No dated texts are extant from the years 656-653, and when such material again becomes available in the year 652, it is in the simplified form of the so-called "reports,"[[271]] nos. 278-353 in the present edition. These are concerned to a large extent with the civil war, i.e. the revolt of Šamaš-šumu-ukin and related matters, such as the activities of his allies, e.g. Nabû-bel-šumati of the Sealand,[[272]] and Tammaritu II of Elam. The apparent five-year hiatus between the queries and reports of course does not mean that the practice of extispicy was discontinued between the years 657-652 and only reinstituted at the start of the civil war, but has to be explained differently.[[273]]
The chronicles officially date the start of hostilities towards the end of 652 (19-X-652, see Grayson Chronicles p. 131:11), but one of the reports, no. 279, dated 17-IV-652, already inquires whether Šamaš-šumu-ukin will fall into the hands of invading Assyrian troops.[[274]] Similarly no. 280, dated 4-I-651, inquires about the intentions of Nabû-bel-šumati of the Sealand,[[275]] who by that time evidently had defected to Šamaš-šumu-ukin and was rumored to be gathering an army in Elam to fight the Assyrians within their own borders.
The attack either did not materialize or was not a success, because about seven months later (17-VII-651), according to no. 279, Assurbanipal was expecting Šamaš-šumu-ukin to save himself by fleeing to Elam. The Assyrians appear to have mounted an offensive of their own in the fall of 651, because no. 283, dated 16-VIII-651, asks whether Šamaš-šumu-ukin will flee Babylon. Assurbanipal must have therefore had high hopes at the time of terminating the civil war. No. 287, dated 651, inquires whether the Assyrians should engage in battle in a unidentified locality called Bit-sami and may refer to an episode in that offensive, although this is uncertain because the month and day of the year are missing. The prognosis was favorable.
No. 281 (date lost) concerns an expected Elamite summer offensive (from 8-V to 8-VI) against the Assyrian army. Although no names are given in this report, we know that the king of Elam for the greater part of the civil war was Tammaritu II (652-649). This report may refer to one of his incursions into Assyrian territory. No. 289 (no date) concerns such an incursion of Tammaritu and a possible threat to Nippur. The second part of this query questions the continued loyalty of the Puqudeans (Biblical Pekod, one of the most important southern Aramean tribes) in the Assyrian army.
Now the Puqudu are attested as being in the forefront of those tribes and populations which were in opposition to Assyrian rule in southern Mesopotamia during the civil war. In ABL 275 a certain Kudurru, possibly the same individual on whose report the query of no. 289 was based (rev. 6), claims that the Puqudu had "destroyed" Bit-Amukani "in an uprising." Letters from other writers, e.g. ABL 942 and 1241+, describe how the Puqudu joined forces with the Gurasimmu (another Aramean tribe) and the Sealanders to pose a threat to those cities in the south, such as Ur, Uruk, Eridu, and Šat-iddina, which remained loyal to Assurbanipal. The Gambulu, on the other hand, must have been forcibly pacified following the failure of their alliance with the Elamites, and do not appear to have played any role in these events.
One of the results of the civil war and the defection of senior officials such as Nabû-bel-šumati of the Sealand and others to Šamaš-šumu-ukin, was the growing concern of Assurbanipal for the loyalty of his officials in the south. This concern is voiced in several reports, e.g. no. 290, to be dated, most likely, in 651, when the combined threat from Šamaš-šumu-ukin, Nabû-bel-šumati and the king of Elam to southern Mesopotamia was at its height. Nos. 300 and 301 question the loyalty of Sin-tabni-uṣur, governor of Ur, who succeeded his brother, Sin-balassu-iqbi. The date of the succession is uncertain, but an unpublished legal document, dated 23-III-650, referring to Sin-tabni-uṣur as governor, gives a firm terminus ante quem.[[276]] Since no. 290 must have been written after the outbreak of the hostilities, i.e. after 19-X-652, the appointment most likely took place in 651.
Other reports in this group are nos. 306 and 307. These two inquire whether the appointments of certain people to the priesthoods of Anu and Sin, respectively, is acceptable to these two particular gods. Similarly, no. 310 inquires about an appointment to a temple office in Assur. In none of these reports is a date preserved but they most likely all belong to the years of the civil war, when loyalty of appointees was of paramount importance.
271 Note, however, that no. 274, a query referring to Assurbanipal as "king of Assyria and Elam," must date after the defeat of Teumman (653) and hence is approximately contemporary with the bulk of the "reports."
272 Cf. Streck Asb p. cccvii and passim.
273 See Parpola, CRRAI 30 (1986) 235 with n. 62.
274 ABL 301, a letter of Assurbanipal to the Babylonians, urging them not to join Šamaš-šumu-ukin, is dated even earlier (23-II-652).
275 At that period mostly a reference to the Chaldeans of Bit-Yakin. See Brinkman, op. cit. 97 n. 485.
276 See Brinkman, Or. 38 (1969) 342. Before this document came to light, both Brinkman (Or. 34 [1965] 249 n. 3) and Dietrich (AOAT 7 [1970] 110) read in 300 r.2 the name of the eponym for 649, Ahi-ilaya. The fact of the matter, however, is that the name of the eponym, which actually appeared in r.1, is not preserved. Rev.2 was correctly restored by Klauber as [mda]n-a LÚ.SAG, a "reporter" well attested in these texts.
Ivan Starr
Ivan Starr, 'The Šamaš-šumu-ukin War', Queries to the Sungod: Divination and Politics in Sargonid Assyria, SAA 4. Original publication: Helsinki, Helsinki University Press, 1990; online contents: SAAo/SAA04 Project, a sub-project of MOCCI, 2020 [http://oracc.org/saao/saa04/chronologyandhistoricalbackground/shamashshumuukinwar/]