Study on the Synchronistic King List from Ashur 9004430911, 9789004430914

Citation preview

Study on the Synchronistic King List from Ashur

Cuneiform Monographs Editors t. abusch – m.j. geller s.m. maul – f.a.m. wiggermann

volume 51

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/cumo

Study on the Synchronistic King List from Ashur By

CHEN Fei

LEIDEN | BOSTON

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Chen, Fei, 1984- author. Title: Study on the Synchronistic King list from Ashur / by Fei Chen  (Peking University). Description: Leiden ; Boston : Brill, [2020] | Series: Cuneiform  monographs, 0929-0052 ; vol. 51 | Includes bibliographical references. |  Summary: “In Study on the Synchronistic King List from Ashur, CHEN Fei  conducts a full investigation into that king list, which records all the  kings of Assyria and Babylonia in contemporary pairs from the 18th to  the 7th century BC. The texts of all the exemplars of the Synchronistic  King List are reconstructed anew by the existing studies and the  author’s personal collations on their sources, and part of the text of  the main exemplar is thus revised. The author also looks into the format  of the Synchronistic King List and draws the conclusion that the  Synchronistic King List was composed by Ashurbanipal, king of Assyria,  to support his Babylonian policy.”– Provided by publisher. Identifiers: LCCN 2020014360 (print) | LCCN 2020014361 (ebook) | ISBN  9789004430914 (hardback) | ISBN 9789004430921 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Babylonia—Kings and rulers. | Assyria—Kings and rulers. |  Cuneiform inscriptions, Akkadian—History—Sources. |  Assyria—History—Sources. | Akkadian language—Texts. | Ashurbanipal,  King of Assyria, active 668 B.C.–627 B.C. Classification: LCC PJ3837.A6 C47 2020 (print) | LCC PJ3837.A6 (ebook) |  DDC 935—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020014360 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020014361 Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill-typeface. ISSN 0929-0052 ISBN 978-90-04-43091-4 (hardback) ISBN 978-90-04-43092-1 (e-book) Copyright 2020 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi, Brill Sense, Hotei Publishing, mentis Verlag, Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh and Wilhelm Fink Verlag. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

To My Family

…

Als Zarathustra dreißig Jahre alt war, verließ er seine Heimat und den See seiner Heimat und ging in das Gebirge.

Friedrich Nietzsche, Also sprach Zarathustra: Ein Buch für Alle und Keinen

⸪

Contents Preface ix Acknowledgements xi List of Tables xii Abbreviations xiii 1 Introduction 1 1 King Lists in Mesopotamia 1 2 The Synchronistic King List from Ashur 5 3 Research Review on the Synchronistic King List 10 4 Main Arguments of This Study 27 2 The Texts of the Synchronistic King List 30 1 A.117 31 2 KAV 10 99 3 KAV 13 104 4 KAV 9 106 5 KAV 11 110 6 KAV 12 113 7 A.118 115 3 The Format of the Synchronistic King List 125 1 Comparisons between the Synchronistic King List and the Other King Lists 125 2 Comparisons between A.117 and the Other Exemplars of the Synchronistic King List 128 3 The Arrangement of the Parallel Pairs of Kings in A.117 131 4 The Composition of the Synchronistic King List 140 1 The Date of the Synchronistic King List 140 2 The Beginning Entry of A.117 144 3 The Number of Kings Listed in A.117 154 4 The Use of “MIN” 160 5 The Meanings of “Ummânu” 162 6 The Implications of “King of Akkad” 166

viii

Contents

5 The Purpose of the Synchronistic King List 171 Studies on the Purposes of Some Other King Lists 171 1 2 Previous Propositions on the Purpose of the Synchronistic King List 174 3 A Tentative Solution to the Purpose of the Synchronistic King List: the Babylonian Policy of Ashurbanipal 175 6 Conclusion 190 Appendix I: A List of Assyrian Kings 197 Appendix Ii: A List of Babylonian Kings 202 Appendix Iii: The Selected Synchronistic Kings of Assyria and Babylonia in the Lacunae of A.117 207 Bibliography 217 Plates 239 Index of Personal Names 244

