Die Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und vorderasiatische Archäologie (ZA) erscheint jährlich mit zwei Halbbänden. Der Jahrgang kostet zur Zeit 148,-DM, der Halbband 77,-DM (Preisänderungen vorbehalten).
Gedruckt mit Unterstützung der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft
© Copyright 1992 by Walter de Gruyter & Co., D-1000 Berlin 30
Die Zeitschrift und alle in ihr enthaltenen einzelnen Beiträge und Abbildungen sind urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist ohne Zustimmung des Verlages unzulässig und strafbar. Das gilt insbesondere für Vervielfältigungen, Übersetzungen, Mikroverfilmungen und die Einspeicherung und Verarbeitung in elektronischen Systemen.
Printed in Germany
ISSN 0084-5299
Satz und Druck: J. J. Augustin, Glückstadt
Buchbinderische Verarbeitung: Th. Fuhrmann KG, Berlin
By Nadav Na’aman - Tel Aviv
AbstractThe documentary evidence published so far forms a sound basis for the study of the chronology of the late Assyrian empire. The chronological data of the Harran inscription must be eliminated from the discussion. The dates suggested for the Assyrian kings: Ašb. 669-631; Aei. 631-627; Sši. 627-612; Sšl. 626. This chronological framework enables us to present a detailed sequence of the events which led to the final withdrawal of Assyria from Babylonia in 620 B.C. Year 623 was crucial for the Assyrian-Babylonian struggle. The major successful campaign launched by Sši. to Babylonia was abruptly halted due to a rebellion in the west and a campaign to Assyria conducted by the rebellions commander. Although Sši. was able to put down the rebellion, it has serious effect on the Assyrian position in both Babylonia and Ebir-näri.
The chronology of the last kings of Assyria and the historical reconstruction of the events during the eighth decade of the 7th century B.C. have been the subject of numerous works. 1 { }^{1} 1 All the historical reconstructions which have been suggested so far involve either the rejection of certain evidence or hypotheses not compatible with what is known about the history of the Assyrian Empire in former times. The reader may well ask himself why another reconstruction should be offered when so many works have already been written on the same subject, or in other words, what are the chances that yet another scholar might be able to suggest a solu-
Fundamental studies are: M. Falkner, AfD 16 (1952-53) 305-10; D. J. Wiseman, Chronicles of Chaldaean Kings (1956) 5-11, 89-94; J. van Dijk, in UVB 18 (1962) 40 − 43 , 53 − 57 40-43,53-57 40−43,53−57; W. von Soden, WZKM 53 (1957) 316-19; id., ZA 58 (1967) 24155; R. Berger, WZKM 55 (1959) 62-76; id., JCS 19 (1965) 59-78; id., Or. 38 (1969) 237-39; id., AfD 25 (1974-77) 165-66; J. Oates, Iraq 27 (1965) 135-59; J. Reade, JCS 23 (1970) 1-9; E. von Voigtländer, A Survey of Neo-Babylonian History (Diss. 1963; Ann Arbor 1985) 1-37; S. Zawadzki, The Fall of Assyria and Median-Babylonian Relations in Light of the Nabopolassar Chronicle (1988) 2363.
tion for a complex problem where many others before him have failed.
The answer to this question is that many new chronological data have recently been published and these data form a much better basis for investigation of the period under discussion 2 { }^{2} 2. It is suggested that when arranged according to date and place of origin, the new data lead us to a specific chronological scheme, one which conforms well with all other documentary evidence (with one exception-see below) and enables us to present a reasonable description of the events which led to the final withdrawal of Assyria from southern Mesopotamia.
1. The Chronology of the Last Kings of AssyriaI will open the discussion by presenting the data of those kings whose dates can be accurately determined, i.e. Kandalānu (Knd.), Nabopolassar (Npl.) and Ashurbanipal (Ašb.). The data concerning the other rulers are subsequently integrated into this chronological scheme. The Babylonian and Assyrian regnal years are equated to the Gregorian (e.g. year 630 is Gregorian 630/629). No reference is given when the dates are taken from the list of dated Babylonian economic texts recently published by Brinkman/Kennedy 3 { }^{3} 3 and by Kennedy 4 { }^{4} 4.
Knd.'s latest date in his 21st year is 8/III (627 B.C.). His 21st year is represented on tablets written in Babylon (26/I; 6/II), Sīppar (5/II; 13/II) and Borsippa ( 1 / I ; 25 / I I ) 1 / \mathrm{I} ; 25 / \mathrm{II}) 1/I;25/II). He died before the ,eighth month of this year as is evident from a tablet written in
Babylon which is dated 1 + x / 1+x / 1+x/ VIII ,urki [. . .] Kandalānu". Another tablet written in 626 B.C. is dated 2/VIII 22nd year ,urki Kandalānu".
Npl.'s earliest date is 22 / V I 22 / \mathrm{VI} 22/VI of his accession year. Unfortunately the city name is not recorded on the tablet 5 { }^{5} 5. Two other tablets from his accession year are known: one from Uruk (date damaged) and one from an unknown place.
Seven tablets dated in Npl.'s first year and three from his second year were written in Uruk. Only one Urukean tablet is dated in his third year (22/IV) and another, most probably from Uruk, is dated in his fourth year (26/I) 6 { }^{6} 6. Only one Uruk tablet bearing his name is dated in his fifth (16/V) and sixth (19/IX) years. From his seventh year on the other hand, there are four tablets (14/III; 23/VI; 25/ VII; 11/VIII). It therefore seems that Npl. held Uruk from his accession year (626) and until the first half of his third year (623). The situation in years 622 − 620 622-620 622−620 is not immediately clear, but it is certain that he ruled the city in his seventh year (619).
Npl.'s earliest dates from Babylon are 18/XII and 25/XIIb (intercalary month) of his first year. Three tablets are dated in his second (4/II; 30/II; 1 / 1 / 1/ XIIb) and four tablets in his fourth year. Since then there is an unbroken sequence of tablets dated by his regnal years.
Relatively few tablets are known from Borsippa. Significantly there is a sequence of tablets dated in Npl.'s third (15/VIII), fourth (11/V), fifth (20/IX) and sixth (15/V) years. Furthermore, no Assyrian king is mentioned in the Borsippa tablets of these years.
Analysing the evidence from Sippar is more complicated. Knd.'s latest dated tablets are from the 5/II and the 13/II of his 21st year (627). Npl.'s earliest dated tablets on the other hand are from his fifth year (24/IV) 7 { }^{7} 7 and his sixth (6/XII) year. It should however be recalled that the place of origin is not recorded on many tablets dated to Npl.'s second year and to his seventh to twenty-first years, also that many of the British Museum tablets dated to his reign came from illicit excavations at Sippar. Only after the full publication of these tablets shall we be able to establish accurately the history of the city in the time of Npl.
Ašb. last dated tablet from Nippur is from his 38th year (20/III), i.e., 631 B.C. Npl.'s earliest dated tablet is from his 17th year (607) and does not really indicate the time when he conquered the city.
Bearing these data in mind we can first of all eliminate certain chronological schemes suggested in the past for the last Assyrian kings. It is clear that Sin-šar-iškun’s (Sši.) first year cannot antedate the last year of Kud. ( 627 B.C.) for tablets with his dates would then fall within the same years as those of Kud. 8 { }^{8} 8 The chronological scheme suggested by Oates, according to which Sši. ascended the throne only in 623 B.C. and his first full year was 622 is likewise unacceptable. 9 { }^{9} 9 The Uruk tablets dated to his years five to seven would then fall in 618-616 B.C., several years after the unification of Babylonia by Npl.; Sši.'s rule in Sippar as late as 621-620 B.C. is unlikely and his accession date on a tablet from Babylon (21/XII), which according to this chronological scheme would be 623 , would break the uninterrupted sequence of tablets bearing the dates of Npl. Also her dating of Aššur-etil-ilāni (Aei.) to 627 − 623 627-623 627−623 is unlikely since his royal inscriptions would have been written in Babylonian cities occupied by Npl. after his revolt of 626 B.C. (see below).
