The Selected Synchronistic Kings of Assyria and Babylonia in the Lacunae of A.117

Appendix III The Selected Synchronistic Kings of Assyria and Babylonia in the Lacunae of A.117

1 Shamshi-Adad I / Ishme-Dagan I vs. Hammurabi

The synchronization of Hammurabi and the ruling family of Shamshi-Adad I’s kingdom can be proven by the correspondence between them, including the letters of Yasmah-Addu, the ruler of Mari and younger son of Shamshi-Adad I, to Hammurabi as well as an official named Hulalum in Babylon1 and those of Ishme-Dagan I to Hammurabi.2 Landsberger proposed that Shamshi-Adad I might still have been alive during the first ten years of Hammurabi’s reign and that the first year of Ishme- Dagan I would have been the 11th year of Hammurabi’s reign.3 However, it was also suggested that Shamshi-Adad I would have died in the 12th / 13th4 or 17th / 18th5 year of Hammurabi’s reign and Ishme-Dagan I in the 28th or 31st year.6 If so, the reign length of Ishme-Dagan I recorded in the AKL might be unreliable and he would have ruled as the successor of Shamshi-Adad I only for about 11 years.7

1 van Koppen, MARI 8 (1997), 418–421; Durand, DÉPM, No. 916. 2 Charpin, ARM 26/2 (1988), No. 384. 3 Landsberger, JCS 8/1 (1954), 39, n. 44. 4 Whiting, OBOSA 6, 210, n. 205. 5 Veenhof, AP, 35; van de Mieroop, KHB, 9; Eder, AoF 31 (2004), 213; Gasche et al., MHEM 4, 52; Gasche et al., Akkadica 108 (1998), 1–2; Charpin and Durand, MARI 4 (1985), 293–343. Since the Assyrian calendar year begins in spring, while the Babylonian calendar year begins in autumn, the year of Shamshi-Adad I’s death was later restored by Charpin and Ziegler to be the 18th year of Hammurabi’s reign. See Charpin and Ziegler, FM 5, 160–161; see also Pruzsinszky, MCh, 163. 6 According to the Mari Letters, Ishme-Dagan I might have had to withdraw from Ekallatu and take sanctuary at Babylon in the 28th year of Hammurabi. See Gasche et al., MHEM 4, 52. Since Ishme-Dagan I disappeared from the sources after the 30th year of Hammurabi, Veenhof suggested that his last year would have been the 31st year of Hammurabi’s reign. See Veenhof, MARI 4 (1985), 213. 7 Gasche et al., MHEM 4, 52–53. Landsberger proposed that Ishme-Dagan I might have ruled the first half of his reign as the ruler at Ekallatu (before the death of Shamshi-Adad I) and then the second half of his reign as king of Assyria at Ashur (after the death of Shamshi-Adad I). See Landsberger, JCS 8/1 (1954), 36–37. For the invalidity of the reign length of Ishme-Dagan I in the AKL see also Veenhof, MARI 4 (1985), 212; CA, 68.