Preface It must be coincidence that when my interest was first aroused by the Syn­ chronistic King List (ScKL) several years ago, nearly one century had passed since its discovery. I soon learned that this document has suffered more than its share of bad luck: not only were its exemplars largely damaged when they were found, but it had seldom been mentioned by scholars after its initial publication. However, I believed that a king list containing 180 kings from Assyria and Babylonia, covering a long period of more than 1000 years, was a very significant source of historical information. It deserved more attention. This is why I decided to do this research. As to the bad luck of the ScKL, this consists chiefly of three aspects. The first is the poor condition of the single main tablet (A.117). Much of the obverse of the tablet, especially the second column on the right side, is barely recognizable. Perhaps that is why Schroeder merely made a copy of the reverse (KAV 216) of the tablet, which was preserved comparatively better than the obverse. Weidner, although having made a full copy of the whole tablet, nonetheless reminded us that we should be cautious about his restorations of the second column of the obverse. After reexamining the tablet in the museum of Istanbul, Brinkman also discovered that the condition of the tablet had deteriorated even further. A second misfortune is the fact that the other exemplars of the ScKL are only small fragments, for which our knowledge is too insufficient to reach a sound conclusion. And finally, when it was published, the ScKL was mainly used as a source for determining the kings of Assyria or Babylonia unknown at that time, which can be seen from the early studies of Weidner. However, as more sources of king lists of Assyria and Babylonia were found, the ScKL turned out to be not so important. Consequently, the ScKL was relegated to the role of an auxiliary source, occasionally mentioned in studies on the chronology of ancient Mesopotamia. Regardless of these disadvantages mentioned above, I remain confident that we shall improve the scholarship on the ScKL from new perspectives. Without a doubt, the ScKL is unique among other king lists of Mesopotamia, in that it records the kings from two lands rather than merely from one land or dynasty. Therefore, the way we judge the ScKL should not be the same as that by which we treat other king lists. Moreover, even if the texts of the ScKL cannot supply new information, the format of the ScKL can be taken as a favorable point of access. I suggest that we should never overlook the format of a particular document, since it is the format that reflects the design of the textual

x

Preface

structure decided by the very nature of the document. For instance, the lost entries in the ScKL can be restored with the help of the Assyrian King List or the Babylonian King List, but more significant may be the structure itself: the drawing of the horizontal dividing lines, which enclosed particular pairs of contemporary kings together into separate units. Nevertheless, it has not been that easy to carry out this research, since too many scattered problems involved in the investigation of the ScKL had to be resolved. At the beginning when I started to prepare for this work, I did not even know how to elaborate this subject clearly in conversation with my colleagues. The two most frequent words I heard from the comments of my colleagues were “interesting” and “difficult”. Admittedly, as they thought, it has indeed been “difficult”; as for “interesting”, I suppose they were merely being polite, and had no idea what to say. But for me, the work is truly interesting; my analysis of the ScKL has revealed new perspectives and interpretations of a very unique document. It may be difficult to decide exactly to what extent Assyriology can be viewed as a kind of philology. In most cases, what we are facing are only silent materials and tablets. Generally, apart from the sources themselves, there is another important tool that we have to rely on for the study of Assyriology, i.e. the rational logic. As pointed out by an Assyriologist, the major factor leading to the success or failure of our studies may be the questions we pose or the way we pose the questions. Thus, I would further propose that the development of our studies will sometimes depend on the possibilities of providing alternative ways to resolve the problems not yet resolved, since the truth is: we cannot change the sources themselves, but we can improve our own interpretations of the sources. This is what I try to do in the present work. CHEN Fei

Beijing February 24, 2020

Acknowledgements This monograph, based upon the manuscript of the author’s doctoral dissertation submitted to Peking University in 2014, was revised with the funds of the Postdoctoral Fellowship (Point-2015 of Topoi) supported by the Dahlem Research School of Freie Universität Berlin. This monograph would not have been possible without the help of many people and institutions. I would like to thank my teacher, the supervisor of my doctoral dissertation, Prof. Dr. Yushu Gong of Peking University. I am grateful to the supervisor of my postdoctoral research project in Topoi, Prof. Dr. Eva Cancik-Kirschbaum, the director of the Altorientalistik Institut of Freie Universität Berlin, who encouraged me to publish my doctoral dissertation, which was completed during a study visit at Freie Universität Berlin funded by the China Scholarship Council. I am also grateful to Prof. Dr. Walther Sallaberger of Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, who supervised me during my postdoctoral research funded by the Graduate School of Distant Worlds (Munich Graduate School for Ancient Studies) and helped me to develop my theories on certain issues involved in the original manuscript. I thank Prof. Dr. Jian Liu from the Institute of World History at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, who led me to the study of Assyriology, and Prof. Dr. Zheng Li, the Hittitologist at Peking University, who gave me much assistance with my research. I also thank Dr. Ingo Schrakamp of Freie Universität Berlin, who gave me very helpful advice when I started to compose the original manuscript during an earlier study visit at Freie Universität Berlin funded by Peking University. I am grateful to Prof. Dr. Johannes Renger, who allowed me to make use of two excavation photos (of Ass.14616 c and Ass.13956 d h) in my study when I got the copies of the two photos from the Altorientalistik Institut of Freie Universität Berlin. I am also grateful to Prof. Dr. Joachim Marzahn, who allowed me to collate five tablet fragments (VAT 11261, 11262, 11338, 11345 and 11931) in the Vorderasiatisches Museum Berlin, and to Ms. Alrun Gutow, the museum archivist who gave me the permission to publish the museum photos of those five fragments in this monograph, as well as Mr. Olaf M. Teßmer, the museum photographer who made those photos and gave them to me. I would like to thank Ms. Penelope Krumm, who proofread the English text and helped me to translate the German citations into English in the manuscript, and Ms. Johanna Konstanciak, who checked the footnotes and references in the manuscript. Thank Brill, for publishing this monograph. Most importantly, my special thanks should be given to my family, for their love.

