Why were these letters in Nineveh? The letters from the king or other authors in Nineveh are probably archival copies, although it is possible that the originals were archived and copies sent out.[[1]] The letters addressed to the king or other recipients in Nineveh could be the originals sent by the authors or archival copies made in Nineveh.[[2]] All the recipients of family letters could have been in Nineveh.[[3]]
There is some evidence of copying involving the two scripts, Neo-Babylonian and Neo-Assyrian. The vast majority of letters in Neo-Babylonian language are written in Neo-Babylonian script but some are written in Neo-Assyrian script. Most of the latter type are from the Assyrian king to destinations in the south, where known.[[4]] There are also letters of this type addressed to the Assyrian king.[[5]] In one instance we have two exemplars of a letter in Neo-Babylonian language from an unknown author to Assurbanipal, one in Neo-Babylonian script and one in Neo-Assyrian script.[[6]]
Another possible indicator that at least some of the texts are copies is the use of two small diagonal wedges one above the other, rendered ':' in transliteration. This sign occurs in four letters in this volume and could mark the varying line division in the original manuscripts.[[7]]
1 Nos. 1-5. Nos. 6 and 7 may be copies of letters written in Lahiru.
2 Nos. 10, 55, 85. The recipients of the following letters could also have been in Nineveh: nos. 21, 47, 160 and 178.
3 Nos. 64, 97, and 177. No. 48 is badly damaged.
4 Published letters to addressees in Babylonia or unknown destinations are no. 1; ABL 289; ABL 301; ABL 571; ABL 926; ABL 944; CT 54 509; and probably ABL 1198.
5 From Nabû-ušabši of Uruk to Assurbanipal (ABL 268; ABL 269; CT 54 429 + ABL 751); from Nabû-bel-šumati to Assurbanipal (ABL 839). There is one letter of this type between unknown correspondents (ABL 1284).
6 ABL 960 (Neo-Assyrian script); dupl. CT 54 189 (Neo-Babylonian script).
7 Nos. 54 r.19 and 100 r.12 (both from unknown authors, probably in Babylon); no. 158:16 (from the people of Babylon, unusual format); no. 201:10 (from the governor of Nippur). Were these letters regarded as being of particular significance?
Frances Reynolds
Frances Reynolds, 'Significance of the Letters as Archival Documents', The Babylonian Correspondence of Esarhaddon and Letters to Assurbanipal and Sin-šarru-iškun from Northern and Central Babylonia, SAA 18. Original publication: Helsinki, Helsinki University Press, 2003; online contents: SAAo/SAA18 Project, a sub-project of MOCCI, 2020 [http://oracc.org/saao/saa18/babyloniancorrespondence/lettersasarchivaldocuments/]