Sin-duri, prelate of the Eanna temple in Uruk, is the author of the first three
dispatches. They are addressed to Sargon (nos. 129-130) and a superior.
Letter no. 130 contains complaints about the governor of Uruk
Nabû-šuma-iškun and his colleague in Babylon, Qištiya
(=Qišti-Marduk). Hence it allows us to date it to the latter's time in
office during the years 710/709.[[56]]
The next subdivision, nos. 132-139, consists of dispatches by various
authors from the time of Sargon and Sennacherib:
- No. 132: A letter of Bulluṭu to the vizier, containing a list of 20 defectors to
Aššur-belu-taqqin,[[57]] the Assyrian prefect of Babylonia
after the takeover by Sargon in 710. Possibly Bulluṭu is the addressee of Sargon's letter no. 3.
- No. 133: A letter of complaint of the fortress commander Nabû-dan to the
governor and Nabû-šuma-iškun.
- No. 134: Apart from the introductory formula, a reference to the Yakinite is the
only thing remarkable about this letter written by Ṣillaya. It possibly refers to
Merodach-Baladan. However, it is impossible to verify whether this refers to
Merodach-Baladan's retreat from Babylonia in 710/709 or his attempt to retake
the throne in 704.
- No. 135: This fragmentary letter might have the same author as no. 134 because
the ductus of the writing is very similar; worth noting is a lament that he does
not feel comfortable as a citizen of Der in Uruk; there are, however, no clues
that would ailow us to put a precise date to this letter.
- No. 136: Marduk-naṣir reports to the vizier that an Elamite army had moved
into position in Bit-lmbiya; this possibly dates the dispatch to the time of
Sennacherib.[[58]]
- No. 137: Nabû-zera-iddina reassures Sargon that he had not entered into a
bargain with Merodach-Baladan.
- No. 138: An unidentified author, whose name ends in -eššir, apparently refers
to the bargain, mentioned in 137, between Nabû-zera-iddina and Merodach-Baladan.
- No. 139: A letter of Šuma-ukin to Nergal-naṣir. It is problematic to assign this
private letter to a distinctive location because both names are frequent; in
addition it is also difficult to assign any of the other names mentioned in this
document. Since Kuthaeans, a messenger of the king of Elam and a Urukean
are mentioned, the letter might possibly originate from a middle Babylonian
settlement, for example Uruk. Concerning a possible date, we ought to consider
whether the reference "during these eight years" (l. 8) and "second year of King
Merodach-Baladan" (l. 15-16, r. 17-18), which together account for 10 years,
might hint at the year 713. In that case this letter would be the oldest document
of the NB corpus of letters from Kuyunjik.
The dossier of Nabû-ušallim constitutes the last subdivision of the letters
from Uruk. This group can be identified because of the Assyrianisms and a
very idiosyncratic ductus of writing — the Assyrian form of the NI and the
deeply imprinted regular writing are especially remarkable. These letters are
addressed to the king (nos. 140, 143 ) and his vizier (nos. 141, 142, 144?).
Nabû-ušallim is apparently responsible for reports about the activities of
Aramaic tribes and Merodach-Baladan's activities southeast and east of
Uruk during the early years of Sennacherib's reign. No. 144 is a good example of
this, cf. page XX.
56 Cf. Qišti-Marduk's reference to Sin-duri in nos. 38-42.
57 ef. A. Fuchs, SAA 15, xvi-xix, xl.
58 For SAA 15 118 = ABL 1063, cf. S. Parpola, AOAT 281 (2002),
573-576; differently: SAA 15, xxxiii-xxxv, referring to Sargon.
Manfried Dietrich, 'Letters from Uruk (nos. 129-144)', 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/fromuruknos129144/]