assyrian army achieved no success whatsoever that left traces in our sources.
References Abbreviations are those of CAD with the following additions: RINAP 3/1 Grayson, A. K. and Novotny, J. 2012: The Royal Inscriptions of Sennacherib, King of Assyria (704-681 BC), Part 1, Winona Lake. RINAP 4 Leichty, E. 2011: The Royal Inscriptions of Esarhaddon, King of Assyria (680-669 BC), Winona Lake.
Aster, S. Z. 2007: “Transmission of Neo-Assyrian Claims of Empire to Judah in the Late Eighth Century B.C.E.,ˮHUCA 78, 1-44. Brinkman, J. A. 1983: “Through a Glass Darkly: Esarhaddon’s Retrospects on the Downfall of Babylon,ˮ JAOS 103, 35-42. Brinkman, J. A. 1990: “The Babylonian Chronicle Revisited,” in T. Abusch, J. Huehnergard and P. Steinkeller (eds.), Lingering over Words: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Literature in Honor of W. L. Moran, Atlanta, 73-104. Cogan, M. 1985: “The Chronicler’s Use of Chronology as Illuminated by Neo-Assyrian Royal Inscriptions,ˮ in J. H. Tigay (ed.), Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism, Philadelphia, 197-209. Cohen, M. E. 1993: The Cultic Calendars of the Ancient Near East, Bethesda. Deller, K. 1965: “šmn bll (Hosea 12, 2), Additional Evidence,” Biblica 46, 349-352. Ephʻal, I. 2003: “Nebuchadnezzar the Warrior: Remarks on his Military Achievements,” IEJ 53, 178-191. Ephʻal, I. 2005: “Esarhaddon, Egypt and Shubria: Politics and Propaganda,” JCS 57, 99-111. Ephʻal, I. & Tadmor, H. 2006: “Observations on Two Inscriptions of Esarhaddon: Prism Nineveh A and the Letter to God,ˮ in Y. Amit et al.(eds.), Essays on Israel in its Near Eastern Context (Studies N. Na’aman), Winona Lake, 155- 170. Fecht, G. 1958: “Zu den Namen ägyptischer Fürsten und Städte in den Annalen des Assurbanipal und der Chronik des Asarhaddon,ˮ Mitteilungen des deutschen archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 16, 116-119. Frahm, E. 2009: Historische und historisch-literarische Texte, Wiesbaden. Grayson, A. K. 1975: Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, Locust Valley, N.Y.
88 Therefore the occurrence of two campaigns, and perhaps a third, in one year during Esarhaddon’s reign should not be seen as extraordinary. Thus, for example, we may certainly posit that in Esarhaddon’s year 7 the Assyrian army could have operated in Egypt and Babylonia; there is no need to invent solutions to harmonize the data on the campaigns to Egypt and to uruŠá-amêlêmeš (as did Fecht 1958: 116-119). 89 Chron. 1 iv 10; Chron. 14:15. This campaign should not be linked to the story of the surrender of Cilicia, which took place, according to Inscription 2 during the first four years of Esarhaddon’s reign, before this inscription was composed. Melid is not mentioned at all in Esarhaddon’s historical inscriptions, and Mugallu appears as Esarhaddon’s enemy in a letter from year 10 of his reign (SAA X 351).
Vol. XLIX 2014 67 Part I: Literary Analysis of Assyrian Royal Inscriptions
Kaelin, O. 1999: Ein assyrisches Bildexperiment nach ägyptischen Vorbild, Münster. Kahn, D. and Tammuz, O. 2008: “Egypt is Difficult to enter: Invading Egypt – A Game Plan (seventh – fourth centuries BC),” Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 35, 37-66. Lauinger, J. 2012: “Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty at Tell Tayinat: Text and Commentary,ˮ JCS 64, 87-123. Leichty, E. 1991: “Esarhaddonʼs ʻLetter to the Gods,’ˮ in M. Cogan and I. Eph͑al (eds.), Ah, Assyria… (Studies. H. Tadmor), Jerusalem, 52-57. Liverani, M.:1995 “The Medes at Esarhaddon’s Court,ˮ JCS 47, 57-62. Mosca, G. 1939: The Ruling Class, New York. Nadali, D. 2006: “Esarhaddonʼs Glazed Bricks from Nimrud: The Egyptian Campaign Depicted,ˮ Iraq 68, 109-119. Nissinen, M. 1998: References to Prophecy in Neo-Assyrian Sources, Helsinki. Onasch, H.-U. 1994: Die Assyrishen Eroberungeu Ägypteus, Wiesbaden. Oppenheim, A. L. 1960: “The City of Assur in 714 B.C.,ˮ JNES 19, 133-147. Oppenheim, A. L. 1979: “Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian Empires,ˮ in H. D. Lasswell, D. Lerner and H. Speier (eds.), Propaganda and Communication in World History, vol. I, Honolulu, 111-144. Parpola, S. 1987: “Neo-Assyrian Treaties from the Royal Archives of Nineveh,ˮ JCS 39, 161-189. Porter, B. N. 1993: Images, Power, and Politics: Figurative Aspects of Esarhaddon’s Babylonian Policy, Philadelphia. Radner, K. 2003: “The Trials of Esarhaddon: The Conspiracy of 670 BC,ˮ in P. A. Miglus & J. M. Córdoba (eds.), Assur und sein Umland im Andenken an die ersten Ausgräber von Assur, Madrid, 165-184. Reade, J. E. 2000: “Ninive (Nineveh),ˮ RLA 9, 388-433. Reynolds, F. 1996: “Review of Cohen 1993,” BiOr 53, 89-95. Streck, M. P. 2002: “Die Wiederaufbau Babylons unter Asarhaddon und Assurbanipal in Briefen aus Niniveh,” AoF 29, 205-233. Tadmor, H. 1958: “The Campaigns of Sargon II: A Chronological-historical Study,” JCS 12, 22-40, 77-100. Tadmor, H. 1981: “History and Ideology in the Assyrian Royal Inscriptions,ˮ in F. M. Fales (ed.), Assyrian Royal Inscriptions: New Horizons, Rome, 13-33. Tadmor, H. 2004: “An Assyrian Victory Chant and Related Matters,” in G. Frame (ed.), From the Upper Sea to the Lower Sea. Studies on the History of Assyria and Babylonia in Honour of A. K. Grayson, Leiden, 269-276. Tadmor, H. 2011: “Sennacherib’s Campaign to Judah: Historical and Historiographical Considerations,” “With my Many Chariots I Have Gone up the Heights of the Mountainsˮ: Historical and Literary Studies on Ancient Mesopotamia and Israel (ed. M. Cogan), Jerusalem, 653-675. Thureau-Dangin, F. 1929: “Tell Aḥmar,” Syria 10, 183-205. Weber, M. 1978: Economy and Society, Berkeley. Weidner, E. F. 1939-1940: “Assurbānipal in Assur,” AfO 13, 204-218. Weissert, E. 1998: “Aššūr-bāni-apli,” in K. Radner (ed.), The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, vol. 1/I, Helsinki, 161-162. Weissert, E. 2004: “Postscript,ˮ in Tadmor 2004, 276.
68 ORIENT