Tables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Sources of the synchronistic king list 6 The collations of Grayson on some fragments of the ScKL 14 The names of the Kassite kings in A.117 restored by Weidner and those by Brinkman 16 The synchronistic type of “One to One” according to Brinkman 24 The synchronistic type of “One to More” according to Brinkman 24 The synchronistic type of “More to More” according to Brinkman 25 The distribution of columns and lines in the exemplars of the synchronistic king list 30 The Assyrian kings and the Babylonian kings lost in the lacuna at the beginning of column I of A.117 38 The Assyrian kings and the Babylonian kings lost in the lacuna at the beginning of column II of A.117 55 The Assyrian kings and the Babylonian kings lost in the lacuna at the end of column III of A.117 93 A possible genuine synchronistic king list with repeated royal names 132 The overlapping Babylonian dynasties in column I of A.117 135 The synchronistic type of “One to One” 136 An ummânu sandwiched by two successive kings 137 The synchronistic Assyrian and Babylonian kings in the 9th Century BC 138 The first three groups of kings in the Assyrian king list 145 Comparisons between the names in the genealogy of Hammurabi dynasty and those in the Assyrian king list by Finkelstein 147 Comparisons between the Year-Names of Sumu-abum and those of Sumu-la-El 151 The number of the Assyrian kings and the Babylonian kings in A.117 160

Abbreviations A. AANEC AB ABC ABL Abr-N ACANE AcOrH AfK AfO AHw AJSL AK AKI AKL AL ALCA AM ANET ANEHST AnSt AOAT AOF AoF AOTAT AP ARAB ARAMP ARCANE

Museum Number of the Istanbul Archaeological Museum (Ashur) P. J. Furlong, Aspects of Ancient Near Eastern Chronology (c.1600–700 BC) Academia Bimestrie A. K. Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles R. F. Harper, Assyrian and Babylonian Letters Abr-Nahrain, an Annual Published by the School of Fine Arts, Classical Studies and Archaeology, University of Melbourne D. C. Snell, A Companion to the Ancient Near East Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae Archiv für Keilschriftforschung Archiv für Orientforschung W. von Soden, Akkadisches Handwörterbuch American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures Antike Kunst Agum-kakrime Inscription Assyrian King List W. L. Moran, The Amarna Letters O. Pedersén, Archives and Libraries in the City of Assur: A Survey of the Material from the German Excavations A. L. Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of A Dead Civilization J. B. Prichard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (Second Edition, Corrected and Enlarged) M. W. Chavalas (ed.), The Ancient Near East. Historical Sources in Translation Anatolian Studies Alter Orient und Altes Testament H. Winckler, Altorientalische Forschungen Altorientalische Forschungen H. Gressmann (ed.), Altorientalische Texte zum Alten Testament F. Kulakoglu, S. Kangal (eds.), Anatolia’s Prologue, Kultepe Karum Kanesh – Assyrians in Istanbul D. D. Luckenbill, Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia ARAM Periodical Associated Regional Chronologies for the Ancient Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean

xiv ARI ARM ArOr ARRIM AS Ass. AVART BAK BaM BBEKA BBSt BCSMS BE BiOr BIWA BKL BM BMCG BMAAL BPH BR BSAW BuB CA CAD CAH CANE CBI

CCEBK

CDOG

Abbreviations A. K. Grayson, Assyrian Royal Inscriptions Archives royales de Mari Archiv Orientální Annual Review of the Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia Project Assyriological Studies Excavation Number of Tablets from Ashur B. Cifola, Analysis of Variants in the Assyrian Royal Titulary from the Origins to Tiglath-pileser III H. Hunger, Babylonische und assyrische Kolophone Baghdader Mitteilungen B. Landsberger, Brief des Bischofs von Esagila an König Asarhaddon L. W. King, Babylonian Boundary Stones Bulletin of the Canadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies The Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania, Series A: Cuneiform Texts Bibliotheca Orientalis R. Borger, Beiträge zum Inschriftenwerk Assurbanipals Babylonian King List (a–c) Museum Number of the British Museum H. Freydank, Beiträge zur mittelassyrischen Chronologie und Geschichte B. R. Foster, Before the Muses: an Anthology of Akkadian Literature (Third Edition) G. Frame, Babylonia 689–627 B.C.: A Political History M. San Nicolò, Babylonische Rechtsurkunden des ausgehenden 8. und des 7. Jahrhunderts v. Chr Berlin Studies of the Ancient World / Berliner Studien der Alten Welt Babel und Bibel: Annual of Ancient Near Eastern, Old Testament, and Semitic Studies E. Frahm (ed.), A Companion to Assyria The Assyrian Dictionary of the University of Chicago The Cambridge Ancient History J. M. Sasson (ed.), Civilizations of the Ancient Near East C. B. F. Walker, Cuneiform Brick Inscriptions in the British Museum; the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford; the City of Birmingham Museums and Art Gallery; the City of Bristol Museum and Art Gallery L. W. King, Chronicles Concerning Early Babylonian Kings, including Records of the Early History of the Kassites and the Country of the Sea, Vol. 1, Introductory Chapters Colloquien der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft

