We now turn to an interesting category of treaties: those concluded with expatriated princes and nobility seeking shelter at the court of Nineveh. The Assyrian king had a 'soft spot' for these people and gladly provided them with the asylum they needed. He was even willing to help them return to their home country and, with the help of the Assyrian army, correct the injustice that had been done to them. All this naturally on the condition that the favour would be paid back.
The role of treaties in this game is illustrated by an episode from the reign of Assurbanipal. Following the death of Urtaku in 664, an usurper named Teumman seized the throne of Elam and started eliminating his adversaries. Subsequently, "Ummanigaš, Ummanappa, and Tammaritu, sons of Urtaku, king of Elam, fled before Teumman's murderous rage and grasped my royal feet... Even though he repeatedly sent his officials to demand the extradition of Ummanigaš, Ummanappa and Tammaritu, I did not grant their extradition." (Piepkorn Asb p. 61.)
Ten years later, using an alleged provocation by Teumman as an excuse, Assurbanipal launched a destructive attack against Elam. "I cut off the head of Teumman before his assembled troops ... and seated Ummanigaš, who had fled and grasped my feet, upon his throne; Tammaritu, his third brother, I established as king in Hidalu." (ibid. p. 71.)
There are three significant points in the process of bringing the two princes to power in Elam which do not clearly emerge from the above condensed account but are well attested in other sources. First, the Assyrian troops invaded Elam under Elamite leadership:
"When Ummanigaš came and grasped my feet, and I sent my troops with him, and they fought with Teumman, did we set our feet in the temples, cities or anywhere? Did we take plunder? Did we not pour oil upon blood and become your benefactors?" (Letter of Assurbanipal to Elamite elders, BM 132980: 8ff.)
Secondly, despite all the official propaganda, the real objective of the operation certainly was to turn Elam into an Assyrian dependency. This appears clearly from a contemporary letter (ABL 839 r. 14ff), where it is suggested that the king "should place one of the princes among his servants to the governorship (pāhatūtu) of Elam."[[7]] An overlooked royal inscription (Bauer Asb pl. 45) explicitly states that tax and tribute were imposed upon Elam, and also mentions other administrative measures normally carried out when turning a country into a province.
Thirdly, as could be expected, the Elamite puppets were bound to their 'benefactor' by means of sworn treaties. The existence of these treaties is not revealed in passages describing the installation of the princes, but is made more than explicit in passages describing their later perfidious behaviour:
"Ummanigaš, for whom I had done many favours, whom I had established as king of Elam, but who was not mindful of my kindness and did not keep the treaty sworn by the great gods (adê māmīt ilāni rabûti) but accepted bribes from the hands of the messengers of Šamaš-šumu-ukin, my faithless brother and enemy, and sent troops with them to fight my forces..." (Piepkorn Asb p. 77.)
In a letter to one of the princes, Tammaritu, Assurbanipal plainly tells what he expected from his puppet:
"What (even) a father does not do for a son, I have [done] and given to you! As for you, remember [this], strive to return to me in full these favours [that I have done to you], and keep the [treaty] that I have made you swear before the gods of heaven and earth!" (ABL 1022 r. 19ff.)
7 See R. Mattila, "The political status of Elam after 853 B.C. according to ABL 839," SAAB 1 (1987) 27ff.
Simo Parpola
Simo Parpola, 'Treaties with Exiled Foreign Royalty', Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths, SAA 2. Original publication: Helsinki, Helsinki University Press, 1988; online contents: SAAo/SAA02 Project, a sub-project of MOCCI, 2020 [http://oracc.org/saao/saa02/treatiesasinstrumentsofimperialism/treatieswithexiledforeignroyalty/]