UNIVERSITEIT LEIDEN

DISPLAY PRACTICES IN THE NEO-ASSYRIAN PERIOD ESARHADDON’S SUCCESSION OATH-TABLET IN CONTEXT

Cristina Barcina Pérez S1171380 [email protected] First Reader: Dr. Caroline Waerzeggers Second Reader: Dr. Jan Gerrit Dercksen Research Master in Assyriology Classics and Ancient Civilizations

2016/2017

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 2

0. INTRODUCTION 4 0.1 STATE OF THE ART AND NEW DIRECTIONS 5 0.2 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 8

1. DISPLAY OF ADÊ BEFORE ESARHADDON : AN EXPRESSION OF SUBMISSION 14 1.0 ADÊ AS VASSAL TREATIES 16 1.1 SAA 2 1 AND THE SFIRE STELES: THE OBLIGATION TO DISPLAY THE TREATY 18 1.2 THE TEMPLE AS THE LOCATION FOR THE CELEBRATION AND DISPLAY OF ADÊ 27

2. DISPLAY OF EST: HOW AN ADÊ BECAME A TABLET OF DESTINIES 32 2.O ADÊ AS NON-VASSAL LOYALTY OATHS 32 2.1 THE CEREMONIES AT KALḪU IN NISANNU AND AYYĀRU 35 2.2 THE EST TABLET AS A SACRED OBJECT MEANT FOR DISPLAY 45 a) The three sealings of Aššur 45 b) Monumental size and display in the sancta sanctorum 47 c) Made to be fully read 48

CONCLUSIONS 52 APPENDIX: TABLE 1 54 BIBLIOGRAPHY 55

1

LIST OF MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS MAP 1, p. 4: Locations where EST tablets have been found, adapted from a map of the provinces of the Neo-Assyrian empire in the 7th century designed by K. Radner and drawn by C. Wolff MAP 2, p. 19: Locations of Paqarhubūna and Sfire, adapted from THANENAP FIGURE 1, p. 28: Detail from the Balawat Gates: standards are placed in front of the erected stele of Shalmaneser III by Lake Van, extracted from Bleibtreu 1992, Taf. 55b (after Börker-Klähn 1982, 146) FIGURE 2, p. 35: Plan of the Nabû Temple at Kalḫu, extracted from CTN 4 (after Mallowan 1957) FIGURE 3, p. 38: Drawings of carving on ivory strip found at the Throne Room of the Nabû Temple at Kalḫu, extracted from Mallowan and Davis 1970, No. 67, Plates XX-XXI FIGURE 4, p. 44: Drawing of carving on ivory strip found at the Throne Room of the Nabû Temple at Kalḫu, extracted from Mallowan and Davis 1970, No. 85, Plates XXV FIGURE 5, p. 45: The three seal impressions on EST. From Wiseman 1958, Plate III FIGURE 6, p. 49: Inner sanctum of Building XVI, showing artifact distribution, extracted from Harrison & Osborne 2012, Figure 8 (created by J. Osborne)

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AHw: Akkadisches Handwörterbuch CAD: Chicago Assyrian Dictionary Chronicles: Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles CHLI: Corpus of Hyeroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions CT: Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum CTU: Corpus dei testi urartei CTN: Cuneiform Texts from Nimrud DNWSI : Dictionary of the Northwest Semitic Inscriptions EST: Esarhaddon Succession Treaty KAI: Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften NABU: Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brefs et Utilitaires OIP: Oriental Institute Publications PNA: The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian RIMA: The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Assyrian Periods RINAP: The Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period SAA: State Archives of Assyria SAAB: State Archives of Assyria Bulletin SAAS: State Archives of Assyria Studies

2

SST: Sennacherib Succession Treaty StAT: Studien zu den Assur-Texten THANENAP: The Helsinki Atlas of the Near East in the Neo-Assyrian Period

3

0. INTRODUCTION

In 2009, version of Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty (EST) was discovered in a small temple at Tell Ta’yinat1 in South-West Turkey and forced a review of previous scholarship on the nature and context of eight other tablets of this treaty which had been found in the Throne Room of the Nabû Temple at Nimrud (Kalḫu) more than five decades earlier.2 Six of these eight tablets preserved the name of those swearing loyalty to Ashurbanipal in Ayyāru 672 BC, all of them chieftains sharing roughly the same geographical provenience in the Zagros, “the eastern periphery of Assyria”.3

1 In the altar room of Building XVI. The first excavations at the site were conducted by the University of Chicago’s Syro-Hittite Expedition between 1935 and 1938, their final reports published in 1960 and 1971 (OIP 61). In 1999 the University of Toronto resumed field investigations within the framework of the Tayinat Archaeological Project. After preliminary surveying seasons, excavations at Ta’yinat started in 2004. Building XVI was unearthed during the 2008 and 2009 seasons. For a general overview, see Harrison 2009; on Building XVI, Harrison and Osborne 2012. J. Lauinger from Johns Hopkins University is responsible for the edition and publication of the epigraphic cuneiform material: Lauinger 2011, 2012, 2016. 2 Editio princeps by Wiseman 1958. 3 Parpola and Watanabe 1988 (SAA 2), XXX. For Radner, the protracted use of the term “city-lord” in Assyrian sources “after the creation of provinces in the Zagros hints towards the existence of a parallel power structure alongside the official Assyrian administration in the east, necessitating to bind them to the Assyrian king with methods that are unnecessary for regular subjects”: 2003a, 60. See also Lanfranchi’s remarks on the title bēl āli and its increasing replacement of šarru in the same volume, p. 95. 4

Since the Ta’yinat manuscript (T 1801) was the treaty of Esarhaddon with “the governor of Kunalia4, [along] with the deputy, the majordomo, the scribes, the chariot drivers, the third men, the village managers, the information officers, the prefects, the cohort commanders, the charioteers, the cavalrymen, the exempt, the outriders, the specialists, the sh*ield bearers (?)+, the craftsmen (…)”,5 it had become apparent that Esarhaddon had not only imposed his succession treaty on at least six autonomous Eastern city-lords, but also on Assyrian provinces outside the heartland.

0.1. State of the art and new directions Previous scholarship had mainly focused on the nature of Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty. From the Assyrian point of view, this text was an adê,6 a West-Semitic term which Assyriologists had easily equated with other designations for “treaty” coming from earlier periods,7 and –based on the context of adê attestations in annalistic inscriptions– regarded as de facto “vassal treaties”.8 However, the purpose of EST is to guarantee the loyalty of all relevant collectives9 in the Assyrian empire to Esarhaddon’s chosen heir, who was not his eldest son.10 The presence of the Eastern city-lords as oath-takers, nevertheless, suggested it was a vassal treaty. Hence, in the volume dedicated to diplomatic texts within the State Archives of Assyria series, Parpola considered that EST was partly a vassal treaty and mostly a loyalty oath.11 Slightly different was Liverani’s view, who posited that the city-lords were bodyguards at the service of the crown prince, and concluded that EST was a loyalty oath imposed on all vassals of the empire in order to confirm his designation.12 By contrast, Watanabe, Parpola’s co-author of SAA 2, had previously rejected the “vassal treaty”

4 Kinalia, Kinalua, Kunalia and Kunulua are all attested in annalistic inscriptions; KUR/URU Kullani(a) or Kulnia became the designation of the Assyrian province of Unqi. Cf. Parpola 1970, 206 and 213. 5 Lauinger 2012, 112. By contrast, SAA 2 6 reads: “with PN, city-ruler of GN, his sons, his grandsons, with all the [gentilic+ (…)”. 6 For the etymology of adê (plurale tantum)/’dy, see Tadmor 1987, 455. OB adû will be discussed below, in 2.0. 7 Brinkman 1990, 91ff. 8 Radner 2006. 9 See the analysis of the human categories named in the EST in Fales 2012, 142f. 10 SAA 10 185, ll 7-12: “you have girded a son of yours with headband and entrusted to him the kingship of Assyria; your eldest son you have set to the kingship in Babylon. You have placed the first on your right, the second on your left side!” Šamaš-šumu-ukīn is not named “the crown prince designate of Babylon” until §7 of EST. 11 SAA 2, XXXf. 12 Liverani 1995, 60. 5 approach, further positing that it was only due to accident that the EST tablets drawn for the Median chieftains had come down to us.13 A further element was interwoven into this debate and should be briefly introduced here: the presence of three seal impressions and a heading stating that they are “the Seal of Aššur (...)” at the top of the obverse of all EST manuscripts.14 Drawing from the Tablet of Destinies theme embedded in the Enūma Eliš and Anzû-bird narratives, and from the imagery described on a draft for one of Sennacherib’s inscriptions,15 George concluded that “there can be little doubt that the document ratified by Aššur’s sealing [i.e. EST] is, on the mythological plane, the Tablet of Destinies”.16 Two decades later, in her contribution to a monograph dedicated to Deuteronomium 28, 20-44, Radner studied references to vassal treaties in Middle and Neo-Assyrian sources,17 and then focused on Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty. After reviewing the archaeological context of the Kalḫu versions18 as well as previous scholarship, she stated that it was not a coincidence that these oath-tablets had been found in Kalḫu, since the ceremonies of succession must have taken place in the Nabû temple.19 While agreeing with Parpola’s assessment that the Eastern city-lords were newly-acquired vassals, she pointed out, however, that the existence of another fragment of this text found in Assur20 implied that other versions of this treaty could be found elsewhere in Assyria, too.21 The discovery of the Ta’yinat version has led to a suggestion of this oath-tablet as an object of worship and periodical fealty. Lauinger defends this thesis, supported by ll 406-409 of EST: “you will guard like your god this sealed tablet of the great ruler on which is written the adê of Assurbanipal, the great crown prince designate, the son of Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, your lord, which is sealed with the seal of Aššur, king of the gods, and which is set

13 Watanabe 1987, 3f. 14 Watanabe 1985. 15 George 1986. See below 2.2.a) for a discussion on the sealings and the mentioned inscription, recently published as RINAP 3/2 158. 16 Ibid., 141. 17 Radner 2006, 351-367. 18 See below, 2.1. 19 Op.cit., 370. The importance of Nabû and the possibility of an akītu-festival celebrated in his temple on the occasion of the succession ceremonies will be treated below, 2.1. 20 VAT 11534, preserving ll 229-236. Editio princeps: Weidner 1939/1940, 215, Tf. XIV. Radner presented a new edition and translation of this fragment in 2006, 376-378. In 2009, Frahm published two hitherto unknown EST fragments in the third installment of the WVDOG literary texts from Assur: VAT 12374 (EST 54-62) and 9424 (509-516), 135f (Nos. 70-71), copies in p. 255. 21 Op.cit., 371ff. 6 up before you”,22 and further argues for adê to be translated as “duty, destiny”.23 Fales is more cautious, since there is no written record of acts of worship, and focuses instead on the emergence in 7th century legal documents of two formulae based on the adê ša šarri, “the loyalty oath of the king”.24 He considers EST to be the first example of an institutional emblem “endowed with the autonomous power of meting out justice and guaranteeing the correctness of legal proceedings”.25 But Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty as an oath-tablet with special features indicating that it was clearly meant to be displayed26 also forces a reassessment of the reasons behind the display of the Kalḫu tablets in particular. Mutatis mutandis, there is certainly a parallelism between the two locations: while the Ta’yinat version was found in the altar of Building XVI, toppled over,27 the Kalḫu tablet fragments were scattered over the floor of the Throne Room of the Nabû Temple, not in the archival rooms of the temple (NT 12 and 13).28 However, while there is perfect agreement between the location and the people entering the adê in the Ta’yinat version, that is not the case with the Kalḫu ones. SAA 10 5, 6, and 7 are letters discussing arrangements for Assyrian scholars and citizens to participate in adê ceremonies to be celebrated in Kalḫu in Nisannu. Yet, these citizens’ oaths were not preserved in an oath-tablet meant to be displayed. Moreover, the deities invoked in the standard curse section of all EST tablets, presumably representing the second party, are at home in diverse locations of the Syro-Levantine area. Since the different Kalḫu manuscripts – despite having linguistic and orthographic variants, errors and omissions– are “for all practical purposes identical”,29 as is T 1801 from §2 onwards;30 the lack of some eastern deities outside West-Semitic and Babylonian cultic spheres in the Kalḫu manuscripts is conspicuous and should not be attributed to oversight or ignorance.

22 Lauinger 2011, 12. I am using his translation of EST 406-409, since these lines are better preserved in T1801: 2012, 98f, 112. 23 2013, 114f. 24 Fales 2012, 152. 25 Ibid., 153. 26 See 2.2.3 27 Lauinger 2011, 12; 2016, 230. 28 Leading Wiseman to suggest that, even if it was more likely that they were kept in one of the scribal chambers, “when the time came for the enemies of Assyria to be avenged for their former servitude, it was the king’s throne-room which was deliberately chosen”: 1958, Foreword, i. An excellent overview on the discovery, archaeological context, and texts recovered mainly from NT 12 of the Nabû Temple is given in Wiseman and Black 1996, 1-8. 29 SAA 2, XXIX. 30 Lauinger 2012. 7

All the evidence mentioned above points to a very specific target audience: Assyrian royalty, Assyrian magnates (highest military echelons), and, by extension, anyone who posed a threat.31 This point of view had already been suggested before T 1801 was unearthed. Analyzing the reasons that Esarhaddon may have had to designate Šamaš-šumu-ukīn as heir to the throne of Babylon, Porter stated: “(…) Esarhaddon and his advisers expected opposition to the arrangements for the succession and were attempting to encourage compliance with them by imposing formal oaths on a broad cross-section of people in Assyria, as well as on influential people in Babylonia and other conquered territories.”32 The thesis defended here is that the eight tablets spread out in Nabû’s Throne-Room were but cleverly-fashioned deceptive mirrors, physical reminders of the Assyrian ceremonies that had taken place a month earlier, in Nisannu. In other words, the identity of the oath-takers in the Kalḫu versions was not important: their status (or lack of it), was. Esarhaddon wanted his subjects to see EST not as a vassal treaty but a Tablet of Destinies. However, until 683 BC with Sennacherib’s Succession Treaty on behalf of Esarhaddon (=SAA 2 3),33 adê in Assyrian sources were sworn by subjugated foes, with the exception of oaths given in military contexts to a commander or to a royal contender to the throne.34 Possible but unattested are loyalty oaths sworn by staff and specialists entering palace service; the circumstances surrounding the conclusion of the so-called Accession Treaty of Esarhaddon (=SAA 2 4), with only a few lines preserved, are unknown. This is an indication that most adê before the Sargonids were indeed de facto vassal treaties. It also implies that display practices according to the type of text followed a tradition, particularly in a cultic context, as must have been the case with annalistic inscriptions and letters to deities (Aššur).35

0.2 Historical background Esarhaddon had inherited a large empire. Among his challenges upon accession,

31 SAA 4 139 is an oracle query asking whether a number of palace staff and Assyrian residents –starting with the eunuchs and bearded officials, and ending with the foreigners and their entourage– will instigate an uprising and rebellion against Esarhaddon. Note that SAA 142 shows some differences in the foreigners listed in the equivalent paragraph, and enquires about a rebellion against Ashurbanipal, son of Esarhaddon. 32 Porter 1993, 134. 33 VAT 11449. To be added to two other fragments of this text, also coming from Assur: VAT 10470 and VAT 12007: Frahm 2009, 130-133 (Nos. 67-68), copies in p. 253. Frahm considers these texts “long versions” or Langfassung, and regards VAT 11449 (No. 69) as a Kurzfassung oder Auszug. 34 See below, 2.0. 35 As Oppenheim argued in his analysis of Sargon’s Letter to the Gods: 1960, 133-147. 8 further expansion was not a big priority, but rather its preservation, maintaining the illusion of expansion (e.g. his expeditions to Patušarri, in Media, or the land of Bāzu, probably in north-east Arabia),36 and making sure there was a steady supply of tribute and booty for the upkeep of his army and his building activities in several cities of Assyria and Babylonia. Apart from these challenges, he had ascended the throne after his father’s murder and his brothers’ attempt at usurpation,37 and –considering his brothers had eluded capture–,38 he must have taken measures to control the threat the exiles posed. His ruthless behavior against soldiers that were suspect of treason once he came to power (ii 8-11), shows that this was no small matter to him.39 This is confirmed by the inscription known as Nineveh A (=RINAP 4 1), whose colophons bear dates belonging to years 673 and 672 B.C., and which –as Tadmor realized– starts with an autobiographical introduction preceding events narrated in his earlier annals and thus represents a part of his succession arrangements.40 Even if it may also have served the purpose of justifying the failure of his first Egyptian campaign,41 its main objective was reaffirming his own right to rule, and thereby his future heir’s. From this inscription, we may gather that, by 673/672 BC, Esarhaddon’s brothers were still free, and no other inscription written at this time –whether Kalḫu A or the Tarbiṣu inscriptions–,42 mention his Šubrian campaign –explicitly said to be in retaliation for the Hurrian king’s refusal to have Assyrian fugitives extradited–43 which had taken place just a few months earlier.44 In addition, from a letter in the royal archives (SAA 18 100) we learn that one of

36 Both imbued with a spirit of adventure characteristic of the exploration of “exotic” lands, despite their economic motivation. On the location of Patušarri, see Radner 2003a, 59; on the location of the land of Bāzu, see Eph’al 1982, 130ff. 37 RINAP 4 1, i 1-ii 11; SAA 9 1.8 mentions two brothers. 38 RINAP 4 1 i 80-84a. 39 lú Radner noticed that the attestations of a certain gatekeeper ( Ì.DU8) only occur in Esarhaddon’s reign, and start in 679 BC, which she deduced is due to his promotion taking place upon his accession. This coincides with the disappearance of two previously attested chief gatekeepers. Cf. Radner 2010, 269-280, esp. 272f. 40 Tadmor 1983. For the different dates, see the commentary to RINAP 4 1. 41 Knapp 2016. 42 RINAP 4 1, 77 and 93. 43 RINAP 4 33, ii 1-8 (first preserved lines); Leichty 1991. 44 On the 21st of Ulūlu (VI), according to RINAP 4 33 ii 1-9, the Uppumeans try to have the ramp that is about to bring Assyrian soldiers over their walls burnt, to no avail. The Babylonian chronicles register –as expected, given what must have been a protracted campaign– later dates, although they differ: Chronicles, no. 1, iv 19- 21: Ṭebētu (X), booty entering Uruk a month earlier, though; no. 14, 24-25: the 18th of Addaru (XII). 9

Esarhaddon’s brothers in particular, Arda-Mullissi,45 had followers swear a loyalty-oath, an adê, to him.46 This is important because it underlines Esarhaddon’s need to legitimize Sennacherib’s Succession Treaty on his behalf, which is mentioned three times in the introduction to Nineveh A. It is possible to argue that some of Esarhaddon’s actions were motivated, at least partly, by a wish to capture his brother. Arda-Mullissi is also mentioned in one of Bēl-ušēzib’s astrological reports on the (first) Mannean campaign (around 676/675 BC).47 SAA 10 113 mentions a meeting between the chief eunuch and Aramaeans: 5’-18’ [...] Arda-Mullissi *...... + “This is what I have heard about (this).” The [...] heard these words of Mardiya, and the sheikh [NN], the sheikh Yadi' and all the sheikhs of Yakimanu testified confirming him before the chief eunuch in Mannea. Now they are saying: "The slayer of our lord shall not become our superior”. 48 Let the lord of kings ask the chief eunuch, and let the king hear the whole story.

