This extensive group consists mostly of small fragments which might be
dated to the time of Sargon and Sennacherib because of their ductus of
writing, the linguistic style, or their contents mentioning certain persons,
events or places. Over the next pages, we shall list them and present them in
detail only if they contain recognisably important information.
- No. 169: As Aššur-bel-taqqin, the Assyrian prefect of Babylonia after Sargon's
conquest, is mentioned in a context that relates to Babylon, the letter must date
to 710.
- No. 170: In this fragmentary letter to the vizier, the author reports about Lahiru
and the retreat of a certai n Mušezib-Marduk to Elam albeit with out context.
Hence we might assume, as in the case of no. 136 - cf. page XXVIII - that we
might date this Jetter to Sennacherib's time, adding alternatively in l. 3 Bi[t-Imbiya]
and l. 4 e-mu-qu šá KUR.[NIM.MA.KI]. In respect to Mušezib-Marduk
(alias Šuzubu), we might gather that he is the Babylonian king (692 to
689)[[73]] who escaped to Elam. Thus the document should
be dated to the time of Sennacherib's reign with 692 as the terminus post quem.
- No. 171: If Rimutu refers to the Esaggil prelate, the letter will have to be dated
to the time of Sargon — cf. no. 47, as well as page XXIV.
- No. 172: Th e references to Der, the Luhayataeans, the Iasubaeans, and the
prefect of Mazamua[[74]] point to Sargon 's campaign in
the Babylonian-Elamite border region in 710.[[75]]
- No. 173: The commander of a fortress reports to the king that a
legal representative for his affairs has arrived in Arrapha.
- No. 174: The unknown author of the letter informs the king about the dilapidated
condition of the Yakinite fortress Dur-ša-Yaki n. As l. 10 mentions the
king of Baby [lon], it probably refers to the last phase of Merodach-Baladan's
reign.
- No. 175: The letter appears to invite the troops to take over Marad, and thus
seems to reflect events related to the conquest of Babylonia in 710/709. Nabû-
taklak also refers to Marad in a letter written at th e same time (no. 62) to his
superior, the Governor — cf. page XXIV. Therefore this fragment might also
belong to a letter of Nabû-taklak to the governor. Indeed, the ductus supports
this hypothesis.
- No. 176: The fragment mentions Der and the Aramaeans, as well as the region
Gambulu. Thus it reminds one of no. 172. The difference in the ductus of the
two letters, however, prevents us from linking the two fragments more closely.
- No. 177: The letter to the vizier repeatedly mentions Marduk-šarru-uṣur. Thus
one can connect it thematically to the dossiers of Lanšê (nos. 92-100) and of
Ana-Nabû-taklak (nos. 64- 72), dating to the early years of Sennacherib. The
ductus of writing might allow us to connect this fragment to the letters of Lanšê.
- No. 178: The fragment mentions the Elamites (l. 2) and Nabû-šuma-iškun (l. 6).
Yet it offers no precise details about them.
- No. 179: Fragment of a letter by several authors, addressed to the king without
any further evidence.
- No. 180: Fragment of a letter by several authors to an official in the king's
service.
- No. 181: The sender refutes the accusation that he allowed the Yakinite (Merodac
h-Baladan) to pass without hindrance. Thus the letter can be dated to the
time of Sargon's Babylonian campaign 710 to 709.
- No. 182: Since Lanšê is mentioned in l. 3, the fragment is part of a letter to
Sennacherib dating to the early part of his reign.
- No. 183: The name of the sender of this letter is lost. It mentions Tilmun (l. 9),
an Urartaean (l. 10 ), and incense (l. 10). Thus it concerns the transregional
commerce between the Persian Gulf and Assyria. Since the addressee is the
crownprince (r. 9) Sennacherib, we can safely place this document in a timeframe
between 708 and 704.[[76]]
- No. 184: The reference to Tyre joins this fragment with no. 159, a letter
(presumably written in Babylon) of Nabû-ili which concerns the Tyreans.[[77]]
- No. 185: The sender, whose remarkably large, irreg ular writing appears to be
the work of a dilettante, mentions Marduk-šarrani twice (r. 4, 6). His role cannot
be verified since in both cases the context is lost.
- No. 186: The fragment mentions Merodach-Baladan (l. 3) as Sargon's opponent.
The latter is probably meant because of the phrase "lord of kings" (l. 6).[[78]]
- No. 187: A conjecture of BÀD š[á (É)
mia-ki -ni] can be based on I0:11; 146 r. 7; 174:6, r. 5, 7. The usage URU.MES "towns" is remarkable.
- No. 188: As Lanšê is mentioned in l. 7, the fragment — like no. 182 — probably
dates to the early part of Sennacherib's reign.
- No. 189: Fragment of a letter to the king.
- No. 190: Although the author mentions the god Nabû (l. 2) and his connection
to the fortress Borsippa, the fragment probably belongs to a letter of Aqar-Bel-lumur
with or without Nabû-šumu-lišir (cf. nos. 103-126 and cf. page XXVII).
The references to fortresses (l. 7) and the ductus of writing give reasons for such
an assumption — especially since Aqar-Bel-lumur as commander of Gambulu
repeatedly talks about fortresses.