Abbreviations CT CUSAS DÉPM EHA EI EMA Emar EMRT ÉRAS FAA FAMBR FAOS FDAM FM GHD HA HAO HB HSAO HUCA IGMV IM IPP IrAnt IRSA IRW ISK JAAS JAC JAOS JCS JNES K.

xv Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology J.-M. Durand, Les Documents épistolaires du Palais de Mari (Tome III) S. Smith, Early History of Assyria: to 1000 B.C. Eretz-Israel: Archaeological, Historical and Geographical Studies C. Saporetti, Gli eponimi medio-assiri M. W. Chavalas (ed.), Emar: The History, Religion, and Culture of a Syrian Town in the Late Bronze Age W. W. Hallo, Early Mesopotamian Royal Titles M. J. Seux, Épithètes royales akkadiennes et sumériennes T. Longman III, Fictional Akkadian Autobiography: A Generic and Comparative Study S. Zawadzki, The Fall of Assyria and Median-Babylonian Relations in Light of the Nabopolassar Chronicle Freiburger Altorientalische Studien R. Ellis, Foundation Deposits in Ancient Mesopotamia Florilegium marianum The Genealogy of the Hammurabi Dynasty A. T. Olmstead, History of Assyria W. von Soden, Herrscher im Alten Orient P.-A. Beaulieu, A History of Babylon, 2200 BC–AD 75 D. O. Edzard (ed.), Heidelberger Studien zum Alten Orient: Adam Falkenstein zum 17. September 1966 Hebrew Union College Annual Ignace Goldziher Memorial Volume (Part I) Museum Number of the Iraq Museum B. Porter, Images, Power and Politics – Figurative Aspects of Esarhaddon’s Babylonian Policy Iranica Antiqua E. Sollberger and J.-R. Kupper, Inscriptions royales sumériennes et akkadiennes Imperien und Reiche in der Weltgeschichte, Epochenübergreifende und globalhistorische Vergleiche A. Fuchs, Die Inschriften Sargons II. aus Khorsabad Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies Journal of Ancient Civilizations Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of Cuneiform Studies Journal of Near Eastern Studies Museum Number of the British Museum (Kouyunjik)

xvi KAH KAJ KAR

Abbreviations

O. Schroeder, Keilschrifttexte aus Assur historischen Inhalts E. Ebeling, Keilschrifttexte aus Assur juristischen Inhalts E. Ebeling, Keilschrifttexte aus Assur religiösen Inhalts (Erster Band) KAV O. Schroeder, Keilschrifttexte aus Assur verschiedenen Inhalts KBo Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazköi KBUK A. Bartelmus, K. Sternitzke (eds.), Karduniaš. Babylonia Under the Kassites KHB M. van de Mieroop, King Hammurabi of Babylon Khorsabad King List KhKL LAS S. Parpola, Letters from Assyrian Scholars to the Kings Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal E. Cancik-Kirschbaum, Die mittelassyrischen Briefe aus Tall Šēḫ MAB Ḥamad Mari Mari Annales de Recherches Interdisciplinaires Mittelassyrische Rechtsurkunden und Verwaltungstexte MARV MB J.-M. Durand, J.-R. Kupper (eds.), Miscellanea Babylonica, Mellanges Offerts à Maurice Birot O. R. Gurney, The Middle Babylonian Legal and Economic Texts from MBLE Ur MC J.-J. Glassner, Mesopotamian Chronicles R. Pruzsinszky, Mesopotamian Chronology of the 2nd MCh Millennium B.C., an Introduction to the Textual Evidence and Related Chronological Issues Manchester Cuneiform Studies MCS H. Hunger, R. Pruzsinszky (eds.), Mesopotamian Dark Age Revisited: MDAR Proceedings of an International Conference of SCIEM 2000 (Vienna 8th–9th November 2002) Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft zu Berlin MDOG Mémoires de la Délégation en Perse MDP Mesopotamian History and Environment, Series II: Memoirs MHEM Mesopotamian History and Environment, Series III: Texts MHET Mitteilungen des Instituts für Orientforschung MIO J. A. Brinkman, Materials and Studies for Kassite History MSKH MVAG Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatisch-Aegyptischen Gesellschaft NABU Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires NaKL Nassouhi King List NARGD J. N. Postgate, Neo-Assyrian Royal Grants and Decrees OALYE K. R. Veenhof, The Old Assyrian List of Year Eponyms From Karum Kanish and its Chronological Implications

Abbreviations OBO OBOSA OIP OLA OLZ Or PCWH

PE PIHANS PG

PKB PNA PPANE PSBA PW

RA RIMA RIMB RIME RINAP RLA RN SAA SAAB SAAS SAHNI ScKL SDAS SH SKL Sm.