Dating the accession year of Sši. to 627 on the other hand fits the dates of Kud. and Npl. The former king must have died between 8/III (his latest known date) and 1/VII (Sši.'s earliest known date), the „arki Kandalānu" date of 1 + x / 1+x / 1+x/ VIII fits well into this scheme. In his accession year Sši. is attested in Sippar (8/ VII), Uruk (6/XI) and Babylon (21/XII), cities whose tablets until " then were dated by Kud.'s regnal years, and in Nippur (1/VII). 10 { }^{10} 10 His first year (626) appears only on one tablet (II/II). His years
are not attested again on tablets from the city of Babylon, but tablets bearing his name appear in Sippar in his second and the beginning of his third year ( 625 - 624 B.C.). His first year is not represented in Nippur, but from his second year (earliest date 17/ V) until his fifth year (latest date 9 / V I 9 / \mathrm{VI} 9/VI ) there is an uninterrupted sequence of tablets bearing his name.
After Sši.'s accesion date (6/XI) there is a gap of four years in his Uruk dates; his fifth year (622) is attested on two tablets (4/VIII, 12/VIII). In between these years there is a sequence of tablets, all dated by Npl.'s years from accession (month and day are broken) to the beginning of his fourth year (26/I). Five Uruk tablets of Sši. are from his sixth year (621) and two are from his seventh year (620), the latest tablet being dated 12/X. Two dates of Npl. (16/V year 5; 19/IX year 6) are also attested on tablets from these years. Since the reconstruction of the history of Uruk during these years involves the problem of the “siege documents”, the sequence of events is discussed in more detail in the fifth part of this article.
Only the accession year of Sin-šum-lišir (Sšl.) is attested on tablets written in Nippur, Babylon and Ra’s. Unfortunately, of the eight tablets bearing this date only two have the month name (12/ III and 15 / V 15 / \mathrm{V} 15/V ), so the exact number of months during which he was in power remains uncertain. 11 { }^{11} 11 Dating his reign in 627 as suggested by some scholars 12 { }^{12} 12 creates difficulties, since Kud.'s latest date falls in the second (days: 5 , 6 , 13 , 25 5,6,13,25 5,6,13,25 ) and the third (8th day) months of the year, while Sši.'s earliest date falls four days later, on the 12/ III. It also does not fit the Uruk King-List, according to which Sši. and Sši. reigned in Babylonia for one year (between Kud.'s and Npl.'s reigns). 13 { }^{13} 13 Dating Sšl. to 626 B.C. on the other hand fits the words of the latter source, falling in the year which, according to the description of chronicle BM 25127, was “the first year in which there was no king in the land”. 14 { }^{14} 14 Significantly only one tablet of
Sši.'s first year (dated to 11/II) is known so far. We may safely assume that early in 626 Sšl. rebelled and dominated northern Babylonia for several months, while at approximately the same time Npl. rebelled in southern Babylonia.
There are several clues for dating Aei. Tablets dated with his name are restricted to Nippur, whereas his royal inscriptions have been found in several Babylonian cities (Sippar, Babylon, Dilbat, Nippur). 15 { }^{15} 15 The direct continuity from the time of Ašb. his father is self-evident. The pattern of documentation for Sši. is the reverse of this: none of his inscriptions have so far been discovered in Babylonia-they were all found in Assyria-on the other hand, many tablets dated by his years were found in various Babylonian cities. It is thus clear that Aei. and Sši. reigned in entirely different historical situations, also that the former ruled prior to the rebellion of Npl. and was able to construct buildings and dedicate objects in various Babylonian centres.
Aei.'s earliest known date is 20/VII of his accession year and the latest known date is 1/VIII of his fourth year. In his royal grant tablet he mentions that he ascended the throne after his father illiku nammušišu, i.e. “died”. 16 { }^{16} 16 We may safely assume that Ašb. died between 20/III (his latest date) and 20/VII (Aei.'s earliest date) of year 631 and that Aei ruled Assyria in years 631-627 B.C. There is a one-month discrepancy in the dates of Aei. and Sši. since according to the chronological scheme suggested above Sši. had already ascended the throne on 1/VII 627, whereas Aei.'s latest date is 1/VIII. Such clerical error in far-off Nippur immediately after the ruler’s death in Assyria, however, is understandable. It is therefore suggested that Aei. died shortly before Tishri 627.
The synchronism between the deaths of Aei. and Kud. was possibly recorded in KAV 182 r. 5-7. 17 { }^{17} 17 The three last lines before the colophon may be restored as follows:
(5) [Šamaš-šum-ukin . . . .] Aššur-bāni-apli Ištar-šuma-ēreš
(6) [Kandalānu . . . .] DITTO DITTO
(7) [DITTO . . . .] Aššur-etil-ilāni
It seems to me that death of the two kings in one year provided the immediate incentive for the composition of a synchronistic list in which the kings and their ummānus in Babylonia and Assyria were arranged against one other. The scribe who composed the list was probably Aei.'s ummānu and his name is possibly mentioned in the colophon. 18 { }^{18} 18
The dates now suggested for the Assyrian kings are as follows:
Ashurbanipal 669-631 Aššur-etil-ilāni 631-627
Sin-šar-iškun 627-612 Sin-šum-lišir 626 (only in Babylonia)
The table illustrates the change of rulers in Mesopotamia in years 631-620 B.C. The earliest known date of each king appears in brackets.
This set of dates is similar to the dates suggested by Falkner 19 { }^{19} 19 and van Dijk. 20 { }^{20} 20 This is no coincidence: Falkner wrote her article before the publication of the Harran inscription of Nabonidus’ mother, while van Dijk ignored it in his discussion. 21 { }^{21} 21 Indeed it is this inscription with its chronological data which has confused many scholars who believed that its dates could provide a sound basis for their respective chronological schemes.
According to the Harran inscription, Adda-guppi 1 { }^{1} 1 was born in Ašb.‘s 20th year (649) and died in Nabonidus’ ninth year (547), altogether 104 years; there is thus a two year discrepancy in this calculation. 22 { }^{22} 22 Col. i 29 − 31 29-31 29−31 of the inscription states that she lived under Ašb. until his 42 nd year, under Aei. until his 3 rd year, under Npl. until his 21st year etc. Ašb.'s assumed 42 years (669-627) clashed with the above suggested chronological scheme. Ostensibly, there is one way to avoid this contradiction: assuming a coregency of four years of Ašb. and Aei. 23 { }^{23} 23 However, not only does this assumption contradict the plain words of Aei.'s royal grant tablet cited above, but coregency is not attested elsewhere in the history of Assyria. Such an ad hoc solution with no historical precedent is best avoided. The solution for the 42 years assigned to Ašb. must be sought in the sources of the scribe who composed the inscription.
First it should be noted that the inscription (or its Vorlage) was originally written in Babylonia, as is evident from the close similarity between many of its phrases and those of Nabonidus’ other inscriptions. 24 { }^{24} 24 The three years assigned to Aei. may well be accounted for by the assumption that this was the time when Adda-guppi 1 { }^{1} 1 moved from Harran to Babylonia. 25 { }^{25} 25 All other data were apparently borrowed from king-list(s) current at that time in Babylonia. Since the Babylonian scribe knew that Ašb. ruled in Assyria concurrently with Šamaš-šum-ukin and Kud. in Babylonia, he probably added together the years of the latter kings (21+21), getting 42 years for Ašb. The procedure, of borrowing the throne tenures from king-list(s) and then adding them together, also produced the two-years’ error in the total. It must be recalled that Mesopotamian scribes always calculated the time-spans to past events by a combination of the regnal years borrowed from kinglists. 26 { }^{26} 26 The calculation of the years of Adda-guppi 1 { }^{1} 1 in the Harran
inscription is easily interpreted in the light of this long-established tradition of Mesopotamian scribes.
