It has frequently been stated that Sargon was either not a son of Tiglath-pileser III or only an illegitimate one. This was based on the view that his name was a throne name meaning "legitimate king" — suggesting that he was not in fact one — that he usually never mentioned the name of his father in his royal inscriptions, and that his accession to the throne did not take place in a smooth manner. As already noted, the actual writings of his name indicate a different meaning for his name. While it is true that Sargon almost never mentions the name of his father in his royal inscriptions, text no. 66, found on several wall plaques from Aššur, does refer to him as the son of Tiglath-pileser (A mtukul-ti-A-é-šár-ra MAN KUR aš-šur-ma). Tiglath-pileser and Sennacherib also rarely mention the name of their respective fathers (likely Adad-nārārī III and Sargon II respectively) in their royal inscriptions[77] and it has never been suggested that they were illegitimate.[78] Moreover, a Babylonian letter to Sargon ([a-na LUGAL]-ú-kin LUGAL [KUR.KUR], Dietrich, SAA 17 no. 46 line 1 [=CT 54 no. 109]) refers to Tiglath-pileser as the king's father (tukul-ti-IBILA-⸢é⸣-[šár-ra] / ⸢LUGAL AD⸣-ka, ibid. rev. 10–11),[79] which would seem to settle the issue. Certainly, his accession to the throne may not have taken place in a normal manner. Based upon the Aššur Charter (text no. 89), the chief god had brought about the end of Shalmaneser V's brief reign because of the latter's impious actions against the citizens of the city of Aššur and the god had then made Sargon the new king; however, this does not prove that he was not a son of Tiglath-pileser or a member of the royal family. It is not known who Sargon's mother was, although it seems unlikely that it was Tiglath-pileser's wife Yabâ.[80] A Late Babylonian literary letter likely from Nabopolassar to Sîn-šarru-iškun threatens the latter for Sennacherib's actions against Babylonia (Akkad) and refers to "Sennacherib, son of Sargon, offspring of a houseborn slave (dušmû) from Babylon." Lambert says that this shows that Sargon was the son of a Babylonian slave, although he does also note that the whole letter may be an ancient work of fiction.[81] However, this statement might well be simply a piece of Babylonian invective towards the Assyrian royal family and, in any case, might be intended to refer to Sennacherib as the son of a slave, not Sargon.[82]
There is no evidence to support the idea proposed by Campbell Thompson that Sargon had served as governor of the city Aššur during the time of his brother Shalmaneser V.[83] In fact, there is no evidence to show that he had held any office under his father or brother.
It is not known if Sargon was a full brother or a half-brother of Shalmaneser V. Another brother of Sargon's was Sîn-aḫu-uṣur, who served as his grand vizier (sukkalmaḫḫu and sukkallu rabû), had a large palace within the citadel area at Khorsabad (Residence L), and claimed to be Sargon's favorite brother (ta-lim).[84] The Sîn-aḫu-uṣur whose cavalry contingent accompanied Sargon in the fight against the Urarṭian Rusâ (text no. 65 lines 132–133) is likely to be identified with Sargon's brother.
According to Babylonian King List A, Shalmaneser V was a member of the dynasty Baltil, while Sargon's son and successor Sennacherib was a member of the Ḫabigal (presumably for Ḫanigalbat) dynasty. Sargon himself is given no dynastic affiliation, which could mean that he was considered by whatever Babylonians compiled the king list to be from the previously mentioned Assyrian dynasty (Baltil) or possibly from the same one as his son.[85]
Ataliya (text no. 2001), a wife of Sargon II, was buried at Kalḫu, possibly suggesting that she died before the completion of the palace at Khorsabad.[86] Her name may suggest that she was of Northwest Semitic or Arab origin.[87] If read correctly, Grayson and Novotny, RINAP 3/2 p. 364 no. 2001, may refer to another wife of Sargon, one Ra'īmâ, who appears to have been the mother of his son and successor Sennacherib.[88]
As noted by Frahm, Sargon must have been born "not much later than around 765" since his son Sennacherib, who was not the first of Sargon's sons, must have been born around 745 in order to have been made crown prince during Sargon's lifetime and to have installed his own heir (Aššur-nādin-šumi) as ruler of Babylon in 700.[89]
