Letters from Babylon (nos. 20-58)

As was to be expected, the group of letters from Babylon is extensive. Probably some of the letters presented in groups 11, The Letters of Unknown Provenance; and 12, Letters of Unknown Authorship at the end of this volume belong to this group of letters from Babylon.

The first letter, no. 20, addressed to the vizier, came from the priest Belšsunu. He reports that influential Babylonians and the major gods of Babylon are welcoming the troops. Hence we can date the letter to early 710. The next subdivision consists of the correspondence of Bel-iqiša, the prelate of the Esaggil and the Ezida: nos. 21-31. These letters belong together because of the ductus of writing, the linguistic style, and the introductory formulas. They illuminate particularly well the events immediately before and during the Assyrian takeover of Babylon in 710. Bel-iqiša sent them either to the king himself (nos. 22, 24, 27, 28, 29, 31[[31]]) or his vizier (no. 21), his superior Nabû-šarru-uṣur (nos. 25-26), or to another official of the court (nos. 23, 30?). Especially noteworthy are the comments (in no. 22) about the decisive battle between the forces of Sargon and Merodach-Baladan at Bab-Bitqi.[[32]]

The two letters of the Esaggil priest Ina-tešî-eṭir, nos. 32 and 33, report that everything was quiet in the major temple of Babylon and in the temples in the countryside. Since they also mention his prayer for the prosperity and victory of the king, they appear to be addressed to Sennacherib.[[33]]

To Sennacherib's reign[[34]] is dated also the dossier of the Esaggil priest Nabû-šumu-lišir (nos. 34-38) who was serving during the time of the viceroy Bel-ibni.[[35]] These letters have a very uniform ductus of writing.

It is remarkable that in no. 36, in addition to Nabû-šumu-lišir, the priest Eṭeru functions as co-author. This was probably not the prelate of the same name of whom Ilu-iada' speaks in SAA 15 161:10 and who was active in the Esaggil.[[36]]

Letters nos. 39-42 constitute a group of four dispatches from Qišti-Marduk to Sargon in 710/709 in which as incumbent prelate of the Esaggil he refutes claims of the governor Nabû-šuma-iškun to his position.[[37]] It would be informative to know more about the relationship between Qišti-Marduk and Bel-iqiša, the sender of letters nos. 21-31 who prepared Sargon's road into Babylon. Were they identical or was one the other's successor?

The special envoy Bel-iddina wrote the two letters nos. 43-44. They inform Sargon about southern Babylonia and its temples. Possibly these letters were composed after the conclusion of Sargon's Babylonian campaign in 709. In 707 or shortly afterwards they were sent with the results of his investigations to Kalah. In no. 43 he praises Sîn-iddina who is the recipient of Sargon's letter no. 2.[[38]]

The following three letters to Sargon each have a different sender: no. 45, Ilu-ipuš; no. 46, Nabš-šuma-iškun, the prelate at the Esaggil, who had been replaced by Qišti-Marduk; and no. 4 7, Rimutu, the priest who was responsible for the restoration of the Esaggil.

Amel-Nabû sent the next three letters, nos. 48-50. Since they indicate that Babylonia from the border with Elam to the great lagoon was under Assyrian rule, they were probably sent to Sargon around 709 or shortly afterwards. Arad-Ea is the author of the badly preserved letter no. 51, which is addressed to Sargon. It apparently covers affairs in Borsippa, naming Balassu (l. 6; also mentioned in Sargon's letter no. 1, l. 18) and Nabû-šar-ahhešu (r. 11).

The last subdivision consists of the dossier of Bel-ibni, viceroy of Babylon from 703-700: nos. 52-57.[[39]]

The name of the sender of the fragmentary letter no. 58, addressed to the king, is lost. It does not belong to the correspondence of Bel-ibni because of its ductus of writing, the remarkably large hand, and the contents. Since the author gives his view on presents to the king, it might be part of an artisan's justification.



31 No. 31 differs from the other letters of this sender in its ductus, specifically in its size, the depth of the wedges and the inclination of the writing. The introduction and the diction, however, point strongly to Bel-iqiša.

32 Cf. nos. 56 and 101 as well as SAA 15, xv-xvii — it is questionnable whether the commander of Merodach-Baladan's troops, DUMU-Zerî is really identical with the latter.

33 Cf. S. W. Holloway, Assur King (2002), 256 n. 105, who sees this as a letter to Sargon.

34 Noteworthy is the use of the logogramm ŠÁR in the epithet "King of the Universe" (LUGAL ŠÁR), which is commonly ŠÚ in the letters to Sargon.

35 Bel-ibni is referred to in a destroyed context in nos. 35 and 36.

36 Cf. SAA 15, 110 and xviii, xl.

37 For more details concern!ng this affair, cf. no. 130, a letter of the Eanna-priest Sin-duri to Sargon.

38 S. W. Holloway, Assur Kmg (2002), 308: "Sargon II (710 or later)," G. Vera Chamaza, AOAT 295, 88, 308-309, dates the letter to the reign of Sennacherib.

39 See above for Bel-ibni's correspondence.

Manfried Dietrich

Manfried Dietrich, 'Letters from Babylon (nos. 20-58)', The Neo-Babylonian Correspondence of Sargon and Sennacherib, SAA 17. Original publication: Helsinki, Helsinki University Press, 2003; online contents: SAAo/SAA17 Project, a sub-project of MOCCI, 2020 [http://oracc.org/saao/saa17/presentationoftheletters/frombabylonnos2058/]

 
Back to top ^^
 
SAAo/SAA17, 2014-. Since 2015, SAAo is based at the Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Historisches Seminar (LMU Munich, History Department) - Alexander von Humboldt Chair for Ancient History of the Near and Middle East. Content released under a CC BY-SA 3.0 [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/] license, 2007-20.
Oracc uses cookies only to collect Google Analytics data. Read more here [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/doc/about/cookies/index.html]; see the stats here [http://www.seethestats.com/site/oracc.museum.upenn.edu]; opt out here.
http://oracc.org/saao/saa17/presentationoftheletters/frombabylonnos2058/