Table 2The table illustrates the change of power in four Babylonian cities. The earliest and the latest known dates of each king in each city was accurately recorded.
Babylon Sippar Nippur Uruk 628 Kud. 20 Kud. 20 Aei. 3 - 627 Kud. 21 21/II Kud. 21 13/II Aei. 4 1/VIII arki Sši. 21/XII Sši. 8/VII Sši. 1/VII Sši. acc. 6/XI 626 Sši. 15/ - Sši. Npl. 26/VIII Npl. 625 Npl. 1 Sši. 2 Sši. 2 17/V Npl. 1 624 Npl. 2 Sši. 3 11/I Sši. 3 Npl. 2 623 - - Sši. 4 Npl. 3 622 Npl. 4 - Sši. 5 9/VI Npl. 4 26/1 Sši. 5 4/VIII 621 Npl. 5 Npl. 5 24/IV - Sši. 6 620 Npl. 6 Npl. 6 Sši. 7 619 Npl. 7 Npl. 7 - Npl. 7 2. Ashurbanipal and KandalānuThe assumed identification of Ašb. with Kud. should now be briefly discussed. This suggestion has recently been defended in detail by Zawadzki in his book on the fall of Assyria. 27 { }^{27} 27 Before dealing with his new evidence let me present the main arguments, most of which have already been raised in the past, against equating the two kings 28 { }^{28} 28.
(A) All the Assyrian kings who ruled Babylonia appear on Babylonian tablets with their “Assyrian” names. The assumption of the use of two different names for the same king has no parallel in the history of Assyria.
(B) There is a marked difference in the documents unearthed in Babylonia between the numbering of Ašb.'s and Kud.'s years.
Ašb.'s years in his royal inscriptions and in the Nippur tablets are counted from his first year ( 668 B.C.), whereas Kud.'s years are counted from 647 B.C. Thus for example, Ašb.'s prism from the temple of Gula in Babylon is dated in his 30th year ( 639 B.C.) while an economic tablet written in the same year and in the same place is dated Kud.'s ninth year. 29 { }^{29} 29
© In their inscriptions all Assyrian kings who ruled Babylonia bear the title “King of Babylonia”. Although many of the royal inscriptions of Ašb. were composed after 648 B.C., in no inscription does he bear this royal title. 30 { }^{30} 30
(D) In the synchronistic king-list from Ashur written immediately after the death of Ašb., his name appears twice vis-à-vis the names of Šamaš-šum-ukin and Kud. Such a presentation in a contemporaneous text can be explained only by the assumption that the scribe regarded them as two different kings.
(E) There is no trustworthy Babylonian source which refers to Ašb. as King of Babylonia. The text of Eusebius, presented by Zawadzki as a sound basis for the identification of Ašb. with Kud., lacks authority and cannot be considered a reliable source for such identification. 31 { }^{31} 31
Of the evidence which Zawadzki presents to support the identification, the office held by Šamaš-danninanni deserves a special discussion. 32 { }^{32} 32 According to his analysis, in 647 B.C. he was appointed governor over all Babylonia; his nomination is incongruous with the coronation of a new king in the same year, in the same territory. To clarify the problem I have analysed in detail - BIN 2, 132, the text where Šamaš-dinanni’s office in Babylonia is mentioned. 33 { }^{33} 33
BIN 2, 132 is a judicial report describing an extended dispute over a group of Puqudu people who were consecrated by Sargon and Sennacherib to the service of Ishtar and Nana of Uruk. The
29 { }^{29} 29 K. Nassoubi, AfK 2 (1924-25) 104; Brinkman/Kennedy, JCS 35, 42.
30 { }^{30} 30 M. J. Seux, Épithètes royales Akkadiennes et Sumériennes (1967) 301-2. However, Ašb. bore the broader title of šakkunakku Bābili šar mät Šamrri u Akkadī formerly held by his brother and rival Šamaš-šum-ukin (ibid., 278).
31 { }^{31} 31 This was emphasized by Smith, JRAS 1928, 623-24.
32 { }^{32} 32 The Fall of Assyria, 61-62.
33 { }^{33} 33 For earlier discussions of the text, see Borger, HKL 1, 216; T. Frymer-Kensky, The Judicial Ordeal in the Ancient Near East (Diss. 1977; Ann Arbor 1985) 40610; Brinkman, Prelude to Empire, 75 n. 368; 105-6 n. 526; cf. H. M. Kümmel, Familie, Beruf und Amt im spätbab. Uruk (1979) 139 n. 226.
case was first decided through a huršān-ordeal by Esarhaddon and the temple won the case (lines 1-7).
The rest of the obverse is severely damaged and till now has not been discussed in detail. I would first suggest a tentative translation for lines 7 − 27 7-27 7−27 and then discuss the role of Šamaš-dinanni in the case:
(7) Afterwards (8) Kudurru, governor of Uruk, the . . . of Uruk. (9) with the Urukeans [ga]ve them. (10) Into [Uruk?] Šamaš-dinanni, governor of Akkad, (11) with the Šandabakku [of Nippu]r 7 { }^{7} 7 (it-ti ša-da-bak-k[i NIBB]U. 7 K I { }^{7} \mathrm{KI} 7KI ) to[ok the ro]ad 7 { }^{7} 7 (hu$l\left[\zeta^{7} \cdot i l-i l-i-k u-\bar{u}\right)$. (12) Šamaš-dinanni, governor of Akkad, against Kudurru, governor of Uruk, (13) brou[ght] a lawsu[it saying] (di$i-n[a m] i g − r [ e − e − m a u m − m a ] ) : " W h y ( [ m ] i − n a m − m a ) t h e P u q u d e a n s ( 14 ) a r e [ . . . S a r g o n a n d ] S e n n a c h e r i b w i [ t h′ ] t h e i r [ s o n ] s ig-r[e-e-ma um-ma]): "Why ([m]i-nam-ma) the Puqudeans (14) are [. . . Sargon and] Sennacherib wi[th'] their [son]s ig−r[e−e−maum−ma]):"Why([m]i−nam−ma)thePuqudeans(14)are[...Sargonand]Sennacheribwi[th′]their[son]s{ }^{7} ( 15 ) g a v e ( t h e m ) t o [ I s ˇ t a r − U r u k ] a n d N a n a ^ . ( 16 ) I [ n t h e h o u s e (15) gave (them) to [Ištar-Uruk] and Nanâ. (16) I[n the house (15)gave(them)to[Isˇtar−Uruk]andNana^.(16)I[nthehouse{ }^{7} o f I s ˇ t a r − U r u k a n d ] N a n a ^ t h e y s t a y e d , a n d ( 17 ) a [ f t e r of Ištar-Uruk and] Nanâ they stayed, and (17) a[fter ofIsˇtar−Urukand]Nana^theystayed,and(17)a[fter{ }^{7} t h a t . . . . g a ] v e t h e m , ( 18 ) N a b u ^ that . . . . ga]ve them, (18) Nabû that....ga]vethem,(18)Nabu^{ }^{7} − [ -[ −[\left.s \bar{i}\right]-\bar{s}[ e − z i b e-zib e−zib] s o n o f A p l a − a d i son of Apla-adi sonofApla−adi{ }^{7} ] a g a i n s t t h e m ( 19 ) [ . . . T h e P u q ] u d e a n s , ( 20 ) w h o i n t h e [ t i m e ] against them (19) [. . . The Puq]udeans, (20) who in the [time ]againstthem(19)[...ThePuq]udeans,(20)whointhe[time{ }^{7} o f E s a r h a d d o n of Esarhaddon ofEsarhaddon{ }^{7} f o r a h u r s ˇ a ˉ n for a huršān forahursˇaˉn{ }^{7} ] w i t h N a b u ^ − u s ˇ e ˊ z i b ( 21 ) [ w e n t a n d w e r e c l e a r e d ] a n d a f t e r w a r d s ( 22 ) [ K u d u r r u , ] with Nabû-ušézib (21) [went and were cleared] and afterwards (22) [Kudurru, ]withNabu^−usˇeˊzib(21)[wentandwerecleared]andafterwards(22)[Kudurru,{ }^{7} g o v e r n o r o f U r u k , governor of Uruk, governorofUruk,{ }^{7} w i t ] h wit]h wit]h{ }^{7} t h e . . . ( 23 ) [ g a v e t h e m the . . . (23) [gave them the...(23)[gavethem{ }^{7} . . ( 24 ) . . . . A s h u r b a n i ] p a l . . (24) . . . . Ashurbani]pal ..(24)....Ashurbani]pal{ }^{7} ( [ A N . S ˇ A ˉ B . D O . ] I B I L A ([AN.ŠĀB.DO.]IBILA ([AN.SˇAˉB.DO.]IBILA{ }^{7} ) , k i n g o f A [ s s y r i a ] , w h o ( 25 ) [ . . . . ] t h e y w e n t ( 26 ) [ . . . t o t h e h u r s ˇ a ˉ n ), king of A[ssyria], who (25) [. . . .] they went (26) [. . . to the huršān ),kingofA[ssyria],who(25)[....]theywent(26)[...tothehursˇaˉn{ }^{7}$ he] sent them ([i]š-pur-šu-nu-ti$m[a]) ( 27 ) [ a n d t h e y w e r e c l e a r e d . A s h u r b a n i p a l (27) [and they were cleared. Ashurbanipal (27)[andtheywerecleared.Ashurbanipal{ }^{7}$ to] Ishtar-Uruk [and Nana released them].