2 Ashur-uballit I vs. the Kassite Kings from Burnaburiash II to Kurigalzu II

Ashur-uballit I must have been contemporary with several Babylonian kings. His first Babylonian counterpart must have been Burnaburiash II, because both of them were in correspondence with the Egyptian pharaoh Amenhotep IV.8 Moreover, Ashur- uballit I married his daughter Muballitat-Sherua to a Kassite king. Muballitat-Sherua gave birth to a son, who later became the Babylonian king but was soon overthrown by a native Kassite. Ashur-uballit I marched to Babylonia and expelled the usurper and then installed a new Babylonian king. This event, which must have happened towards the end of the Amarna Period,9 was recorded by the Synchronistic History and Chronicle P,10 but the narratives of the two sources are inconsistent: 1) The son of Muballitat-Sherua is first called Karahardash but then Karaindash in the Synchronistic History, but Kadashman- Harbe, son of Karaindash, son of Muballitat-Sherua, according to Chronicle P; 2) The usurper is called Nazibugash in the Synchronistic History, but Shuzigash in Chronicle P; 3) The new Babylonian king installed by Ashur-uballit I is Kurigalzu, the younger, son of Burnaburiash, according to the Synchronistic History, but Kurigalzu, son of Kadashman-Harbe, according to Chronicle P. However, neither of both sources records explicitly who the husband of Muballitat-Sherua was. The difference between the names of the usurper might be due to diverse phonetic readings. According to Peise and Röllig, the authentic name should be Nazibugash.11 The two sources both record that the Babylonian king installed by Ashur-uballit I is called Kurigalzu, who must be Kurigalzu II.12 According to Brinkman, there could only have been two Kassite kings named Kurigalzu.13 Kurigalzu in the Synchronistic History is clearly called “the younger, son of Burnaburiash”, which would imply that there had been a previous king with the same name. Moreover, Burnaburiash II also mentioned one of his ancestors named Kurigalzu,14 who must be Kurigalzu I. Of the two “Kurigalzu”: one was the son of Kadashman-Harbe, and the other was the son of Burnaburiash;15 one ruled before Burnaburiash II and the other ruled after

8 Moran, AL, EA 7–11, 15–16. For the time of Burnaburiash II’s reign see Boese, UF 14 (1982), 15–26. 9 Brinkman, MSKH, 421. 10 Grayson, ABC, 159–160, 171–172. 11 Peise, OLZ 11 (1908), 8; Röllig, HSAO, 175, n. 3. 12 Grayson, ABC, 212. 13 Brinkman, Or 38 (1969), 320–327; RLA 6 (1980–1983), 369–370. For the earlier proposition of “Kurigalzu III”, see Peise, OLZ 11 (1908), 9; Ungnad, AfK 1 (1923), 21. 14 Moran, AL, EA 11; Maidman, Kaskal 8 (2011), 112–113; Mladjov, NABU 2016/3, 109–110. 15 Brinkman, MSKH, 205.

Fei Chen - 9789004430921 Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 07:59:49PM via free access The Selected Synchronistic Kings of Assyria and Babylonia 209

Burnaburiash II. Thus based upon the Synchronistic History, Kurigalzu II must be the son of Burnaburiash II; while in accordance with Chronicle P, Kurigalzu II is the son of a Kadashman-Harbe. Furthermore, the identifications for the son and the husband of Muballitat-Sherua remain irreconcilable between the two sources. By the Synchronistic History, the son of Muballitat-Sherua is Karahardash or Karaindash, but his father (i.e. the husband of Muballitat-Sherua) is never mentioned. As for the discrepancy between Karahardash and Karaindash, Röllig argued that the authentic name should be Karakindash (i.e. “Ka-ra-ḪAR-da-áš” should be read as “Ka-ra-kín- da-áš”), and Karaindash must be a scribal error.16 On the other hand, the records in Chronicle P are ambiguous, depending on how we interpret the phrase “[mKa-dáš- man-Ḫa]rbe mār mKara-in-da-áš māru šá SALMu-bal-liṭ-at-dṢēru-u-a”;17 that is, it could be “Kadashman-Harbe, son of Karaindash, (who was) son of Muballitat-Sherua”,18 or “Kadashman-Harbe, son of Karaindash (and) son of Muballitat-Sherua”.19 Because of the lacuna in the BKLa and the ScKL (A.117), it cannot be determined directly which of the two sources is right or which is wrong. Some scholars give preference to the Synchronistic History. Jaritz supposed that the scribe of Chronicle P might have mistaken Kurigalzu II as Kurigalzu I.20 Chronicle P was rejected by Röllig, who adduced certain other pieces of information from that document to prove it untrustworthy.21 Equally, Brinkman thought that it was unrea- sonable to insert a Kadashman-Harbe or a Karaindash between Burnaburiash II and Kurigalzu II and the “non-existent extra rulers” would have misled us on the modern reconstructions.22 If the evidence from the Synchronistic History can be accepted, the Kassite royal sequence for this period will be: Karahardash (probably the son of Burnaburiash II23) – Nazibugash – Kurigalzu II (the son of Burnaburiash II). On the contrary, many scholars believe that Chronicle P is more reliable:24 1) Chronicle P is right that Kurigalzu II was the son of Kadashman-Harbe, who was the son of Muballitat-Sherua,25 while the scribe of the Synchronistic History might have