This otherwise unattested Mardiya had relevant information on Arda-Mullissi, but his statement needed to be supported by the Yakimanu;49 the chief eunuch interrogates them to confirm the first’s testimony. The annalistic accounts offer no clear reason for this early campaign in Mannea. The relevant passage in Nineveh A, coming as it does after accounts on the wicked mountain dwellers of other lands, simply reads: iii 59-60a I scattered the Mannayan people, undisciplined Gutians, and its army

Bēl-ušēzib, writing from Nineveh, offers Esarhaddon his astronomical omens and common sense advice, and hence provide some information: SAA 10 111 and 112. The pervading impression one gets when reading these two letters is that Esarhaddon is reluctant to launch a full-fledged attack against Mannea. Fales and Lanfranchi interpreted

45 Parpola 1980, 171-182, after Kgs. 2 19: 37 and Isaiah 37: 38. Grayson and Novotny, RINAP 3/2, 27f. For a probable confirmation of Esarhaddon being the eldest brother by the same mother, see Frahm’s comments to VAT 10470, r4’ in 2009, 132. 46 SAA 18 100, 4-r.5 When they heard about the [tre]aty of rebellion which [...], one o[f them] ap[pealed] to the king before .... Nabû-šuma-iškun and Ṣi[llaya] came and ques[tioned him]: "[What] is your appeal to the king ab[out]?" He (answered): "It is about Arda-[Mullissi]." Th[ey covered] his face with his cloak and made him stand before Arda-Mul[lissi himself], saying: "Look! [Your appeal] is being granted, say it with your own mouth!" He said: "Your son Arda-[Mullissi] will kill you." Also of interest are lines r. 11-12: [He sho]uld question the men of the house of Ard[a-Mullissi]. 47 SAA 10 110-113; cf. Nissinen, SAAS 7, 5.3. 48 Bēl dame ša bēlinu ina muḫḫinu ūl irabbi 49 Lipioski (2000, 484) explains the presence of the Yakimanu in Mannea by the epigraphic evidence in the area: the 8th-century Bukan stele, found in the vicinity of Lake Urmia, and bronze vessels inscribed in Aramaic belonging to the same period. On the first, see Fales 2003. 10 this reluctance as a sign of Esarhaddon’s lack of military expertise and basic indecision.50 Indeed, at the beginning of his reign, at least, Esarhaddon seems to have been keen on using diplomatic means, as frequently shown in his queries.51 Therefore, it is not unreasonable to assume that Esarhaddon may have concluded an adê with Mannea earlier in his reign, perhaps concerning their mutual cooperation against the Cimmerians and the Scythians, Urartean expansion, and the exchange of political refugees. If Esarhaddon received reports on the possible presence of Arda-Mullissi in the area, he must have felt justified in initiating hostilities against Mannea and seeking the Cimmerians’ non-intervention before he did (SAA 10 111), but would logically feel conflicted about breaking the treaty if he had no irrefutable proof. As Lanfranchi and Fales point out, his complaint that Cimmerians cannot be trusted since “they are barbarians who recognize no oath sworn by god and no treaty” (māmiti ša īlī ū adê ūl idū)52 seems to be an excuse not to move on from the countryside and attack the Mannean cities. As commented above, the campaign against Šubria, a mountainous land in the Taurus, at the end of 673 B.C. was initiated to capture Assyrian fugitives. Earlier, he may have been concerned with Urarṭu seizing this buffer-state for himself (SAA 4 18), but he had concluded an adê with Ursa prior to this campaign, as we learn from his Letter to the Gods (RINAP 4 33, iii 32’). Na’aman remarked on the apparently unnecessary separation in the text between Assyrian and Urartean prisoners (iii 23-34), which he saw as an action that would bring forth the same behavior: “Esarhaddon must have already tried to receive the fugitives by diplomatic measures, the same way that he negotiated with Ik-Teššub, king of Šubria. Like the latter, Ursa must have refused to deliver them and Urarṭu was too strong to attack (…). However, he must have failed in this, as there is no text referring to the extradition of the Urartean fugitives to Assyria”.53 Radner offers a different interpretation: that the offer of Urartean fugitives would appease Urarṭu and ensure its non-intervention.54 Be it as it may, Esarhaddon must have felt secure enough in the knowledge that Arda-

50 1981, 30. 51 For instance, on the conclusion of adê: SAA 4 12 (Mugallu the Melidean); 20 (Bartatua, king of Scythians, including marriage alliance), 24 (Hubuškia); 56, 57, 58 (Kaštaritu of Karkašši, Median city-lord), 74 (Urtaka, king of Elam). See also SAA 4 30, 6: among the possible actions to retake Dur-Illil from the Manneans, “friendliness and peaceful negotiations” are included. A treaty with Elam was actually concluded: cf. SAA 18 7. 52 Probably Esarhaddon’s own statement, according to Fales and Lanfranchi: op.cit., 27. 53 NABU 2006/ 5, 4f. 54 Cf. Radner 2012a, 263. For more information on this campaign and on the possible existence of a sanctuary dedicated to the Storm-God, and granting asylum to refugees at Uppummu, see Dezsö 2006. 11

Mullissi’s threat had been neutralized for the moment.55 Completion of the succession arrangements must have brought Esarhaddon a certain peace of mind. Despite the death of his wife Ešarra-ḫammat, a decline of his own health – coinciding with the refurbishment of Fort Shalmaneser, where he had fitting living quarters built–56 and the delegation of some military affairs to Ashurbanipal, the truth is that after the succession arrangements were completed, Esarhaddon was capable of defeating the Cimmerians in Ellipi, undertaking a now successful campaign to Egypt, and nipping opposition to his rule in the bud.57

There is an interesting literary work coming from the last years of his reign (ca. 670 BC) that can help illuminate Esarhaddon’s perception of EST in his mind: the collection of oracles by Ištar of Arbela’s prophet La-dagil-ili.58 It is said to have been presented before Bēl Tarbaṣi, one of the guardians of the gates of the Ešarra.59 Pongratz-Leisten has convincingly shown that this specific collection has two different textualizations: two oracles from the mouth of Aššur “foreseeing” successful events which have already taken place –an example of vaticinio ex eventu-, and another from the mouth of Ištar –describing the ceremony of the adê of Aššur and beseeching the assembly of the gods not to forget the covenant which she has arranged on Esarhaddon’s behalf.60 This adê between god and king, with Ištar as the mediator, appears to be an idealization of his own adê on behalf of Ashurbanipal, and represents the supreme sacred nature that he wanted his subjects to perceive concerning it. It is clear that Esarhaddon had not expected his brother to gather so much support for his cause, and the fact that he had, irritated and bothered him. EST had to be, therefore, larger in scope, as may be inferred from the many and often repetitive provisions, some of them clearly concerning previous events (see Table 1 in Appendix).

55 Note, however, that in 16 358, Esarhaddon’s orders are quoted concerning guard duty at border garrisons, and specifically the obligation to send anyone who flees Urarṭu, Mannea, Media or Hubuškia to the Crown Prince. 56 SAA 10 43; Parpola 1983, 231; Radner 2003b, 168ff. Cf. SAA 4 148 “Can Esarhaddon Leave Calah safely?”, belonging, perhaps, to the conspiracy period. 57 Chronicles, 1, iv 29; 14, 27’. Cf. SAAS 7, 5.3. 58 SAA 9 3. 59 Menzel 1981, T 149: i 45. 60 Self-published: 20ff. 12

Moreover, as §35 shows, it also had to be somewhat “holier” than SST had been. It had to impress upon his subjects, particularly those at home, that their proffered oaths were absolutely unbreakable. He achieved that through a monumental oath-tablet that would act as a reminder of that oath’s sacred nature every time they went into the temple, where it was on display. But before he could turn EST into a “Tablet of Destinies”, concerning the oath-tablets at home, Esarhaddon needed to keep the pretense that only vassals swore oaths and had them displayed. There is enough evidence to argue for the existence of a tradition imposing on certain powerful vassals the obligation to display their loyalty oaths in a prominent and sacred location. As will be shown below, this tradition developed gradually from the ninth century until Tiglath-pileser III’s reign, adapting to the needs of the ever-growing empire, only to resurface with Esarhaddon, who made it merge with other display practices. This thesis is divided in two sections. Part 1 explores the display of vassal treaties, analyzing the two examples of known treaties in the Neo-Assyrian period sharing the monumentality, or rather, the “presentation” of EST. Part 2 treats the implementation of the succession ceremonies and the innovative features that turned EST into a “Tablet of Destinies”.

13

1. DISPLAY OF ADÊ BEFORE ESARHADDON : AN EXPRESSION OF SUBMISSION

1.0 Adê as vassal treaties Even though the totality of adê in our possession is scarce,61 there is enough evidence for us to argue that treaties in Middle and Neo-Assyrian times must have been nearly always unilateral, that is, they were meant to be ratified by an oath made by only one of the parties to the other (i.e. Assyria).62 First, there is no evidence suggesting that Assyria ever swore an oath concerning the protection of a vassal, as some instances coming from the Old Babylonian and Hittite periods do.63 The “benevolent” action on the part of the Assyrian king in all pertinent preserved clauses of adê is simply one of non-destruction. For instance: EST § 25, 287’-295’: (…) you shall speak to your sons and grandsons (…), and give them orders as follows: “Guard this treaty. Do not sin against your treaty and annihilate yourselves, do not turn your land over to destruction and your people to deportation.”

SF 1 B, 23b-26a: But if you obey and car]ry out this treaty and say, “*I+ am an ally,” *I shall not be able to raise a hand] against you; nor will my son be able to raise a hand against [your] son, or my offspring against [your] off[spring]

Second, adê are consistently presented as a sign of subjugation in annalistic accounts,64 and even if these are biased and at the service of imperial discourse, hence devoid of or disguising any hint of actual failure or weakness, their propagandistic nature itself suggests that few treaties where Assyria may have been in a situation of parity or inferiority would have been preserved.65 This stands in stark contrast to eighth-century Babylonia, in light of the letters composing the šandabakku archive from Nippur,66 where expressions like aḫḫūtu ū ṭābūtu,

61 Parpola and Watanabe published fourteen texts in SAA 2, but No. 14 seems to be a draft for an inscription. 62 In Tadmor’s words (1982, 142): “the Assyrian sovereign does not “bind” himself –as the Hittite sovereign often did– but demands unconditional commitment on the part of his vassal and, later, of his subject in Assyria proper”. 63 For an Old Babylonian example, see Eidem and Laessoɇ 2001, No. 1 (SH.809), ll. 18-30. See Lafont’s further references and comments in Lafont 2001, 287, n. 293. For the Hittite evidence, see Altman 2003. 64 Tadmor regarded adê and urdūtu (“servitude”, manifested as corvée and tribute) as two separate “dependencies” (1982, 149-151). Radner, instead, thinks oath and servitude should be seen as connected, one guarantying the other (2006, 353ff). 65 SAA 2 1 is an exception, see immediately below. The fact that no oath-tablet recording the adê of Esarhaddon with the kings of Urarṭu and Elam has been unearthed may not be accidental. 66 Cole 1996 (OIP 114). Nos. 6, 7, 20 and 23 mention adê. For a summary on the nature of tribal relations as reflected in this archive, see Cole’s remarks on SAAS 4, 18ff. 14

“brotherhood and friendly relations”,67 and the kinship metaphor of lord and vassal as father and son68 speak of a certain continuity with second millennium diplomacy, at least in terms of terminology. This aspect of submission and unilaterality of adê as portrayed in the annals is further confirmed by the correspondence. In a letter by the governor of Aššur to Sargon II, we learn of an adê formalized in the Ešarra: SAA 1 76, 6’-r 8’: As to the treaty tablet of mGurdî69 about which the king, my lord, wrote to me, the adjutant of the Palace Superintendent came and picked it up on the 1st of Abu (V). [As soon as] the emissaries [had ar]rived, they brought the tre[aty tablet to the Inner Cit]y; [the body]guard and the messenger of the Palace Superintendent went with them and introduced it into the courtyard of the temple. The messenger of the Palace Superintendent who brought it said: "I am under orders to return the tablet", so he got it back (after the ceremonies). The city overseer, the temple steward and Kenî the temple scribe entrusted me [...].

We cannot confirm if the governor was entrusted with the writing of a duplicate for the foreign emissaries to take with them. What is clear is that Sargon did not attend the ceremony, and the palace officials were only interested in safeguarding the tablet, which once read during the ceremony, was to return to the palace, possibly to be suitably archived. In fact, Sargon’s governors were frequently responsible for the negotiation and imposition of adê in newly conquered territories.70 The situation seems to have been far more nuanced regarding Babylonia as illuminated by the correspondence of Tiglath-pileser III (744-727 BC) and Sargon II (722-704 BC), mostly due to its cultural preeminence and the restlessness of certain tribes under Assyria’s yoke.71 Thus, in one instance we see that a treaty draft needed to be approved by both parties.72 It is therefore not surprising that at least one occasion, perhaps two, Assyria may have been at a disadvantage regarding Babylonia. The first led to the conclusion of SAA 2 1, and will be treated immediately below. The second may have been a treaty concluded

67 OIP 114 No. 2, ll 9-11. 68 No. 23, 6’. 69 The identification of Anatolian Gurdî is problematic. Cf. Gurdî in Aro, PNA 1/2, 1-3, p. 341 and Kurtî in Fuchs, PNA 2/1, p. 642. 70 SAA 1 14, SAA 5 78, SAA 15 90, SAA 15 98. 71 See Luukko’s introduction to SAA 19 (Tiglath-pileser III), XXVIIIff, XXXIXff and Fuchs & Parpola’s introduction to SAA 15 (Sargon), XVIIIf. 72 SAA 19 133. Despite the lack of context, lines 2-22 of the reverse seem to relate that the son of Yākin (Merodach-baladan) had had a treaty written and dispatched to the Palace; the Palace then sent it back – apparently rejecting it–, and now Merodach-baladan either tries again to have this treaty confirmed by the king of Assyria, or he has written a new one and tells the sender of the letter to ensure it reaches the hands of the king. 15 between Sargon and Merodach-Baladan, chief of the most important Chaldean tribe, at the beginning of Sargon’s reign, referred to in his inscriptions,73 “concluded after a civil war in Assyria and the battle of Der, when Sargon was still politically and militarily weak”,74 treaty that would have been broken by Sargon himself (ša adê šarri ilānī ū lā [iṣṣurū]), thus explaining his fate according to K4730+, the so-called “Sin of Sargon” composition, which Tadmor, Landsberger, and Parpola convincingly proved it had been written during Esarhaddon’s reign.75 Before moving to the next point, a remark concerning orality should be made. Even if most adê must have been written down on a clay tablet and archived, the fundamental binding element remained the oath (mamītu).76 This probably means that there may have been a few situations when the oral ceremony and the loyalty oath, in the presence of one or several divine emblems,77 sufficed.

1.1 SAA 2 1 and the Sfire Steles: the obligation to display the treaty

As will be explained here, the existence of SAA 2 1 (Rm 2 427) and the three Sfire steles demonstrates that, at the beginning of imperial expansion in the ninth and beginning of the eighth centuries, adê may have often been inscribed on stone and displayed in the temple where the oath was sworn. The first is the treaty between Marduk-zākir-šumi I (855-19 BC) and Šamšī-Adad V (823-11 BC). It was inscribed on a small black stone, and it was probably agreed soon after the Assyrian king’s accession, at a time when he was not in a position of superiority.78 There are several reasons to justify this within the text, as Brinkman noted: “a) Akkad is mentioned before Assyria in the enumeration of countries (6’); b) Marduk-zākir-šumi has the title ‘king’ after his name, while the Assyrian, Šamšī-Adad, has no title in the preserved portion (10’, 8’); c) the main Babylonian gods, Marduk and Nabû, are the first deities invoked in the curse

73 Lie 1929, 42, ll 263ff. 74 Parpola 1989, 49. 75 SAAB 3 (1989), 3-51. 76 Radner 2006, 353. See, for instance, RINAP 1 20, 18’, accusing Samsi, queen of the Arabs, of transgressing her oath by Šamaš. In Sargon II’s annals adê is frequently in hendiadys with mamītu. 77 See below, 1.2. 78 In SAA 2, XXVIf, Parpola states that “by providing military assistance to Shalmaneser’s (legitimate) heir, to which he was evidently obligated by oath, Marduk-zakir-šumi was thus simply returning a favour rendered to him earlier” so that “there is no reason to take the treaty to indicate Babylonian supremacy over Assyria”, but a year later (SAAB 3, 49) he posited: “Occasionally, however, the Assyrian king too, out of sheer political necessity, was forced to conclude a treaty which he too had to confirm by oath”. 16 formulae; and d) most of the rest of the curses are very similar to –and could have been taken verbatim from– the epilogue of the Babylonian laws of Hammurabi written some 940 years earlier”.79 Extra-textual evidence can also be adduced: it was written in the Neo-Babylonian dialect and inscribed in early Neo-Babylonian lapidary script. Weidner posited that Rm 2 427 was the Babylonian copy of the treaty, taken eventually as booty and brought to Nineveh, but, though in a fragmentary condition, it does not seem to have been smashed to smithereens, as was the case with the Kalḫu EST versions.80 It could also be argued that an object that shows one’s weakness at a given time does not make it “suitable” booty material. Thus, it is plausible that this treaty was inscribed on a stone in Babylonia, and taken by emissaries to Assur, where it was sworn in the presence of, among other deities, Marduk and Nabû. The second evidence are the Aramaic treaties81 inscribed on three steles presumably found at Sfire, a village 22 km south of Aleppo.82 At the end of SF 1, the following passage introduces a colophon of sorts: SF 1 C 1-4 Thus have we spoken [and thus have we writ]ten. What I, *Mati’+el, have written (is to serve) as a reminder for my son [and] my [grand]son who will come a[fter] me.83

In other words, both sides verbally “agree” to the stipulations detailed previously and both sides keep a record of it, but it is the responsibility of the king of Arpad, that is, the second and inferior party, to have steles inscribed and placed at a public location, probably a temple (see below). SAA 2 1, the Sfire Steles, and the impressively-sized clay tablets containing the different versions of EST share, therefore, the same status as any dedicatory inscription, and as such, they include clauses against anyone who may erase or remove them: SF II C 1-11 [and whoever will] give orders to efface [th]ese inscriptions from the bethels84, where they are *wr+itten, and *will+ say, “I shall destroy the inscript*ions+ and with impunity shall I destroy KTK and its king,”

79 Brinkman 1990, 96f, apud Borger 1965, 168f. 80 See Plate I in SAA 2 and Brinkman’s copy of the three fragments, ibid., 112. .(ע ד י) Called ‘dy 81 82 See Fales 2009-2011, 342-45. The identification of Sfire with a location in ancient times is problematic. Although ar-Rifa’at is generally thought to be ancient Arpad, the British archaeological mission in the 50s and 60s did not find any item or inscription that could sustain this identification, which has been thus contested by Warmenbol 1985, 179f. Radner posits that the city of Arpad should be located east of the river Quwaiq, given the later division into two provinces, so Sfire is more likely a candidate for Arpad: 2006-2008, 58. 83 Fitzmyer 1995, 53. The precedent paragraphs are stipulations written in the second and third person to describe Mati’ēl’s obligations. 84 Lemaire and Durand prefer “temples”: 1984, 142. 17 should that (man) be frightened from effacing the inscript[ion]s from the bethels and say to someone who does not understand, “I will pay you a salary”85 and (then) order (him), “Efface these inscriptions from the bethels,” may *he+ and his son die in oppressive torment.86

The historical context of the Sfire treaties87 is a bit more complicated to reconstruct than SAA 2 1, particularly considering their co-existence with SAA 2 2, a treaty in Akkadian concluded between Aššur-nērārī V and the king of Arpad. Lemaire & Durand have proposed that the three texts represent three loyalty-oaths, renewed at different moments during at least three kings’ reigns, perhaps upon their accession.88 However, there is enough evidence to suggest that the treaties were each imposed after an uprising, that is, as a sign of subjugation and as a warning against future rebellion. Arpad instigated or participated in three insurrection events against Assyrian rule, as is shown here.

