The evidence of the relations between Esarhaddon and the states east of Assyria is scattered. The first letter of the volume refers to the bilateral treaty between Esarhaddon and Urtaku, king of Elam, which was concluded in 674.[[35]] The letter emphasises the peaceful relations between Assyria and Elam. furthermore, the letter gives an absorbing example of the reciprocal exchange of royal children. This practice of pledging princes and princesses as "hostages" was undoubtedly carried out in order to safeguard the mutual peace treaty.[[36]] Whether the exchange of children was also intended to result (in a later phase) in royal marriages between the rulers' children, in order to confirm more formally the good relations between the countries, is uncertain, but doubtful.[[37]]
Elsewhere, however, the Elamites occur in an unfavourable light. There is an often discussed passage in a letter from Šamaš-šumu-ukin to Esarhaddon no. 21) which is interesting in this respect. The prince writes concerning Aššur-nadin-šumi, the eldest son of Sennacherib, who was enthroned as the king of Babylon in 700:[[38]] "Moreover, he (a denounced astrologer) has assembled the people who captured Aššur-nadin-šumi (and) delivered him to Elam.He has concluded a treaty with them, adjuring them by Jupiter (and) Sirius."
If this passage is to be understood literally, it is somewhat surprising to .ind that, approximately 25 years after the delivery of Aššur-nadin-šumi to Elam by some Babylonians,[[39]] these same Babylonians were still alive, despite all the vindicative measures taken by Sennacherib against Babylonia. We do not know what kind of feelings Esarhaddon, a brother of Aššur-nadin-šumi, harboured in the matter, but it is reasonable to suppose that if those men were still alive, Esarhaddon would have pursued them from the moment he learned their names. Hence it is very interesting that the names of the men are not actually stated in the letter. Does this mean that the Assyrians already knew who they were, or had these men succeeded in keeping their identity a secret for almost 25 years? In any case, the picture we get from the situation is not very clear.
It is difficult even to imagine Esarhaddon punishing the culprits, if one takes into consideration that one of his main concerns was to regain the trust of the Babylonians after his father's atrocious retribution against Babylonia. Picking up the old matter of Aššur-nadin-šumi again might have fuelled new discord between the Assyrians and Babylonians, and possibly between the Assyrians and Elamites also. But instead of new conflicts arising between the Assyrians and Elamites, we can cite the conclusion and maintenance of the aforementioned peace treaty between Esarhaddon and Urtaku, king of Elam.
On the whole, Assyrian-Elamite relations during the reign of Esarhaddon are far from clear.[[40]] Apart from the two letters already discussed, Elamites occur only in the reports of Nabû-ra'im-nišešu and Salamanu, two officials keeping an eye on the situation in the Babylonian-Elamite border zone.[[41]] Some of their letters seem to date from 675-674, but others could be later, as one of them certainly dates from (the beginning of) the reign of Assurbanipal.[[42]]
It seems plausible to identify the Humbariš who is mentioned in two fragmentary letters (nos. 146 and 147) with Humbariš of Nahšimarti, one of the Median 'city-rulers' with whom Esarhaddon concluded his succession treaty. The most conclusive evidence for identifying Humbard; of these letters with Humbaris of the succession treaty is the reference to "(military) help, aid" (kitru) in no. 147[[43]], Another eastern partner of this treaty can be identified in no. 150, where the emissaries of Mazamua are mentioned in a context that clearly relates to the conclusion of the succession treaty.[[44]]
Despite this treaty, the tension between Assyria and the territories to the east does not seem to have eased off significantly after 672, since all potential deserters from Mannea, Media or Hubuškia were at that time to be sent immediately to the crown prince according to no. 148 (for this letter see also below, "North and Northwest").[[45]]
The main reason for the continuing tension between Assyria and the eastern countries was undoubtedly the pressure caused by the migrations of the Cimmerians and the Scythians. These migrations brought them from the north up to the eastern side of the Zagros mountains during the reign of Esarhaddon. The letters of the present volume are not very illustrative in this matter, but they provide us with some stray remarks: one small letter fragment (no. 149) informs us of fighting in Bit-Hamban, probably against the Cimmerians or the Scythians,[[46]] and mentions the crown prince. Also two letters (nos. 15 and 16) by crown prince Assurbanipal himself confirm the presence of the Cimmerians in the east.[[47]]
Moreover, no. 15 is of particular interest to the early history of Media, because it might confirm - the context is unfortunately broken - that the son of Cyaxares (= U(m)aksatar, 1. 20) was Phraortes (perhaps something like Paramurtu in NA, if the name mentioned in no. 15:24 really refers to him). lt should be noted that the U(m)aksatar mentioned here is not the later king of the Medes, son of Phraortes, but most likely the Median city-ruler of Nartu.[[48]]
35 The treaty was broken by Urtaku ten years later. For the treaty and its background. see SAA 2 p. XVll f and M. Water,. SAAS 12 p. 42ff.