xvii Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis Series Archaeologica Oriental Institute Publications Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta Orientalistische Literaturzeitung Orientalia (Nova Series) H. D. Lasswell, D. Lerner and H. Spier (eds.), Propaganda and Communication in World History. Volume 1: The Symbolic Instrument in Early Times J. A. Brinkman, Prelude to Empire: Babylonian Society and Politics Publications de l’Institut historique-archéologique néerlandais de Stamboul Cl. Baurain, C. Bonnet and V. Krings (eds.), Phoinikeia Grammata: Lire et écrire en Méditerranée (Actes du Colloque de Liège, 15–18 novembre 1989) J. A. Brinkman, A Political History of Post-Kassite Babylonia, 1158–722 BC K. Radner (ed.), The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire M. Nissinen, Prophets and Prophecy in the Ancient Near East Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology G. Mann, A. Heuß (eds.), Propyläen-Weltgeschichte, Eine Universalgeschichte, Band II, Hochkulturen des mittleren und östlichen Asiens Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archéologie Orientale The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Assyrian Periods The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Babylonian Periods The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Early Periods The Royal Inscriptions of Neo-Assyrian Period Reallexikon der Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archäologie P.-A. Beaulieu, The Reign of Nabonidus, King of Babylon: 556–539 BC State Archives of Assyria State Archives of Assyria Bulletin State Archives of Assyria Studies D. Oates, Studies in the Ancient History of Northern Iraq Synchronistic King List Seventh Day Adventist Seminary King List J. van Seters, In Search of History: Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical History Sumerian King List Museum Number of the British Museum (Smith)

xviii

Abbreviations

SOBH Sum T. TMH

M. Stol, Studies in Old Babylonian History S. N. Kramer, The Sumerians Excavation Number of Tablets from Mari Texte und Materialien der Frau Professor Hilprecht Collection of Baby­lonian Antiquities im Eigentum der Universität Jena Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınlarından E. Ben Zvi (ed.), Utopia and Dystopia in Prophetic Literature Ugarit-Forschungen S. Alp, A. Süel (eds.), III. Uluslararası Hititoloji Kongresi bildirileri: Çorum, 16–22 Eylül, 1996/Acts of the IIIrd International Congress of Hittitology: Çorum, September 16–22, 1996 Uruk King List K. L. Younger, Ugarit at Seventy-Five Vorläufiger Bericht über die von dem Deutschen Archäologischen Institut und der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft aus Mitteln der Deutschen Foschungsgemeinschaft unternommenen Ausgrabungen in UrukWarka Vorderasiatische Schriftdenkmäler der Königlichen Museen zu Berlin Museum Number of the Vorderasiatisches Museum Berlin (Vorderasiatische Abteilung Tontafeln) Die Welt des Orients Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen OrientGesellschaft Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes Yale Babylonian Collection M. J. A. Horsnell, The Year-Names of the First Dynasty of Babylon Yale Oriental Series, Babylonian Texts Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft G. van Driel, Th. J. H. Krispijn, M. Stol and K. R. Veenhof (eds.), Zikir Šumim: Assyriological Studies Presented to F. R. Kraus on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday D. O. Edzard, Die “zweite Zwischenzeit” Babyloniens

TTKY UDPL UF UHKB

UKL USF UVB

VAS VAT WO WVDOG WZKM YBC YNFDB YOS ZA ZDMG ZŠ

ZZB

Chapter 1

Introduction Generally speaking, our knowledge about a given text can be concluded from three aspects: the contents, the format and the nature of the document. Accordingly, the aim of the present research on the Synchronistic King List (ScKL) is to check the basic information provided by the list, to interpret the format of the list (i.e. why and how the text is presented in such a form), to analyze some problems concerning the compilation of the list, and to deduce the probable motives behind the compilation of the list (i.e. what exactly the author of the list was intending to convey through his work). However, before we begin our analysis of the ScKL, it is necessary to define its literary genre. As a king list, it must be considered against the background of all the sources of king lists in Mesopotamia, for the knowledge of the other king lists is integral to our investigation into the ScKL. At the same time, when facing the ScKL, a collection of different exemplars, the first step is always to collect the basic information on the sources, including the archaeological context and the textual contents. Of equal importance is a survey of the previous studies, because the relevant theories (although quite diverse) put forward by scholars have laid the preliminary groundwork for our analysis. 1

King Lists in Mesopotamia

Among all the different written sources uncovered in Mesopotamia, king lists as well as chronicles are of great significance for the reconstruction of chronology or political history. There is no clear distinction between king lists and chronicles, and scholars tend to group both of them into one type of document: the chronographic text.1 However, it might be not unreasonable to regard the king lists as a relatively independent group of documents in view of their special characteristics: 1) they are generally collections of royal names of kings with their regnal years and royal filiations;2 2) they are organized in a table format, for which reason they are called “lists”; 3) they usually have a laconic style without stating particular details of historical events.