The rebellion in the times of Adad-nērārī III: SF III (after the defeat at Paqarḫubūna) According to Lemaire and Durand, SF III appears to be the earliest treaty, and they assigned it to Adad-nērārī III’s time (810-783 B.C.).89 This fits well with the historical context. The first preserved lines of SF III state that the Arpaddan king, his descendants, or any other Arpaddan king should hand over traitors (1-4a), should extradite any fugitive who seeks asylum in Aleppo (4b-7a),90 and should not harbor treasonous intentions or encourage sedition (14b-17a; 21-23a). The Eponym Chronicle for 805 B.C. records a campaign against Arpad.91 In an inscription of unknown provenance, Adad-nērārī III accuses the kings of Ḫatti of having

85 I follow Lemaire and Durand’s translation here: ibid., 128. 86 Fitzmyer, op. cit., 125. See also SAA 2 6 §35, 398. 87 Despite the disputed identity of Bar Ga’yah (“Son of Majesty”) of KTK, who is the first named party on SF 1 and named in the other two inscriptions, most studies on these treaties coincide in connecting KTK with Assyria: Lemaire and Durand, op. cit., 57f; SAA 2, XXVII; Liverani 2000, 60 and Ikeda 1993, 104-108. I am also assuming the same connection. The gods cited in SF I on the part of KTK, and the phrasing of clauses and curses, make this connection a certainty. Identifying Bar Ga’yah with the turtānu Šamšī-īlu, as argued by Lemaire and Durand (op.cit., 38ff), who are followed by Ikeda, is certainly plausible, given the long life and powerful status of this official. On the latter subject, see Grayson SAAB 7, and Fuchs 2008. 88 Op. cit., 57f. 89 Loc.cit., and n. 69. Since, according to them, each of the four treaties would have been drawn up on the occasion of an Assyrian king’s accession, they counted back from Aššur-nērārī V. 90 Dion 1997, 120f; Greenfield 1991. Recent excavations at the citadel of Aleppo have shown that a Middle Bronze Age/Early Iron Age temple dedicated to the Storm-God may have been under the sphere of influence of Taita, king of Palistin/Patina (later Umqi, Kullania) in 11th century B.C.. Taita’s inscriptions have been found at several spots in the temple. The excavators estimate that the temple was burnt and abandoned at the end of the tenth century; cf. Kohlmeyer 2009. That the city belonged to neighbouring Arpad in the ninth century is corroborated by an inscription of the last Luwian king of Ḫamath, Uratami, mentioning that the river-land of Ḫurpata (Arpad) was inhabited by Halabeans. This inscription is to be dated to the later years of Shalmaneser III’s reign; see Hawkins, CHLI 1.2 (HAMA 1), 411ff. 91 Millard, SAAS 2, 33. 18 made the kings of the Euphrates area rebel in the time of his father (by refusing to pay tribute). The name of Ataršumki, king of Bīt-agūsi/Arpad, is preserved along with his defeat.92 Another inscription explicitly mentions that the kings of the land of Ḫatti instigated or participated in a rebellion with Ataršumki, son of Adramu/Aramu.93 The location of the battle preserved in this inscription is Paqarḫubūna,94 also mentioned on the inscription on the obverse of the Pazarcik Stele, erected to mark the border line between Gurgum and Kummuḫ,95 and accusing Ataršumki of leading a coalition of eight states against pro-Assyrian Kummuḫ.96

One of the preserved clauses in SF III mentions the city of TL’YM,97 which was to become the property of Bar Ga’yah: “*Tal’ay+im, its villages, its citizens, and its territory (once belonged) to my father and to *his house from+ forever. When (the) gods struck *my father’s+ house, *it came to belong+ to

92 RIMA 3 A.0.104.4. 93 RIMA 3 A.0.104.5 is the British Museum fragment, a stele from Dūr-Katlimmu. The Geneva one has been recently published by Radner 2012b. This inscription also connects the campaign against Arpad (805) with events mentioned in one other inscription: A.0.104.7, perhaps 1001 too. Records for years 804-802 in the Eponym Chronicle state “to Hazāzu” (in Umqi), “to Ba’alu” and “to the Sea; plague”, suggesting protracted military action in the area. 94 Radner, ibid., p. 270: [URUPa-qi-ra-ḫu]-bu-na; reconstructed spelling for RIMA 3 A.0.104.5 based on the Pazarcik Stele. 95 RIMA 3 A.0.104.3. The boundary was confirmed some years later by Šamšī-ilu’s inscription on the reverse of this stele, boasting of his victory over Damascus (RIMA 3 A.0.105.1). 96 Na’aman 2005, 20ff. 97 It is highly unlikely that this city corresponds to the Talhāyum of the Mari period, as tentatively suggested by Lemaire and Durand (op.cit., 69ff), since this city was located in the Upper Khabur. Lipioski defends its identification with the Late Roman borough of Tillima, about 20 km northwest of ‘Azāz (Hazāzu): 2000, 23. 19 another” (ll 23b-24a).98 Šamšī-Adad V (823-11 BC), Adad-nērārī III’s father, may have campaigned in this area, roughly north of Arpad –perhaps through his powerful turtānu Bēlu-lū-balaṭ, who was also the governor of several cities in the Baliḫ River area.99 According to a later inscription, from the time of Tiglath-pileser III, the frontier region granted to the king of Que by this Assyrian king had been “the border between the land of Beyond-the-River and Kummuḫ from the days of Šamšī-Adad, king of Assyria”.100 “When (the) gods struck *my father’s+ house” could perhaps refer to the punishment inflicted by the gods on Šamšī-Adad V after his destruction of Dēr (Southeastern Babylonia), a city renowned for the religious prestige of its cult to Ištarān. A letter from the god Aššur to the king gives the latter the approval he was seeking for his actions, which included the kidnapping of gods statues.101 Perhaps more significantly, a roughly contemporary ruler of Karkamiš relates in a fragmentary inscription that an Assyrian god carried off “Halabean Tarhunzas”, which prompted some retaliatory action on the part of the Storm-God.102 Thus, with the defeat of the coalition, Adad-nērārī took advantage to impose his terms on the status of Aleppo as a refuge for fugitives, and to claim the territory of TL’YM, probably lost by his father some years earlier. Additional evidence favouring Adad-nērārī III as the king who imposed this vassal treaty on Arpad is also found in lines 17b-19a, stipulating that the king of Arpad should not encourage any strife between the heir of KTK and one of his brothers.103 As is the case with Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty, the mention of two brothers contending for the throne could be due to recently experienced events.104 This scenario would fit well with Adad-nērārī III, since his father had to defeat his brother with the aid of the king of Babylon for him to ascend to the throne.

98 23b-24a. Durand and Lemaire render “citoyens” instead of Fitzmyer’s “lords”, and “depuis toujours” instead of “from of old”: op. cit., 130. 99 See Mattila, SAAS 11, 109. 100 Incirli Stela, ll. 2-3. Edition and translation in Kaufman 2007. 101 RIMA 3 A.0.103.4 =SAA 3 41. From other events described in the text, Grayson considers its dating to be late in his reign; see his introductory remarks to RIMA 3 A.0.103.4. SAA 3 43 further suggests Dēr was not an isolated case, and that other Babylonian cities were similarly pillaged, something corroborated by the Synchronistic History, see Chronicles 168, iv 6-9. 102 CHLI 1.1 KARKAMISH A24a2+3 (§6-7); Commentary, pp. 133-139; historical context on p. 78. 103 Cf. Wesselius 1984, 590f. 104 Note that SF II alludes instead to the potential threat coming from the son of a king who thinks his father is too old to keep on ruling (7b-9). 20

The rebellion of 754 B.C. –SF I and SF II (after the defeat of an Arpad-Hamath coalition): Roughly fifty years later, thus at the very beginning of Aššur-nērārī V’s reign, the Eponym Chronicle records another campaign against Arpad (754 BC).105 Aššur-dān III (772- 755 BC) had finished his last regnal year with a campaign against Ḫamath, Arpad’s southern neighbor, with unknown results given the complete lack of royal inscriptions. 754 BC is therefore the date proposed by Watanabe and Parpola for the dating of SAA 2 2, the treaty between Aššur-nērārī V and Matī-ilu of Arpad. However, the Akkadian treaty probably comes from the later part of Aššur-nērārī’s reign, as will be seen next. Both SF I and SF II, likely one single treaty,106 name Mati-ēl as the king of Arpad, and mention the unidentified land of Bīt-Aṣalli (ṢLL) in connection with Bīt-Guš (Bīt- Agūsi/Arpad).107 There are several reasons to argue for an identification of Bīt-Aṣalli with the kingdom of Ḫamath and Lu’ash.108 The latter had been the target of a coalition of Western states, comprised by roughly the same who had united against Kummuḫ.109 Although the coalition was not successful at first, the presence of a stele inscribed in Aramaic with the name of king Hazael of Damascus in Tell Afis (Inv. TA.03.A.300),110 where the Stela of Zakkur was also unearthed, indicates that Damascus had at least partially taken over Ḫamath. The introduction to SF I states: The treaty of King Bar-ga’yah of KTK, with Mati’el son of Attarsamak, the king *of Arpad and the treaty] of the sons of Bar-ga’yah with the sons of Mati’el; and the treaty of the grandsons of Bar-*ga’yah and+ his *offspring+ with the offspring of Mati’el son of Attarsamak, king of Arpad; and the treaty of KTK with *the treaty of] Arpad; and the treaty of the lords of KTK with the treaty of the lords of Arpad; and the treaty of the [union of+…with all Aram and with the king of MṢR and with his sons who will come after [him], and [with the kings of]

105 SAAS 2, 42. 106 Despite the fragmentary state of Stele II (cf. Lemaire and Durand, op.cit., 141), it is perfectly possible to see its preserved content as an extension of SF I. 107 I B 3’, II B 10’. 108 See Kahn 2007, 81f. 109 Although the dating of the events narrated in the Stela of Zakkur (KAI 202) are disputed, I follow here Na’aman’s outlook (2005, 22). The coalition against Zakkur of Hamath and Lu’ash, headed by Damascus, with Arpad the second state cited (out of seven or eight), could only have taken place after the defeat of Arpad at Paqarḫubūna: “It seems that the episode described in the Zakkur Stela reflects the efforts of Damascus to unite an all-inclusive Syro-Hittite coalition against Assyria immediately after the defeat of the northern alliance in 805. (…) Zakkur of Hamath, possibly encouraged by the events of the 805 campaign, refused to join the alliance and was attacked. The Assyrian campaigns of 804-803 forced the Syro-Hittite kingdoms to hurry northward to defend their homeland and, thus, Hamath was saved”. 110 Found in a secondary context, lying on the basalt stratum of Temple A1. Cf. Amadasi Guzzo 2014, 54-57. 21 all Upper Aram and Lower Aram and with all who enter the royal palace.111 The treaty is not only concluded with Arpad, but “with all Aram”, and specifically “*with the kings of+ all Upper-Aram and Lower-Aram”.112 A later passage defines the borders where the treaty was to be applied: SF I B, 5-11113 The treaty of the gods of KTK with the treaty of the g[ods of Arpad]. This is the treaty of gods, which gods have concluded. Blessed forever be the reign of [Bar-Ga’yah+, a great king, and from this happy treaty [ ] and heaven. [And all the gods] shall guard [this] treaty. Let not one of the words of thi[s] inscription be silent, *but let them be heard from+ ‘Arqu to Ya’d*i and+ BZ, from Lebanon to Yabrud, from Damascus to ‘Aru114 and M..W, *and fr+om the Valley to KTK *…in Bē+t-Gush and its people with their sanctuary115(…).

It becomes apparent that more than the territory held by Arpad is included in the treaty stipulations. Moreover, since Puech proposed his new reading for the Melqart Stela,116 found at Bureij, a village 7 km north of Aleppo, it could be that the land of Aram at this time may well have been more or less under the control of the same tribal dynasty. There are two oft-quoted passages in the Tanakh (Kings 2 18: 34-35; 19: 13), a speech coming from the mouth of Sennacherib’s rab šāqe in Jerusalem, that alludes to this coalition and its lack of success: “Where are the gods of Ḫamath and Arpad? (…) Who of all the gods of these countries has been able to save his land from me?”; “Did the gods of the nations that were destroyed by my predecessors deliver them (…)? Where is the king of Ḫamath or the king of Arpad?”

The alliance with Urarṭu –SAA 2 2 (ca. 750 BC) Since SAA 2 2 mentions the lands of Ḫatti and Urarṭu (iii 5’, 8’), it is likely that this treaty belongs to the last problematic years of Aššur-nērārī V’s reign, a few years before Tiglath-pileser III’s three-year campaign against Urarṭu and Arpad. Tiglath-pileser III seized the throne after a revolt in 745 B.C.. His first two campaigns were directed to eastern Babylonia and the northern Zagros, but immediately afterwards he focused his attention on Arpad:

111 Fitzmyer, op.cit., 43. 112 According to the topography of this area, Upper Aram would correspond to Southern Syria; see Talshir 2003, and Kahn, op.cit., 79ff. 113 Fitzmyer, op.cit., 47, 49. 114 Cf. Sader 2014, 24. 115 For ašerah as ‘sanctuary’ or ‘holy site’, see ’šrh1 in Hoftijzer and Jongeling, DNWSI I, 129. 116 Puech 1992: “(C’est) la stele qu’a érigée Bar-Hadad, fils d’`Attarsumki, fils d’Hadrame, roi d’Aram, à son seigneur, Melqart, à qui il avait fait un voeu et (qui) a entendu son appel.” Gzella finds Puech’s interpretation on the signs at the end of the first two lines dubious, and prefers to read br hdd m instead of brhdrm, attributing the peculiar sequence of letters to a scribe repeating the name of the person who dedicated it, followed by the beginning of the title mlk. The scribe realized he had no more space and wrote mlk afresh at the beginning of the third line. Cf. Gzella 2004, 159, n. 120. In any case, Bar-Hadad’s filiation along with the title “king of Aram” suffices to establish a link between Aram and Arpad at this time. 22

RINAP 1 35 i 21’-23’ In my third palû, Matī’il, *the son of A+ttaršumqa, fomented a rebellious insurrection against Assyria and violated (his loyalty-oath)”. *He sent+ hostile messages about Assyria [to] the kings who… to the… of the land Ḫatti (and) … the land Urarṭu and (thus) caused en[mity] in all (of those) lands. RINAP 1 39 20’b-22’a Sarduri of the land Urarṭu revolted against me and conspired with Matī’il (against me). In the lands Kištan and Ḫalpi, districts of the city Kummuḫu, I defeated him and took his entire camp away from him. Five years of Aššur-nērārī V’s reign (754-745 BC) are recorded by the Eponym Chronicle as “in the land”, so it could be that, a few years after the conclusion of the previous treaties, Arpad started getting restless again, and cautiously started to cast for a powerful enough ally. When news of this reached Assur, Mati-īlu was probably forced to swear yet another oath specifically committing to never join forces with Sam’al, Que or Urarṭu against Assyria. The fact that no more Aramaic steles have been recovered and what we have is a standard clay tablet in Akkadian in its stead may not be a coincidence. Seeing that the monumental steles inscribed in the recalcitrant vassal’s language had obviously not had the desired effect for long, the oath ceremony probably took place in Assur –which would explain the high number of Assyro-Babylonian deities witnessing the treaty (see Table 2 below), while the presence of the main Canaanite, Phoenician and Anatolian deities on Arpad’s side implies wariness of an offensive Syro-Anatolian coalition. Meanwhile, Urarṭu was getting stronger. Sarduri (II) claims in one of his inscriptions to have defeated Aššur-nērārī,117 and in another he mentions the conquest of Kummuḫ (Qummaḫa).118 There is another source that confirms Mati-īlu’s attempts at an alliance with Urarṭu, the Incirli Stela.119 This stela, inscribed in Phoenician, is the record of the frontier land marking “the border between the land of Beyond-the-River and Kummuḫ from the days of Šamšī-Adad, king of Assyria”. The king of Que, Warikku, erects it by imposition of Tiglath- pileser III (also named Puwal in the text).120 Coincidentally, the historical narration that follows Warikku’s declaration of allegiance to Assyria refers to a “rebellion through the Hittite country” and to a human sacrifice by the king of Arpad to Hadad.121 Though fragmentary, the narration suggests that Mati-īlu was searching for a powerful sacrifice to

117 A 9-1 Ro (right side, 8’-10’): Salvini, CTU/1, 414f. 118 CTU/1 A 9-3 IV; on the dating of these events, see Kahn, op. cit., 83. 119 Kaufman 2007. 120 Byblical Pul; Ass. Pūlu would be a quasi-hypocoristic for apil, see Tadmor 2007, 280, n. 5. 121 See Kaufman’s comments on line 12 in op.cit., 23 (re. Hadad-mlk). 23 counteract the oath that he would have recently sworn to Aššur-nērārī V, that is, SAA 2 2.122 Rituals to counter the effects on one’s health of the curse conjured by swearing an oath were widely known, and actually the subject of Tablets III and VIII of the canonical incantation series Šurpu.123 Both Esarhaddon’s Accession Treaty (SAA 2 4, 10-11) and EST (SAA 2 6 §32) contain a provision against avoiding the effects of the treaty curses by magical means.124 The Akkadian treaty must have therefore been sworn late in the reign of Aššur-nērārī V (around 754-745). That Tiglath-pileser tackled this problem as soon as he could after his accession shows how important it was to him to suppress the threat in the north-west once and for all. To sum up, the treaties concluded with Arpad were drawn up after a rebellious incident was suppressed. They represent a compromise of sorts, since annexation was still not feasible: the steles were the treaties were inscribed were a means of “presencing” the treaty. In her study on Assyrian and Babylonian visual representations, Bahrani refers to ṣalmu, ‘image’, as “a mode of presencing”125 because they imply “a repetition” –instead of a representation– of reality, that is, “another way the person or entity could be encountered”.126 The displayed treaty was thus a repetition of the engagement that had taken place during the treaty ceremony on the part of the defeated. It simultaneously acted as a warning and as a reminder. SF I and SF II make a connection between the stele and the inscribed words themselves,127 since the visual representation was the means of permanently reenacting the treaty. As was the case with other inscriptions, curses to prevent modification or erasure were thus included. Subjugation through monumental display was also very significant in nearby Sam’al, whose king Tiglath-pileser III allowed to rule “autonomously”. In one of the hilāni-buildings