16 Röllig, HSAO, 176–177; von Soden, PW, 61; Paulus, IRW 1, 70, n. 58; Miller, KBUK 1, 104, n. 24. 17 Grayson, ABC, 171. 18 Röllig, HSAO, 175. 19 Peise, OLZ 11 (1908), 8; Brinkman, MSKH, 419; Glassner, MC, 279. 20 Jaritz, MIO 6 (1958), 215. 21 Röllig, HSAO, 173–184. 22 Brinkman, MSKH, 418–423; van Seters, SH, 86–87; Maidman, Kaskal 8 (2011), 111. 23 Röllig, HSAO, 178; Melville, ACANE, 225. 24 According to Grayson, the Synchronistic History is replete with all kinds of errors and its author showed a more favourable light on Assyria, while Chronicle P contained no signifi- cant errors and its author was far more objective. See Grayson, ABC, 58, n. 69. 25 Luckenbill, AJSL 23/4 (1907), 281; Radau, BE 17/1, 63–67; Furlong, AANEC, 55; Sassmannshausen, MDAR, 61, n. 3; see also Bloch, JAC 25 (2010), 71, n. 42.

Fei Chen - 9789004430921 Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 07:59:49PM via free access 210 Appendix III been mistaken in calling Kurgalzu II the son of Burnaburiash II,26 or Kurigalzu II is merely a descendant of Burnaburiash II in the Synchronistic History;27 2) the Karahardash in the Synchronistic History must be identical with Kadashman-Harbe, the son of Muballitat-Sherua;28 3) the father of Kadashman-Harbe and the husband of Muballitat-Sherua would be Karaindash29 (more precisely Karaindash II,30 since one Karaindash was mentioned by Burnaburiash II in a letter to Amenhotep IV31). Thus, simply from the evidence of Chronicle P, the Kassite royal sequence for this period would be: Karaindash II (the son of Burnaburiash II) – Kadashman-Harbe II – Nazibugash/Shuzigash – Kurigalzu II (the son of Kadashman-Harbe II). In addition, there are also some scholars who attempt to resolve these discrep- ancies in a third way, by combining information contained in both sources, the Synchronistic History and Chronicle P. Winckler,32 Rowton33 and Gadd34 maintained a Kassite royal sequence of “Karahardash (the son of Burnaburiash II) – Kadashman- Harbe II – Nazibugash/Shuzigash – Kurigalzu II (the son of Kadashman-Harbe II)”, that is, the “Karahardash” from the Synchronistic History and the “Kurigalzu II, the son of Kadashman-Harbe II” by Chronicle P are both accepted. On the other hand, following the theory of Weissbach,35 Mladjov argued that: 1) Kurigalzu II is not the son but the uncle of Kadashman-Harbe II in Chronicle P; 2) the father of Kadashman- Harbe II (or the husband of Muballitat-Sherua) is Karaindash II (also mentioned in the Synchronistic History) but not Karahardash, who is poorly attested by the historical sources (only KAV 97 and the Synchronistic History36). Thus according to Mladjov, the Kassite royal sequence for this period will be: Karaindash II (the son of Burnaburiash II) – Kadashman-Harbe II – Nazibugash/Shuzigash – Kurigalzu II (the son of Burnaburiash II).37 As can be seen from the different solutions above, the essence of the discrepancy between the Synchronistic History and Chronicle P is: whether or not there should be a “Kadashman-Harbe” between Burnaburiash II and Kurigalzu II. Notwithstanding the disagreement on the filiations or identifications of individual kings, all the solutions deviating from the Synchronistic History have one common point: they all maintain a