The next part (lines 28-41) enumerates 28 names described (line 42) as " 28 Puqudeans who were cleared in the huršān-ordeal". It certainly refers to the judicial proceedings which took place in the time of Ašb. (and not to the earlier ordeal), emphasizing that these 28 men, who must have been the offspring of the originally consecrated Puqudeans, were cleared of the claims of the Urukeans. The tablet bears an Assyrian official seal reserved for such documents. 34 { }^{34} 34
It is clear that the Assyrian kings and their officials consistently supported the claim of the temple of Ištar and Nanâ, while the Urukeans contested the claim that the Puqudeans formed part of
the temple personnel. The role of Šamaš-dinanni, “the governor (šakīn māti) of Akkad” must be examined against this background. He may well be the same as Šamaš-danninanni, who bore the title “governor of Akkad” or “provincial official of Babylon” and was an eponym in Assyria in 643/42, when Edition A of the annals was written. 35 { }^{35} 35 Since Kudurru is mentioned in tablets dated 647646 B.C., 36 { }^{36} 36 the case under discussion was probably written in the mid-40’s of the seventh century. Šamaš-d(ann)inanni acted in the case as representative of the Assyrian government, but there is no indication that he held executional administrative authority over all Babylonia (contra Zawadzki). Marduk-xx, who bore the title “provincial official (bēl pihati) of Babylon”, appears in a list of witnesses only in the fourth place, while another official who also bore the title of bēl pihati is mentioned as witness only in the sixth place. 37 { }^{37} 37 Very little is known of the officials bearing the title “governor of Babylon/Akkad” and it is quite possible that their power and actual authority were less than that of the Assyrian šaknus.
When describing his arrangements in Babylonia after the conquest, Ašb. in his annals wrote: “I established over them (i.e. the people of Babylonia) governors and officials whom I selected” 38 { }^{38} 38 Kud.'s authority must have been very limited, which is why nothing is known about his activities as king. He was probably a Babylonian who had supported Ašb. during the war against his rebellious brother, afterwards raised to the nominal rank of king but without any political or military authority. 39 { }^{39} 39 True power was in the hands of the Assyrians and their supporters among the Babylonians; they exercised this power as long as they were strong enough to hold the land under their sway.
35 { }^{35} 35 For the date of the composition of Ašb.'s Edition A, see H. Tadmor, in Proceedings of the 25th International Congress of Orientalists 1 (1962) 240; Grayson, ZA 70 (1980) 231-32, 245. For the titles of Šamaš-danninanni, see Brinkman, Prelude to Empire, 107 n. 534.
36 { }^{36} 36 M. Dietrich, AOAT 7 (1970) 98; Brinkman, Or. 46 (1977) 309-12; Kümmel, Familie, Beruf und Amt, 139.
37 { }^{37} 37 T. G. Pinches, AfO 13 (1939-41) 52: rev. 5; E. F. Weidner, AfO 16 (1952-53) 41:14. For a general discussion, see G. Frame, RA 76 (1982) 157-66.
38 { }^{38} 38 M. Streck, VAR VII/2, 40: iv 103-105.
39 { }^{39} 39 The closest parallel to the enthronement of Kud. is that of Bēl-ibni. He is described in the inscriptions of Sennacherib (Luckenbill, OIP 2, 54:54, 57:13) as “a native of Babylon who like a young puppy grew up in my palace” who was placed over the Babylonians as king. See Brinkman, JCS 25 (1973) 91.
The chronological framework established in the preceding section is the basis for the historical discussion. Only the main outlines are discussed in the following sections with emphasis on the major problems.
Aei. ascended the throne after the death of his father Ašb. (631 B.C.). Upon his accession he met certain opposition which he overcame with the help of Sšl. 40 { }^{40} 40 It is well-known that from the middle of the eighth century B.C. onwards a change of sovereign in Assyria was frequently associated with rioting and revolts which sometimes lasted quite a long time. Aei.'s accession is no exception and there is nothing to suggest that the assumed troubles were more than a short lived episode. The distribution of Aei.'s inscriptions in the major Babylonian cities (Babylon, Dilbat, Sippar and Nippur), the letter sent to him from Babylon (ABL 469), and the dating of the Nippur tablets by his years-all these suggest that he continued to rule Babylonia and exercised the same authority as his father had exercised there in his later years.
The circumstances of Aei.'s death and the transfer of power to his brother Sši. are so far unknown. There is no evidence that the latter was promoted by a coup d’état or that he deposed his brother and took his throne, as some scholars have suggested. 41 { }^{41} 41 The statement in his inscriptions-that the gods selected him ina birīt maššija/maššišu-can hardly refer to Aei., since birit requires a plural object. Worthy of note are the following semantic parallels: (1) ina birīt maššija uttānnima (Böhl, MLVS 3, 35:17) as compared with ina puh̆ur ahh̆eja rabāti kiniš tuttānima (Borger, Asathaddon, 16:14) and with ina naphar maliki kiniš uttānnima (Lie, Sargon, 42:270); (2) ina birīt maššišu kiniš ippalsiūšuma (Borger, JCS 19, 76:5) as compared with ina kullat maliki kiniš ippalsanima (Luckenbill, OIP 2, 85:3-4). It is thus clear that Sši. was selected “from among my/his equals”, i.e. his brothers who were also candidates for the Assyrian throne. 42 { }^{42} 42.