122 Whereas in SAA 2, 2, it is a lamb “brought to conclude the treaty”, and its cut-off head and torn-out shoulder that are used as symbolic representations of the curse (“This head is not the head of a spring lamb, it is the head of Mati’ilu…”), SF 1, section IV, the imagery/rituals involve wax figurines, broken bow and arrows and a calf cut in two. The treaty violation is mentioned in the Incirli inscription, LEFT 4’: “Arpad has betrayed with the treaty-violation of a traitor”. Lines 15-20a seem to refer to Mati’ēl’s attempt to annex territory belonging to Que (?). 123 Reiner 1958. 124 For more examples, cf. CAD P, pašārum, 237ff., 242, 244. 125 Using a “postprocessual archaeology” term: Bahrani 2003, 186. 126 Ibid., 137. 127 SF I C 16-20, II C 1-11. 24 at Zincirli, an orthostat depicting Bar-Rakkab and his scribe was found,128 described and interpreted by Niehr as follows: “In this scene the king is the guarantor of law and order. He is seated on his throne while an official approaches him with writing utensils in his hand and a dyptich under his arm. Between the two figures in the center of the scene is the symbol of the moon-god of Ḫarran, the divine guarantor of treaties and oaths. The king says the words: ‘I am Bar-Rakkab, son of Panamuwa. My lord is Ba’al Harran’, which commit him to follow the legal order.”129 Five of Bar-Rakkab’s inscriptions openly acknowledge his subservience to the Assyrian monarch, and one of these explicitly states it was both Bar-Rakkab’s personal god and the Assyrian king (Tiglath-pileser III) who have granted him kingship.130

128 Other engraved orthostats decorating the entrance to Hilani IV (“Northern Hall”) depict the king, courtiers, a banquet scene, and musicians, cf. Gilibert 2011, 85-88. 129 Niehr 2014, 172. The two tassels on the moon crescent standard have been interpreted as a symbol for the two parties who conclude a contract, see Staubli 2003, 65. 130 KAI 216, 4-7: “Because of the loyalty of my father and because of my own loyalty, my lord Rakkab’el and my lord Tiglath-pileser III seated me upon my father’s throne”; see also KAI 217, 3-6; 219, 4-5. 25

Table 2 List of deities witnessing SF I and SAA 2 2 SF I A 7’ -12’ SAA 2 2 vi 6’-26’ KTK Arpad Assyria Arpad *Aššur+ and Mulleš131 All the gods of GN and Aššur Hadad of Aleppo Marduk and Zarpanit GN133 Anu and Antum Palil Nabû and T*ašmet+ [Hadad of A]leppo Enlil and Ninlil the Sebetti [Ir and Nus]ku Sibitti Ea and Damkina Dagan and [M]uṣuruna Nergal and Laṣ ‘El and ‘Elyan134 Sîn and Nikkal M*elqart and Eš+mun Šamaš and Nur Hea[ven and Earth Šamaš and Aya Kub[aba and Kar]huha S[în and Nikkal] Sea]bed and Springs Adad and Šala Hadad-[x] and Ramman Nikkar and Kadi’ah132 Day and Night Marduk and Zarpanītu of [Damascus] Nabû and Tašmētu Za*…+ Ninurta and Gula Uraš and Bēlet ekallim Zababa and Babu Nergal and Laṣ Madānu and Ninğirsu Ḫumḫummu and Išum Girra and Nusku Ištar of Niniveh Ištar of Arbela Adad of Kurba’il

131 See Barré 1985. 132 Ninkur and Ištar of Akkad, see Fales 1990, 162f. 133 Durand and Lemaire translate “la plaine et le sol”; Fitzmyer reads Raḥbah and ‘Adam, two geographical names (see his commentary in op. cit., 73f). 134 El’s consort is otherwise unattested; cf. Niehr 2014, 151. “The connection to the god El Elyon from the Old Testament, however, is definite, as the two Aramean deities fused to become one divine name for the god YHWH” (151, n. 107). 26

1.2 The temple as the location for the celebration and display of adê

Several passages in Sfire I and II, already quoted above (SF II C 1-11, SF I B, 5-11), strongly imply that the treaties were meant to be displayed in a temple, permanently under the gods’ surveillance. For instance, and in addition: SF I A 13-14a Open your eyes, (O gods!), to gaze upon the treaty of Bar-Ga’yah *with Mati’el, the king of Arpad].135

Past Hittite practices seem to indicate that at least some treaties were also kept in temples: the treaty between Shattiwaza of Mittani and Suppiluliuma I of Ḫatti states that a duplicate of the treaty-tablet is deposited before the Sungoddess of Arinna, in Ḫatti, whereas another duplicate is deposited before the Storm-god, Lord of the kurinnu (a divine symbol) of Kaḫat, in Mitanni. The treaty is to be read repeatedly before the king of Mittanni and before the Hurrians.136 The treaty between Tudḫaliya IV and Kurunta of Tarhuntassa, engraved on a bronze tablet bearing two piercings, states that six copies were meant to be kept before Hittite deities, the seventh to be displayed by Kurunta, member of the royal family, in his palace.137 It could be argued that the concept of deities as witnesses is also behind the placement of royal images in key cultic locations of recently subjugated cities, a practice attested since the reign of Aššurnaṣirpal II.138 According to Yamada, the Assyrian monarch – who is often represented as a worshipper–139 was “thus associated with every act of worship performed in the sanctuary, both as an earthly representative of Assyrian and local gods and as a participant in every favour they might vouchsafe to grant”.140 Yamada further posits that these steles or statues may have been connected to adê ceremonies; thus, the royal image, “functioning as a witness together with the symbols of

135 Fitzmyer, op.cit., 43. 136 Beckman 1999, 6A §13, 6B §8. Both versions were written in Hittite and Akkadian. 137 Otten 1988, HDT 18C §28. 138 See Holloway 2002, Table 4, 151-159. There are five attestations of the placement of a royal image in a subjugated king’s temple in Neo-Assyrian sources: one with Aššurnaṣirpal II: mentioned in a hymn, see Hurowitz 1997, 470f (LKA 64, 13’) –in the temple of Sangara of Carchemish; and four with Shalmaneser III: 1) RIMA 3 A.0.102.2 ii 44 –in the lower city of Saluria (Upper Euphrates), in the ēqu (perhaps connected to Hurrian egi “spring, innermost part”, cf. Schwemer 2001, 601, n. 4864 with reference to Wegner 1981, 106); 2) RIMA 3 A.0.102.2 ii 60b-63a –in Asāu’s city (land of Gilzānu, probably near Urmia Lake), in his temple (ina ekurrīšu), inscribed with praises to Aššur and his victories in Nairi; 3) RIMA 3 A.0.102.16, 160’-161’ –in the temple (ina ekurrīšu) of Maruba, fortified city of Ba’al of Tyre; 4) RIMA 3 A.0.102.14 156’ and 16 284’b-286’ –in Kinalua, in Lubarna’s city, in the house of his gods. 139 See Magen 1986, König vor Gott, 40-64. 140 Yamada 2000, 296. 27 the gods, impressed on the local elite who came to take oaths that their world was bound to the Assyrian empire, and perhaps reminded them of the vassal treaty which they had sworn before the gods and their overlord”.141 For Holloway, however, it is the erection of the weapon/symbol of Aššur (kakki Aššur šakānum) in border-land areas that should be associated with the conclusion of adê, even if there are only seven attestations of this act.142 Holloway observes a correlation between the erection of this divine symbol and “the violent inauguration of a provincial city”.143 However, although Holloway’s reasoning is valid for the settlement of legal affairs, it stands to reason that, once a subjugated territory became part of the empire administration, there would hardly be any need for adê anymore. A more likely candidate to facilitate the conclusion of treaties in territories still outside the boundaries of the empire would have been easily-portable standards featuring the main divine symbols (see Figure 2). Deller showed convincingly that these standards had their own cult.144

Indeed, the most practical way to have Assyrian deities witnessing adê ceremonies (and, in general, any cultic rite or legal procedure in a military fort or camp) would have been through these deified objects, which minimized the risk of “godnapping”. Although standards were also a prized booty,145 their easy portability –for instance, mounted on a

141 Ibid., 297. 142 Holloway 2001, 239-66; 2002, 67, and 160-178. 143 2002, 161. 144 See Deller 1992, pp. 291-298; 341-346; Menzel 1981 (T81, rev vi 11). There is a military position termed rab kiṣir *…+ LÚ-PA.MEŠ “cohort commander of the staff-bearers” attested: Dezsö 2012, Vol. I, 179. 145 As may be inferred from an episode narrated in the Synchronistic Chronicle (Chronicles 160, i 26’-27’): “Adad-nērārī (I) brought about the total defeat of Nazi-Marrutaš and conquered him. He took away from him his camp and his standards”. 28 god’s chariot– made them easy to protect, an advantage while on campaign.146 But going back to the display of texts and/or images as evolving in the Neo-Assyrian period in the context of the progressive conquest and annexation of the West, two culminations of sorts are observed from Tiglath-pileser III onwards. The first is the complete invasion of the defeated subject’s cultic space by means of king and gods: (As for) Hanūnu of the city Gaza, he became frightened by/who fled before my powerful weapons and escaped to Egypt. I conquered the city Gaza, his royal city, carried off (…) talents of gold, 800 talents of silver, people, together with their possessions, his wife, his sons, his daughters, (…), his property, (and) his gods. I fashioned (a statue/monumental stele bearing) image(s) of the great gods, my lords, and my royal image out of gold, erected (it) in the palace of the city Gaza, (and) I reckoned (it) among the gods of their land; I established their sattukku offerings.147

The second is the simultaneous erection of Aššur’s divine emblem and a royal image in front of it in “less civilized” territories, as does Sargon in the newly established Kār- Šarrukīn in Ḫarḫar (Media), and Sennacherib in a city of Ḫilakku (Cilicia),148 both visually exemplifying complete possession of a territory. It is precisely in Esarhaddon’s time –when it could be argued that the empire was more or less at its pinnacle–, and from then onwards, that these visual practices coalesce and transmute into a sophisticated use of the king’s image in both religious –as seen in the placement of the king’s statue in the proximity of deities–149 and legal contexts –as a witness–;150 practices that are different from yet run parallel to the cult of the deified image of the king.151

146 Deller, op. cit., 291f. 147 RINAP 1 42 8’-12’; 48 14’-17’; 49 13-15. See also the inscription on Bēl-Ḫarran-bēlī-uṣur’s stele from Tell Abta (A.0.105.2, 15-16): “I wrote my monumental inscription, engraved thereon images of the gods, and erected (it) in the divine abode. I established forever income, food offerings, (and) incense offerings for these gods”. 148 Holloway 2002, 158f; see also Radner 2003a, 50ff. 149 See SAA 13 34, and 61. SAA 10 13 (behind and in front); SAA 10 358 (right and left); SAA 13 140 (left and right); SAA 13 134, 18’-20’: “Moreover, the king's father set up golden bottles of ...-liter capacity (with) royal images on them. They would fill with wine the one in front of Bel and the one in front of Nabû”. 150 Cf. SAA 6, ch. 20 “Mannu-ki-Arbail, Cohort Commander (680-673 B.C.), no. 219, last line: IGI dNU-LU[G]AL! ; Ungnad 1940, nos. 108, 21’and 112, 5’ (post-canonical); and ND 2080, a loan record from Kalḫu in Parker 1954, Plate V, translation in p.33 (date unclear but probably post-canonical: cf. Fales, SAAB 2, 113, 115ff, esp. 117). 151 “Other evidence from the Neo-Assyrian period indicates that the royal image was the focus of offerings and that in due course it came to be considered divine. (…) They also reflect practices and beliefs current in Mesopotamia during the third and early second millennia and are thus perfectly consonant with ancient tradition”: Cole and Machinist, SAA 13, XIV. Ungnad thought Ṣalam-šarri-iqbi as a PN is based on this cult (1940, 58). For sacrifices before a royal image engraved on a stele, see Börker-Klähn 1982, nos. 146, 147, 151 (Shalmaneser III-Balāwāt Gates), and Holloway’s comments on Layard’s Šarrat-Nipḫa tableau (2002, 188 and Fig. 11). See also Menzel 1981, T80 obv i 10-11, ritual prescriptions where the king is to place sacrificed sheep 29

Likewise, the loyalty-oath tablet itself became a witness and guarantor in a legal transaction. It is in Esarhaddon’s time that the formula adê ša šarri ina qātē-šu luba’’i’ū “the adê of the king will hold him responsible/call him to account” is introduced.152 It has been suggested that, given the phrasing of EST §35, this tradition saw its birth at this point:153 Whoever changes, neglects, violates, or voids the oath of this tablet (and) transgresses against the father, the lord, (and) the adê of the great gods (?) (and) breaks their entire oath, or whoever discards this adê- tablet, a tablet of Aššur, king of the gods, and the great gods, my lords, or whoever removes the statue of Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, the statue of Assurbanipal, the great crown prince designate, or the statue(s) of his brothers (and) his sons which are over him – you shall guard like your god this sealed tablet of the great ruler on which is written the adê of Assurbanipal, the great crown prince designate, the son of Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, your lord, which is sealed with the seal of Aššur, king of the gods, and which is set up before you154 However, the first attestation of this legal clause is dated to 675 BC. It is a marriage contract coming from Assur, the same provenience as VAT 11449’s, Esarhaddon’s Accession Treaty: StAT, Band 2, 21’-r7 [Whoever] tomorrow [or thereafter, whether P]abbau [or his sons], his nephews, *his prefect+, or his relatives, comes and seeks a lawsuit or litigation against Auwa, may Aššur and Šamaš be his prosecutors. He shall give one mina of silver to and one mina of gold to Mullissu. Auwa shall not be involved in it. May Aššur and Šamaš be his pro*sec+utors, and may the treaty of the king call him to account.

As we saw in the introduction, the composition SAA 9 3, so-called “the Covenant of Aššur”, underlines the importance that Esarhaddon attached to adê, and the impact the violation of Sennacherib’s Succession Treaty on his behalf must have had on his psyche. Since the use of the formula at this stage seems still tentative and is not generalized, we can only assume that some citizens, like Egyptian Auwa, decided to use Esarhaddon’s Accession Treaty as reinforcement in their transactions.

before a royal statue; in two NA god-lists, the statue of Tiglath-pileser (I) is not preceded by the dinǧir sign: Menzel, op.cit., T 147, i 12, T 138, 19-20, but note dNU-MAN in the so-called Götteraddressbuch: T 150ff, i 57, 60 (2 statues), 80, 105 (2 statues), and dALAM-MAN in a list related to the tākultu ritual 3 R 66: T 119 vi 29, T 121 vii 35’. For further attestations, cf. SAA 13, XXIII, n. 29. An inventory of precious objects for the cult of several gods and goddesses lists deified silver royal images six times (SAA 7 62). Thus, the combined visual and cultic evidence makes Magen’s scepticism (1986, 44f) unsustainable. 152 Documents with “May DNx (and) the adê of the king be his prosecutors” belong to the later Neo-Babylonian period, cf. Watanabe 1987, 23. 153 Fales 2012, 152f. 154 Lauinger 2012, 98f, 112. 30

Nevertheless, the presence of the king’s and princes’ statues as witnesses to the proper observance of the adê at the moment of its oath (and in future) indicates that EST may be indeed the first example of both a religious and legal use of material display, endowed with what Fales calls a “theophorous substance”.155

155 Op.cit., 153. 31

2. DISPLAY OF EST: HOW AN ADÊ BECAME A TABLET OF DESTINIES

2.0 Adê as non-vassal loyalty oaths In Part I we have shown that Esarhaddon’s decision to have his succession treaty displayed in provincial temples, like at Kullania, was somewhat conforming to tradition. Written and displayed adê were perceived by Assyrians as an expression of submission to the empire. However, even if the Kalḫu EST tablets show the submission of Eastern vassals by having them as the nominal oath-takers, their display needed to be “explained” so that the elite of Assyrian citizenship could perceive this display as a religious instead of a political expression. But before going over how Esarhaddon achieved this, it should be noted that even though there is some evidence that adê were sworn by palatial and military officials (oral context), it is almost certain that Sennacherib’s Succession Treaty was the first explicitly “dynastic” adê ever implemented. It could be argued that SST cannot be understood outside the post-689 BC situation and the framework of his “theological reforms”, which included the introduction of Akītu ceremonies at the Ešarra, which was enlarged and renovated, and at the newly-built Akītu Temple of the Steppe.156 Indeed, he may have sensed that “Aššur- etel-ilāni-mukīn-apli”, probably the eldest son of his second wife Naqī’a/Zakutu,157 would be the best choice to carry on with his legacy. In terms of the complexity of his Babylonian and other policies, Esarhaddon was like a feather to his father’s mace, but many of his actions speak of continuity.158 Esarhaddon’s decision to have a loyalty-oath sworn to him upon his accession (SAA 2 4) comes obviously as a reinforcement of SST. SAA 2 4 probably included clauses with the obligation to denounce any suspicious comment or behavior, as seen in some of the correspondence of the 671-670 years; for instance:

156 See Frahm 1997, 18f (historical overview); Reformtheologisch inspirierte Texte mit Bezug zum Gott Aššur (T182-185), 220ff; and Exkurs: Die Inschriften als Quellen für Sanheribs Religionspolitik, 282ff. See also SAA 12 86; RINAP 3/2, 18-22; and Novotny 2014. 157 See RINAP 3/2, 28. 158 Porter 1993, 143 (although for Porter, loc.cit.: “to assert in his inscriptions that Marduk had become the son of Aššur was at one and the same time an expression of Esarhaddon’s unifying Babylonian policy and also an effort to encourage acceptance of that policy by bringing all the force of the community’s shared religious beliefs to its support”). In his article on Esarhaddon’s renovations in the Temple of Aššur (and Esaggil), Novotny convincingly argues that Esarhaddon was very careful to respect the original layouts of the structures he had rebuilt for fear his father’s alterations had angered the gods. He points out, however, that: “Interestingly, and probably to the dismay of the Aššur priesthood, Esarhaddon did not undo the changes of his father” (2014, 107). 32

Now that (the illness of) the king is being taken away, he (finally) spoke out to me, and I wrote to the king, my lord. Is it not said in the treaty as follows: "Anyone who hears something (but) does not inform the king ..."159 But neither Esarhaddon’s Accession Treaty, nor the one organized by Zakutu on behalf of Ashurbanipal upon Esarhaddon’s death (SAA 2 8), should be seen as customary loyalty-oaths sworn by palace personnel upon a king’s accession in the Neo-Assyrian period. Despite the possible interpretation that may be given to SAA 4 139 and 142, both oracle queries on the possibility of insurrection coming from palace, royal, and city circles, there is no other evidence to sustain an argument for such practice. In fact, the evidence coming from earlier periods, specifically the Old Babylonian160 and all Hittite periods,161 reflects the requirement for certain personnel or officials to abide by a set of rules or instructions –a protocol– whose commitment to fulfill was logically engaged by means of oath. This tradition fits well with the etymology of adûm given by Durand,162 but it does not deny the overwhelming use of adê as an instrument of empire building in the Neo-Assyrian period. Slightly more visible, instead, is the evidence that points to adê being regularly sworn by military personnel to their superior officer. -One example comes from Tiglath-pileser III’s correspondence, reporting archers had been arrested at Qadeš after they broke the adê sworn to an official of unknown rank at Damascus.163 Though the letter is in a fragmentary condition, it seems the archers were locals who had been forcefully conscripted and part of the Assyrian army after swearing their allegiance. -In SAA 10 113, the letter by the Babylonian astrologer Bel-ušezib quoted above, in the introduction:

159 SAA 10 199, 19’-21’: mannu ša memeni išammūni ina pān šarri lā iqabbūni. See also SAA 18 80, where Itti- Marduk-bālaṭu, reporting from Uruk, quotes this obligation more informally, and SAA 13 45. 160 The so-called Protocol of the Diviners: Durand 1991, 14f. Any other loyalty oath referenced in this article is undertaken as an ad hoc procedure, or else belongs to lord-vassal relations. 161 Millard 2013. 162Although these engagements are called isiktum ‘assignment, contract’ at this time, Durand remarks: “Adûm est traduit en paléo-babylonien comme « Corvée », ce qui n’est que l’apparence extérieure d’un travail dû normalement au Palais par certains groupes sociaux. L’évolution naturelle de cet « adûm » « travail obligatoire » a pu l’entraîner à remplacer isiktum. Op. cit., 70, n. 167. 163 SAA 19 44: Rev. 2’-4’: ┌a┐-nu-rig ER[IM-MEŠ x x+ / a-┌de! ┐-e-šú-nu TA* [x x x] / URU.di-maš-┌qi┐ iḫ-[ti-ṭí-ú]. Luukko offers “the king of“ at the end of line 3, but this makes no sense. The letter should be dated after 734 B.C., the defeat of Tyre. The title should be some kind of official or provincial governor, like Bēl-dūrī, the governor of Damascus during the reign of Sargon II (see Fabritius, PNA I/II, 292). 33

In the same way Mardiya, the president of the court of the house of the chief eunuch, has left his lord 164 165 and entered under Nergal-ašarēd ; he is bringing 'third men' and cohort commanders before Nergal- ašarēd and they are taking an oath of loyalty.

