Seven letters presented in the volume (nos. 62-68) all originate from the same scribe, who writes to the king anonymously.[[82]] His letters are fairly exceptional because of their length and their appearance: the tablets are large, thick and heavy. The lengths of the letters vary as follows:
No. 62: 32 extant lines (originally 37?).[[83]]
No. 63: 72 lines (no lines missing).
No. 64: 24 lines (no lines missing). Out of all these letters, this one was originally the shortest. The brevity of the letter apparently caused the author to choose the horizontal format for it.
No. 65: 34 extant lines (originally at least 40).[[84]]
No. 66: 20 extant lines (originally at least 36).[[85]]
No. 67: 30 extant lines (originally about 44 or more).[[86]]
No. 68: 44 extant lines (originally 55 or more).[[87]]
Even in their present, partly fragmentary condition, the seven letters of this anonymous writer contain altogether as many as 256 lines. The original line total was presumably more than 308, i.e., 44 or more lines on the average per letter!
However, a more striking feature of the letters is that the anonymous author can indeed, with reason, be called "enigmatic." Use of the word "enigmatic" is well grounded here since the contents of the letters are not ordinary. They are denunciations informing the king of impending threats. The writer is clearly charged by the king himself with this task of ferreting out suspicious facts: "The king, my lord, wrote to his servant as follows: [ ... ] Do not conceal from me anything that you see or hear" (no. 66: 2-6).
With one exception (no. 65), this secretive author goes straight to the point in his letters, without presenting any blessings or introductory formulae which would even in their shortest form include the usual address, "To the king, my lord: your servant, PN." Though the letters are anonymous, it is possible to find out something about the writer by studying his letters. Actually, what do we know about this enigmatic man? What does he reveal about himself? Was he perhaps a royal agent or just an ordinary official?
The letters of the enigmatic informer deal with the following subjects:
(a) In no. 62 the writer reminds the king of the rites he should perform in a favourable month because of an event of which we do not know any details but which seems to have something to do with an individual called Nabû- kabti-ahhešu.[[88]] The writer also urges the king to ask one Hamnanu and an unnamed priest as to why and how Sasi had released them from a place that was probably mentioned in the broken part of the letter (or in another letter by the same author).[[89]] The formulation of the letter leads one to suspect that Sas, himself was not present to tell the king how he released these persons.
(b) In no. 63 several persons are said to have committed crimes in Guzana. It is not clear if the so-called "matter of Guzana" (obv. 6) is really discussed in the letter itself. It may be that "the matter of Guzana" refers to a possible stir in Guzana, which, in turn, may be connected with the conspiracy of 671/670 which had its roots in the nearby city of Harran. But that is uncertain, and our purpose here is not to give free rein to our imagination; this remark- able letter includes so many potential stumbling blocks that we have to refrain from discussing it to the extent it would deserve. A few interesting and problematical details in it can, however, be mentioned here in brief. For instance, the roles of Aššur-zeru-ibni (undoubtedly a high-ranking official either in Guzana or in the vicinity), Šamaš-emuranni (the governor), and Tarṣî (the scribe of Guzana) are somewhat difficult to fathom in the letter. Note that at the beginning of the letter, the wife of Tarṣî is mentioned among the alleged offenders but Tarṣî, himself is not included, and it is only later in the letter that he is denounced (rev. 18ff). It is also not easy to assess whether Aššur-zeru-ibni's activities should be regarded merely as evil and deceitful - possibly so, at least if he had been implicated in Tarṣîs schemes. Other puzzling passages in the letter are obv. 21-26 and rev. 22-27, in which the author informs about the blasphemous and heretical behaviour of a chariot- driver named Qurdi and a priest (Adad-killanni), and about witchcraft by the wife of the priest and Zaza, the wife of Tarṣî.
(c) In no. 64 the writer first advises the king as to how to proceed when people appeal for royal intervention. Secondly, he writes to the king about gold, but the partly broken lines at the end of the letter render the context irretrievably blurred.
(d) No. 65 is for the most part a denunciation of a goldsmith and his son (see the discussion below under "Goldsmith and his Son").
(e) The fragmentary state of no. 66 prevents us from drawing any far-reaching conclusions from it. As in almost every letter of the enigmatic informer, here, too, he quotes heavily from the king's sayings, giving the impression of an ongoing dialogue between him and Esarhaddon.
(f)No. 67 is fairly poor preserved but relates to stolen gold.
(g) In the fragmentarily preserved no. 68, the writer informs the king on some officials who are, one way or another, offending against the king's authority.