40 { }^{40} 40 Postgate (above, n. 16). The treaty that was imposed by an Assyrian king over three persons and was erroneously assigned to Sšl. should be assigned to Sši.; see S. Parpola and K. Watanabe, Neu-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths (SAA 2, 1988) xxxiii, 72 − 73 72-73 72−73.
41 { }^{41} 41 Von Soden, WZKM 53, 317-19; id., ZA 58, 250-53; Tadmor (above, n. 35) 241; id., in: H. Tadmor and M. Weinfeld (eds.) History, Historiography and Interpretation (1983) 52; Oates, Iraq 27, 146-48; Reade, JCS 23, 4-5.
42 { }^{42} 42 Borger, WZKM 55, 73 n. 41; Grayson, in: J. W. Wevers and D. B. Redford (eds.),
Sšl. ascended the throne in the middle of 627 B.C. shortly after the death of Kud. Tablets bearing his accession year have been discovered in Babylon, Sippar, Nippur and Uruk; it seems that he was regarded as King of Assyria and Babylonia. This situation however did not last long: at the beginning of the following year (626) his general Sšl. rebelled and was able to take control of Babylon, Nippur and probably other North Babylonian cities. The background for the revolt is not clear. Sšl. was Aei.'s chief supporter and during the latter’s reign may well have been the strong man in the Empire. The transfer of power may have endangered his position, particularly since the new king decided to hold Assyria and Babylonia under his own direct control. Be that as it may, it is clear that Sšl. rebelled and tried to strengthen his own position in Babylonia against his rival’s center of power in Assyria.
Was Npl. at this stage Sšl.'s ally? This important question has no clear answer, since hardly anything is known of the early career of Npl. 43 { }^{43} 43 Hellenistic tradition-according to which Npl. was an official who had served under Sarakos (i.e. Sši.) before he revolted and became King of Babylonia-is of questionable value. There is one tablet dated 22/VI of Npl.'s accession year, and another from his 20th year mentions 10/IV accession year. 44 { }^{44} 44 Since these dates fall within the throne tenure of Sšl., it may be suggested that the two formed an alliance against the new ruler who had declared himself King of Assyria and Babylonia and that the scribes in various Babylonian cities were able to date tablets by either name. However, it is equally possible that Npl. had taken advantage of the Sšl. revolt to strengthen his own position, and with the fall of the latter had rebelled. The second alternative has the advantage of requiring fewer assumptions, but who knows?
There are no details concerning the armed struggle between Sši. and Sšl. or of the first stage of Npl.'s revolt, since our main source, chronicle BM 25127, begins shortly before 12/VI 626 (see below). From the concentration of tablets between the third and the fifth month of Sšl.'s accession year (626) and the total absence of any of a later date it may be inferred that around this time he was
crushed by Sši. Thus when Npl.'s troops attacked Babylon shortly before 12/VI 626 they fought the garrison left behind by Sši. These two rivals remained in the historical arena and their struggle, which lasted fifteen years, decided the history of Mesopotamia for many years to come.
4. Chronicle BM 25127 and Nabopolassar’s Rise to Power626, the year in which three rivals fought for hegemony in Babylonia, was treated differently in various Babylonian chronological and chronographic texts. The Ptolemaic Canon assigned Shamash-shum-ukin and Kud. 42 years and Npl. 21 years, ignoring the problematic year altogether. 45 { }^{45} 45 The Uruk King-List assigned the year to Sši. and Sšl., thereby acknowledging the legitimacy of both Assyrian rivals. Chronicle BM 25127 refers to 626 as “the first year in which there was no king in the land” (line 14), 46 { }^{46} 46 emphasizing that Npl. ascended the throne on 26/VIII. Npl.'s claim that months VIII-XII formed his rēš šarrūti was thus accepted, whereas the claims by the Assyrian contenders were rejected. In another Babylonian chronicle the rebellions and the intensive fighting of 626 are described thus: “After Kandalānu, in the accession year of Nabopolassar, there were insurrections in Assyria and Akkad. There were hostilities and warfare continued”. 47 { }^{47} 47 Year 626 is described as the rēs šarrūti of Npl. with no reference to his Assyrian rivals.
The interpretation of the first paragraph in chronicle BM 25127 (lines 1 − 17 1-17 1−17 ) is disputed among scholars. Following the interpretation of Wiseman the editor of the chronicle, many scholars have assumed that it refers to a single year. 48 { }^{48} 48 Others however suggested that the events of two years were combined in this paragraph: lines 1 − 9 1-9 1−9 referring to year 627 , whereas lines 10 − 17 10-17 10−17 refer to year 626. 49 626 .{ }^{49} 626.49 Zawadzki recently defended the latter suggestion at length 50 { }^{50} 50 and it should be examined in detail.
The basic fault of the two-years hypothesis is that it is not in accordance with the consistent structure of the chronicle: the
43 { }^{43} 43 E. Bickerman, Chronology of the Ancient World (1980) 108; Grayson, RIA VI 101 .
44 { }^{44} 44 For the translation, see Brinkman, Prelude to Empire, 110 n. 550.
45 { }^{45} 45 Grayson, ABC, 132:24-27.
46 { }^{46} 46 Wiseman, CCK, 9-7; Oates, Iraq 27, 143-46; von Voigtlander, Neo-Babylonian History, 18 − 20 18-20 18−20.
48 { }^{48} 48 Van Dijk, UVB 18, 55-56; Brinkman, Prelude to Empire, 108-110.
50 { }^{50} 50 Zawadzki, The Fall of Assyria, 48-54; id., Eos 74 (1986) 337-43.
eustomary horizontal dividing line between years and the introductory chronological phrase indicating a specific year are both missing. 31 { }^{31} 31 Furthermore, the chronological statement in line 14 (“the first year in which there was no king in the land”) refers to an aforementioned year-unit and fits only the one-year assumption. No explanation for these anomalies has been offered by the supporters of the two-years hypothesis, nor have they been able to fit the Babylonian tablet dated to 21/XII of Sši.'s accession year, which would be six months after the capture of the city by the troops of Npl., into their chronological schemes. The arguments raised in support of their claim are: (1) the listing of one month out of order if the year refers only to 626 B.C., and (2) the sequence of events which can hardly be integrated within one year. In the following discussion I will try to show instead that the sequence of events in the passage is not in accordance with the assumption that two years have been combined in it.
(A) According to the chronicle the Babylonian army conquered the city of Babylon before 12/VI (lines 1-4), so Npl.'s enthronement in the city shortly afterwards (on the 26/VIII) would be only natural. Yet according to the two-years hypothesis he waited a very long time (fifteen months) before ascending the throne of the city which had been uninterruptedly occupied by his troops.
(B) Assyrian campaigns were usually conducted during the spring and summer; only in exceptional situations were campaigns conducted in autumn or winter. Their offensive in the sixth and seventh months (lines 4 − 13 4-13 4−13 ) - as a continuation to the bitter summer fighting which culminated in the capture by the enemy of Babylon, the capital - is self-evident: an immediate attack on Babylon shortly after its capture is what one would expect in this situation. Yet according to the two-years hypothesis the Assyrians were very slow in their reaction to the fall of the city (before Tišri 627): they returned to Babylonia only in the second month of year 626, waited all summer long and attacked the occupied city in autumn, fourteen months after its fall.
© The Assyrian commanders were well aware of the fact that their best chance of quelling the rebellion was an immediate offensive, before their rival was able to strengthen his position and marshall his forces. Yet according to the above hypothesis, no
Assyrian campaign was conducted between Tišri 627, when the Assyrians failed to conquer Uruk (lines 7-9), and Tišri 626, when they were defeated near Babylon (lines 10-13); instead they gave their rival a whole year in which to prepare everything required for future battles.