-Additional evidence may be found in SAA 18 162 coming from Ashurbanipal’s reign, where one of his officials swears a loyalty-oath in Babylon (stating that he missed Nippur’s and Uruk’s since he was doing “the king’s watch”) in front of the images of the king’s gods.166 There may be a connection between this kind of oath and SAA 2 9, “Ashurbanipal’s Treaty with Babylonian Allies”, written in the first person plural, despite the fact that the reference to the messengers of Šamaš-šūmū-ukīn would place it in a slightly later historical context. There is additional indirect evidence coming from one of Šamšī-Adad V’s inscriptions: A.0.103.1, I 39—43a When Aššur-da’’in-apla, at the time of Shalmaneser (III), his father, acted treacherously by inciting insurrection, uprising, and criminal acts, caused the land to rebel and prepared for battle; (at that time) the people of Assyria, above and below, he won over to his side, and made them take binding oaths [udannina tāmetu].

The formulaic expression “the people of Assyria, above and below” in connection with the binding oath evokes Esarhaddon’s Nin A 15b: “the people of Assyria, young and old”, or the opening lines of EST: “the men in his hands, young and old”. From the passage above it is clear that –even if Šamšī-Adad V considered himself the legitimate heir–, Aššur- da’’in-apla gathered support in his bid to the throne by making key people swear a loyalty- oath to him. Among these people, most important were those who were “prepared for battle” on his behalf. In conclusion, several professions working at the palace may have sworn a loyalty oath when they entered palace service, but this is not attested. More certain is the fact that military personnel swore an oath to their highest commanding officer and to the king; furthermore, in extraordinary circumstances, either when a candidate to the throne was fighting another contender for power, or when he had just obtained it, their supporters swore a loyalty-oath. But, at this point, the affirmation that adê were customarily sworn upon a king’s accession in this period cannot be made.167

164 Ašarēdu, šaknu of Cutha, is accused of prevarication and having a haruspex in his service by an astrologer in SAA 18 131, and concerning the latter’s property in SAA 10 163, and 164. SAA 18 10 is a report of the commandant to the queen mother. See also CT 54 37. 165 For the functions of these military categories, see Dezsö 2012, I/1 Cohort commander (rab kiṣir), 157-180; Chief Eunuch (Rab ša-rēšē), 222-227; I/2 Tašlīšu (‘third man’, shield bearer), 102-108. 166 See SAAS 4, 77, incl. n. 55. 167 Frahm included a possible loyalty-oath treaty in his publication of historical texts for the Aššur series, VAT 10948, mentioning Aššur-nāṣir-apli and including curse clauses in the second plural, but unfortunately too 34

2.1 The ceremonies at Kalḫu in Nisannu and Ayyāru

The location of the adê ceremonies is important to understand the context of the display of the EST tablets in Kalḫu, since both the archaeological and textual evidence suggest that Esarhaddon may have “reinforced” the impact of these ceremonies by inserting them among other rituals celebrated during the first two months of the Assyrian calendar.

From a strict archeological viewpoint, though, the lack of sufficient data prevents a convincing assignment of a specific function to the so-called Throne-Room of the Nabû Temple at Kalḫu,168 where the EST tablets were found.169 Nevertheless, there is enough textual, archaeological, and theological evidence to posit that the location of the oath- tablets is connected to the EST ceremonies, and that the Nabû Temple at Kalḫu was, for several reasons, the best choice: –SAA 10 5, 6, and 7 are letters from chief scribe Issar-šumu-ereš concerning the arrangement of adê ceremonies in Kalḫu in the month of Nisannu. Enough details are provided that the connection with EST can be safely made. –The stone “tramlines” visible on the floor of the room leading to a stepped dais are features also seen in throne rooms in palaces. In this suite, ivory strips probably decorating a fragmentary for its true nature to be ascertained: 2009, No. 66. 168 As Schmitt argues: 2012, 91-100. 169 Wiseman 1958. 35 throne or chair were found, depicting some kind of processional ceremony that included tribute bearers (see Figs. 3 and 4).170 –From the late Middle Babylonian period onwards, Nabû extends his status by adopting new roles, which are transferred to him from Ninurta –the hero who slays the Anzû bird, the guardian of the Tablet of Destinies, the keeper of royal insignia, and the conferrer of the gidru ‘sceptre’ of kingship in ceremonies of unknown periodicity according to the Nippur tradition.171 This religious development is reflected both in the Babylonian and the Assyrian cult. In Assyria during the Neo-Assyrian period, the gradual cultic preeminence of Nabû accompanied by an ever-decreasing visibility of his father’s cult, reaches its peak with Sennacherib’s “reforms”.172 Given the amount of secondary literature on these topics, only those arguments relevant to the implementation of the EST ceremonies will be discussed here. –As concerns the choice of the Nabû Temple at Kalḫu, instead of this deity’s temple at Assur, Nineveh or Dūr Šarrukīn, the reasoning to explain it should not be made on cultic grounds.173 Steymans’ argument that Kalḫu was a convenient location for the Eastern chieftains to attend the ceremonies since it was probably the place where these vassals were delivering their tribute (horses) from the Zagros and the Iranian Plateau, and working in pirru units, is certainly relevant here.174 The Nabû Temple was a centre for the reception and redistribution of horses (SAA 13 82-123).175 However, even though this connection may certainly have played a role in Esarhaddon’s choice of vassals, it still does not satisfactorily explain the ceremonies location. The presence of the elite of the Assyrian army, that is, the

170 Oates & Oates 2001, 48ff; 116f. 171 George 1992, 310-2, 450f; 1996, 384f; SAAS 14, 51-55; 61-71; 81-90. 172 Pomponio 1998-2001, 19f.; Porter 1993, 137-148; Pongratz-Leisten 1994, 96. 173 Pongratz-Leisten (1994, 97-102) identifies NTS 1/2 (see Figure 2) with cellae housing Marduk and Zarpanitu in order to argue –with the aid of some textual evidence– for a parallelism between the Throne Room of the Nabû Temples of Assur and Kalḫu and the chapel of Nabû ša harê in Esaggil, which in turn would support her defence of an investiture of Esarhaddon at the NT of Assur, and an investiture of Ashurbanipal at the NT of Kalḫu, as crown princes. For a critical discussion, see Schmitt 2012, 95-98. On the Nabû Temple in Nineveh, only partially excavated, see Reade 1998-2001, 410. 174 Steymans 2006, 342ff. Steymans adopts Von Soden’s definition of pirru as a work unit (AHw II, 855). 175 Perhaps to be connected to Marduk’s role as a horse trainer. SAA 3 38, a cultic commentary on the rites of Egašankalamma, the temple of Ištar of Arbela, which are “*enacted+ like those of Nippur”, describes Marduk’s role in lines 14-15 as follows: The kurgarrû (cf. Pongratz-Leisten 1994, 74ff) and the horse trainer, who w[ash] each other in water — the horse trainer is Bel (…). As Pongratz-Leisten adduces, CTN 3 95 and ABL 951 (=SAA 13 134) support the fact that Marduk was also worshipped at the NT of Kalḫu (ibid.,99); note that EST includes Marduk as witness: ll.17, 27. The function of the NT as a center for horse administration, however, should be additionally explained by the presence of Fort Shalmaneser in the city. 36 cavalry and chariotry,176 at Fort Shalmaneser, the ēkal māšarti of Kalḫu, should instead be considered the most relevant reason for Esarhaddon to have his succession ceremonies celebrated here.177 Esarhaddon built an extension for him to have residential chambers at the fort,178 and his stay in Kalḫu more or less at this time is attested in the correspondence.179 Considering the military power held by the Chief Eunuch,180 whose abuse was probably manifested in the attempted insurrection of 670 BC,181 the status of the location of EST as a whole cannot be underestimated.

Regarding the third point made above, and in particular that of Nabû’s role in bestowing the sceptre to the king during the akītu festival, George states: “Apart from the question of its origin, the business of an annual investiture in the temple of Nabû is an attractive thesis. However, the form it took and its periodicity remain largely speculation”.182 It is tempting to think that, as part of his succession arrangements, Esarhaddon may have seen the advantage of inserting the adê ceremonies within the ritual concatenation taking place in Assur in Nisannu: the tākultu-offerings to several deities,183 and the newly- implemented akītu in the Ešarra; and in Kalḫu in Ayyāru: the sacred marriage rites of Nabû and Tašmētu at the Nabû Temple, but any suggestion should be made with caution. Using an administrative text found at the Throne Room itself, where mention is made of the bīt akīt and bīt akiāte, Postgate tried to pinpoint the exact location of these rooms within the architectural plans of the Nabû temples of Kalḫu, Dūr-Šarrukīn and Assur.184 Postgate also discussed textual evidence from the royal archives of Nineveh,185 referring to the arrangements for a quršu-ceremony of the god and his consort in Ayyāru, and the

176 See Dezsö 2012, Vol. 2, 37f, 76-78 for Kalḫu as a centre of royal musters, and the administration of the cavalry and chariotry of the Assyrian heartland. 177 Contra Steymans, op.cit., 344, n. 30. 178 And strengthened the walls of the fort, see Kalḫu A (RINAP 4 77, 40-62), all versions dated to 672 B.C.. See also Radner’s remarks on Esarhaddon’s “distrust against his environment” in 2003b, 168. 179 Cf. SAA 13 56-69, and SAA 4 119, 122, 183; SAA 10 152. 180 CTN 3, 37f; Dezsö 2012, Vol. 1, 222ff.; Vol. 2, 141f. 181 The Eponym Chronicle for this year states that Esarhaddon put his magnates to the sword: SAAS 2, 68, 97. See also Chronicles, 86 (1 iv 29); 127 (14 l.27). Useful is Radner’s reconstruction of these events in 2003b, 174f, and her remarks on Nissinen’s conclusions to SAAS 7, 135ff on n. 69. In his summary at the end of Vol. 2, Dezsö notes for Esarhaddon: “The officers of the crown-prince, however, were members of units of real military value. (…) This importance of the military units of the crown-prince can be followed throughout the 7th century up to the fall of the empire” (ibid., 159). 182 George 1996, 379. 183 Frankena 1954; Pongratz-Leisten 2015, 10.3.2. 184 Postgate 1974, 51-57; transliteration and philological notes of ND 4318 in 64ff. 185 See more updated excerpts of these texts in Oates & Oates 2001, 120ff. 37 derived benefits from it for the heir and for the king’s family. He concluded that there is no evidence of akītu festivals celebrated in Assyrian Nabû temples unless these are identified “with the sacred marriage ceremonies of the month of Ayyāru”.186 When studying the combined evidence of cultic lists, prescriptions and commentaries written during the reigns of Sennacherib, Esarhaddon, and Ashurbanipal there is a certain impression of improvisation and on-going adaptation of Babylonian myths and rituals to suit the new political needs, finally showing stabilization with Ashurbanipal.187 This is also true in the case of akītu festivals celebrated in Assyria, which before Sennacherib’s reign are limited to one: that in honour of Ištar of Nineveh.188 The attestation of akītu shrines for Nabû and Tašmētu within the Nabû Temple at Kalhû (ND 4318189 and SAA 13 134) should thus be read in this light. A roughly contemporary cultic text, an excerpt tablet written by the chief šangû of Aššur combining instructions for the tākultu-ritual and for the akītu of days 7th and 8th of Nisannu notes that the latter could be carried out “whether in Nineveh, or in Nimrud, or in an enemy country”.190 Not surprisingly then, on SAA 13 32 the deputy priest of Ešarra answers Esarhaddon’s request of having the gods of the Inner City taken to Kalḫu for the adê ceremonies with a negative, since Nabû had to stay in his room until the 12th day. This letter may be interpreted as Esarhaddon’s wish to have part of the akītu rituals celebrated in Kalḫu, but alternatively and more likely, what he wanted was to have the Ešarra deities witness the investiture ceremony officially appointing Ashurbanipal as Crown Prince.191 This act of investiture,192 which would have preceded the first oath ceremonies and been attended by the magnates, the provincial governors, and eager vassals like the Eastern city-lords, finds its

186 Op.cit., 57-60. 187 See Pongratz-Leisten 2015, 10.4 and 10.5. For instance, note the changes on the kispu and kingship rituals, which before Sennacherib were only celebrated in Šabaṭu (XI). 188 Something to be inferred from one of Ashurpanipal’s building inscriptions, stating that the akītu-house went back to the time of Sargon II (Borger 1996, 254f); cf. Pongratz-Leisten 1997; Weissert 1997. See also SAAS 14, 90-94 for an overview with references to previous literature. 189 See above, n. 184. 190 To be published as SAA 20 15; cf. Pongratz-Leisten 2015, 421f. 191 Already suggested by Pongratz-Leisten 1994, 97ff, apud George 1986, 140ff. See n. 173 above. 192 Esarhaddon had probably been appointed Crown Prince in Nisannu as well, as Parpola noted in 1987, 164: “The highly distinctive sequence of gods that appears in the curse sections of the text *=SAA 2 3, SST+ is otherwise known only from texts relating to Sennacherib’s work on the Akitu Chapel of Assur *=SAA 12 86+, which is known to have been completed in the king’s twenty-second year (683). The fact that the Akitu Chapel is actually mentioned in line 8’ of the text may indicate that the treaty ceremonies were synchronized with the celebration of the New Year’s festival, which would date the text to Nisan 683 or 682 B.C.”. The 683 date would be later confirmed by legal documents, cf. SAA 6, XXXIIIf. 38 representation on the ivory panels found at the Throne Room of the Nabû Temple at Kalḫu.193 Ashurbanipal may be depicted as an unbearded figure at several locations on strips Nos. 67 and 69, already holding the sceptre. In Figure 3 (No. 67), for instance, he can be seen under the tent on the left side, and during the procession, in front of the chariot.194 The figure holding a sceptre under his armpit to the right of the central scene may be Ashurbanipal’s brother.

The three central figures would correspond to Aššur-Adad holding the Axe (dKalappu)195 on his left hand, Ashurbanipal with a whip draped over his left shoulder, and Esarhaddon presenting his son to the god behind him. The whip may be explained by the following commentary: SAA 3 37 24’-26’a “*The chariots+ which they dispatch, and the ‘third man’ who *puts+ the whip in *the king’s+ hand, takes him by the hand, leads him into the presence of the god and shows the whip to the god and the king, is Nabû (…)”

The investiture then, in accordance with SAA 13 32, would have to have been celebrated after the 12th of Nisannu. The juggling of dates to accommodate all this concatenation of rituals was further complicated by the fact that two days were needed to complete the adê ceremony, and the dates had to fit the wisdom imparted by menologies: SAA 10 6 (written by Issar-šūmū-erēš, chief-scribe) The scribes of the cities of Nin[eveh], Kilizi and Arbela (could) ent[er] the treaty [ana adê erūbū]; they have (already) come. (However), those of Assur [have] not (yet) [come]. The king, my lord, [knows] that they are cler[gymen]; if it suits the king, my lord, let the former who have (already) come, enter the treaty; the citizens of Nineveh and Calah would be free soon and could enter (the treaty) under (the statues of) Bēl and Nabû on the 8th day. Alternatively, (if) the king, my lord, orders, let them go, do their work, and get free (again); let them reconvene on the 15th, come here and all enter the treaty in the said place at the same time. However, it is written as follows in the hemerologies of the

193 “The burnt remains of a throne and its decorated ivory overlay were found both on and around the dais in the throne-room”: Mallowan and Davis 1970, 3. 194 See Mallowan and Davis 1970, No. 22, Pl. VIII, for a more clear depiction of Nabû/Ashurbanipal, who is also carrying the quiver and bow, to be associated with his slaying of the Anzû bird in the Anzû Epic (Dalley 1989, 217f). Note the earring shaped as a cross, which for Parpola “undoubtedly symbolized the four points of compass, and could thus well have served as an emblem of Nabû, who was often addressed as ‘supervisor of the world’ (pāqid kiššati…)”; cf. 1983, 330f, referring to SAA 16 148, rev. 13-14 “let it be sealed with the cross- shaped (stamp) seal”. 195 For the attestation of Aššur-Adad in Ešarra, see Pongratz-Leisten 2015, 396 (re: the tākultu text for Ashurbanipal, written by Issar-šumu-erēš. This text was published by Frankena 1954 (K 252), and will be soon published in a volume of the SAA series). 39 month Nisan (I): "He should not swear on the 15th day, (or else) the god will seize him." (Hence) they should en[ter] the treaty on the 15th day, at d[awn], (but) conclude it [liškūnū] in the night of the 16[th] day before the stars.

The entering of the treaty was probably related to the tablet’s presentation before the gathered deities, and in light of §3 in EST, the oath-takers voiced individually their oaths by each deity: “I swear by Aššur, father of the gods…, etc”. This stage may have been followed by a reading of the provisions, according to the Covenant of Aššur, which as suggested in the introduction should be considered Esarhaddon’s idealization on the heavenly sphere of EST: This is the šulmu before the Image. This adê tablet of Aššur enters the king’s presence on a cushion. Aromatic oil is sprinkled, offerings are made, incense is burnt, and they read it out in the king’s presence.196 As for the šakānu-stage, its conclusion, we may imagine a vocalization of the standard curse sections pertaining to each of the deities assembled, followed by a vow recited by the oath-takers (§57), and an enunciation of the ceremonial curses while some kind of ritual involving the oath-takers was performed: “(either) by (setting) a table, by drinking from a cup, by kindling a fire, by water, by oil, or by seizing breasts”. 197 According to Nin A, i 51, the people of Assyria swore on Esarhaddon’s behalf by water and oil. Ištar offers her “fathers and brothers” bread and water in the Covenant, the second being the key element: SAA 9 3:4 iii 2-12: [She placed+ a slice… on the *ter+race and gave them water from a cooler to drink. She filled a flagon of one seah with water from the cooler and gave it to the them with the words: “In your hearts you say, ‘Ištar is slight,’ and you will go to your cities and districts, eat (your) bread and forget this covenant. “(But when) you drink from this water, you will remember me198 and keep this covenant which I have made on behalf of Esarhaddon.”

The oath-takers would have thus drank water from the same cup or flagon, and let themselves be anointed with the same oil. Esarhaddon may have found, however, that the dates offered by the Chief Scribe on SAA 10 6 were unsuitable. All we know is that the scholars of Nineveh finally entered and

196 SAA 9 3: 3 ii 26-32. 197 EST 154-155, warning the oath-takers against entering an adê with anyone in order to commit treason. For ṣibit tulē, cf. Šurpu III 97: māmīt tulī ina pī šerri šakānu “the oath of putting the breast in the mouth of the child”. 198 Forever is implied. To my knowledge, no myth or text refers to the ability of water, or a special kind of water, make its drinker remember or heed some engagement, but see the opening lines of SAA 20 42, quoted in Pongratz-Leisten 2015, 401. A ṣarṣaru, translated here as ‘cooler’, was a container for water storage at this period. The CAD gives only one other attestation, again from the Šurpu series: III 62 māmīt ina ṣarṣari mê šatû. 40 concluded the adê on the 16th and 17th respectively:199 SAA 10 7 The scribes, the haruspices, the exorcists, the physicians and the augurs staying in the palace and living in the city will enter the treaty on the 16th of Nisannu. Now, let them conclude the treaty the following day (lit. tomorrow).

