Aššur-killanni and the order of the post-canonical eponyms

One of the corner-stones of the reconstruction of the order of the post- canonical eponyms has been the career of Aššur-killanni, who is attested witnessing several documents for Kakkullanu. In these texts, Aššur-killanni bears three different titles, those of rab kiṣir, ša qurbūti and sūsān šarri, all during the eponym year of Ṣalmu-šarri-iqbi:

Falkner, starting from the assumption that rab kiṣir must be a higher rank than ša qurbūti, came to the conclusion that Aššur-killanni was promoted from sūsān šarri to ša qurbūti (exact month lost) and finally, in the fifth month, to rab kiṣir during this eponymy.^[[2]]

This basic assumption was accepted also by Whiting in his contribution to SAAS 2. Whiting formulated the implications of Falkner's findings as follows (SAAS 2, 76):

However, differing opinions have been expressed more recently. Both Parpola and Reade have rejected these arguments in their new lists of post- canonical eponyms, and Reade has expressed doubts about the validity of Falkner's original premise.^[[3]]

Although a general discussion of the post-canonical eponyms is not within the scope of the present introduction, a fresh look at the career of Aššur- killanni is in order. If one looks more closely at the eponym year of Sîn-šarru-uṣur instead of the eponymy of Ṣalmu-šarri-iqbi, one can show on the basis of documents originating most probably in one year that this corner-stone is far from stable. During the eponymate of Sîn-šarru-uṣur, Aššur-killanni bears the following titles in the documents of Kakkullanu:

It thus becomes clear that during one year, Aššur-killanni was first rab kiṣir, then a month later ša qurbūti and, as I see no reason to doubt the ditto markings in these carefully written documents, again rab kiṣir by the tenth month. Obviously, the sequence of offices of Aššur-killanni is not as consequent as Falkner thought, and accordingly, there is no compelling reason to believe that Sîn-šarru-uṣur arkû cannot be equated with Sîn-šarru-uṣur, palace scribe. The eponym Sîn-šarru-uṣur arkû is attested twice in our sources:

This eponymy is in itself not without problems. The term arkû, "later", could simply refer to the later Sîn-šarru-uṣur, in contrast to the earlier one who was governor of Hindanu (636*). In this case, arkû would be just another way of separating the two eponyms, a difference usually stated by using their specific titles. Reade recognised this possibility but concluded: "it seems more likely that the later Sîn-šarru-uṣur had died in office, and that arkû refers to his replacement. If so, usage cannot have been consistent, since the denominations tupšar ekalli and arkû overlap in months ix-x."^[[5]]

The first explanation may be preferable, because clearly the term arkû is structured differently from the usual term ša arki, used when the name or the current eponym is not known, and thus may not have the same meaning.^[[6]] The following are the examples of the known ša arki dates:

However, the relevant issue is not whether we are talking about one or two individuals, but that we are most probably talking about one year. If one does not accept this, one is faced with the existence of three separate post-canonical eponyms by the name Sîn-šarru-uṣur, the governor of Hindanu, the palace scribe and the arkû, a situation that seems unlikely. With the present evidence it seems likeliest that the titles of Aššur-killanni during one year are:

The titles do not display a systematic career development but alternate between cohort commander and bodyguard. The same phenomenon can be seen in the titles of Balasî, another rab kiṣir, who appears with varying titles in the same documents as Aššur-killanni. The titles of Balasî are:

2 "Assur-killanni, qurb. bei A (36), Si2 (165), Sal (178) und in AR 396; r.k. bei Si1 (149, 154) und Ṣal ( 172 vom 22.V.). Er muss also unter Ṣal zum Hauptmann befördert worden sein." (Falkner. AfO 18, 107).

3 Reade, Or. 67, 258 sub 628: "Falkner (AfO 17:112) separated Sîn-šarru-uṣur ṭupšar ekalli from Sîn-šarru-uṣur arkû on the ground that the military titles qurbûtu and rab kiṣri. applied 10 witnesses in business documents, necessarily reflect a methodical process of promotion; but this assumption is unsafe."

4 Since Millard included this text (Ass.Fd.Nr 8890c) in his list or eponym dates, the correct museum number of the text has been identified. The text is VAT 20492, not VAT 19304 as in Millard, SAAS 2, 115. The eponym date is preserved only on the envelope (B). The text is published by K. H. Deller, F. M. Fales and L. Jakob-Rost in "Neo-Assyrian Text from Assur. Private Archives in the Vorderasiatisches Museum of Berlin. Part 2" in SAAB 9 (1995) 94-96. The text belongs to the archive N21, which contains 13 texts, all from the post-canonical period. The central figure in most of the texts is Mutaqqin-Aššur.

5 Reade, Or. 67, 258 sub 628.

6 arkû is clearly used in the meaning "later, second" when referring to Sargon II in the eponym dates of 716, 708 and 707: year ... of ^mLUGAL-GIN EGIR-ú. See Millard, SAAS 2, 117, 119 and 123.

7 "ša qurbûtu, it is generally recognised, was an officer with wide-ranging functions, who seems to have operated under the direct orders of the king (so in 1.13 here); they are also found in the employ of the crown prince and the queen mother (e.g. ADD 857 [= SAA 7 5]), but there is little or no evidence that they could be subordinate to provincial governors as well. The conventional translation of 'bodyguard' (used for example in B. Lansberger, Brief: 'Leibgardist') may be etymologically (and historically) justified, but it gives lillle idea of the man's varied functions as a general 'trouble-shooter' and paramilitary agent. I have elected in most cases to render it as 'officer', but it should be borne in mind that he does not hold any definite position in the military hierarchy." (J. N. Postgate, Taxation and Conscription in the Assyrian Empire [Studia Pohl SM 3, Roma 1974] 194). See Postgate's later view in S. M. Dalley and J. N. Postgate, Tablets from Fort Shalmaneser (CTN 3, Oxford 1984), 33 note 33: "JNP would now characterize the title as a status, which is not incompatible with various specific military ranks."

Raija Mattila

Raija Mattila, 'Aššur-killanni and the order of the post-canonical eponyms', Legal Transactions of the Royal Court of Nineveh, Part II: Assurbanipal Through Sin-šarru-iškun, SAA 14. Original publication: Helsinki, Helsinki University Press, 2002; online contents: SAAo/SAA14 Project, a sub-project of MOCCI, 2021 [http://oracc.org/saao/saa14/introduction/aurkillanniandtheorderofthepostcanonicaleponyms/]