It is clear that the two-years hypothesis creates many more problems than it solves and is best abandoned. As has been suggested by scholars, the chain of events as described in the chronicle is best explained by the assumption that the Assyrians (as well as the Babylonians) split their army and fought simultaneously in different places. 32 { }^{32} 32 This was not unusual: on many other campaigns the Assyrian army was also divided into task forces, each with its specific mission. Only the large-scale battles conducted in the open field demanded the concentration of all the task forces, to form a mass of power and to decide the battle. 33 { }^{33} 33 We may conclude that lines 1 − 17 1-17 1−17 of the chronicle refer to the events which took place in year 626 and should be interpreted within this chronological framework.
The opening lines of the chronicle are partly damaged, but may possibly be reconstructed as follows: 34 { }^{34} 34
(1) [In the month of xx], when [Nabopolassar] had sent [troops t]o Babylon, at night
(2) [they entered the city an]d did battle within the city all day
(3) [(and) inflicted a defeat. The garri]son of Sin-šar-iškun fled to Assyria.
(4) He (Npl.) stationed [troops 7 { }^{7} 7 with]in the city. On the twelfth day of the month of Elul the army of Assyria
(5) [went down], entered Šasnaku, set fire to the temple
(6) [(and) carried off the booty]. And in the month of Tišri the gods of Kiš went to Babylon.
(7) [On the xx day the army] of Assyria went to Nippur . . . .
Line 2 was kindly collated for me by C. B. F. Walker. In his words: " i i i o is possible but it is very damaged. There is certainly not enough now to justify Wiseman’s k i" k i^{\text {" }} ki" . Line 3: [Št.Št GAR.MEŠ 12 δ u { }^{12} \delta u 12δu-In]-In.
Line 4: [EriN.MEŠ (ou lî̀̀)bi. The stationing of troops is what one expects after the conquest of the city.
Line 5: [ît-tar-da-nu] (compare line 9).
Line 6: [NIL.GA E.ME] (compare line 20). Note the similarity between lines 5-6 and lines 20 − 21 20-21 20−21 of the chronicle: in both cases the conquest and the plundering of a city brought about the transfer of the city gods to a safer place.
Line 7: For the restoration, see Borger, JCS 19, 63 b.
The conquest of Babylon by the troops of Npl. is described in the first episode (lines 1-4). The garrison of Sši. must have been stationed in the city after his victory over Sšl. in the first half of year 626. The details of the fighting between Sši. and Sšl. as well as of Npl.'s early operations were apparently described on another tablet which ends with the events of summer 626. Npl. took the city of Babylon by surprise, sending part of his army to conquer the city while he himself attacked the city of Nippur. The Assyrians immediately reacted: a part of the army was sent to Nippur, they succeeded in driving Npl. from the city and pursued him up to Uruk, but failed to conquer the city (lines 4-9); a second task force was sent to re-conquer Babylon but was defeated (lines 10-13). The Assyrian failure to conquer either Uruk or Babylon in autumn 626 had far-reaching consequences: it enabled Npl. to ascend the throne of Babylon (lines 14-15) and to consolidate his power in the land.
A curious remark appears in line 10 of the chronicle: “In the month of Iyyar the army of Assyria went down to Akkad”. It interrupts the sequence of events and is either a scribal mistake or an intentional repetition on what has already been said, in order to emphasize that this was the same army which had operated (against Sšl.?) at the beginning of the year.
In the years 625 − 624 625-624 625−624 the Assyrians tried with little success to quell the rebellion. They concentrated their efforts on northern Babylonia, in the areas of Sippar and Babylon. The chronicle of year 625 (Npl.'s first year) reports that on 17/I “a panic overcame the city 〈of Sippar〉, Šamaš and the gods of Šapazzu went to Babylon” (lines 18-19). On the 21/II the Assyrian army conquered Šallat, and on the previous day (20/II) “the gods of Sippar went to Babylon” (line 21) 55 { }^{55} 55 It is clear that the scribe erred in line 18 and that the reference was to the city of Sippar, against which the Assyrian onslaught was directed. Furthermore, it is evident that in
this campaign the Assyrians conquered the city, as indicated by five Sippar tablets dated Sši.'s second and third years (1/II year 2 to 11/I year 3). This constitutes remarkable evidence for the tendentiousness of the chronicler who had concealed the fact that Sippar was captured by the Assyrians, recording only that the gods of Sippar, most prominent of which was Šamaš, were brought to Babylon in fear of the impending Assyrian attack.
The tendentiousness of the author of the chronicle is revealed throughout his composition. It has already been noted that he refused to admit Assyrian rule in Babylonia in year 626, describing it as a year in which there was no king in the land (line 14). From his description he further omitted the failure of the Babylonians to conquer Nippur in Sši.'s third year, as is known from the “siege documents” unearthed in the city. 56 { }^{56} 56 One wonders whether the Assyrians conquered the city of Kiš in the month of Tišri 626, shortly before their attack on Babylon in the same month, as might be inferred from the statement that the gods of the city “went” to Babylon (line 6). Acts of sacrilege by the Assyrians are deliberately emphasized (lines 4-6), and this impression is magnified by the references to the flight of the Babylonian gods for fear of the Assyrians (lines 6, 18-19, 21). Npl. on the other hand acted piously and the city gods which the Assyrians have previously despoiled he returned to Susa (lines 16-17). The chronicler’s pro-Babylonian outlook further explains why it is always Babylonian successes which are emphasized, whereas the many campaigns conducted by the Assyrians ended in failure. Although the data the writer presented may well be authentic, the selection of events which are introduced and the manner in which they are presented are remarkably pro-Babylonian and anti-Assyrian. 57 { }^{57} 57
55 { }^{55} 55 A. L. Oppenheim, Iraq 17 (1955) 69-89. It is possible that Nippur was also besieged in Sši.s second year. This may be inferred from an analysis of the last paragraph of Krickmann, TMH 2/3 Nr. 35 = 35= 35= San Nicolò, BR 8/7 Nr. 63, a text briefly discussed in n. 10 above. The passage includes three different loans: lines 18 − 20 18-20 18−20 (sic!), 21 − 23 21-23 21−23 and 24 − 26 24-26 24−26. The latter section deals with a loan of one shekel of silver bearing no interest and to be repaid “at the opening of the gate”. A part of the first loan was also free of interest (see CAD § 161 a \S 161 \mathrm{a} §161a ), but the remainder possibly bears the usual interest of 20 % 20 \% 20%. A suggested translation: (18) " [ x … [x \ldots [x… silver are debited on PN] son of PN, without interest. (19) He will pay back [at the opening of the gat]e. (20) [x . . silver to his debit] with interest, in the month Tammuz, the second year of Sši.". The loan was given in the third month of 625 and at that time Nippur must have been under siege.
57 { }^{57} 57 For the problem of source criticism of chronicle BM 21901, see Zawadzki, The 18 ZA 81
Year 623 was crucial for the struggle between Assyria and Babylonia. Unfortunately the chronicle’s description of the chain of events is badly broken. Following is a suggested reconstruction of the text: 58 { }^{58} 58
(29) [The third year]: On the eighth [day of the month xx] Der rebelled against Assyria. On the fifteenth day of the month of Tišri
(30) [Itti-ili 7 { }^{7} 7 attacked 7 { }^{7} 7 Nippur. 7 { }^{7} 7 In th]at year the king of Assyria and his army went down to Akkad,
(31) [captured 7 { }^{7} 7 Der, 7 { }^{7} 7 carried] off [the booty] and brought (it) into Nippur. After Itti-ili
(32) [he went, the city of Uruk 7 { }^{7} 7 he rava]ged and stationed a garrison in Nippur.