The celebration of adê ceremonies for other groups, including those performed at the provinces200 and that sworn at Kalḫu by the Eastern city-lords, must have taken place in Ayyāru, probably after the celebration of a quršu201 ceremony at the Nabû Temple –involving the sacred marriage of Nabû and Tašmētu–, as mentioned earlier. This ritual finds its parallel in Babylonia when, commencing on the 2nd day of Ayyāru, Nabû and Nanaya entered their bedroom in a nocturnal procession.202 It is not until Ashurbanipal’s reign that a quršu between Aššur and Mullissu in Šabaṭu (XI) at Ešarra,203 and a similar one with Marduk and Zarpanitu at Babylon after the restoration of Esaggil, are attested.204 The marriage ceremonies that were celebrated at Kalḫu were meant to bless Esarhaddon’s newly appointed heirs and the rest of his children with a long, prosperous life: SAA 13 56 To the king, my lord: your servant, Urdu-Nabû. Good health to the king, my lord. May Aššur, Sin, Šamaš, Marduk, Zarpanitu, Nabû, Tašmetu, Ištar of Nineveh, and Ištar of Arbela — these great gods who love your kingship — allow the king, my lord, to live 100 years. May they grant the king, my lord, the satisfaction of old age, extreme old age. May they appoint a guardian of health and vigor (to be) with the king, my lord.205 The 4th day of Iyyar Nabû and Tašmetu will enter the bed chamber. At the beginning of your reign, [I performed] the sacrificial offerings before Nab[û and Tašmetu] which have given [life] to the king, my lord. Now then I a[m writing to the king], my lord: I have given orders [regarding the matte]r which the king, my lord [...e]d and (regarding) the offerings.206 I have given instructions about the offerings for Assurbanipal, the gre[at crow]n prince, for Šamaš-šumu-ukin, the crown prince of Babylon, for Šeru'a-eṭerat, for Aššur-mukin-paleya, and for Ašš[ur-et]el-šame-erṣeti-muballissu. I [will brin]g their offerings before Nabû and Tašmetu, and will perform them in the [bed]room. May they allow them to live 100 years. Their children and grandchildren will grow old, and the king, my lord, will see it.

SAA 13 56, in conjunction with No. 70, give valuable information on the calendar for

199 See also SAA 10 5, written from Kalḫu and referring to the 20th, 22nd and 25th. 200 Note that in SAA 16 126, the writter, Esarhaddon’s agent in Phoenicia, may be roughly quoting EST §96 and §102. 201 Deriving from garāšu “to make love, to copulate”; cf. Nissinen 2001, 96, n. 22. Note SAA 13 78, rev. 16-19: “May Bel and Nabû, who are betrothed in the month of Šabāṭu (XI), protect the life of the Crown Prince, my lord.” Thus, the betrothal was performed in Šabāṭu and the marriage rites, at least for Nabû, in Ayyāru (see also No. 79). Presumably, the consort’s intercession on behalf of the king took place during the second ritual. See Nissinen’s remarks in 2001, 98, 105 and Matshushima 1988, 116ff. 202 Matshushima 1987, 158-161; Nissinen 2001, 99-101. 203 Nissinen, ibid., 95f, perhaps going back to Sargon’s reign (ibid., 96f, after SAA 1 54-55). 204 Nissinen, ibid., 103-105. 205 The exaggerated tone of his wishes for the king’s wellbeing may imply that Esarhaddon’s health had indeed already started to decline. 206 SAA 13 78, addressed by the hazannu “inspector” of the Temple to the Crown Prince on the arrangements for this ceremony, suggests that it was thus regularly performed here from 682 BC onwards. 41 the different rituals to be performed during the quršu, so a celebration for the remaining adê after the 12th of Ayyāru may be inferred therefrom. This fits well with the dates inscribed on the different EST tablets (16th – 18th of Ayyāru, on SAA 2 6 l.664; “at least 16 but could be as high as 19”,207 on T1801), and the inscriptions of Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal (18th on Kalḫu A/RINAP 4 77, ex. 6 and its partial duplicate Tarbiṣu A/RINAP 4 93, and either the 12th on A I 12 or the 18th on F I 11).208 It is quite possible, however, that the EST ceremonies were not performed in Babylonia though. Although this is, of course, conjectural, the situation of appeasement, resettlement, and reconstruction taking place at several key Babylonian cities and their temples, along with the obscure return of some god statues,209 and the continued presence in Assyria of those of Marduk and his consort taken from Esaggil by Sennacherib,210 makes it very unlikely that Esarhaddon would have dared have the adê ceremony performed, much less the oath-tablet displayed, in Babylon, Borsippa, or elsewhere. Nevertheless, there may be a hint of an “intermediate” solution: SAA 2 14, which Parpola termed “Esarhaddon’s treaty inscription”, makes an interesting reference to both Marduk’s protection of EST and the return of deities. It is a three-fragment clay tablet, possibly a draft, whose provenience is said to be from Sippar.211 The preserved content includes three ruling lines structuring the text: a petition to the mother goddess Bēlet-īlī; an annalistic kind of narrative started with “At that time”, claiming Marduk’s support to his kingship and his adê, followed by curses to those who may seek to betray the adê; and finally, a petition to a plurality of deities (second person plural) beseeching them to accept their return. It could be argued that, instead of being destined to be inscribed on a prism or other annalistic format, this text could have been meant to be a Letter to the Gods.

One last point needs to be made concerning the matter of the witnessing deities representing the Eastern oath-takers, which –as I mentioned in the introduction– are not

207 Lauinger 2012, 122 (viii 63). 208 Borger 1996, 15-16. 209 Little is known of the date and circumstances surrounding the return of Babylonian gods as narrated on AsBbA (RINAP 4 48), to be dated after the successful Egyptian campaign of 671. Cf. Porter 1993, 60f; 121ff. 210 Porter 1993, 143-148. The Esarhaddon Chronicle concludes its record on his reign as follows: “For eight years (during the reign of) Sennacherib, for twelve years (during the reign of) Esarhaddon –twenty years (altogether)– the god Bēl stayed *in B+altil (Assur) and the Akītu festival did not take place. The god Nabû did not come from Borsippa for the procession of the god Bēl”. Chronicles, no. 14, 31’-33’. 211 Grayson 1987, 155; SAA 2, L. RINAP 4 48, l.95 mentions the return of gods Ḫumḫumiya, Šuqamuna and Šimaliya to Sippar-arūru. 42

Eastern deities. The Ta’yinat manuscript has contributed to their full identification:212 §54 Aramiš of Qarnê and Aza’i (southern Syria); §54 A (only preserved in ms T) Adad and Šāla of Kurba’il (to the northwest of Nineveh, east of Tarbiṣu and north of Dūr-Šarrukīn);213 §54 B (only preserved in ms T) Šarrat-Ekron214 (southwestern Canaan); §54 C (preserved in a Kalḫu fragment and ms T) Bethel and Anat-Bethel (northern Syria);215 and §55 Kubaba of Carchemish (northern Syria). The overwhelming presence of Aramean deities somehow makes the noticeable lack of Zagros deities more palatable. Aramean presence in the area south of Lake Baikal is attested since the 8th century.216 Moreover, Larkutla, city-lord of Zamua, capital of Zamua – an Assyrian province since Shalmaneser III–, was probably of Aramean origin, as shown by lines 1-4 of his treaty,217 different from the others’:218 the treaty is not concluded with him, his children and his grandchildren, but with his children, his brothers, his clan (lit. his nest), and with the offspring of the house of his ancestor. Larkutla sent his emissaries to represent him at Kalḫu and we know that Esarhaddon himself attended the ceremonies (SAA 16 150).219 He was not the only oath-taker holding a position subject to Assyrian approval: Sikris was located within the province of Ḫarḫar, created by Sargon II.220 There is also correspondence (SAA 16 146 and 147) mentioning Humbareš, an Elamite, in a broken context, but preserving the word ‘kitru’, alliance.221 He is probably the oath-taker in ND 4336. We learn from Esarhaddon’s inscriptions that the alliance forged with the chieftains of Partakka, Partukka, and Urukazabarna had been made by their request to defeat rival city-lords in exchange for horses and lapis lazuli,222 and Ramataya of Urukazabarna is the oath-taker in the most complete Kalḫu EST manuscript at our disposal. This was also probably the case with Tunî of Ellipi, whose ancestor agreed to an

212 Lauinger 2012, 90f, 113, 119 (commentaries to vi 44-50). 213 Schwemer 2001, 596; worshipped within Assyrian state cult: op.cit., 595-600. 214 Gitin et al. 1997. 215 Van der Toorn 1992, 83-85; Niehr 2014, 153. 216 Fales 2003, 131-147. See also SAA 4 58, on whether Esarhaddon should send an Aramean scribe to (GN or PN). The gentilic Sapardean is partially preserved in line 4. Šaparda was located within the province of Ḫarḫar, cf. Radner 2003a, 50. 217 Only lines 1-12 and 77-83 of ND 4343 are preserved (Wiseman 1958, Plate XII and Plate 11). 218 For a convenient simultaneous reading, see Watanabe 1987, Partitur, p. 56. 219 But, in my opinion, Larkutla attended the investiture himself. 220 Radner, ibid., 50, 55, 60. 221 For the connotations inherent to this term, see Liverani 1982, 43-66, esp. 61f. 222 RINAP 4 1, iv 32-45; 2 iv 1-20; 3 iv 3’-19’; 4 iii’ 12’-16’; 6 iii’ 25’-32’, 35 3-11. 43 alliance with Sargon II.223 On his work on the Assyrians perception of Zagros rulers as inferred from the annals, Lanfranchi concluded that Assyrians gradually realized the inferiority of the Eastern polities by comparison with the more substantial Western ones (see Figure 4 below): “The experience of managing such complexity, accumulated during the process of converting conquered polities into provinces, favoured the recognition of the structural differences between the western and the Zagros polities. (…) Their structure was regarded unsuitable for controlling a major area of influence, because of the primitiveness of their cultural world and of their institutions”.224

To sum up, after the discovery of T1801 at the local temple in Ta’yinat, we may assume that –since EST was sworn by the governor and dignitaries of Kullania– it would have been also sworn by all provincial governors and magnates of the empire and displayed at a local temple (except, probably, in Babylonia). However, we cannot assume that –due to geographical inconveniences or random causality– those concluded with the city-lord of Zamua (not the provincial governor)225 and at least six other city-lords were casually left on display at the Throne Room of the NT in Kalḫu. The common link between them is that they were unimportant chiefs amenable to swear without much ado. There is absolutely no reason why the adê sworn by them could not have been displayed, as was the Kullania one, at their main local temple. As for the quantity of them, we may assume that their EST tablets needed to be evenly distributed around the room, lest the impact factor would be lost.

223 Radner, 2003a, 53, 55. 224 Lanfranchi 2003, 95. 225 Who was an Assyrian: see, for instance, the eponimy of year 712 or SAA 7 172, l.7 (LÚ.NAM KUR_[za]-mu-a). 44

2.2 The EST tablet as a sacred object meant for display

Once the ceremonies performed, Esarhaddon needed to have the tablets displayed to serve as a reminder to his intended target audience (the magnates) of the commitment they had made; hence, he chose the adê sworn by the Eastern vassals to be written down in tablets that were meant to become a Tablet of Destinies,226 to be seen as a religious instead of a political expression. In other words, he needed for the physical expression of this Treaty to become sacred itself, not just the adê by virtue of the oath, but the tablet itself by virtue of the adê. Thus, the Succession Oath-Tablet itself needed to be 1) atemporal, universal, 2) awe-inspiring, and understood as always under the protection of the gods, forever present in their minds; and 3) a point of reference, constitutional, apt to be a witness in lawsuits. This was achieved in three ways: a) The three sealings of Aššur b) Monumental size and display in the sancta sanctorum c) Made to be fully read

a) The three sealings of Aššur

This is doubtless the most striking visual element of the EST-tablets.227 Let’s briefly consider the most relevant features of each one and the significance of

226 In the Enūma Eliš (Epic of Creation) and Anzû bird narratives, it is seen as the compendium of cosmic regulations established by Enlil, the supreme deity in Babylonia in the third and beginning of the second millennium. It is also rikis Enlilūti “the bond of Enlilship”, that is the cosmic bond of heaven and underworld. See George 1986, 138ff; SAAS 14, 148-152. 227 See drawings of the three in Watanabe 1985, Abb. 1, 2, 3 and 4. 45 the three combined. -The Old Assyrian sealing: the smallest, impressed vertically in the middle, its legend declares it to be “of the god Aššur, of the bīt alim”. On a well-known article where George published a two-fragment tablet,228 one of which describes an image featuring the god Aššur holding the Tablet of Destinies, on which, in turn, the god and Sennacherib standing before him are depicted, George considered these representations of god and king to be part of a seal impression on the Tablet. This he connected to the Sumerian ceremonial name of the bīt alim of Assur as recorded in a Neo- Assyrian cultic text (“the house *where…is+ put (and) the Tablet of Destinies is sealed as a secret”) to suggest that the City Hall must have been a place for “the drawing up of treaties and other state documents”,229 and as demonstrated by the presence of the bīt āli among the shrines listed for this temple in said cultic text, and in a different section, that of its deified representation residing in the temple of Bēl-šarru, a part of the nearby Nabû Temple in Assur.230 -The Middle-Assyrian seal impression: impressed on the right side, legend illegible, probably from the reign of Tukulti-Ninurta I, depicting the king between two deities, one of them Aššur.231 -Sennacherib’s, impressed on the left side, depicting the king between Aššur and Mullisu,232 and bearing the following legend: RINAP 3/2 212 The Seal of Destinies [by which] Aššur (written AN.ŠÁR233), king of the gods, seals (the destinies of) the Igīgū and Anunnakū gods, the heavens, the netherworld, and man*kind+. Whatever he seals cannot be changed. Whoever (tries to) change (what he seals), may Aššur, king of the gods, (and) the goddess Mullissu, together with their children, kill him with their mighty weapons. I am Sennacherib, king of [As]syria, the ruler who reveres you. Whoever erases (my) [inscr]ibed name (or) alters this Seal of Destinies belonging to you, erase his name (and) his seed from the land.

The question that arises concerning this sealing is: why did Esarhaddon use his father’s divine seal instead of commissioning one of his own to the temple staff? The most obvious answer is that he wanted the connection to the Tablet of Destinies concept and

228 K6177 + 8869. 229George 1986, 140f; cf. Menzel 1981, No. 64, the so-called Götteraddresbuch, 159’ (T158). This text is composed of eight lists or inventories, and was written by Kiṣir-Aššur, chief exorcist. 230 Loc.cit.; cf. Menzel 1981, No. 64, 158’-63’: 159’; 68’ (T150), together with Bel-šārru and Nabû. 231 For the problems with this seal’s iconography and fragmentary legend, see Fales’ comments with previous literature: 2012, 138, n. 39. 232 Hence similar to Sennacherib’s Maltian and Bavian reliefs: Watanabe 1985, 382. 233 On the political theology behind the use of this name, see Frahm 2010, 9, 13. 46 literary topos, so well exploited by his father as part of the arrangements for the Akītu festival dedicated to Aššur in Assur,234 to be transferred to his own Succession Treaty. Moreover, as Fales remarks, that way he was emphasizing his father’s own succession on his behalf.235 The three sealings need to be understood as one,236 their temporal continuum contributing to the sense of atemporality that pervades the mythical narrations that inspire them, but in case someone was missing the significance of these three sealing impressions combined, Esarhaddon presents them with a two-line heading, divided into four columns: “Seal of the god Aššur, king of the gods, lord of all the lands, not to be altered. Seal of the great ruler, father of all the gods, not to be contested”.237 This heading is placed at the very top of the obverse, hence, as Wiseman noticed, differing from Assyrian contracts “on which the seal impression usually follows immediately after the written description of it.”238

b) Monumental size and display in the sancta sanctorum

The different versions of EST are, on average, 28 cm high x 42 cm long, which makes this treaty-tablet clearly stand-out.239 Although the reasons behind it may be explained by its intentionality, that is, its size was clearly meant to grab people’s immediate attention and to appear as a precious, worship-worthy object; Esarhaddon deliberately recurred to past tradition for “added value” and legitimacy. For practical reasons, inscribing the EST on stone was unfeasible, but the sheer size of the clay tablets may have reminded their intended

234 George saw a connection between the iconography on Sennacherib’s “Seal of Destinies” and the image described on the tablet published in the cited article (now RINAP 3/2 158). He regarded this tablet as a draft for/ a transcription of a monumental inscription (1986, 138). However, as Frahm noted (1997, 221), neither the legend nor the iconography in Sennacherib’s seal on EST coincide with the description on RINAP 3/2 158. He suggested instead that the described image, having the Tablet of Destinies as a protagonist, may have been part of the decoration of the bronze Bīt-Akīti Gate in Ešarra (cf. RINAP 3/2 160). SAA 12 86, a donation allocating personnel for the newly-built Akītu of the Steppe in Assur, which Whiting and Kataja consider a draft (see SAA 12, XX, XXV, XXXIVf), bears a superscript for the (missing) seal impression. The superscript reads: “The se[al of] Aššur, king of the gods; the seal of the ruling God, not to be contested”. Considering the unfinished state of this document, and despite the fact that its superscript bears no similarity to RINAP 3/2 212, Sennacherib may have finally fashioned the latter for documents like this one. 235 2012, 138. 236 Watanabe realized that it was not only the Old Assyrian seal that should be seen as Aššur’s seal, as Wiseman originally thought, but the three of them. Therefore: “Dieses Verfahren läßt auf den religiösen Charakter der Vereidigung selbts schließen. (…) Asarhaddon beabsichtigte zweifellos, durch diese Siegelung die VTE mit religiöser Autorität auszustatten und durch die drei verschieden alten Siegel die Authentizität der Siegelung zu verstärken”; 1985, 388. 237 SAA 2 6, i-iv. Compare with superscript on SAA 12 86 (n. 235 above). 238 1958, 14. 239 See Diagram 1 on SAA 2, XLIV. 47 audience of past vassal treaties, which, as we saw in Part 1 when commenting SAA 2 1 and the Sfire steles, may have been engraved on stone and displayed in a sacred place. This traditional monumental display shared with past treaties not only its “attention- grabbing” aspect, but also the sense of “atemporality”, further supported by provisions stipulating that future generations were meant to respect EST too.

c) Made to be fully read

All the EST tablets need to be rotated along their vertical axis to continue reading from the obverse to the reverse, as if turning a page in a book.240 This is a peculiarity not only born out of practicality, given their size, but closely related to their display context. As can be expected, Building XVI at Ta’yinat and the Nabû Temple at Nimrud differ far more than they share. Building XVI measured 9 x 21 m and had a very simple layout, consisting of a porch, a central room and the inner sanctum. The Ezida rose on an elevation at the south of the citadel and had a complex layout, in accordance with what might be expected considering its lifespan and status. While the Nabû Temple has evidence of post- Assyrian occupation after its destruction,241 a fire put an end to Building XVI: “A thick layer of collapsed burnt brick sealed the entire room, and in some places had fused with the brickwork of the temple’s outer walls, vivid evidence of the intense conflagration that had consumed the structure”.242 All these factors are important when considering the archaeological context in which the epigraphic material unearthed together with T1801 was found, in the northeast quadrant of the podium that occupied most of the inner sanctum of Building XVI, opposite what must have been the altar.243 Three to seven tablets (9 fragments) are menologies (calendrical omens),244 one is a docket, and the remaining one, a lexical list.245 This means that the inner sanctum was at the same time a temple library of sorts and a cultic room. T1801 was found face down (reverse facing up), as if it had toppled after falling in situ. It was aligned with the temple’s north and west walls, across from the altar, though not

