After the problem of eliminating the excess number of PC eponyms comes the problem of placing them in chronological order. The period from 648 to 612 covered the reigns of three Assyrian kings and eponyms were frequently used to date events in their royal inscriptions. Unfortunately, the inscriptions from this period are so poorly preserved that it is often impossible to associate the eponyms with any historical event that can be dated by other means, and it is only possible to assign an eponym from a royal inscription to the reign of the king whose inscription it is. The following eponyms occur in inscriptions of Aššurbanipal:
The Sîn-šarru-uṣur belonging to the reign of Aššurbanipal is identified as the governor of Ḫindānu.[[17]] Further, a text from Sultantepe (STT 48) provides five eponyms which are generally agreed to be in chronological order:
although it is possible that other eponyms might be inserted in this sequence. This sequence is shown to fall in the reign of Aššurbanipal by the appearance of both Sîn-šarru-uṣur, known from the historical inscriptions, and Aššur-gimillī-tirri, whose name appears at the end of Eponym List A7. Other eponyms that unquestionably belong to the reign of Aššurbanipal are Bulluṭu, which appears in the date of a votive dedication made for the life of Aššurbanipal (ADD 641), and Aššur-šarru-uṣur, which, because of texts recording the purchase and subsequent resale of a slave, must be earlier than Bēl-lū-dāri.[[18]] Another eponym that is almost certain to belong to the reign of Aššurbanipal is Nabû-šarru-uṣur, Chief Eunuch, as this position was held by a man of this name under Aššurbanipal.
The following eponyms can be dated to the reign of Sîn-šarru-iškun through royal inscriptions:
In addition, Falkner's studies showed that Ṣalmu-šarru-iqbi and Sîn-šarru-uṣur, palace scribe, were later than Aššur-mātu-taqqin and therefore must also belong to the reign of Sîn-šarru-iškun.[[19]]
There are no eponyms that can be attributed with certainty to the reign of Aššur-etel-ilāni.
Only one text provides a clear link between a canonical eponym and a post-canonical one. The summary of ADD 927 (= SAA 7 59) states that it was 6 years from the eponymate of Sagabbu (651) to that of Nabû-šar-aḫḫēšu. Unfortunately, such statements are so rare that we are not able to take full advantage of this windfall, because neither the statement itself nor current usage tells us whether this timespan is measured to the beginning of the eponymate of Nabû-šar-aḫḫēšu or to its end and therefore this eponym could be placed at 646 or 645 depending on which alternative is chosen. Still, it makes this the only PC eponym (other than Bēlšunu) that can unequivocally be placed within a year of its correct position.
What may become the cornerstone of any new solution to the post-canonical eponyms is a recent reconstruction of the Eponym List A7 by S. Zawadzki which places the eponymate of Aššur-gimillī-tirri at 636 (or possibly 635) BC.[[20]] This is extremely important because Aššur-gimillī-tirri appears in the sequence of five eponyms given by STT 48 and fixing this eponym also more or less fixes the others associated with it. Falkner had placed Aššur-gimillī-tirri at * 641, but the lower date advocated by Zawadzki, although speculative, is much more in accord with the preliminary results of the prosopographic investigations carried out so far in my research on the PC eponyms.
Other than the sequence of five eponyms provided by STT 48, there are very few clues to the order in which the post-canonical eponyms held the office and these can be quickly summarized:
a) The eponymate of Kanūnāyu is earlier than that of Aššur-āatu-taqqin, and possibly immediately precedes it (TFS 6; see above, n. 12).
b) Aššur-šarru-uṣur is earlier than Bēl-lū-dāri (ND3420, ND3421 ; see above, n. 18).
c ) Pašî probably immediately follows Sîn-ālik-pāni (at Aššur) based on a sequence of ration texts (ALA N4:462-70; trans literations provided to the SAA project by O. Pedersén).
d) A text from Dūr-Šarrukēn suggests that the eponym that immediately precedes Šamaš-šarru-ibni begins with Nabû-[ ] ; Nabû-tappûtu-alik seems indicated, but Nabû-mār-šarri-uṣur is also a possibility (CTDS 1; courtesy S . Parpola).
e) Ṣalmu-šarri-iqbi is earlier than Sîn-šarru-uṣur, palace scribe, based on the promotion of Aššur-killanni during the eponymate of Ṣalmu-šarri-iqbi (ADD 309, 318, 349, 623; cf. Falkner, loc. cit. 107).
f) Similarly, Kanūnāyu, Aššur-mātu-taqqin and Sîn-šarru-uṣur, arkû, are earlier than Ṣalmu-šarri-iqbi because Aššur-killanni appears in texts dated to these eponymates with his earlier rank; a corollary to this is that Sîn-šarru-uṣur, arkû, cannot be equated with Sîn-šarru-uṣur, palace scribe (ADD 325, 361, 400, 414; cf. Falkner, ibid.).