1  Röllig, AOAT 1, 265; Grayson, Or 49 (1980), 171–172; van Seters, SH, 68. 2  In some lists the regnal years and the royal filiations are omitted or incomplete.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004430921_002

2

Chapter 1

From their different scripts, all king lists discovered thus far in Mesopotamia can be divided into two categories: the Sumerian lists3 and the Akkadian lists.4 Two lists belong to the former group – the Sumerian King List (SKL) and the Lagash King List (LgKL) – whereas more king lists are written in Akkadian: the Larsa King List (LsKL), the Ur-Isin King List (UIKL), the Babylonian King List (BKL), the Assyrian King List (AKL) and the ScKL. Among these lists, the BKL is a group of three independent documents:5 the Babylonian King List a (BKLa), the Babylonian King List b (BKLb) and the Babylonian King List c (BKLc). As for the AKL, we have three main exemplars and several related fragments.6 The three main lists are: the Nassouhi King List (NaKL), the Khorsabad King List (KhKL) and the Seventh Day Adventist Seminary King List (SDAS). In addition, the Uruk King List (UKL [IM 65066])7 and the King List of the Hellenistic Period (BM 35603)8 date from the PostChaldean Period, although they are both written in the late Babylonian script. Further documents include a list of Elamite kings, an Old Babylonian document listing 12 kings of Awan and 12 kings of Shimashki (the Awan King List and the Shimashki King List) on one tablet found at Susa,9 and a list of rulers / governors (šakkanakkum = KIŠ.NÍTA) of Mari (the Mari Shakkanakku List, consisting of two Old Babylonian tablets, T. 343 and ARM 22, 333) found at the palace of Mari.10 The general information of the major king lists from ancient Mesopotamia can be seen as follows:

3  Edzard, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 77–86. 4  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 86–135. 5  A fragment (K.14839) seems to have listed four kings from the First Dynasty of Babylon. See King, CCEBK 1, 182–183; Stol, SOBH, 56; Grayson, ABC, 271. 6  The fragments are VAT 9812 (KAV 14), VAT 11554 (KAV 15), VAT 12058 (KAV 18) and BM 128059. However, VAT 9812 and VAT 12058 are different from other exemplars of the AKL in format. See Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 101, 115–116; Millard, Iraq 32/2 (1970), 174–176. 7  van Dijk, UVB 18 (1962), 53–60; AfO 20 (1963), 217–218. The time-span covered by the preserved part of the UKL is from the period of Kandalanu (647–627 BC) to the reign of Seleucus II (246–226 BC). See Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 97. 8  Sachs and Wiseman, Iraq 16 (1954), 202–212. This list contains the kings of Babylonia from the conquest of Babylonia by Alexander the Great to the reign of Demetrius II, that is, from 330 to 125 BC. See Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 98. 9  Scheil, RA 28 (1931), 2; Gelb and Kienast, FAOS 7 (1990), 317–320; Sallaberger and Schrakamp, ARCANE 3, 23–25. 10  Durand, Mari 4 (1985), 147–172; Sallaberger and Schrakamp, ARCANE 3, 26–28.

Introduction

3

The SKL was restored from many fragments or exemplars.11 It lists the kings of Sumerian dynasties in southern Mesopotamia before and after the Flood, ending with Damqi-ilishu, the last ruler of the First Isin Dynasty. Many of the numbers claimed for the regnal years are improbably large and therefore fictitious. The date of the list is uncertain.12 The LgKL (BM 23103) is inscribed on one clay tablet.13 It records thirty postdiluvian rulers of Lagash, who are not listed in the SKL. Only seven of the rulers can be confirmed. It ends with Gudea (ca. 2144–2124 BC), the most famous ruler of Lagash, but it was probably not compiled during his reign.14 Like the SKL, the regnal years of most of the kings are not credible. According to Sollberger, the LgKL must be a “politico-satirical” work in answer to the SKL: although the rulers of Lagash were ignored by the SKL, “Lagash could trace the line of her rulers as far back as the Flood”.15 Moreover, some rulers of Lagash in the dynasty of Gudea can also be seen in some offering lists.16 The extant version of the LsKL (YBC 2142)17 might be a “practice” text. It lists all the rulers of the Larsa Dynasty and two kings from the First Dynasty of Babylon (Hammurabi and Samsu-iluna). It ends with the 12th year of Samsu-iluna, which is possibly the time when the original text was compiled. According to Grayson, the regnal years recorded in this list are highly reliable. The text is written in the Old Babylonian script.18 There are two exemplars19 for the UIKL. This list records all the kings of the Ur III Dynasty and the First Isin Dynasty, ending with the 4th year of Damqi-ilishu, the last king listed in the SKL. The original list might have been compiled during the reign of that king. The regnal years of the kings are also recorded. The text is written in the Old Babylonian script.20

11  Jacobsen, AS 11, 5–13; Edzard, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 77–78. 12  Jacobsen, AS 11, 140–141; Edzard, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 80; Rowton, JNES 19/2 (1960), 156–162; Sallaberger and Schrakamp, ARCANE 3, 13–22. 13  Sollberger, JCS 21 (1967), 287–291. 14  Sollberger, JCS 21 (1967), 279–280. 15  Sollberger, JCS 21 (1967), 279. 16  Sallaberger and Schrakamp, ARCANE 3, 28–31. 17  Clay, YOS 1, No. 32, Plate LII; Kraus, JCS 3 (1949), 16–18; Goetze, JCS 4/2 (1950), 99; Matouš, ArOr 20 (1952), 294–295. 18  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 89. 19  They are called Text A and B by Sollberger in JCS 8 (1954), 135. According to Sollberger, Text B is “a more carefully written text”, although the transliterations of Sollberger are made upon Text A. 20  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 90.