36 See Parpola. Iraq 34 (1972) 34 n. 66 and SAA 2 p. XVII.
37 There is evidence that Esarhaddon gave. or at least was planning to give. two of hi, daughters in marriage to foreigners, see S. Dalley. SAAB 12 (1998) 84. and SAA 4 20-22. [Dalley stats that a daughter of Esarhaddon was married to Sheshonk. but the document on which this is based (SAA 6 142) is dated in 692. so it seems perhaps unlikely that the hatna šarri mentioned there was a son-in-law of Esarhaddon.] (HDB)
38 See e.g., Parpola. lraq 34 (1972) 32f and J. Brinkman. JCS 25 (1975) 91f.
39Grayson Chronicles p. 78:42.
40 On the Assyrian-Elamite relations at the time of Esarhaddon. see M. Waters, SAAS 12 p. 37ff.
41 See nos. 136, 138, and 146-147.
42 See no. 143. On the whole, the evidence for dating Nabû-ra'im-nišešu's letters is rather elusive. For example, Šarru-iqbi, an Assyrian fortress on the Mannean border, mentioned in no. 142:8. is mentioned in a similar context also in the inscriptions of Assurbanipal. cf. Streck Asb p. 102 iii 71. On the other hand, one could hypothesise that no. 142 pertained to "Esarhaddon's Mannean War" cf. SAA 4 p. LIXf and no. 29. The reference (in no. 137) to the arrival of a messenger from the land Arasi al Nippur in connection with a peace treaty could refer to 674, in which case the kings having made peace are Esarhaddon and Urtaku. One wonders if the unnamed Elamite(?) crown prince mentioned in no. 136: I 1-13 could be Urtaku (in 675)? A promising clue for dating Nabû-ra'im-nišešu's letters could be the person called Umban-kidinni. He has an Elamite name and occurs in four letters of Nabû-ra'im-nišešu. This Umban-kidinni must have been an influential man, but due to the frequency of his name, it is difficult to define his role in the NA correspondence more precisely. cf. Waters, SAAS 12 p. 115. The most well-known Umban-kidinni. however, was probably active around the mid-seventh century. sec ibid. pp. 54. 114f.
43 In PNAA 2/1 p. 478 s.v. Humbares, the city ruler mentioned in the succession treaty (= Humbareš I.) is cautiously kept separate from the individual mentioned in nos. 146 and 147 (= Humbareš 2.). with the note "possibly identical with 2". However, it seems certain that one and the same person is in question in all instances, as kitrû is attested in Esarhaddon's royal inscriptions in particular together with the Median 'city-rulers', cf. M. Liverani 'The Medes at Esarhaddon·s Court." JCS 47 (1995) 57-62, esp. 61f and SAA 2 p. XXXf.
44 Sec SAA 2 6:3 and p. XXX.
45 Cf. the discussion of the letter in SAA 4 p. I, VIIIf.
46 For the presence of the Cimmerians and the Scythians in Mannca. sec SAA 4 p. LXIf and ibid. nos. 35-40, also SAA IS p. XXIX. The Cimmerians and Scythians are never explicitly mentioned acting together but arc treated separately even in the same context, cf. SAA 4 p. LXIf. Although it is known that they were hostile towards each other, could it, however, imply that the Assyrian, had some difficulty in distinguishing rhe Cimmerians from the Scythians and vice-versa, or that the Assyrians were rather inaccurate in some cases when speaking of them (cf. SAA 4 35-40. 65-67, 71)?
47 Compare the prophetic words about the Cimmerian, by Mullissu to Assurbanipal, from the time he was crown prince. in SAA 9 7: 4 and p. LXX (for further sources).
48 See SAA 4 pp. LXf and especially LXXV n. 255. cf. also the Table III in SAA 15 p. XXVII.
Mikko Luukko & Greta van Buylaere
Mikko Luukko & Greta van Buylaere, 'The East and Southeast', 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/relationsbetweenassyriaanditsneighbours/theeastandsoutheast/]