These sparse clues, mostly already known to Falkner, are clearly not sufficient to establish the sequence of the later eponyms with any degree of scholarly rigour. There is no help to be obtained from the titles of the eponyms, since the more or less fixed sequence of the offices of the eponym holders that can be observed for most of the eighth century (see above, pp. 8-11) had fallen out of use already in the time of Sennacherib, and Sennacherib, who was the last king known to have served as eponym, did not take the office at the beginning of his reign. Although turtānu, rab šāqê, and masennu occur as PC eponyms, nāgir ekalli and šakin māti are not found. There are also a number of titles of eponyms that occur only in the post-canonical period:
showing a total departure from the earlier system, and, of course, for many of the PC eponyms no title is recorded at all.
Apart from the royal inscriptions mentioned above, the only class of Neo-Assyrian texts that was systematically dated was legal texts, usually sale, loan and other contracts. Although letters and administrative texts were sometimes dated, the vast majority of eponym attestations, particularly PC ones, come from the legal archives and it is possible by studying these archives to get some idea of which eponyms must precede or follow others. However, the time period involved (37 years) is so short that it is possible for the archive of an individual to span the entire period.[[21]]
Among the legal texts from Nineveh, there are a number of personal archives of military personnel, notably royal charioteers or members of the king's or crown prince's personal guard, which show that these men became immensely wealthy, practically overnight, after their patron came to power.[[22]] Thus the careers of these individuals, as reflected in their legal dossiers, trace the broad outlines of the known changes in leadership of the Assyrian state and it might be hoped that similar dossiers could do the same in the post-canonical period. This would seem to be a forlorn hope, however, as only three such dossiers appear among the post-canonical texts from Nineveh, and their information has already been analysed.[[23]]
Another significant source of archival information is to be found in the numerous legal archives excavated in the city of Assur.[[24]] Unlike the Nineveh archives, many Assur archives are family records, sometimes covering more than one generation, and many of the archives are interlinked, either by their findspots, their principals and witnesses, or both. Family archives can provide general clues to sequences as new members begin to take an active part in the family affairs and older ones drop out. A specific datum can be obtained from the division of the estate of Mudammiq-Aššur (SAAB 5 52 and Appendix 2) which takes place in the eponymate of Bēl-aḫu-uṣur, thus informing us that the date of any text in which Mudammiq-Aššur is an active participant must be earlier than this.
Finally, detailed analyses of the witnesses occurring in archival legal texts allow the identification of clusters of eponyms that must be close to each other in time. If sufficient such clusters can be found, the eponyms will be forced into their proper positions.[[25]] My own research is presently at this stage, and the SAA database of texts in electronic format is being systematically searched for such clusters.
A complete and convincing solution to the puzzle of the post-canonical eponyms must have a historical context that it either explains or uncovers. Thus there should be a historical basis for any scheme put forward to account for the excessive number of PC eponyms as well as the assignment of eponyms to specific years. At present, this historical context does not exist. Whether the eponyms themselves will provide the context or whether it will come from the rapid advances being made in Assyrian studies is a question that remains to be answered.
17 Aššurbanipal cylinder, BM122613, Iraq 30 pl. XXVII. This datum was not known to Falkner.
18 D. J. Wiseman, Iraq 15 (1953) 140; cf. Falkner, loc. cit. 110.
19 This was based primarily on deductions from the ranks of military personnel appearing as witnesses in the archive of a certain Kakkullānu, cohort commander of the crown prince, during the time of Sîn-šarru-iškun. See Falkner, loc. cit. 107-108.
20 SAAB 7 (1993).
21 Such as the archive of Šamaš-šarru-uṣur from Kalaḫ which begins in the canonical period and continues well into the reign of Sîn-šarru-iškun. The earliest dated text seems to date to the eponymate of Girṣapūnu (660 BC) as the texts dated to 666 or 671 presumably belong to the post-canonical Kanūnāyu. See Wiseman, Iraq 15 (1953) 135-36 and Falkner, loc. cit. 108.
22 See T. Kwasman and S. Parpola, SAA 6 (1991) XX-XXI.
23 These are the archives of Kakkullānu (see above, n. 19), Kiṣir-Aššur and Ninuāyu. Ninuāyu's archive, containing only three texts, falls in the reign of Aššurbanipal, Kakkullānu's in that of Sîn-šarru-iškun, and Kiṣir-Aššur has texts that date to both reigns (3 texts with Aššurbanipal eponyms, 1 with an eponym from the reign of Sîn-šarru-iškun, and 1 undetermined). Cf Falkner, loc. cit. 107-108.
24 For an overall view, see O. Pedersén, ALA.
25 This approach was utilised by Falkner, but with only limited success. Two factors give the present use of this method much more potential. First, the greater amount of documentation now available means that there is more raw material, and second, the advent of the computer makes the collection, analysis and comparison of the material much quicker and more certain.
Robert Whiting
Robert Whiting, 'Chronological Order', The Eponyms of the Assyrian Empire 910-612 BC, SAAS 2. Original publication: Helsinki, Helsinki University Press, 1994; online contents: SAAo/SAAS2 Project, a sub-project of MOCCI, 2023 [http://oracc.org/saao/saas2/postcanonicaleponyms/chronologicalorder/]