Jump to note [[40]].
Assuming that Nabû-taklak (nos. 62-63) is short for Ana-Nabû-taklak, the dossier of the commander of Borsippa consists of 11 dispatches.[[41]] Nos. 67-71 and possibly 72 are addressed to the king; nos. 64 and 66 to the vizier; no. 62 to his superior the governor; no. 63 to his 'brotherly' colleague (ahu "brother") Gadiya and no. 65 to an unknown recipient (the beginning of the tablet is lost).[[42]] Although Ana-Nabû-taklak does not address the king by name, he probably sent his reports to Sargon or one of his authorised subjects during and shortly after the Babylonian campaign of 710/709. The dispatches concern the state of affairs in Bit-Dakuri, the behaviour of certain groups and individual persons (including Merodach-Baladan), combat-activities, troop movements as well as the transfer of goods and provisions to and from Babylon.
Letter no. 68 is remarkable as Ana-Nabû-taklak reports that the lady referred to as the the "Borsippean" (fBarsipitu), the daughter of the local dynast, Balassu, had safely returned to Borsippa from her Assyrian exile. Apparently this occurred after the Assyrians had taken the town from Merodach-Baladan's forces.[[43]] She confirms as much in letter 73, signed by herself, when she speaks about the warm welcome she received from Ana-Nabû-taklak and the cheering population of the town.[[44]]
Balassu, the local ruler of Borsippa, can be heard in letter no. 74. He and his family had gone into exile in Assyria when Merodach-Baladan had come into power in 722. Sargon reinstalled him as ruler in his inherited dominion — Sargon on refers to him in letter no. 1.
In letters nos. 75 and 76 Nabû-šar-ahhešu, the officer on duty, reports of unrest in Borsippa; in the course of that unrest, many lives were lost while he and the troops were watching. Since he writes this report while staying in the house of Nabû-le'i, the Merodach-Baladan governor of Bit Dakuri, he probably alludes to the unrest when Sargon assumed control of the city in 710.[[45]]
We can identify the Ezida-priest Marduk as the author of the next group of letters from Borsippa: of these, nos. 77 and 78 are addressed to the the vizier and nos. 79 and 80 to the king. The priest offers his services, reassuring them that the situation in the temple was orderly and that he was praying for the wellbeing of the addressees. Hence we can draw the conclusion that he wrote the letters in 710.
The elders of the Hamurean ethnic group, living near Borsippa, are the authors of the fragmentary letter no. 81. They had also been the topic of a letter by Ana-Nabû-taklak (no. 69). They profess their loyalty to the king and address (although much of the context has been destroyed) Balassu as well as Ana-Nabû-taklak (I. 16). This might suggest a date of 710 for the letter. However, the claim of the Hamureans that they had been loyal for three years might indicate that the letter had been written half a decade later during the interregnum after Sargon's death and before the installation of Bel-ibni, i.e. in 703. At that point widespread unrest had so affected the country that Merodach-Baladan had even temporarily retaken the throne of Babylon.
The sender's name of letter no. 82 is lost. Because of the small regular duct us of writing we might assign it to Ana-Nabû-taklak. The linguistic style and the fact that the author speaks for Nabû-le'i, his son and future governor of Bit-Dakuri residing in Borsippa,[[46]] might support this assumption.
Letter no. 83 dates to the time of Sennacherib. The sender, whose name is lost, reminds the ruler of a promise made by his father to a certain Rimutu, cf. page XXIV.
Letter no. 84 speaks of troop movements and political unrest which caused the inhabitants to flee into the marshes. Hence it might date to 710 and the time immediately preceding the conquest of the city by Sargon's troops. In this case the commander Ana-Nabû-taklak might have been the sender; the ductus of the writing supports such an attribution.
No. 85 is thematically related to no. 84. It refers to the loading of equipment on to boats to be transported into the marshes. The mentioning of "Šumaya son of Nenê" (who was also mentioned in a letter of the prelate Bel-iqiša of Babylon) and of Ana-Nabû-taklak in 1. 9 also suggests a date during the time of Sargon's reign.
40 The analysis of the name Dakru with an Aramaic origin based on the formation /parrūs/, a variant of /parras/ (cf. GVG I § 156; GAG3 § 550 25), as *Dakkūru — cf. J. A. Brinkman, PKB (1968), 199 n. 1218 (Dakkuru) again in PNA 1/2, 370-372 (parrus is here probably erroneous for /parrās/) — this interpretation cannot be based on orthography and etymology. It is not suitable to replace the earlier analysis which J. A. Brinkman had proposed and which considered the twofold writing of the /k/ a margmal phenomenon (J. A. Brinkman, Fs. Oppenheim (1964), 7 n. 5).
41 Cf. K. S. Schmidt, PNA 1/1, 110; H. D. Baker, PNA 2/2, 893-894.
42 If this letter belongs to Ana-Nabû-taklak's dossier, the ductus of the large writing suggests that a different scribe wrote this letter despite the choice of words, which parallels the choice of words in no. 64.
43 Cf. Differently M. Dietrich, AOAT 253, 100-101, dating the letter to the reign of Sennacherib.
44 The lady is also mentioned in the fragmentary letter SAA 15 263.
45 W. Röllig, RlA 5, 232 and H. D. Baker, PNA 2/2, 871-873 no. 5, date the letter to the reign of Esarhaddon; G. Frame, Babylonia, 242 n. 165 and G. Vera Chamaza, AOAT 295, 208, 457-458 leave the date undetermined.
46 Cf. SAA 15 33; cf. also xvi-xvlll; M. Dietrich, WO 4 (1967/8) 83; H. D. Baker, PNA 2/2, 844, no. 5.
Manfried Dietrich
Manfried Dietrich, 'Letters from Borsippa and Bit-Dakuri (nos. 62-85)', 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/fromborsippanos6285/]