26 Luckenbill, AJSL 23/4 (1907), 281. 27 Radau, BE 17/1, 64–65; Furlong, AANEC, 55. 28 Winckler, AOF II, 117; Radau, BE 17/1, 63–64; Grayson, ABC, 211; Furlong, AANEC, 46, n. 4. 29 Radau, BE 17/1, 64. 30 Weissbach, WVDOG 4, 4; Mladjov, NABU 2016/1, 19–20. 31 Moran, AL, EA 10. 32 Winckler, AOF II, 116–117. 33 Rowton, CAH 1/1, 205. 34 Gadd, CAH 2/2, 29. 35 Weissbach, WVDOG 4, 5. 36 Brinkman, MSKH, 166–168. 37 Mladjov, NABU 2016/1, 18–21; NABU 2016/3, 106–111.

Fei Chen - 9789004430921 Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 07:59:49PM via free access The Selected Synchronistic Kings of Assyria and Babylonia 211 position for “Kadashman-Harbe” between Burnaburiash II and Kurigalzu II. However, it is the royal sequence (but not the filiations) that should decide our historical reconstructions. In fact, as pointed out by Brinkman, to insert a Kadashman-Harbe between Burnaburiash II and Kurigalzu II is illogical. Simply using common sense, however, if Kurigalzu II is indeed the son of Kadashman-Harbe II, then it seems very difficult for us to believe that (as recorded in Chronicle P): Ashur-uballit I, who ruled for 36 years, put his great-grandson Kurigalzu II (presuming that Kadashman-Harbe is his grandson, but not his great- grandson), who must have been a very small child at that time,38 on the Babylonian throne, and this child campaigned against Enlil-nirari,39 the direct successor of Ashur- uballit I, several years later (note that Enlil-nirari ruled for only 10 years). Moreover, Chronicle P also records that Kadashman-Harbe, the son of Muballitat-Sherua and grandson of Ashur-uballit I, “ordered the overthrow of the Suteans from east to west and annihilated their extensive forces”, “reinforced the fortresses in Mount ḪI.ḪI”, “dug a well, and comfortably settled people in them (the fortresses) to strengthen the guard”.40 So it also seems difficult to explain how such a powerful and famous king would be overthrown by Nazibugash, a usurper not from the royal family. It is more interesting to note that the records on the activities of Kadashman- Harbe in Chronicle P, especially his battle against the Suteans can also be found in a recently published kudurru (YBC 2242),41 where it is recorded that Kadashman- Harbe “ousted the widespread Suteans from the land of Sunrise to the land of Sunset”.42 This kudurru is dated by Brinkman to the reign of Marduk-shapik-zeri in the early elev- enth century BC, but it cannot be determined whether the text on the kudurru is an original composition or a copy based upon an earlier source from the reign of that Kadashman-Harbe.43 Chronicle P is a Late Babylonian document, but, equally, it is un- clear whether it is an original work or merely a later copy, although the lacuna below the last entry (Adad-shuma-iddina)44 implies that the date of the original text cannot be much later than the end of the Kassite Dynasty.45 Anyway, the striking similarity of the records of Kadashman-Harbe’s expulsion of the Suteans in both Chronicle P and that kudurru leads us to suspect that the scribe of Chronicle P might have extracted some paragraphs from other sources. Further evidence is the record of Kurigalzu’s war

38 Radau, BE 17/1, 64; Gadd, CAH 2/2, 29. 39 Grayson, ABC, 159–160. 40 Grayson, ABC, 171–172. 41 Paulus, AOAT 51, 296–304; Brinkman, KBUK 1, 24. 42 Paulus, AOAT 51, 297, 301. 43 Brinkman, NABU 2015/1, 19–20; JNES 78 (2019), 144. 44 Grayson, ABC, 177. 45 Grayson, ABC, 56.