As for geography, our informer refers only to a few places outside the royal court: Guzana in no. 63, the strategically important Harhar in a broken context no. 64 r. 11),[[90]] and Kar-Mullissi near Nineveh in no. 66 r.3. It is not clear whether the writer himself was visiting those places at the time he sent the letters to the king. He may have relied mostly on useful informants and agents cf. no. 63 r.9-12). Thus it is possible that the author himself was usually based in Nineveh (cf. no. 63 r. 15f) or in Cal ah, and that he belonged to the palace personnel (cf. no. 62 r. 14f).
The author's incessant affirmations about his honesty and loyalty to the king are a recurrent topic in these letters. However, while fawning to the king, he at times uses a fairly demanding tone (no. 62:3-6), but after all his demands, he can suddenly become very humble again. His letters easily give the impression of one-sided denunciations, because we do not have any extant letters by the king to him. Nonetheless, there are two direct references to letters sent by the king to the enigmatic author,[[91]] and twice the author refers to his own earlier reports.[[92]]
All the letters of the enigmatic writer may date from the years 672-669. Taken literally, the reference to "the sons of the king" in no. 63 r.14 and no. 66 r.6 would permit a more general date, but in actual fact the phrase almost certainly refers to the two crown princes, Assurbanipal and Šamaš-šumu- ukin.[[93]] In any case, the reference to Esarhaddon's (succession) treaty in no. 63 r.4f clearly dates the letter to the period 672-669. Moreover, the writer explicitly mentions the crown prince's palace (in Guzana) in no. 63:32 and the crown prince himself in no. 65 r.4. Incidentally, the reference to the reign of Sennacherib in no. 63:12ff is interesting but quite puzzling. The purpose of the passage is to emphasise the earlier crimes of the denounced Kutî and Tutî. The modern reader cannot help wondering at the accuracy of the information the author seems to have about these old crimes, and at the possible source(s) of this information.
The enigmatic writer is not identifiable by means of orthographic and epigraphic analysis. He remains anonymous for the time being. No known Neo-Assyrian letter-writer betrays conventions in writing that fully correspond to his.
Nonetheless, the many long letters extant from him reveal a well-established and distinctive orthography. He uses many signs in a consistent and functional manner, while at the same time allowing himself a certain freedom of alternation as well. A few observations on his writing conventions will suffice to illustrate the point. There follows a representative, though by no means an exhaustive summary of the most distinctive features of his orthography and paleography
the vocabulary of the enigmatic writer includes rare and specialised words, several of them hapax legomana, e.g. bunbullu, dannatānu, eqû, etāqu Štn, hiddu, ikīsu, luādu, maqaltānu, maṣātānu. In the field of morphology, one may note the unusual syllabification li-šá-al (for /liš'al/), attested thrice in no. 62 r.3, 8 and 67 r.11. We know only two other examples from NA letters with the same spelling.[[106]]
The writing conventions of the author reflect his subtle insight into the grammar of Neo-Assyrian and reveal his scholarly background, which is confirmed by the allusion to (his) scholarly expertise in no. 62:6-13. On the other hand, e.g., the interpretation of the passage "two or three reports should bee completed by my hand" in the same letter (rev. 9) remains uncertain, and need not refer to the author's own scholarly activities.[[107]]
Even though the enigmatic anonymous writer of these denunciations remains unidentified, it cannot be excluded that he is somebody we already now by name from other Neo-Assyrian written sources. Though the evidence points to the writer having been a scholar, he could also have been a priest acquainted with exorcistic, extispicy and astrological literature (no. 65). He certainly did not belong to the class of "magnates" (cf. no. 62 r.6f, "[ ... ] who did not stand with us before the magnates," and no. 64 r.2f, "The magnates should be given clear instructions about it"), but he seems rather to have belonged to the inner circle of scholars or the upper echelons of the palace personnel, and clearly knew the king and both the crown princes well. The only detail known about the writer's family comes from a remark in no. 63 (obv. l0f) revealing that he had at least one son holding a high office, and that this son was personally allowed to bring horses to the king.
The writer repeatedly counsels and even reminds the king of his duties in a manner which was only permitted to the king' s closest advisers, and it should be noted that only a very limited number of the most influential scholars could do that in the Neo-Assyrian Empire. lt is not very likely that these letters were written at a time when Esarhaddon was seriously ill. Otherwise we would expect the letters to contain at least a few words of encouragement to the king - unless, of course, the author was unaware of his illness, a possibility which appears rather unlikely in view of the author's extensive knowledge of "what was going on." Other possible occasions for writing these letters could have been, for instance, Esarhaddon' s absence from Nineveh, the writer's absence from Nineveh, Calah, or some other city having a royal palace, or perhaps both the writer and Esarhaddon were in fact in Nineveh, but in different palaces.
if the writer were an exorcist, haruspex, or astrologer/scribe, then his disapproval of the education given to a goldsmith's son in the relevant disciplines would become even more readily understandable (see below, "The Goldsmith and his Son"). However, as already noted, he did not necessarily have to be a representative of these disciplines, but could equally well have been a priest, a physician or a lamentation priest.