4

Chapter 1

The BKLa (BM 33332)21 may have listed the kings of Babylonia from the First Dynasty of Babylon to the Neo-Babylonian (Chaldean) Dynasty. The regnal years of kings are provided. It ends with the successor of Kandalanu, where it unfortunately breaks off. The date of this list could not be earlier than the beginning of the Chaldean Dynasty. Remarkably, all the dynasties are separated from each other by a horizontal line, under which a subscript is added, where the total numbers of the kings and their regnal years are summed up. It seems that all the dynasties are listed in direct sequence, although certain dynasties are partly contemporary. It is written in the Neo-Babylonian script.22 The BKLb (BM 38122)23 records the kings of the First Dynasty of Babylon and the First Sealand Dynasty, with the former on the obverse of the tablet and the latter on the reverse. At the end of each dynasty, there is a subscript recording the number of kings of that dynasty. Grayson proposed that this list (consisting of two lists for two dynasties) was “extracted from longer lists in the late period for some unspecified purpose”.24 Only the regnal years of the Old Babylonian kings are recorded. But the numbers are inconsistent with their authentic reign lengths.25 According to Poebel, this list might have been copied from an old king list where the regnal year numbers were lost or damaged.26 The royal filiations of all the Old Babylonian kings, except the first two of them, are also provided. However, only the filiations of two kings of the Sealand Dynasty are given on the reverse. The date of the original document is uncertain. It is written in the Neo-Babylonian script.27 The BKLc28 lists the first seven kings (with their regnal years) of the Second Isin Dynasty, ending with Marduk-shapik-zeri. The original list may date to the reign of the successor of that king.29 This tablet, which might be a schoolboy’s practice tablet,30 is written in the Neo-Babylonian script.31

21  Gadd, CT 36, Plates 24–25. 22  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 90–91. 23  Rost, MVAG 2/2 (1897), 240; Oppenheim, ANET, 271. 24  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 100. 25  Feigin and Landsberger, JNES 14/3 (1955), 139. 26  Poebel, AS 14, 111. 27  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 100. 28  Poebel, AS 15, 3. 29  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 96. 30  Brinkman, PKB, 16, 26. 31  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 96.

Introduction

5

The NaKL (A.116)32 comes from Ashur. The tablet is badly damaged, but the reverse is preserved much better than the obverse. It records the kings of Assyria from early times (the beginning entry is lost) to the Neo-Assyrian Period, ending with Tiglath-pileser II. This list may date to the reign of the successor of that king. Both the regnal years and the royal filiations of kings are generally recorded. The script is Neo-Assyrian. The KhKL (IM 60017),33 found at Khorsabad (ancient Dur-Sharrukin), is a later copy of an original list from Ashur. It lists the Assyrian kings from those of ancient times to Ashur-nirari V. The regnal years and the royal filiations are provided for most of the kings. The original list may have been compiled during the reign of Tiglath-pileser III. The script is Neo-Assyrian. The SDAS (IM 60484)34 is almost identical with the KhKL in content. But there exist a few discrepancies between the two exemplars.35 According to the colophon, this list is also from Ashur, although the provenance is unknown. The date of this document is later than that of the KhKL, for it ends with Shalmaneser V. The original list may have been compiled during the reign of Sargon II. 2

The Synchronistic King List from Ashur

2.1 Sources The ScKL is also a collection of individual exemplars. The main exemplar is A.117. The other small fragments are VAT 11931, 11261, 11345, 11262, 11338 and A.118. The general information for all the sources can be seen as follows:36

32  Nassouhi, AfO 4 (1927), 1–11. 33  Gelb, JNES 13/4 (1954), 210–222, Plates XIV–XV. 34  Gelb, JNES 13/4 (1954), 211–223, Plates XVI–XVII. 35  Brinkman, Or 42 (1973), 306–319. 36  It is highly regrettable that the author was unable to travel to the Archaeological Museum of Istanbul to collate A.117 and A.118 personally. Accordingly, the exact dimensions for the two tablets cannot be provided here. Fortunately, thanks to Prof. Dr. Cancik-Kirschbaum and Prof. Dr. Marzahn, the author was able to go to the Vorderasiatisches Museum Berlin in January of 2013 to collate all the other fragments. However, a chance encounter with Prof. Dr. Pedersén (who had collected the sources of those fragments before) there confirmed that their excavation numbers (maybe as well as the photo numbers) had unfortunately been lost. Thus the cells with the corresponding unknown information must be left blank in this table. For the museum photos of the five fragments see the Plates at the end of this monograph.