Fei Chen - 9789004430921 Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 07:59:49PM via free access 212 Appendix III against Elam in Chronicle P.46 This specific theme appears also in several inscriptions of a certain Kurigalzu47 and it is disputed as to which Kurigalzu (I or II) conquered Elam.48 However, as pointed out by Grayson, this episode in Chronicle P sounds more like an epic than a chronicle and the scribe of Chronicle P might have copied this part from a Babylonian historical epic.49 Accordingly, if the scribe of Chronicle P had indeed transplanted some paragraphs from other sources into his own work, then it is not impossible that he mis- takenly recognized Kurigalzu I (the son of Kadashman-Harbe I) as Kurigalzu II (the son of Burnaburiash II)50 and then mistook Kadashman-Harbe I as the father of Kurigalzu II, considering that the filiation of “Kurigalzu, the son of Kadashman- Harbe” can be well attested by various sources.51 Returning to the text of Chronicle P, “[mKa-dáš-man-Ḫar]be mār mKara-in-da-áš māru šá SALMu-bal-liṭ-at-dṢēru-u-a” might have meant not “Kadashman-Harbe, son of Karaindash and Muballitat-sherua” as we presumed, but simply “Kadashman-Harbe, son of Karaindash, (who was) son of Muballitat-sherua”, because the scribe might have been well aware that the son of Muballitat-Sherua was called “Karaindash”, which must have been once miswritten by the Synchronistic History as “Karahardash” (= “Karakindash”) due to the sound similarity between “in” and “kín”. Considering that “Karahardash” is poorly attested but “Karaindash” well attested, the son of Muballitat-Sherua should be more probably called “Karaindash (II)”. To sum up, according to the Synchronistic History, the scenario can be restored as: Ashur-uballit I married his daughter Muballitat-Sherua to Burnaburiash II. Their son Karaindash (II), the so-called “Karahardash”, succeeded Burnaburiash II but was then killed by the usurper Nazibugash. Ashur-uballit I avenged his grandson Karaindash (II) and installed Kurigalzu II, another son of Burnaburiash II, as the new Babylonian king. If so, Ashur-uballit I would have been synchronistic with Burnaburiash II, Karaindash (II), Nazibugash and Kurigalzu II.

3 Enlil-nirari / Adad-nirari I vs. Kurigalzu II / Nazimaruttash / Kadashman-Turgu

The synchronization between Enlil-nirari and Kurigalzu II can be proven by the Synchronistic History, where it is related that they once fought against each other at

46 Grayson, ABC, 173–175. 47 Paulus, MDP 58, 442–443. 48 Paulus, MDP 58, 441. 49 Grayson, ABC, 57; Waerzeggers, JNES 71 (2012), 288, n. 15. 50 Paulus, MDP 58, 442; Beaulieu, HB, 142–143. 51 Brinkman, MSKH, 146, 205.

Fei Chen - 9789004430921 Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 07:59:49PM via free access The Selected Synchronistic Kings of Assyria and Babylonia 213

Sugagi on the Tigris and Kurigalzu II was defeated by Enlil-nirari.52 This conflict is probably the one recorded in an Assyrian Chronicle Fragment, which did not indicate (because of the lacuna) the precise location of the battle but mentioned a place called “Kilizi”.53 Furthermore, Adad-nirari I also alleged in one of his inscriptions that his grandfather Enlil-nirari once defeated the Kassites.54 Nevertheless, Grayson thought it reasonable to retain the possibility that this conflict depicted in the Synchronistic History might actually have referred to the one between Adad-nirari I and Kurigalzu II (also at Sugagi on the Tigris) recorded in Chronicle P,55 by which the victor is not the Assyrian king but Kurigalzu II.56 According to the Synchronistic History, Adad- nirari I campaigned against Nazimaruttash and conquered him and then fixed a boundary-line with him.57 In addition, Adad-nirari I must have also concluded a treaty (VAT 15420) with Kadashman-Turgu, the son of successor of Nazimaruttash.58