- No. 191: We include this fragment in the corpus of Sargon's letters because the
Zabaya who is mentioned in l. 3 (although without context) might very well be
the commander of a fortress and the sender of SAA 5 245.
- No. 192: The references to a Gambulean officer Kalbi-Ukû (l. 1) and to Lanšê
(r. 6) allow us to date this fragment to the years immediately after Sennacherib's
ascension to the throne, cf. nos. 127 and 128, page XXVII.
- No. 193: The allusion to combat activities (dīktu
"defeat," l. 3) near Bit-Bunakki (l. 4) could suggest a date of this
fragment in the time of Sennacherib's reign.[[79]]
- No. 194: As Bit-Yakin (l. 4) is referred to, the fragment might be part of a letter
dating to the time of Sargon or Sennacherib.
- No. 195: The reference to the Litamu (l. 7)[[80]] and
the city Nunak links this letter to SAA 15 186, a letter of
Šamaš-abu-uṣur to the governor. Since SAA 15 I 86 and no. 22 (of this
volume), a letter of Bel-iqiša to Sargon, both refer to the decisive
battle near Bab-Bitqi in 710, this letter (no. 195) might also be a
letter of Bel-iqiša from 710. This assumption is supported by the ductus of the writing.
- No. 196: This fragment belongs to the time of Sargon or Sennacherib because
of the mention of Merodach-Baladan (l. 7).
- No. 197: Since the commander of Borsippa, Ana-Nabû-taklak (l. 2), is referred
to in the fragment, it can be dated to the time of Sargon — cf. nos. 62-72, page XXIV.
- No. 198: Considering the ductus of the writing, the fragment might be part of
a letter to Sargon written by Ana-Nabû-taklak from Borsippa. It mentions the
prefect Aššur-belu-taqqin, as well as Merodach-Baladan.
- No. 199: This is a fragment of a letter to Sargon written by the prelate Bel-iqiša.
On the front side the sender talks of the southern Babylonian town Qibi-Bel
which belongs to Bit Yakin (l. 6). On the reverse he mentions the Esaggil (r. 4)
and refers a bit later on to bowmen, apparently somehow connected to Merodach-
Baladan. This reminds us of letter no. 158 in which Merodach-Baladan
sent to Sargon a rebuttal of the accusations that at an earlier time his troops had
shot at the temple — cf. page XXX.
- No. 200: This fragment of an unknown author mentions in connection with
Merodach-Baladan a series of persons whos functions can no longer be made
out.
- No. 201: The ductus of the writing and the mentioning of Dur-Ladini support
the assumption that the fragment belongs to a letter to Sargon written by the
commander of Borsippa, Ana-Nabû-taklak — cf. no. 197.
- No. 202: The fragment refers to southern Babylonia apparently during or
immediately after the Assyrian conquest in 710/709 because it mentions
Bab-[Marrat] (l. 3), Bit-Zabi[di] (l. 5), a not otherwise known
Bit-Ša[k ...] (l. 8) and Merodach-Baladan (1. 6).
- No. 203: Fragment of a letter to the king, written by several authors.
- No. 204: Fragment of a letter to Sargon or Sennacherib, written by several
authors, which contains reports about Elam (l. 7) and the tribe of the Ru'aeans
(l. 9), but unfortunately does not offer any evidence for a date.
- No. 205: The fragment mentions Humbê of Bit-Zualza, and can thus be connected
with the letters SAA 15 68 and 86.[[81]]
- No. 206: Fragment of a private letter written by an unknown sender to a certain
Nabû-šuma-iškun. The addressee might be identical with the addressee of no.
133, to whom the fortress-commander Nabû-dan complains.
- No. 207: Fragment of a letter to the king, of which only the submissive greeting
remains.
73 M. Dietrich, Aramäer (1970), 21; J. A. Brinkman,
Prelude (1984), 62-65; E. Frahm, Sanherib (1997), 209-211. H. D. Baker, PNA 2/2, 781-782, no. 2, does not restore the divine name and leaves it undecided which person is
reported on in this letter.
74 Perhaps Adad-isseʾa, cf. H. Hunger, PNA 1/1, 27, as well as the dossier of letters SAA 5 199-226.
75 Cf. in general A. Fuchs, SAA 15 xxxii-xxxiii.
76 For Sennacherib's letters as crown prince cf. SAA 1 29-40 and SAA 5 281.
77 The mode of writing with considerable space between
the lines and the ductus of writing could suggest that both fragments are part of the same tablet — however, without joining.
78 Cf. H. D. Baker, PNA 2/2, 727.
79 Cf. S. Parpola, AOAT 281, 573-576; differently
A. Fuchs, SAA 15 xxxiii-xxxiv: Sargon 710.
80 For the Litamu, cf. R. Zadok, RGTC 8 213;
cf. A. Fuchs, Sar. (1994), 444: Liʾtaju; E. Frahm, Sanherib (1997), 44.
81 For Humbe of Bit-Zualza, cf. H. D. Baker/R. Schmitt,
PNA 2/1, 478.