(33) [In the month of xx PN] went upstream [from] Ebir-nāri and towards
(34) [the land 7 { }^{7} 7 of Assyria 7 { }^{7} 7 he proceeded. The city of G]N he ravaged and set out for Nineveh.
(35) [The army of Sin-šar-iškun, king of Assy]ria, who had come to battle against him
(36) [ … … [\ldots \ldots […… whe]n they saw him they bowed down before him.
Line 30: The restoration [mu].II was suggested by Wiseman, CCK 79, note on line 30 .
Line 31: [. . . makkūra u s ˉ ı ˉ ı ˉ ı ˉ l − n a u \bar{s} \bar{\imath} \bar{\imath} \bar{\imath} l-n a usˉˉˉˉl−na; compare line 20. For arki, compare line 8.
Line 32: For the restoration, see von Soden, WZKM 53, 319; Borger, JCS 19, 64 b. For the restoration of the city name see below.
Line 33: The mention of ebir nāri (i.e. the areas west of the Euphrates) indicates that the usurper came from Syria. The verb šos a ˉ \bar{a} aˉ refers to the route along the Euphrates or along one of its tributaries (i.e. the Balih or the Habur rivers). Tentative restoration: [iso MN PN Ya (kuzi] v-bir In i ı ˉ − y n − a m − n a i \bar{\imath}-y n-a m-n a iˉ−yn−am−na.
Line 34: Originally I restored [. . . a c w I f a r − r ] a − u u { }^{a c w} I f a r-r] a-u u acwIfar−r]a−uu. The broken sign was kindly collated by Walker, who noted (letter of 23 March 1988) that “the sign is as copied by Wiseman except that one can detect the lower side of a preceding horizontal at the middle level (i.e. as the first wedge of L A \mathrm{L} \mathrm{A} LA )”. Although n [ r ] { }_{n}[\mathrm{r}] n[r] is not altogether
impossible", it is far from certain. The ravaged city was probably situated on the way from Syria to Nineveh.
Line 35: The reading [ … A s ]I δ a r I [\ldots A s]^{\mathrm{I}} \delta \mathrm{ar}^{\mathrm{I}} […As]IδarI was confirmed by collation.
In year 623 the Assyrian army launched a major campaign into Babylonia in an effort to break the Babylonian power and to quell local rebellions. It was lead by the Assyrian king, i.e. Sši., who was not mentioned in the chronicle description of the 625-624 campaigns. The Assyrian success in the early stages of the campaign is recorded in the chronicle (lines 29-32). Furthermore the drastic reduction in the number of tablets dated in this year, reflecting a regression in economic activity, is a good indication of the seriousness of the situation as a result of the Assyrian onslaught.
The offensive was however abruptly halted. The absence of the king and his troops from Assyria was exploited by a contender to the throne who attacked Sši. from the rear by launching a campaign against his capital. A hastily-organized army was sent out against him but surrendered without a battle (lines 35 − 36 35-36 35−36 ), the rebel was able to reach Nineveh and ascended the throne. The chronicler designated him “an usurper king” (šarru hamma’u). This designation and the surrender of the Assyrian troops before him without a battle indicate that he was an Assyrian, possibly the commander of the Assyrian army in the West and not a foreign prince. 59 { }^{59} 59 Whether he was a son of the royal house of Assyria is still unknown.
For the years from late 623 to 617 we have no chronicle account and in order to gain some idea of the chain of events we must rely on the economic tablets. It is clear that Sši. was able to put down the rebellion, possibly after 100 days (line 39), and that he ruled Assyria until 612 B.C. The rebellion however, had a serious effect on the Assyrian position both in the west and in the south-east. It is no coincidence that Josiah’s cultic reform began in the eighteenth year of the king, i.e. 622 B.C. (2 Kings 22 : 3 ; 23 : 23 22: 3 ; 23: 23 22:3;23:23 ); only at that point did he feel sufficiently secure to conduct a comprehensive purge throughout the kingdom and eradicate the “foreign” cults, including those which had come in under Assyrian political and cultural influence. 60 { }^{60} 60 It may further be suggested that the alliance between Sši. and Psammetichus King of Egypt as reflected in
chronicle BM 21901 (“Gadd chronicle”) was concluded in the late 620 's; in these years the Assyrians retreated from Eber-nāri, and Egypt (gradually or rapidly) took their place. Sši. won both an assurance of military aid and a free hand to handle the immediate threat in the south-east.
The rebellion of the western commander severely shook the Assyrian’s position in Babylonia. According to the chronological scheme suggested above, Uruk came under siege not later than 4/VIII 622 (Sši. year 5). Zawadzki has demonstrated that šattu ša edēl bäbi (“the year when the gate was closed”) is identical with the fourth year of edēl bäbi. 61 { }^{61} 61 He has further shown that all the local officials mentioned in the edēl bäbi texts belonged to the pro-Sši. faction. 62 { }^{62} 62 It is thus clear that the city was held by the troops of Sši. and was besieged by the army of Npl.
When did Uruk fall into the hands of the Assyrians? Tentatively I suggest that it was conquered by Sši. in the course of his offensive of autumn 623 (lines 31-32 of the chronicle). According to this reconstruction Itti-ili, probably a commander of Npl., attacked the city of Nippur (lines 29-30) and when he retreated the Assyrian troops followed him and conquered Uruk (for a somewhat similar situation, compare lines 7 − 9 7-9 7−9 of the chronicle). The rebellion however turned things upside-down: not only did the Assyrian offensive come to an immediate halt, but Sši. was forced to organize his troops and leave Babylonia in order to fight the usurper king. Thus Npl. was able to besiege Uruk in the following year (622), not later than the 4/VIII (which is the date on the earliest “siege document”).
Since šattu ša edēl bäbi refers to the same date as the fourth year of edēl bäbi, it is reasonable to suggest that the “fourth year” refers to a king’s year. To which of the two rival kings does this date refer? There is no definite answer to this question, but it seems preferable to assume that it refers to Npl. and that in this indirect manner the scribes were able to express their recognition of the legitimacy of the Babylonian king. There is one edēl bäbi text that is dated the 16 / V 16 / \mathrm{V} 16/V of Npl. year 5 and isolated texts that are dated during his reign (19/IX Npl. 6 and possibly 26/I Npl. 4). In the fluid political situation of that time these anomalies are understandable. I accordingly suggest that Uruk fell into Assyrian hands
after the month of Tišri 623, was besieged by Npl. before 4/VIII 622 and fell into his hands at the end of 620 . That the city was in his hands in 619 is evident from four tablets of his seventh year written in Uruk (the earliest is dated 14/III).
Sši.'s latest date from Nippur is 9/VI year 5. Significantly this date falls shortly before the earliest “siege document” from Uruk. We cannot establish whether the city fell during this year or shortly afterwards since there is a gap in the Nippur tablets in years 621-607 B.C. The gap in documentation may well be explained by the assumption that Nippur was partly destroyed when it was conquered by Npl.'s troops. It is thus clear that Nippur and Uruk were captured by Npl. no later than the end of year 620, and that since 619 Assyria had lost its last foothold in Babylonia and Npl. was master of the entire land. 63 { }^{63} 63
6. Concluding RemarksIn conclusion I would like to emphasize the following four points:
(A) The history of the later years of the Assyrian Empire can be written on the basis of our knowledge of the history of the Empire. No conjectures of a double name, a coregency, divided rule over parts of the Empire, or a rapid change of sovereignty over Babylonian cities is necessary in order to interpret the documents.