We have taken considerable pains to identify the enigmatic anonymous writer among the influential and better-known scholars and priests known from SAA 10 and 13, comparing his roster of distinctive features against theirs with the help of the data found in LAS II Appendix M5-6. However, all our efforts have been frustrated; while there is no lack of candidates for the sort of éminence grise represented by our mysterious writer, none of the candidates considered could match all the distinctive features listed above. There is only one writer who may deserve to be seriously considered: Mar- Issar, Esarhaddon's special agent in Babylonia (see SAA 10 347-370 and no. 171 of the present volume).
His orthographical and paleographical conventions fulfil most of the criteria listed above (1-3, 5-8 and 10-11), and those criteria that are not fully met (4, 9) are partially fulfilled. Thus Mar-lssar, too, writes regularly i-sa- etc. in perfect forms, but unlike the anonymous informer, he writes is-si for "with" and uses the sign MAN almost exclusively for writing the word "king."
Like the anonymous informer, Mar-Tssar probably also had a scribal back- ground. He seems to have been appointed as Esarhaddon's special agent in Babylonia comparatively late, in Tammuz 67 1 (see SAA 10 347), and thus could have spent the early part of the period 672-669 in Assyria. This would account for the difference in format between his letters (which display a format resembling that of the Babylonian letters of the Sargonic period) and those of the enigmatic informer (which are externally quite different and much bigger). The slight differences in writing conventions would also be explicable if one assumes that the two dossiers of letters date from two different time periods.
However, it must be emphasised that the orthography of Mar-Issar also displays certain features which are not at all attested in (or are in conflict with) the orthography of the enigmatic informer (such as the use of the sign I as a glide in writing certain forms of finally weak verbs, or the use of the sign -ṭí for writing the assimilated perfect infix). Hence the possibility that the enigmatic informer is to be identified as Mar-Issar, fascinating as it seems, is far from having been established. More research is called for to settle the matter definitely.
82 He certainly does not identify himself by the name in four of the letters (nos. 62-65). The remaining three letters could theoretically have included his name, since they are all broken at the beginning.
83 Bottom edge with probably three lines and two lines on the reverse are missing.
84 Two or more lines are missing at the beginning of the obverse and the end of the reverse, and two lines are missing from the upper edge.
85 Top, bottom and edges are gone, minimum number of missing lines is 16, provided all the edges were used for writing.
86 More than four lines are missing on the obverse, at least two lines on the reverse. Edges gone: Approximately four or six missing lines. We do not know if there was writing on the left edge, but one can tentatively assume two written lines on it.
87 Top and bottom with their edges broken away.
88 Interestingly, several different persons with the name Nabû-kabti-ahhešu are explicitly attested with a scholarly occupation: 1) the palace scribe of Sargon II (PNA2/II p.838 no. 1); 2) a scribe from Niniveh (after the reign of Assurbanipal, ibid. No. 4); 3) an exorcist of the Aššur temple in Assur (after the reign of Assurbanipal, ibid. No. 6); and 4) a scribe from Cutha, ancestor of several scribes (lifetime not exactly known, ibid. 7). We assume that also Nabû-kabti-ahhešu in no. 62 probably was either a scribe or an exorcist. Note that, so far, none of the persons known by the name Nabû-kabti-ahhešu can be shown to be anything other than scribes or exorcists by profession.
89 The enclitic -ma and issu qannimma suggests this interpretation.
90 On Harhar see SAA 15 p. XXVIff. And SAA 4 p.LIX and ibid. Nos. 51 and 77-78.
91 No. 65:11 and 66:3; possibly also 62 r. 12.
92 NO. 62:2-3 and 63:1.
93 See the discussion in SAA 6, p. XXVII-XXXIV.
94 No. 62:7, r. 6, 7, 13, 16; 63:10, 12, 18, 26, r. 2, 14, 16, 24, 31, s. 3; 64:3, r.4; 65:9, 10; 67 r. 8; 68:16, r. 15 (in all, 14 examples).
95 ta-mar-u-[ni] 66:5, [aš-pur]-u-ni 62:3, [ x x x ]-bu-ni 67:12. Note also ú-lab-bi-i[š]-ú-[ka-ni] 63:29 and i-qa-bu-ni-ni ibid. 33.
96 i-ša-par-an-ni 63 r.23, áš-pur-an-ni ibid. R. 29, 64 r. 6 , iš-pur-an-ni 65 r. 11, [ x x x x x x x x ]-an-ni 68 r. 17, li-ṭi-ba-a[n-ni]62 s.1 m10-ki-la-an-ni 63:3, [m10?]-ki-la-an-ni 68 r.11; i-di-nak-kan-ni 63:30, a-da-ka-an-ni 62:3, TA* qa-an-ni-ma ibid. r.5.
