Forty-one texts in the present volume contain references to individuals identified as relatives, servants, or officials (scribes, charioteers, 'third men,' eunuchs, village managers etc.) of persons entitled mār šarri, literally translated, "the king's son"; in two additional texts (nos. 238 and 264), the title refers to "the king's son" himself. The princes mentioned are as a rule never identified by name. The only exception is constituted by no. 103 with the famous reference to "Arda-Mullissi, the king's son," the notorious murderer of Sennacherib.[[40]] Fourteen of the texts date from the reign of Sennacherib, 12 from that of Esarhaddon, and 17 from Assurbanipal's reign.[[41]]
For the present volume, the title mār šarri presents a problem of translation, since besides its literal meaning "king's son," i.e. prince in general, it also means "the crown prince." In fact, the latter is the standard meaning of the title in contemporary letters, reports and administrative texts, where plain mār šarri always refers to the crown prince, while other sons and children of the king were regularly referred to by their names only.[[42]] It is unclear, however, how far this usage also applies to the legal texts. It has never been systematically investigated whether the title in these texts means broadly "prince," or narrowly "crown prince", or both indiscriminately. Should the latter turn out to be the case, how is one to know in individual cases which translation to choose? Finding a solution to this problem is of considerable importance, since the translations chosen may drastically affect the interpretation of the relevant documents.
The problem is complicated, and it is necessary to review the evidence case by case. In the following discussion, the meaning "crown prince" attested for mār šarri in contemporary letters, reports and administrative texts will be referred to as the normal usage, whereas occurrences of the literal meaning "king's son" will be labeled as exceptional.
Starting from the most straightforward cases, the meaning "crown prince" is certain in no. 287, dated 670-II-1, recording a purchase by a eunuch of "the crown prince (mār šarri) of Babylon,"[[43]] as well as in at least five other documents from the end of Esarhaddon's reign (nos. 283, 288, 297-299), all dated between 672 and 669 B.C.[[44]] This was the time of the "double crown-princehood" of Assurbanipal and Šamaš-šumu-ukin, and the terminology of the legal documents is entirely consistant with that of the other contemporary texts.
On the other hand, the translation "crown prince" seems definitely excluded in the 17 texts from the beginning of the reign of Assurbanipal, which date from the years 667-660. Assurbanipal himself having been still a youth at the time of his accession, there is no possibility that even his eldest son probably born in early 670,[[45]] could have been old enough for promotion to the status of the crown prince in these early years of his reign.
A closer study of the Assurbanipal texts reveals, however, that while the prince officially may not yet have been proclaimed heir to the throne his public status nevertheless was very close to one. He was in possession of two full cohorts of his own bodyguard (cf. no. 325 r.19f), a palace superintendent (no. 328 r. 7), a secretary (ibid. r. 6), and several charioteers and 'third men' just like his royal father, then crown prince, a few years earlier. In fact, he shared with the latter at least three officials, the cohort commander Nabû-šarru-uṣur[[46]] and the charioteers Šamaš-šarru-uṣur[[47]] and Zarutî.[[48]] It would seem that he, as the king's eldest and possibly (as yet) only son, was commonly looked upon as the future king and provided with the pertinent pomp and protection when appearing in public. The most appropriate rendering of mār šarri in this case would thus be "the prince (par excellence)," with connotations very close to those of "the crown prince."
With these preliminary results, we may now turn to a scrutiny of the remaining evidence, first that from the reign of Esarhaddon. Apart from the evidence from the years 672-669, already treated, there are six further texts from this reign referring to mār šarri. One of these (no. 238) is undated, but the context (association with the king) leaves no doubt that the correct rendering in this case is "crown prince,"[[49]] and a date late in Esarhaddon's reign appears likely.[[50]] Three of the texts (nos. 201, 257, and 264) date from the year 680, two from the year 676 (nos. 210 and 239, both dated late in the first month). Thus, in addition to several references from 672-669 all conforming to the normal usage and to be translated "crown prince," the title mār šarri in Esarhaddon's reign is encountered only in three documents from the very beginning of the reign and in two texts from the year 676.
At first sight the translation "crown prince" seems excluded in these texts particularly in nos. 257 and 201 dated 680-I-10 and 680-II-28 respectively. Surely Esarhaddon would not have (and in practice, could not have) rushed to appoint a successor to the throne barely two weeks after his own accession![[51]] However, closer scrutiny of the texts shows that the rendering "crown prince" actually works here too.
No. 257:3 refers to servants of the "lady of the house" of the mār šarri. Keeping in mind that the text was drawn up almost immediately after Esarhaddon's accession, it is clear that this cannot refer to a son of the new king: first of all, he would probably have been too young, and secondly there is no way he could have built up a "house" in the short while his father had been in power, less still in the preceding year(s) when the latter was in exile. Thus the text must refer to a prince of the earlier generation, i.e. a son of Sennacherib.
Is it conceivable that a brother of Esarhaddon would have been called "son of the king" after the latter's accession, rather than "the king's brother"'? That seems theoretically possible, but considering the political situation (Esarhaddon having just emerged from a bitter civil war against his brothers) extremely unlikely. It appears much likelier that the prince referred to was Esarhaddon himself, who in fact had, until very recently, been the legitimate crown prince.[[52]] The scribe drawing up the document may have been uncertain about the current status of the "lady of the house" as well as that of the purchaser, called "a servant of the crown prince,"[[53]] and therefore preferred to use their old titles.[[54]] This would explain the concluding statement of the deed, "Purchased in the reign of Esarhaddon, king of Assyria," which would have been added to dispel any potential doubts about the time of the transaction occasioned by the use of the obsolete titles. No. 201, with a similar concluding statement, can be interpreted correspondingly. For no. 264, dated 680-XI-27, see the relevant note in the critical apparatus.