(B) The hypothesis of a long civil war in Assyria as an explanation for the fall of the Empire is not supported by the evidence. 64 { }^{64} 64 There is no text which mentions a struggle between Aei. and Sši., though the background for the death of the former remains unknown. Rebellions which broke out following the deaths of rulers and the enthronement of their heirs are well-documented throughout the history of the Assyrian Empire and the rebellion which broke out upon Sši.'s accession to the throne was no exception: it did not last long and in itself it cannot be regarded as a decisive event that lead to the fall of the Empire. The rebellion that broke out in the fourth year of Sši. (623 B.C.) was indeed a novelty, emerging as the direct outcome of the inability of the new king to crush the Babylonian revolt. It seems that the rebellion did not last
long and was possibly put down after 100 days. It brought about the loss of the areas of Eber-nāri and their transfer to Egypt in exchange for an alliance and military support, also an immediate deterioration of the Assyrian position in Babylonia. One must not however forget that even before 623 most of Babylonia was in the hands of Npl.; the rebellion enabled him to conquer the Assyrian strongholds in central Babylonia and drive Assyria out of the country.
© The fall of Assyria was in the first place the result of her failure to solve the “Babylonian problem” and Sši.'s inability to crush the rebellion. Babylonia had for many years been a thorny problem for the Sargonids and many different strategies were put into effect in an effort to provide a suitable solution to the problem. Rebellions however broke out again and again; the last one, that of Npl., succeeded where all former revolts had failed. Year after year Sši. tried to quell the rebellion (626-623); his inability to accomplish it, the revolt of 623 , and his subsequent withdrawal from Babylonia immediately endangered his own kingdom. 63 { }^{63} 63
However, Npl. was unable to vanquish Assyria and conquer it alone. At this point the Medes, the other major power directly involved in the fall of Assyria, entered the historical arena. For many years Assyria fought against Indo-Iranian groups appearing on its northern and eastern borders in an effort to prevent the emergence of major political formations that would endanger her borders. Her failure to prevent the crystallization of the Median kingdom had fatal consequences for her continued existence.
(D) Empires are by nature complex entities and the causes for their dissolution and fall are manifold. The Assyrian Empire was no different and there are many aspects that could be brought into the discussion in connection with its fall. It has sometimes been suggested that Assyria suffered a gradual loss of pieces of her territory, and that the loss of Babylonia was a link in a chain of territorial losses that had gradually begun in the later years of Ašb. However there is no concrete evidence to support this assumption, common particularly among biblical historians in conjunction with the doubtful concept of Josiah’s great kingdom. 65 { }^{65} 65 It seems instead
that Assyria was able to maintain most of her territory until the rise of Sši. and that the fall of the Empire was primarily the direct result of the emergence of the independent kingdoms of Babylonia and Media, willing and able to cooperate and unite forces against the common enemy. The disruption and fall of the first ancient Near Eastern empire may be described as a relatively short process of a military nature, which started with the Babylonian revolt of 626 B.C. and came to completion with the fall of Nineveh in 612 B.C. 67 { }^{67} 67
and his Age (1952) (Hebrew); M. Noth, The History of Israel (1960) 272-73; H. Tadmor, BiblArch. 29 (1966) 101-2; A. Malamat, JANES 5 (1974) 270-1; M. Cogan, Imperialism and Religion (1974) 70-71; A. J. Spalinger, JARCE 15 (1978) 49-51; I. Eph’ad, in: A. Malamat (ed.), The Age of the Monarchies: Political History (The World History of the Jewish People, 1979) 281-82; J. M. Miller and J. H. Hayes, A History of Ancient Israel and Judah (1986) 381-85. For a criticism of the assumption of an early Assyrian withdrawal from Palestine and of the concept of Josiah’s great kingdom, see Na’aman, Zion 54, 45-71 (Hebrew).
67 { }^{67} 67 I wish to thank Dr. C. B. F. Walker for kindly collating for me numerous tablets in the British Museum, I am also grateful to Dr. P. Gerardi who read this article in manuscript and made numerous useful suggestions throughout.
by George F. Dole - Newton (Mass.) and
William L. Moran - Brunswick (Maine)*
HSM 899.2.282 (formerly 1660) is an inscribed fragment of a stone bowl. The records of the Harvard Semitic Museum show that it was acquired by purchase from D. D. Noorian in 1889, along with some tablets “said to be” from Nippur and Lagash, and other objects alleged to be from Nippur, Babylon, and Phoenicia.
The bowl is 5.1 cm . high, and, on the assumption that it was circular, it was just under 26 cm . in diameter. The wall is about .7 cm . thick - slightly more towards the top and the base - and the bottom varies from 1 to 1.2 cm . in thickness.
The stone is predominantly buff, with several wavy striations of a light reddish brown and one of a whitish gray.
Wherever the bowl may have surfaced on the antiquities market, it is clear that it was originally destined for use in the cult of the moon-god at Harran. Its inscription, despite the breaks at the end of each line, hardly allows any other interpretation, and a Harran provenience is confirmed by other features of the text: (1) in line 1 Sin is called “the king of the gods,” a title he bears only in inscriptions from Harran or closely related ones; 1 { }^{1} 1 (2) according to line 1
Dietz Otto Edzard: Gilgameš und Huwawa A. H. Teil
Walter Farber: Altassyrisch addaḥšū und ḥazwanuū, oder von Safran, Fenchel, Zwiebeln und Salat
Naday Na’aman: Chronology and History in the Late Assyrian Empire (631-619 B.C.)
George F. Dole and William L. Moran: A Bowl of alalls-stone
Theo P. J. van den Hout: Hethitische Thrombesteigungsorakel und die Inauguration Tudhalijas IV.
Buchbesprechungen (A. R. George, U. Jeyes, E. Otto, U. Seidl)
Indices (W. Sallaberger)
ABHANDLUNGEN
DES DEUTSCHEN PALÄSTINAVEREINS
Herausgegeben von Arnulf Kuschke
6 Volkmar Fritz / Aharon Kempinski
Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen auf der Hirbet el-Mšāš (Tẹl Măšōs) (1972-1975)
Teil I: Textband. XVI, 253 Seiten, 30 Abb.
Teil II: Tafelband. XV, 227 Seiten, 176 Tafeln
Teil III: Pläne. 30 Faltkarten
1983. (ISBN 3-447-02297-3), Ln., zus. DM 520,-
Das Werk ist nach Epochen geordnet. Architektur, Keramik und Kleinfunde werden getrennt dargestellt. Die Auswertungen werden ausführlich behandelt. Besonderes Interesse gilt der früheisenzeitlichen Siedlung.
13 Nabil I. Khairy
The 1981 Petra Excavations
Vol. I: 1989. XIII, 162 Seiten, 54 Abb., 28 Tafeln
(ISBN 3-447-02878-5), br., DM 128,-
The significance of the work is to provide scholars and field archaeologists who deal with Nabataean studies with a clear stratigraphy and well stratified objects and could be considered, therefore, an essential “guide book” for their future investigations.
15 Volkmar Fritz
Kinneret
Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen auf dem Tell el-^Orême am See Gennesa-
ret 1982-1985
1990. XVIII, 393 Seiten, 120 Tafeln, 22 Pläne, 20 Abb.
(ISBN 3-447-03049-6), Ln., DM 180,-
Entsprechend dem Schwerpunkt der Arbeit werden vor allem die beiden eisenzeitlichen Städte des 10. und 8. Jhifts. dargestellt; nachweislich umfaßte die Siedlungsgeschichte des Ortes aber auch die Frühbronzezeit II, die Mittelbronzezeit IIB und die Spätbronzezeit.
VERLAG OTTO HARRASSOWITZ ⋅ \cdot ⋅ WIESBADEN
Herausgegeben von
D. O. Edzard
in Verbindung mit
H. Otten ⋅ \cdot ⋅ U. Seidl ⋅ \cdot ⋅ W. von Soden
Sonderdruck aus
Band 81 - II. Halbband 1991
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4