4 Adad-nirari III vs. Unknown Babylonian King(s)

According to the Synchronistic History, Adad-nirari III fixed the boundary-line with an unknown Babylonian king (whose name is unfortunately lost) “by mutual consent”.59 This must have been the result of a successful campaign against Babylonia, for Adad- nirari III “brought [back] the abducted peoples [and] laid upon them an income, a regular contribution [and] barley rations”,60 which could possibly be referred to by the statement of Adad-nirari III in his royal inscription: “All the kings of Chaldaea became my vassals (and) I imposed upon them in perpetuity tax (and) tribute. At Babylon, Borsippa (and) Cuthah they delivered up the remnant offerings of the gods, Bēl, Nabû and Nergal”.61

52 Grayson, ABC, 159–160. 53 Grayson, ARI 1, 52 (No. 344); ABC, 185, 215. 54 Grayson, RIMA 1, A.0.76.1: 25’–26’. 55 Grayson, ABC, 175, 204; AS 16, 337–339. 56 For the error of Chronicle P see Röllig, HSAO, 177–181; Mladjov, NABU 2016/3, 107; Roaf, KBUK 1, 179; Jacob, CA, 118–119. 57 Grayson, ABC, 160–161. 58 Weidner, AfO Beiheft 12, No. 39E; Grayson, ARI 1, 78 (No. 515); Brinkman, MSKH, 163; Llop, PIHANS 125, 246–247. 59 Grayson, ABC, 169. 60 Grayson, ABC, 169. 61 Grayson, RIMA 3, A.0.104.8: 22’–24’.

Fei Chen - 9789004430921 Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 07:59:49PM via free access 214 Appendix III

5 Shalmaneser IV / Ashur-dan III / Ashur-nirari V vs. unknown Babylonian king(s) / Nabonassar

Adad-nirari III was succeeded by his four sons one after another: Shalmaneser IV, Ashur-dan III, Ashur-nirari V and Tiglath-pileser III. The relations between Assyria and Babylonia during these reigns are not very clear, but some clues imply that a few conflicts between Assyria and Babylonia might have broken out at that time. For example, according to Grayson, the campaign of Shalmaneser IV against Ituʾa and those of Ashur-dan III against Gananati, Marad and Ituʾa, recorded by the Eponym Chronicle,62 might have been the expeditions to Babylonia.63 Since the first year of Tiglath-pileser III is the third year of Nabonassar,64 who must have initiated a new dynasty in Babylonia, but whose relationship to his predecessor, Nabu-shuma-ishkun, is unknown, the last two years of Ashur-nirari V would have been the first two years of Nabonassar. However, the Babylonian counterparts of Shalmaneser IV and Ashur- dan III are unknown, for the evidence can only be found in Assyrian sources and it remains uncertain whether or not the reigns of Nabu-shuma-ishkun and Nabonassar are directly consecutive.

6 Tiglath-pileser III vs. Nabonassar / Nabu-nadin-zeri / Nabu-shuma-ukin II / Nabu-mukin-zeri

Tiglath-pileser III was the son of Adad-nirari III according to his own statements,65 but the SDAS records that his father was Ashur-nirari V.66 Grayson proposed that the latter must be false, for the scribe of Tiglath-pileser III would have not made such a mistake.67 It is highly probable that he was a usurper and ascended the throne by force,68 since: 1) there is no royal inscription of Tiglath-pileser III mentioning his father except for his own claim; 2) the Eponym Chronicle records that he came to the throne immediately after a revolt at Kalhu.69 Tiglath-pileser III is contemporary with four Babylonian kings. However, the expeditions of Tiglath-pileser III to Babylonia during his early reign seem not to have been against Nabonassar, his first contemporary, but against the Arameans and the

62 Glassner, MC, 171. 63 Grayson, CAH 3/1, 277. 64 Grayson, ABC, 70. 65 Tadmor and Yamada, RINAP 1, No. 58. 66 Gelb, JNES 13/4 (1954), 223, iv 24’. 67 Grayson, CAH 3/2, 73–74. 68 Zawadzki, SAAB 8/1 (1994), 53–54. 69 Glassner, MC, 173.