240 An observation already made by Wiseman: “The text of the reverse is written in the same direction as that of the obverse so that the tablet has to be turned as the page of a book (…)” (1958, 14); and then in a footnote: “Perhaps due to its large size” (n. 140). See also Watanabe 1987, 265. 241 Oates 1957, 36ff; Mallowan 1966, 271ff. 242 Harrison & Osborne 2012, 130. 243 Ibid., 137. 244 See now Lauinger 2016, 229-248. 245 Lauinger 2011, 6f. 48 facing it, but facing the newcomer:

All of the menologies belong to the iqqur īpuš series. Two of these have preserved a pierced projection/handle: T1701+1923 has a handle on top, “pierced through its horizontal axis so that the tablet, like amulet-shaped tablets known from elsewhere, could be hung on display”;246 T1927 has a projection on its left side. “Only after the tablet received additional cleaning did it become clear that this projection is also pierced, though necessarily through the tablet’s vertical axis”.247 Lauinger suggests that these tablets were suspended as “a votive object”.248 That these two tablets bore two piercings for hanging purposes may be correct,249 but the implication that they were sacred objects and their display is at the same ideological level as EST seems a bit premature. Generally speaking, tablets with projections, menologies, and specifically, iqqur īpuš texts and within this series, tabular-format ones, seem to be scarce, as the author himself acknowledges. Lauinger bases his thoughts on “amulet-shaped” tablets mostly on Reiner’s 1960 work on this subject. Reiner observed that the tablet she was studying, an incantation against plague, had an “amulet shape” and incisions in a geometrical pattern to prevent further writing, but that similar incantations may show a variety of features, including

246 2016, 232; 2011, 7. See figs. 1 and 2 on 2016, 233. 247 2016, 232; see figs. 3 and 4 on p. 234. 248 2011, 11. In his most recent article, he argues that this collection “was not stored in the temple for safekeeping or reference but rather was put on display there”; 2016, 230. 249 See also the conservator’s observations to the author on 2016, 232. Note, however, that the piercing of T1927 is said to be “smaller”. 49 projections that were always incised with double crosses or other geometrical shapes.250 She concluded that “what was at first a purely functional device –a projection provided at the upper end of a tablet to be pierced so as to be hung up– became associated with the beneficent value originally inherent only in the content (…)”.251 However, as has been convincingly argued by Panayotov, many “tablets with a projection or handle” do not have an apotropaic function at all.252 A cursory overview of these tablets known or published to date will immediately give an impression of heterogeneity.253 Since not all tablets with handle, even those well-preserved, had piercings, it becomes clear that the handle itself had a different function than that of facilitating suspension. SAA 10 6, quoted above, had Issar-šumu-ereš citing convenient days for the adê ceremonies after consulting either a hemerology or a menology, which he calls ‘biblāni’, “portables” (11’). In a Late Assyrian catalogue of scholarly texts, a commentary is made equating this term to iqqur īpuš.254 Considering scribal lore during Esarhaddon’s reign was still in a “construction” phase, that is, in a stage where sources from Babylonian private archives and Assyrian temple libraries were still being collected, processed and selectively copied,255 it would be hasty to assume menologies had acquired a sacred object status at this point.256 This is illustrated by a letter written on two Late Babylonian scribal exercise tablets from Borsippa describing

250 Reiner called the apparently decorative incisions “magical diagrams” since they were, in her opinion, “a cancellation of whatever blank space there was left on the amulet” in order “to prevent a further inscription which might annul or reverse the protective power of the amulet” (1960, 151f). Thus, the geometrical shapes framed the few signs that were sometimes inscribed on the projection. 251 Ibid., 155. 252 Or at least not conventionally apotropaic: cf. Panayotov 2013, nos. 3-4, 287. See also Panayotov & Llop 2013. Panayotov states that the terminus technicus IM.ŠU.GUB.BA=imšugubbû(ŠU-u)=qa-tum šá ṭup-pi (apud Landsberger 1959, 113, 118’; 102, 444’) refers most probably to this kind of tablet, or else, to the handle itself: 2013, n. 19. 253 The Assyrian King List of Khorsabad, a list of priests (KAV 26), a coronation ritual (KAR 135+), a building inscription (KAH II 27), or a syllabary (K13.T5) can serve as illustrating examples. See the up-to-date bibliography on n. 18 in Panayotov 2013, 287. 254 K14607+, l.7: diš iq-qur dù-uš ; bi-bil-a-ni; Koch 2015, 7, apud Lambert 1976. 255 Fincke 2003/2004, 117ff. 256 Lauinger observed that, in one instance in T1701+, “the length of the protasis far exceeds the amount of space in the column allotted to it so that the protasis extends into the columns allotted to the months” (2016, 232, 239), and gives a similar occurrence from a Nineveh exemplar as an additional example. But the lack of “neatness” in these tabular-format series tablets does not make them any less legible. See also the calendar drawn at the end of the so-called Babylonian Diviner’s Manual, where commentaries are added: Oppenheim, 1974 200f, 212, 214. 50 certain kinds of tablets to be brought to an Assyrian king from Ezida:257 CT 22 1, ll 10-28: amulet-tablets for the king, for (crossing?) rivers, (tablets) to do with days (i.e., hemerologies), (menologies/rituals) of Nisannu, {stone amulets for (crossing?) rivers}, for (success in?) lawsuits, “Day”, sets of four stone amulets for the head of the king’s bed and the foot of the king’s (bed), (the ritual) Wand of E’ru-Wood, for the head of the king’s bed, the incantation “Let Ea and Asalluḫe use wisdom in full for me!”, (tablets of) “Mustering” (the army?), series to do with war, as many as there are, including their additional tablets, as many as there are, (the ritual) So that in Battle Arrows do not Come Near a Man, (the series) Travelling through the Country, (the series) Entering the Palace, (medical?) rituals, šuilla-prayers, inscriptions on stone amulets and those that are good for kingship, (the ritual) Purification of the City, (spells against) Dizziness, (the medical text?) “Out of Concern” and any texts that might be needed in the palace, as many as there are *…+

T1801 itself –whose piercing seemed at first to go all the way through its horizontal axis some centimeters below the top–, is described now as having “two circular indentations on either side, most likely made by pegs that helped hold it in a frame”.258 Also of interest is the observation that: “a varied pattern of oxidization on the tablet’s reverse may reflect where this frame covered the tablet”.259 In the case of the two iqqur ipuš tablets, a curved metal handle with two pegs or clamps at the ends, or a rope –as with T1701+1923–, could have taken care of their portability and, perhaps, display. Significantly, the EST differs from these tablets in two substantial points: -there is no projection or handle, and -the reverse can be read by rotating the tablet on its vertical axis Together with the fact that the reverse seems to show some signs of metal oxidization, the tablet probably lay resting on its lower edge on a table.260

257 Frame & George 2005. Frame and George concluded that: “The overwhelming impression given by the letter is that the royal author wanted texts that would above all protect his person from sickness and keep him free of injury” (p. 281). 258 Lauinger 2016, 230. 259 Loc.cit. Lauinger had stated: “Because the reverse faced up when the tablet toppled over in the fire that destroyed the temple, it was completely baked” (2012, 90). Perhaps the metal encasing also helped keep the reverse more or less intact. 260 As already proposed by Watanabe 1988, 265. See Fig. 8 on Lauinger 2011, 11. 51

CONCLUSION: RELIGIOUS DISPLAY AS AN ELEMENT OF POLITICAL CONTROL

This paper has discussed how, on his ninth regnal year, three years before his death, Esarhaddon took advantage of beliefs based on mythical lore and Assyria’s hegemonic status in Mesopotamia entailing display practices used for subjugation purposes in order to create a Succession Treaty Tablet that would be seen as a religious icon instead of an instrument of internal political control, with the aim of: 1) legitimizing his reign in the eyes of his subjects and rivals 2) endorsing Ashurbanipal’s right to rule, despite his not being the eldest son261 3) making the most powerful elite, namely the highest military officials, endorse Ashurbanipal’s future rulership

Thus, Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty became a Tablet of Destinies in 672 BC.262 It was the written expression of the will of Aššur, guaranteed by the god’s seals, forever to be guarded by Nabû, who had also bestowed the sceptre of rulership on Ashurbanipal prior to the adê ceremonies. Depending on one’s perspective, Esarhaddon may be seen as an intelligent planner263 or as a paranoid ruler.264 Whether paranoid or methodical, as concerns the arrangement, implementation and display of EST, he showed an understanding of Assyrian society that was uncanny. The uniqueness of EST as a text, a tablet, and a ‘tableau’ of carefully orchestrated ceremonies throughout the empire cannot be denied. Esarhaddon was a king inclined to appear as a good follower of tradition and open to negotiations, but his religious devotion and diplomatic skills should be read as a constant effort to please and control the powerful and educated elites of Assyria and Babylonia.

261 Concerning Esarhaddon’s decision to appoint Šamaš-šumu-ukīn as king of Babylon, Porter pointed out that “Esarhaddon was certainly aware of the threat the older brother Šamaš-šumu-ukīn might pose to Assurbanipal’s succession”, but he “may have felt that he had no choice to placate Šamaš-šumu-ukīn and his supporters (…). The kingship of Babylon may well have been the only appointment prestigious enough to serve the purpose.” 1993, 134f. 262 Lauinger proposes a translation of all adê as “duty, destiny” (2013, 99; mostly after Durand 1991 and George 1986) taking EST as a point of reference because “it has come down to us in multiple exemplars, and this fortunate event allows us to confirm that both vassal rulers and Assyrian administrators entered into the exact same adê. From a methodological point-of-view, this fact is quite helpful because it gives us some justification for considering any conclusions we reach about the nature of EST to be applicable to other adê’s whether they involve the rulers of subordinate polities or various officials in the Neo-Assyrian empire” (p. 108). From a historical point-of-view, however, EST must be regarded as a unique text, a product of a particular political context. 263 Porter 1993. 264 Radner 2003b. 52

APPENDIX 1

Table 1 EST stipulations with an eye to the past or the future Provisions to prevent same circumstances General provisions and provisions as those surrounding Sennacherib’s foreseeing potential problems in future murder and subsequent war, or to codify positive actions that led Esarhaddon to the throne §5 Obligation to Protect Heir –includes §7 Succession at Esarhaddon’s Untimely warning against revolts and aiding Death usurping brothers §8 Definition of Loyalty §6 Obligation to Report Opposition to §9 Prohibition of Disloyal Conduct –includes Succession brothers by the same mother §10 Obligation to Report Treason §16 Rejection of Rebellion §11 Injunction against Treason –includes §17 Succession of Assurbanipal handing heir over to enemy §20 Action against Pretenders to Throne – §12 Action against Those Suborning includes royal family members who have Treason fled to another country §13 Action against Traitors –includes §21 Allegiance to Assurbanipal prohibition to take a mutually bounding §22 Action against Murderer of oath to conclude an adê Assurbanipal –if the heir is murdered, the §14 Action against Open Rebellion successor should be one of Esarhaddon’s or §15 Obligation to Escape from Rebels Ashurbanipal’s still unborn sons §18 Rejection of Palace Revolt against §23 Prohibition against Killing Assurbanipal Esarhaddon –it would seem Esarhaddon’s (by magical means) fleeing to western lands may have come §24 Action in Favour of Assurbanipal's after an attempt on his life as described Brothers –trying to promote siblings (of the here same mother) harmony §19 Prohibition against Seditious Meetings §25 Perpetuating Allegiance to §22 Action against Murderer of Assurbanipal –obligation to speak of the Assurbanipal (in case he is murdered) –the oath to future generations; Šamaš-šumu- attention paid to officers (bearded or ukin is a full brother of Ashurbanipal eunuchs) in this section makes it likely that §26 Action against Usurper of Esarhaddon's Arda-Mullissi and his brother did not kill Throne their father, but had high-ranking officer(s) §29 and §30 Injunction against Fomenting do it Strife between Prince and His Brothers §27 Injunction against Fomenting Strife §31 Injunction against Fomenting Strife between King and Crown Prince after Assurbanipal's Accession §28 Response to Fomentors of Strife – §32 and §33 Prohibition against again, Arda-Mullissi may have allowed and Invalidation/Undoing of Oath (by magical encouraged other people to slander means) Esarhaddon before his father §34 Attitude toward Swearing the Oath – active engagement is expected §35 Obligation to Guard/Revere the Oath- Tablet –the deities, together with the

53 statues of king and princes guard the treaty; it should be revered like a god §36 Injunction against Destroying the Oath- Tablet

54

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Altman, A. (2003) ‘Who Took an Oath on a Vassal Treaty –Only the Vassal King or Also the Suzerain? The Hittite Evidence’, Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 19, 178-184. Amadasi Guzzo, M. G. (2014) Near Eastern Archaeology 77/1, 54-57. Annus, A. (2002) The God Ninurta in the Mythology and Royal Ideology of Ancient Mesopotamia. SAAS 14. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press.

Bahrani, Z. (2003) The graven image: representation in Babylonia and Assyria. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Barré, M. (1985) ‘The First Pair of Deities in the Sefîre I God-List’, JNES 44/3, 205-210.

Beckman, G.M. & Hoffner, H.A. (1999) Hittite Diplomatic Texts, 2nd Edition. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press. Bleibtreu, E. (1992) 'Standarten auf neuassyrischen Reliefs und Bronzetreibarbeiten' Baghdader Mitteilungen 23, 347-356. Borger, R. (1996) Beiträge zum Inschriftenwerk Assurbanipals. Die Prismenklassen A,B,C = K, D, E, F, G, H, J und T sowie andere Inschriften. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. Börker-Klähn, J. (1982) Altvorderasiatische Bildstelen und vergleichbare Felsreliefs. Mainz: Von Zabern. Brinkman, J.A. (1990) ‘Political Covenants, Treaties, and Loyalty Oaths in Babylonia and between Assyria and Babylonia’, in L. Canfora et al. (Eds.), I trattati nel mondo antico. Forma ideologia funzione, 81-105. Roma: “L’Erma” di Bretschneider. Cole, S. W. (1996) Nippur IV: The early Neo-Babylonian Governor’s Archive from Nippur. OIP 114. Chicago, IL: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Cole, S. W. (1996) Nippur in Late Assyrian Times c. 755-612 BC. SAAS 4. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press. Cole, S. W. and P. Machinist (Eds.) (1998) Letters from Priests to the Kings Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal. SAA 13. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press. Dalley, S. (1989) Myths from Mesopotamia. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. Deller, K. (1992) 'Enleitung'; 'Neuassyrische Rituale für den Einsatz der Götterstreitwagen‘, Baghdader Mitteilungen 23, 291-298; 341-346. Dezsö, T. (2006) ‘Šubria and the Assyrian Empire’, Acta Antiqua Hungaricae 46, 33-38. Dezsö, T. (2012) The Assyrian Army. The Structure of the Neo-Assyrian Army. Vol. 1 Infantry. Vol. 2 Cavalry and Chariotry. Budapest: Eötvös University Press. Dion, P.-E. (1997) Les Arameé ns à l'âge du fer : histoire politique et structures sociales, Paris: Gabalda. Donbaz, V. and S. Parpola (2001) Neo-Assyrian Legal Texts in Istanbul. StAT Band 2. Berlin: Deutsche Orient-Gessellschaft Berlin. Helsinki, Helsinki University Press. Donner, H. & W. Rollig (1971) Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften. Band I: Texte. Wiesbaden: 55

Harrassowitz. Durand, J.-M. (1991) ‘Précurseurs syriens aux Protocoles néo-assyriens’, in Garelli P. et al. (Eds.) Marchands, diplomates et empereurs: études sur la civilization mesopotamienne offertes a Paul Garelli, 13-71. Paris: Éditions Recherches sur les Civilizations. Eidem, J. and Laessoɇ, K (2001) The Shemshara Archives, Vol. 1 The Letters. Copenhagen: Munksgaard. Eph’al, I. (1982) The ancient Arabs: nomads on the borders of the fertile crescent 9th-5th centuries B.C.. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, The Hebrew University; Leiden: Brill. Fales, F. M. (1988) ‘Neo-Assyrian Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, 2: The Many Faces of Nabû-Šarru-Uṣur’, SAAB 2, 104-121. Fales, F.M., (1990) ‘Istituzioni a confronto tra mondo semitico occidentale e Assiria nel I millennio A.C.: Il trattato di Sefire’, in L. Canfora et al. I Trattatti nel mondo antico: forma, ideologia, funzione, 149-173. Roma: “L’Erma” di Bretschneider. Fales, F.M. (2003) ‘Evidence for west-east contacts in the 8th century BC: the Bukan Stele’, in G.B. Lanfranchi et al. (Eds.) Continuity of Empire (?): Assyria, Media, Persia, 131-148. Padova: Sargon. Fales, F.M. (2009-2011) ‘Sefire’, Reallexikon der Assyriologie 12, 342-344. Fales, F.M. (2012) ‘After Ta’yinat: The New Status of Esarhaddon’s Adê for Assyrian Political History’, Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 106, 133-158. Fales, F.M. and Lanfranchi, G.B. (1981) ‘ABL 1237: The Role of the Cimmerians in a Letter to Esarhaddon’, East and West 31, 9-33 Fales, F.M. & J.N. Postgate (1992) Imperial Administrative Records. Part I: Palace and Temple Administration. SAA 7. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press. Fincke, J. C. (2003/2004) ‘The Babylonian Texts of Nineveh. Report on the British Museum’s Ashurbanipal Library Project’. Archiv Für Orientforschung 50, 111-149. Fitzmyer, J. A. (1995) The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefire, Rev. Ed., Roma: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico. Frahm, E. (1997) Einleitung in die Sanherib-Inschriften. Wien: Institut für Orientalistik der Universität Wien. Frahm, E. (2009) Historische und historisch-literarische Texte. Keilschrifttexte aus Assur literarischen Inhalts Bd. 3, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Frahm, E. (2010) ‘Counter-texts, Commentaries, and Adaptations: Politically Motivated Responses to the Babylonian Epic of Creation in Mesopotamia, the Biblical World, and Elsewhere’, Orient 45, 3-34. Frame, G. & A. R. George (2005) ‘The Royal Libraries of Nineveh: New Evidence for King Ashurbanipal’s Tablet Collecting Author(s)’, Iraq 67/1, Papers of the 49th RAI II, 265-284. Frankena, R. (1954) Tākultu, de sacrale maaltijd in het Assyrische ritueel : met een overzicht over de in Assur vereerde goden. Leiden: s.n. Fuchs, A. (2008) 'Der Turtān Šamšī-ilu und die große Zeit der assyrischen Großen (830-746)', Der Welt des Orients 38, 61-145.