The normal meaning of mār šarri, "crown prince," thus works in the early Esarhaddon texts as well. As for the two texts from year 676 (nos. 210 and 239), we maintain that the translation "crown prince" holds in these too and suggest that the prince referred to in them was Esarhaddon's son Sin-nadin-apli, whose promotion to the status of the crown prince is the subject of the oracle query AGS 107 = SAA 4 149.[[55]] This prince seems to have died soon after his promotion, for excepting the said query nothing is known about him. The individual mentioned in nos. 210 and 230 appears to have been old enough for the promotion, for he was in possession of a merchant (210 r.14), and the dates of the documents (676-I-24 and 676-I-25 respectively) would tally well with a career abruptly broken off soon after the appointment, likely to have taken place in Nisan (cf. Promotion of Esarhaddon and n. 44).
40 See S. Parpola, "The murderer of Sennacherib," CRRAI 26 (1980), p. 171ff, and cf. S. Zawadzki, "Oriental and Greek traditions about the death of Sennacherib," SAAB 4 (1990), 69ff.
41 Sennacherib: nos. 37, 39, 40, 52, 57, 85, 86, 103, 109, 110, 112, 130, 199, and 200; Esarhaddon; nos. 201, 210, 238, 239, 257, 264, 283, 287, 288, and 297-299; Assurbanipal: nos. 309, 312, 317, 320, 321, 323-325, 328-330, 334, 335, 339, 340, 347, and 348.
42 See the discussion in LAS 2,p. 166f.
43 This was the official title of Šamaš-šumu-ukin after his promotion as crown prince in early 672. The plain mār šarri in the witness list of this document may have referred to Assurbanipal but it can also, by way of an abbreviation, have referred to Šamaš-šumu-ukin as well.
44 Note that no. 283, dated 672-II-1, precedes by two weeks the dates recorded on the extant copies of Esarhaddon's succession treaty (672-II-16/18, see SAA 2 p. 58; cf. also ibid. p. XXIX for the date 672-II-12 given for the treaty ceremonies in Assurbanipal's inscriptions). This is consistent with the evidence of the letters suggesting that the promotion of Assurbanipal and Šamaš-šumu-ukin to the status of crown prince had already been made public earlier, perhaps in the course of the royal New Year's reception in Nisan (see discussion in LAS 2. p. 3ff).
45 Assurbanipal seems to have married immediately after his promotion (cf. LAS 2 p. 119, note on 129 r. 24 and ABL 308); a series of letters from court physicians datable to Spring 670 refer to a royal suckling identifible as a child of the crown prince, see discussion in LAS 2 p. 109f.
46 No. 325 r.20 (663 B.C.), cf. 299 r.5 (datable to c. 670 on the basis of the reference to the crown prince of Babylon in the witness list).
47 Nos. 317 r.8 (666 B.C.) and 347 r.6, cf. 297 r.12, 298 r.7 (both 671 B.C.) and 299 r.1.
48 No. 309 r.6 (667 B.C.) and passim, d. 283 r.16 (672 B.C.).
49 "Whoever breaks the agreement, the king and the crown prince shall be his prosecutors," no. 238:9.
50 The archive of Silim-Aššur, to which the document belongs, covers the years 680-670.
51 The date of Esarhaddon's accession is given as 18th or (more likely) 28th of Adar 681 in Grayson Chronicles p.82:38.
52 Cf. no. 110, dated 681-XII-16, i.e. less than a month before no. 257, where the title mār šarri certainly means "crown prince" and refers to Esarhaddon.
53 Having been a servant of the crown prince by no means implied that the position was automatically continued after the prince had become king; cf., e.g., ABL 1216 and 1285, the latter recently edited in Festschrift Reiner (1987), p. 257ff.
54 Note that in contemporary letters the title "crown prince" could be applied to Esarhaddon, already king, whenever reference was made to events before his accession (see, e.g., ABL 740 = LAS 258:15ff and ABL 1216, passim).
55 It should be noted that AGS 107 is written in Babylonian script, like all queries predating 672, and shares orthographical features with queries assigned to c. 676-674 on the basis of their subject matter (e.g., the relatively rare spelling an-nam for /anna/, which recurs in the Phrygian query no. 1 and the Kastaritu queries 41, 43 and 49). The outcome of the extispicy was favourable, and therefore the appointment considered was almost certainly brought into effect, even though no concrete evidence of this is otherwise available.
Simo Parpola
Simo Parpola, 'Prince or Crown Prince?', Legal Transactions of the Royal Court of Nineveh, Part I: Tiglath-Pileser III through Esarhaddon, SAA 6. Original publication: Helsinki, Helsinki University Press, 1991; online contents: SAAo/SAA06 Project, a sub-project of MOCCI, 2020 [http://oracc.org/saao/saa06/natureoftheninevehlegalarchive/ninevitelegaltextsashistoricaldocuments/princeorcrownprince/]