Fei Chen - 9789004430921 Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 07:59:49PM via free access The Selected Synchronistic Kings of Assyria and Babylonia 215

Chaldeans, who threatened the rule of Nabonassar, the legitimate Babylonian mon- arch at that time, for Tiglath-pileser III did not take over Babylonia directly. That Tiglath-pileser III could fight to secure the rule of Nabonassar can be explained by the possibility that he did this in accordance with some kind of treaty signed with the Babylonian king, as in the case of Shalmaneser III and Marduk-zakir-shumi I,70 or the possibility that he tried to legitimize his kingship of Assyria, which he had usurped by illicit means, through such a righteous act.71 Nevertheless, Nabonassar might have been the vassal of Tiglath-pileser III, if Tiglath-pileser III had assumed the title “King of Sumer and Akkad” even when Nabonassar was still on the throne.72 In any case, with the support or even protection of Assyrian power, Nabonassar was able to keep his kingship and pass it to his own son, Nabu-nadin-zeri, although the latter ruled for only 2 years and was deposed by a provincial governor, Nabu-shuma-ukin II, who was overthrown shortly afterwards by Nabu-mukin-zeri, a Chaldean tribal chief from southern Babylonia. Tiglath-pileser III, who was occupied by the campaign at Damascus at that time, could not deal with those troubles in Babylonia until the next year, when he marched to Babylonia to drive out Nabu-mukin-zeri. This expedition might have lasted for 3 years, which may be also the length of that usurper’s reign.73 Finally, Tiglath-pileser III ascended the Babylonian throne personally. However, the BKLa and other later sources, refer to Tiglath-pileser III by the name “Pulu”, the origin of which must remain unknown, but can hardly be explained as an official name ex- clusively used in Babylonia.74 According to Grayson, it might be “a hypocorism derived from the second element of his name”, but not his Babylonian alias, as was previously proposed by scholars.75

7 Sargon II vs. Merodach-baladan II

The Babylonian counterpart of Sargon II was Merodach-baladan II, who was the leader of a Chaldean tribe (Bit-Yakin)76 from Sealand and might have long pre- pared to seize the throne of Babylonia even from the time of Tiglath-pileser III. The control of Assyria over Babylonia was lost when Sargon II ascended the throne,

70 Grayson, CAH 3/2, 81–82. 71 Brinkman, PKB, 228, n. 1440. 72 For the title see Tadmor and Yamada, RINAP 1, No. 39: 1’. For more details see Brinkman, PKB, 231–234. 73 For the economic text dated to his fourth year see Brinkman, PKB, 239, n. 1530. 74 Brinkman, PKB, 61–62. 75 Grayson, CAH 3/2, 73. 76 For the identification of Bit-Yakin with the Sealand in the Assyrian sources see Frame, BPH, 42–43.

Fei Chen - 9789004430921 Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 07:59:49PM via free access 216 Appendix III for Merodach-baladan II, taking advantage of Assyria’s political chaos at the end of Shalmaneser V’s reign, grasped the Babylonian kingship with the assistance of Elam. There is no doubt that the immediate counterattack of Sargon II failed77 and that Merodach-baladan II could thus continue to exercise the Babylonian kingship for twelve years. About a decade later, Sargon II began to concentrate on retrieving Babylonia. Finally, he defeated Merodach-baladan II, and took over Babylonia once again, assuming the title “King of Babylon”.

77 For the three different sources concerning this campaign see Grayson, CAH 3/2, 98.

Fei Chen - 9789004430921 Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 07:59:49PM via free access