56

Fuchs, A. & S. Parpola (2001) Letters from Babylonia and the Eastern Provinces (Sargon II, Part 3). SAA 15. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press. George, A. R. (1986) ‘Sennacherib and the Tablet of Destinies’, Iraq 48, 133-146. George, A. R. (1992) Babylonian Topographical Texts. Leuven: Peeters. George, A. R. (1996) ‘Studies in Cultic Topography and Ideology’, Biblioteca Orientalis 53, 363-395. Gilibert, A. (2011) Syro-Hittite Monumental Art and the Archaeology of Performance: Stone Reliefs at Carchemish and Zincirli in the Earlier First Millennium B.C.E.. Berlin: de Gruyter. Gitin, D. & Y. Naveh (1997) ‘A Royal Dedicatory Inscription from Ekron’, IEJ 48, 1-16. Grayson, A.K. (1975) Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles. Locust Valley, NY: J.J. Augustin Publisher. Grayson, A.K. (1987) ‘Akkadian Treaties of the Seventh Century B.C’, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 39/2, 127-160. Grayson, A.K. (1993) ‘Assyrian Officials and Power in the Ninth and Eighth Centuries’, SAAB 7, 19-52. Grayson, A.K. (2002) Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC II (858-745 BC). RIMA 3. Toronto, Buffalo, London: University of Toronto Press. Grayson, A.K. and Novotny, J. (2012) The Royal Inscriptions of Sennacherib, King of Assyria (704-681 BC), RINAP 3/1, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Grayson, A.K. and Novotny, J. (2014) The Royal Inscriptions of Sennacherib, King of Assyria (704-681 BC), RINAP 3/2, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Greenfield, J.C. (1991) ‘Asylum at Aleppo: A Note on Sefire III, 4-7’, in M. Cogan et al. (Eds.) AH, Assyria…: studies in Assyrian history and ANE historiography presented to Hayim Tadmor, 272-278. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, Hebrew University. Gzella, H. (2004) Tempus, Aspekt und Modalität im Reichsaramäischen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Harrison, T.P. (2009) ‘Neo-Hittites in the “Land of Palistin”: Renewed Investigations at Tell Ta’yinat on the Plain of Antioch’, Near Eastern Archaeology 72/4, 174-189. Harrison, T.P. and Osborne J.F (2012) ‘Building XVI and the Neo-Assyrian Sacred Precinct at Tell Tayinat’, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 64, 125-143. Hawkins, J.D. (2000) Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions. Vol. 1: Inscriptions of the Iron Age. Berlin. NY: de Gruyter. Hoftijzer, J. et al. (1995) Dictionary of North-West Semitic Inscriptions. Leiden: Brill. Holloway, S. W. (2002) Aššur is King, Aššur is King!: Religion in the Exercise of Power in the Neo- Assyrian Empire. Leiden: Brill. Holloway, S.W. (2001) ‘The GIŠKakki Aššur and Neo-Assyrian Loyalty Oaths’, in P. Steinkeller et al. (Eds.) Historiography in the Cuneiform World, Part 1: Proceedings of the 45 RAI, 239-66. Bethesda, MD: CDL Press. Hurowitz, V. (1997) ‘A Hymn Celebrating Assurnasirpal II’s Campaigns to the West (LKA 64)’ in W.Wl. Hallo (Ed.) The Context of Scripture, Vol. 1, 470-71. Leiden: Brill. Ikeda, I. (1993) ‘Once again KTK in the Sefire Inscriptions’, Eretz Israel 24 (Fs. Malamat), 104-108.

57

Kahn, D. (2007) ‘The Kingdom of Arpad (Bīt-Agūsi) and “All Aram”’, Ancient Near Eastern Studies 44, 66-89. Kataja, L. & R. M. Whiting (1995) Grants, decrees and gifts of the Neo-Assyrian Period. SAA 12. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press. Kaufman, S.A. (2007) “The Phoenician Inscription of the Incirli Trilingual: A Tentative Reconstruction and Translation”, Maarav 14/2, 7-26. Knapp, A. (2016) ‘The Sitz im Leben of Esarhaddon’s Apology’, JCS 68, 181-195. Koch, U.S. (2015) ‘Review of Alasdair Livingstone, Hemerologies of Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars’ (Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology). Bethesda: CDL Press 2013, posted on the Cuneiform Library at Cornell University website on 01/11/2015: http://cuneiform.library.cornell.edu/sites/default/files/Review_of_Alasdair_Livingstone_Hemerologi es_CUSAS_25.pdf Kohlmeyer, K. (2009) ‘The Temple of the Storm God in Aleppo during the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages’, Near Eastern Archaeology 72/4, 190-202. Kwasman, T. & S. Parpola (1991) Legal Transactions of the Royal Court of Nineveh. Part 1: Tiglath- Pileser III through Esarhaddon. SAA 6. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press. Lafont, B. (2001) ‘Relations internationales, alliances et diplomatie au temps des royaumes amorrites’, in Durand, J.-M. and Charpin, D. (Eds.) Mari, Ébla et les Hourrites, dix ans de travaux (Amurru 2), 213-328. Paris : Éditions Recherches sur les Civilizations. Lanfranchi, G. B. (2003) ‘The Assyrian expansion in the Zagros and the local ruling elites’, Continuity of Empire (?): Assyria, Media, Persia, 79-118. Padova: Sargon. Lauinger, J. (2011) ‘Some Preliminary Thoughts on the Tablet collection in Builiding XVI from Tell Tayinat’, Journal of the Canadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies 6, 5-14. Lauinger, J. (2012) ‘Esarhaddon's Succession Treaty at Tell Tayinat: Text and Commentary’, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 64, 87-123. Lauinger, J. (2013) ‘The Neo-Assyrian adê: Treaty, Oath or Something Else?’, Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 19, 99-115. Lauinger, J. (2016) ‘Iqqur Īpuš at Tell Tayinat’, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 68, 229-248. Leichty, E. (1991) ‘Esarhaddon’s Letter to the Gods’ in M. Cogan et al. (Eds.) AH, Assyria…: studies in Assyrian history and ANE historiography presented to Hayim Tadmor, 52-57. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, Hebrew University. Leichty, E. (2011) The Royal Inscriptions of Esarhaddon, king of Assyria (680-669 BC). RINAP 4. Winona Lake, Ind: Eisenbrauns. Lemaire, A. and Durand, J.-M. (1984) Les inscriptions arameé nnes de Sfire ́ et l'Assyrie de Shamshi-ilu, Genève, Paris: DROZ. Lie, A. G. (1929) The inscriptions of Sargon II, King of Assyria, Paris: Paul Geuthner. Lipioski, E. (2000) The Aramaeans: their ancient history, culture, religion. Leuven: Peeters. Liverani, M. (1982) ‘Kitru, Katāru’, Mesopotamia 17, 43-66. 58

Liverani, M. (1995), ‘The Medes at Esarhaddon’s Court’, JCS 47, 57-62. Liverani, M. (2000) ‘Once again on MLK KTK in the Sefire Stelas’, NABU 2000/53. Livingstone, A. (1989) Court Poetry and Literary Miscellanea. SAA 3. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press. Luukko, M. & G. Van Buylaere (2002) The Political Correspondence of Esarhaddon. SAA 16. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press. Luukko, M. (2012) The Correspondence of Tiglath-Pileser III and Sargon II from Calah/Nimrud. SAA 19. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press. Magen, U. (1986) Assyrische Königsdarstellungen: Aspekte der Herrschaft; eine Typologie. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern.

Mallowan, M. (1957) ‘The excavations at Nimrud (Kalḫu), 1956’, Iraq 19/1, 1-25. Mallowan, M. (1966) Nimrud and Its Remains. New York: Dodd, Mead; London: Collins. Mallowan, M. and L.G. Davies (1970) Ivories from Nimrud (1949-1963) Fascicule II: Ivories in Assyrian Style. London: The British School of Archaeology in Iraq. Matshushima, E. (1987) ‘Le Rituel Hiérogamique de Nabû’, Acta Sumerologica 9, 131-175. Matshushima, E. (1988) ‘Les Rituels du Mariage Divin dans les Documents Accadiens’, Acta Sumerologica 10, 95-128. Mattila, R. (2000) The King’s Magnates. A Study of the highest Officials of the Neo-Assyrian Empire. SAAS 11. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press. Menzel, B. (1981) Assyrische Tempel. Bd. II: Anmerkungen, Textbuch, Tabellen und Indices, Rome: Biblical Institute Press Millard, A. (1994) The Eponyms of the Assyrian Empire 910-612 BC. SAAS 2. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press. Millard, J.L. (2013) Royal Hittite Instructions and Related Administrative Texts. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press for the Society of Biblical Literature. Na’aman, N. (2005) ‘Forced Participation in Alliances in the Course of the Assyrian Campaigns to the West’, in Ancient Israel and its neighbors: interaction and counteraction. Collected Essays, Vol. 1, 16- 39. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Na’aman, N. (2006) ‘Sennacherib’s Sons Flight to Urartu’, NABU 2006/5. Niehr, H. (2014) in Niehr, H. The Aramaeans in Ancient Syria. Chapter 6: Religion; 7: Art. Leiden: Brill. Nissinen, M. (1998) References to Prophecy in Neo-Assyrian Sources. SAAS 7. Helsinki: The Neo- Assyrian Text Corpus Project. Nissinen, M. (2001) ‘Akkadian Rituals and Poetry of Divine Love’ in Whiting, R.M (Ed.) Mythology and Mythologies. Methodological Approaches to Intercultural Influences. Proceedings of the Second Annual Symposium of the Assyrian and Babylonian Intellectual Heritage Project held in Paris, France, October 4-7, 1999, 93-136. Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project.

Novotny, J. (2014) ‘ “I did not alter the site where that temple stood”: Thoughts On Esarhaddon’s

59

Rebuilding of the Aššur Temple’, JCS 66, 91-112. Oates, D. (1957) ‘The Temple of Nabû’, Iraq 19/1, 26-39. Oates, J. and D. Oates (2001) Nimrud: an Assyrian imperial city revealed. London: British School of Archaeology in Iraq. Oppenheim, A.L. (1960) ‘The City of Assur in 714 B.C.’, JNES 19/2, 133-147. Oppenheim, A.L. (1974) ‘A Babylonian Diviners Manual’ JNES 33/2, 197-220. Otten, H. (1988) Die Bronzetafel aus Boğazköy: ein Staatsvertrag Tutḫalijas IV. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Panayotov, S. V. (2013) “A Ritual for a Flourishing Bordello”, BiOr 70, 285-309. Panayotov, S. V. & J. Llop-Radua, (2013) ‘A Middle-Assyrian Juridical Text on a Tablet with Handle’, Oriental Archive 81, 223-233. Parker, B. (1954) ‘The Nimrud Tablets, 1952: Business Documents’, Iraq 16/1, 29-58. Parpola, S. (1980) ‘The Murderer of Sennacherib’, in B. Alster (Ed.) Death in Mesopotamia. Proceedings of RAI 26, 171-82. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag. Parpola, S. (1983), Letters from Assyrian scholars to the kings Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal, Part II. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, etc. Parpola, S. (1987) Letters from Assyria and the West (Sargon II, Part I). SAA 1. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press. Parpola, S. (1987) ‘Neo-Assyrian Treaties from the Royal Archives of Nineveh’, JCS 39/2, 161-189. Parpola, S. (1989) in Tadmor, H. Landsberger, B. and Parpola, S. ‘The Sin of Sargon and Sennacherib’s Last Will’, SAAB 3, 3-51, Part IV: pp. 45-49.

Parpola, S. (1993) Letters from Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars. SAA 10. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press. Parpola S. (1997) Assyrian Prophecies. SAA 9. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press. Parpola, S. & K. Koskenniemi (1970) Neo-Assyrian Toponyms. Kevelaer: Butzon&Bercker, etc.; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag des Erziehungsvereins. Parpola, S. & K. Watanabe (1988) Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths. SAA 2. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press. Parpola, S. & M. Porter, Eds. (2001) The Helsinki Atlas of the Near East in the Neo-Assyrian Period. Maine: The Casco Bay Assyriological Institute & Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project. Pomponio, F. (1998-2001) ‘Nabû. A. Philologisch’. Reallexikon der Assyriologie 9, pp. 17-24. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter. Ponchia, S. (2002-2005) ‘Notes on the legal conventions and on the practice of the adê’, SAAB 14, 133-167. Pongratz-Leisten, B. (1994) Ina sǔ lmi ir̄ ub: die kulttopographische und ideologische Programmatik der akītu-Prozession in Babylonien und Assyrien im 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr.. Mainz am Rhein: Von Zabern.

60

Pongratz-Leisten, B. (1997) ‘The Interplay of Military Strategy and Cultic Practice in Assyrian Politics’, in S. Parpola and R.M. Whiting (Eds.) Assyria 1995, pp. 242-52. Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project. Pongratz-Leisten, B. (2015) Religion and Ideology in Assyria. Boston: De Gruyter. Pongratz-Leisten, B. ‘“The Writing of the God” and the Textualization of Neo-Assyrian Prophecy’, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, self-published: https://www.academia.edu/369483/_The_Writing_of_the_God_and_the_Textualization_of_Neo- Assyrian_Prophecy Porter, B.N. (1993) Images, Power, Politics. Figurative Aspects of Esarhaddon’s Babylonian Policy. Philadelphia: American Oriental Society Postgate, J.N. (1974) ‘The bit akiti in Assyrian Nabû Temples’, Sumer 30, 51-74. Puech, E. (1992) ‘La stèle de Bar-Hadad et les rois d’Arpad’, Revue Biblique 99, 311-334.

Radner, K. (2003a), 'An Assyrian view on the Medes', in G. B. Lanfranchi et al. (Eds.), Continuity of Empire (?): Assyria, Media, Persia, pp. 37-64. Padova: Sargon.

Radner, (2003b) ‘The Trials of Esarhaddon: The Conspiracy of 670’, ISIMU 6, 165-184.

Radner, K. (2006) ‘Assyrische ṭuppi adê als Vorbild für Deuteronomium 28, 20-44?’, in M. Witte et al. (Eds.) Die deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerke. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamenliche Wissenschaft, Band 365, pp. 351-378. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter.

Radner, K. (2006-8), ´Provinz. C. Assyrien‘, Reallexikon der Assyriologie 11, 42-68.

Radner, K. (2010) ‘Gate Keepers and Lock Masters’ in H.D. Baker et al. (Eds.) Your Praise is Sweet: a Memorial Volume for Jeremy Black, 269-280. London: British Institute for the Study of Iraq.

Radner, K. (2012a) ‘Between a rock and a hard place: Muṣaṣir, Kumme, Ukku and Šubria –the buffer states between Assyria and Urarṭu’, Acta Iranica 51, 243-264.

Radner, K. (2012b) ‘The Stele of Adad-nērārī III and Nergal-ēreš from Dūr Katlimmu (Tell Šaih- Ḥamad)’, AfO 39, 265-277.

Reade, J.E. (1998-2001) ‘Ninive (Nineveh)’ Reallexikon der Assyriologie 9, 388-433. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter.

Reiner, E. (1958) Šurpu. A Collection of Sumerian and Akkadian Incantations. AfO Beiheft 11. Graz: Im Selbstverlage des Herausgebers.

Reiner, E. (1960) ‘Plague Amulets and House Blessings’, JNES 19/2, 148-155.

Reynolds, F. (2003) The Babylonian Correspondence of Esarhaddon and Letters to Ashurbanipal and Sin-šarru-iškun from northern and central Babylonia. SAA 18. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press. Sader, H. (2014) in Niehr, H. The Aramaeans in Ancient Syria, Chapter 2: History. Leiden: Brill.

Schmitt, A. W. (2012) Die Jüngeren Ischtar-Tempel und der Nabû-Tempel in Assur: Architektur, Stratigraphie und Funde. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

61

Schwemer, D. (2001) Die Wettergottgestalten. Die Wettergottgestalten Mesopotamiens und Nordsyriens im Zeitalter der Keilschriftkulturen: Materialien und Studien nach den schriftlichen Quellen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Staubli, T. (2003) 'Sin von Harran und seine Verbreitung im Westen', in Werbung für die Götter. Heilsbringer aus 4000 Jahren. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag.

Starr, I. & Aro, J. (1990) Queries to the Sun God: Divination and Politics in Sargonid Assyria. SAA 4. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press.

Steymans, H.U. (2006) ‘Die literarische und historische Bedeutung der Thronfolgevereidigung Asarhaddons‘, in M. Witte et al. (Eds.) Die deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerke, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamenliche Wissenschaft, Band 365, pp. 331-349. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter.

Tadmor, H. (1982) ‘Treaty and Oath in Ancient Near East’, in G.M. Tucker and D. Knight (Eds.) Humanizing America’s Iconic Book. Society of Biblical literature centennial addresses 1980, pp. 127- 152. Chico, CA: Scholars Press.

Tadmor, H. (1983) ‘Autobiographical Apology in the Royal Assyrian Literature’, in H. Tadmor et al. (Eds.) History, Historiography and Interpretation: Studies in Biblical and Cuneiform Literatures, 36-57. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, Hebrew University.

Tadmor, H. (1987) ‘The Aramaization of Assyria: Aspects of Western Impact’, in H. Nissen and J. Renger (Eds.) Mesopotamien und seine Nachbarn: Politische und kulturelle Wechselbeziehungen im alten Vorderasien vom 4. Bis 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr., 449-470. Berlin: Reimer.

Tadmor, H. (2007) The Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III, King of Assyria. Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanies.

Tadmor, H. et al. (2007) The Royal Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III (744-727 BC) and Shalmaneser V (726-722 BC), Kings of Assyria. RINAP 1. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

Talshir, D. (2003), ‘The relativity of geographic terms and re-investigation of the problem of Upper and Lower Aram’, Journal of Semitic Studies 48, 259-285.

Ungnad, A. (1940) 'Spätassyrische und neubabylonische Privaturkunden vom Tell Halaf', in Die Inschriften vom Tell Halaf, in Friedriech et al. (Eds.) AfO Beiheft 6. Berlin: Ernst F. Weidner.

Van der Toorn, K. (1992) “Anat-Yahu, Some Other Deities, and the Jews of Elephantine”, Numen 39/1, 80-101.

Warmenbol, E. (1985) ‘La statuette égyptisante de Sfiré, en Syrie du Nord: une image d’orant de la première moitié du Ier millénaire AV.N.È.’, in E. Gubel and E. Lipi’nski (Eds.) Phoenicia and Its Neighbours (StPhIII), pp. 163-180. Leuven: Peeters.

Watanabe, K. (1985) ‘Die Siegelung der ‘Vasallenverträge Asarhaddons’ durch den Gott Aššur‘, Baghdader Mitteilungen 16, 377-392.

Watanabe, K. (1987) Die ade-̂ Vereidigung anlässlich der Thronfolgeregelung Asarhaddons, Baghdader Mitteilungen Beiheft 3, Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag.

62

Watanabe, K. (1988) ‘Die Anordnung der Kolumnen der VTE-Tafeln’, Acta Sumerologica 10, 265-6. Weissert, E. (1997) ‘Royal Hunt and Royal Triumph in a Prism Fragment of Ashurbanipal (82-5-22,2)’, in S. Parpola and R.M. Whiting (Eds.) Assyria 1995, pp. 339-358. Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project.

Wesselius, J. W. (1984) ‘A New Reading in Sfire III, 18’, BiOr 41, 589-591.

Wiseman, R. (1958) ‘The Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon’, Iraq 20/1, pp. i-ii + 1-99.

Wiseman, D. J. & J. Black (1996) Literary Texts from the Temple of Nabû. CTN 4. London: British School of Archaeology in Iraq.

Yamada, S. (2000) The Construction of the Assyrian Empire. A Historical Study of the Inscriptions of Shalmaneser III (859-824 BC) Relating to his Campaigns to the West. Leiden: Brill.

63