At least two children of Sargon's are clearly attested: his heir Sennacherib and a daughter who made a political marriage; however, Sennacherib's name — "The god Sîn has replaced the brothers" — indicates that Sargon had had at least two previous sons who died before Sennacherib's birth. Moreover, a letter to Sargon from one Ḫunnî refers to "Sennacherib, the crown prince ... [and all] the princes/children of the king (DUMU.MEŠ MAN) (who are) [in] Assyria" (Parpola, SAA 1 no. 133 lines 9–11 [=Harper, ABL no. 216]), indicating that Sennacherib had more than one brother/sibling. While Sargon was likely off on campaign, Sennacherib remained in Assyria and sent a number of reports to his father (Parpola, SAA 1 nos. 29–40). These reports concentrate on matters to the north of Assyria, in particular events in Urarṭu, Kummu, and Ukku, but they also involve domestic matters, the receipt of tribute from Ashdod, and the arrival of emissaries from Kummuḫu (Commagene), as well as various other matters. Fuchs has argued that the earliest of these letters must date no later than 710, which would suggest that Sennacherib had been appointed crown prince by that year.[90]
In order to gain the support of Ḫullî, the king of Tabal, a daughter of Sargon's was given in marriage to Ambaris, Ḫullî's son. Ambaris was also made ruler of the city/land Ḫilakku (e.g., text no. 1 lines 194–198 and text no. 2 lines 226–230). Following the death of Ḫullî, however, Ambaris conspired with the rulers of Musku and Urarṭu and was overthrown by Sargon in 713. It is not known what happened to his wife. A letter to Sargon from his son Sennacherib refers to a message of the major-domo (rab bīti) of Aḫāt-abīša arriving from Tabal (Parpola, SAA 1 no. 31 rev. 26–29 [=Harper, ABL 197]) and this Aḫāt-abīša has often been assumed to be Sargon's daughter; however, this remains uncertain.[91]
77 For Tiglath-pileser III, see Tadmor and Yamada, RINAP 1 p. 148 Tiglath-pileser no. 58 line 2. For Sennacherib, see Grayson and Novotny, RINAP 3/2 pp. 170 no. 135 line 2 (restored) and p. 232 no. 163 line 5´. See also Frahm, Sanherib pp. 194–195 and Frahm in Sennacherib at the Gates of Jerusalem p. 175. Esarhaddon, Ashurbanipal, Šamaš-šuma-ukīn, and Sîn-šarru-iškun did refer to Sargon as being their ancestor (see Fuchs, PNA 3/2 pp. 1246–1247) and Ashurbanipal affirms that he, and thus also Sargon, was a descendant of Bēl-bāni son of Adāsi (e.g., Novotny and Jeffers, RINAP 5/1 p. 220 no. 10 v 38–40). Therefore, Sargon was also a member of the long-established Assyrian royal family.
78 E. Frahm (NABU 2005 no. 44 pp. 47–48) points out that there is a different pattern of royal name giving after Sargon than the one that had existed up until then and he suggests that the shift "may reflect an awareness on the part of the Late Assyrian rulers that they had entered a new political age."
79 Thomas, Studies Bergerhof pp. 465–470.
80 For Yabâ, see Tadmor and Yamada, RINAP 1 pp. 164–167 Tiglath-pileser nos. 2003–2005. For the case against Yabâ being the mother of Sargon, see Frahm in Sennacherib at the Gates of Jerusalem p. 185.
81 Gerardi, AfO 33 (1986) pp. 30–38 BM 55467 rev. 7; Lambert, Studies Grayson p. 202 (note his collation to the end of the line in his n. 14).
82 If it is Sargon who is meant by "offspring of a houseborn slave," this would seem to mean that Tiglath-pileser III had been a slave. Since the form dušmû (du-uš-mu-ú) is used, not dušmītu, it should refer to the individual's father, not his mother, as having been a slave. On the matter of Sargon's parentage, see also Frahm in Sennacherib at the Gates p. 176.
83 Thompson, Iraq 4 (1937) pp. 40–42.
84 See text nos. 2002–2003.
85 See n. 156 below.
86 E. Frahm (in Sennacherib at the Gates of Jerusalem pp. 185–186) raises the possibility that the reason Ataliya's body had apparently been conserved by some process prior to its burial might be that Ataliya accompanied Sargon on his final campaign in 705 and been killed in Tabal along with her husband; her body had then been treated to conserve it during transport back to Assyria. He also raises the possibility that the fact that the burial took place "in a somewhat haphazard way" might be the result of "the unstable political situation (and Sennacherib's unfriendly feelings towards her?)." Frahm also notes, however, that this scenario may be "nothing but speculation." It is worth wondering how likely it would be that Ataliya's body would have been recovered by the Assyrians for burial but not Sargon's (see below), although of course the enemy may well have made greater efforts to prevent the king's body being recovered than that of a woman, even if she was the king's wife.
87 On the question of the origin and meaning of the name Ataliya, see the introduction to text no. 2001.
88 With regard to Ra'īmâ, see Frahm in Sennacherib at the Gates of Jerusalem pp. 179–182. He suggests that she may have come from Ḫarrān or somewhere near there.
89 NABU 2005 pp. 46–50 no. 44, especially p. 47.
90 Fuchs in Biainili-Urarṭu p. 137 no. 1.7 and pp. 155–157. For a discussion of Sennacherib's actions and life as crown prince, see Frahm in Sennacherib at the Gates of Jerusalem pp. 197–201.
91 See Fuchs in Biainili-Urarṭu p. 155.
Grant Frame
Grant Frame, 'Family', RINAP 2: Sargon II, Sargon II, The RINAP 2 sub-project of the RINAP Project, 2021 [http://oracc.org/rinap/rinap2/rinap2introduction/family/]