97 No. 62:8; cf. [un-q]a-a-te 63:19, a-bat-šar-ra-a-te 64:1; SAG.DU-pa-zu-za-a-ni 65:4, lum-[n]a-a-ni 62:10, LÚ*.mu-kil-KUŠ.a.pa-a-ni 63:21, GIŠ.ṣal-lu-ma-a-ni 65:3; LÚ*.ba-ru-u-te ibid. r.9 . The length of the vowel is left unindicated only in ṭè-ma-ni 62 r.9 and LÚ*.a-ši-pu-te 65 r.7.
98 No. 62:6; cf.hi-ṭa-ni-šú-nu 63:8.
99 The attestations are i-sa-ṭa-ru 63:14, i-sa-kan ibid. 23, i-sa-al-šú-nu ibid. r.33, i-sa-ka[n ibid. r.6., i-s[a-ap-ra] 66:3, i-si-qi 65 r.5; a-sa-me 63:27, a-sa-a[l-kunu] ibid. r.1, a-sa-kan 65:15; i-si-ni 62 r.6, i-si-šú-nu 63:7, i-si-šú 64:10; ú-se-ši-ib-šú 65 r.6, ú-sa-[ x x x ] 67 r.2 (the sign us- is only once attested and then in a broken context: ina ŠÀ-bi us-[s]ar-x [x x] 66:4); i-ta-ma-lik 63:25, i-ta-an-na-ka-a 67 r.12, i-ti-ši 67:2, i-ti-din 63 r.13, 21; a-ti-kip 63 r.32. Further, note the suppression of the gemination in the analogous preterite and present forms la i-zi-su-u-ni 62 r.7, la i-di-nu 63:17, i-di-nak-kan-ni ibid. 30, i-da-nu-u-ni 65:9; note also i-ti-i-la 64:10, i-la-ku-u-ni 64 r.4, and li-li-ku-u-ni ibid. 3.
100 Cf. bi-is (62:6, r.9, 64 r.3), a-bi-it 62:5, ni-qi-iy-te ibid. R.1, e-ki-it 64:11, ṣa-hi-it-túibid. r.4, ú-ka-ba-as 63:22, at-t[u-nu 63 r.7, ú-ba-at-ti-qu 63:20, [mta?]-at-ti-i 67:4 and x]-si-at 68 r.18.
101 Cf., e.g., q]i-ba-na-ši vs. ta-šá-al-an-na-[ši, both in 63:35; hi-ṭa-šú-nu 63:12, hi-ṭa-a-te 62:11, vs. hi-iṭ-ṭa-šú-nu 63:10; ub-ta-ti-qu ... ú-ba-at-ti-qu 63:19f; ú-lab-bi-i[š-k]a-ni ... i-di-nak-kan-ni 63:29f.
102 No. 62:10 and 63:18.
103 [AR] AD.MEŠ-šu 63 r.7, LÚ*.šak-ni-šu 64:7, 8 me-eh-ri-šu 64 r.1.
104 mpal-ṭí-ia-u no. 63:4, mi-ri-ia-u ibid.4, 28, vs. mpal-ṭī-iá-u ibid. 27; TA* pa-ni-iá 66:6 vs [prep. + i] GI-ia 62 r.10, ina ŠU.2-iá ibid. R.9 vs. ina ŠÀ-bi-uz-ni-ia 63 s.2.
105 No. 63:12, 32, r. 20; 65 r.14.
106 li-ša-al SAA 13 24:6, from Dadî, official of the Aššur temple, and li-ša-a[l]-šú-nu SAA 13 31:12, from an official of the same temple named Iddin-Aššur (cf. PNA 2/I p. 504 s.v. Iddin-Aššur 6). The latter writer shares some orthographic features with our "enigmatic author", e.g. -cu-u-ni endings for the subjunctive SAA 13 31:18, r.13 the alternation ša/šá in independent position, and the failure to mark gemination in perfect and preterite forms (a-ti-din SAA 13 31:8, a-ta-sa ibid. 9, i-din SAA 13 31 r.7). However, he cannot be identified with the latter, as he writes EN-ia/be-lí-ia, not EN-iá, from "my lord".
107 The interpretation "commands" for ṭēmāni is also possible, cf. the translation by Parpola in Nissinen Prophecy p. 143.
Mikko Luukko & Greta van Buylaere
Mikko Luukko & Greta van Buylaere, 'The Enigmatic Anonymous Informer', The Political Correspondence of Esarhaddon, SAA 16. Original publication: Helsinki, Helsinki University Press, 2002; online contents: SAAo/SAA16 Project, a sub-project of MOCCI, 2022 [http://oracc.org/saao/saa16/petitionsanddenunciations/theenigmaticanonymousinformer/]