6 Table 1

Chapter 1 Sources of the synchronistic king list

Exemplars Excavation no.

Museum no.

Photo no. Copy

Main exemplar

Ass.14616 c

A.117

Assur 4128a

Fragments

VAT 11931 VAT 11261 VAT 11345 VAT 11262 VAT 11338 Ass.13956 d h A.118 Assur 4198b

KAV 216; MVAG 26/2; AfO 3, 70–71. KAV 9 KAV 10 KAV 13 KAV 11 KAV 12 KAV 182

Dimensions height × width (cm)

6.1×3.1 5.1×5.8 3.1×3.4 3.8×2.5 2.3×4.6

a It is a collected photo of several tablets with Ass.14616 c in the lower left part. b It is a collected photo of several tablets/fragments with Ass.13956 d h in the upper right part.

In the present monograph, for the sake of convenience, the main exemplar Ass.14616 c and another fragment Ass.13956 d h (both now stored in the Archaeological Museum of Istanbul) will be called by their museum numbers, i.e. A.117 and A.118 respectively, while the other fragments (all currently stored in the Vorderasiatisches Museum Berlin) will be referred to by the numbers of their copies in KAV (9–12). 2.2 Archaeological Context All the exemplars of the ScKL were uncovered by the Deutsche OrientGesellschaft during the excavation at Ashur (modern Qalʿat Šerqaṭ) from 1903 to 1914, led first by R. Koldewey and later by W. Andrae. A.117 is one of the three clay tablets (Ass.14616 a–c) found in the excavation trench of cD9I, about 20 meters north of a private house in cD9II, which might have been a small library.37 The trench in cD9II can be dated to the Sargonid Period and cD9I could not be earlier than the period of Ashurbanipal, judging by the colophon recorded in the last column of A.117. Almost all the tablets found in cD9II are literary texts, including the epic of Enūma Eliš and some 37  The “library”, according to Pedersén, refers to “a group of literary texts in the widest sense of the word, including for example lexical texts”. See Pedersén, ALCA I, 20; ALCA II, 83.

Introduction

7

omen texts.38 Another tablet (Ass.14616 a) in cD9I records some instructions for temple services for the personnel of Ashur temple. Considering that the KhKL was written by a scribe of the temple in Arbela and the SDAS belonged to an exorcist (MAŠ.MAŠ) of Ashur,39 it seems likely that A.117 also belonged to the literary collections of an ancient temple. Although the excavation numbers of the fragments KAV 9–13 may have been lost,40 they are fortunately now all placed in the Vorderasiatisches Museum Berlin. The museum numbers are certain and the copies were also provided by Schroeder in KAV. A.118 is a fragment of a clay tablet found in a private house with the large library and archive41 of an exorcist family. The activities of this family can be dated to the reign of Ashurbanipal and even later.42 This house, cut into by the 8I trench, consists of three parts: hC8I in the west, hD8I in the middle and hE8I in the east.43 Most of the clay tablets are from hD8I, especially the northwestern room in its western part, which might have been a large library. Apart from A.118, more than two hundred fragmentary unbaked clay tablets as well as many more complete ones were found in this library. Most of the texts in the library are literary documents. They are mainly from the Sargonid Period, but a few of them may date to earlier times. Remarkably, many texts are “copies or excerpts of other texts”.44 The texts are of many different types, including manuals for exorcists, incantations, prayers, omens, prophecies, prescriptions, decrees, royal inscriptions, lists of persons, animals and objects, etc. 2.3 Contents of the Texts Compared with other king lists mentioned above, the ScKL is a special one: it lists the kings of both Assyria and Babylonia in parallel on two sub-columns. It seems that the parallel kings of both lands are probably contemporary, for which reason it is known as the “Synchronistic King List”. It generally omits the regnal years and the royal filiations of kings, unlike most of the other king lists.

38  Pedersén, ALCA II, 83. 39  Gelb, JNES 13/4 (1954), 229–230. 40  According to Pedersén, “it has not been possible to ascribe a large group of published texts, mostly fragments of clay tablets with literary texts to the original libraries or archives, and the excavation numbers seem now to be lost for many of them”. See Pedersén, ALCA I, 21. 41  The “archive”, according to Pedersén, refers to “a group of texts of administrative, economic, juridical and similar types, including letters”. See Pedersén, ALCA I, 20–21. 42  Pedersén, ALCA II, 58. 43  For the plan of the excavation spot see Figure 9 in Pedersén, ALCA II, 42. 44  Pedersén, ALCA II, 47.

8

Chapter 1

Apart from the royal names of kings, it also lists the names of many ummânū (chief scribes)45 under certain kings of Assyria or Babylonia. A.117 begins with Erishum I and Sumu-la-El – although the first Assyrian king in the extant tablet is Adasi and the first Babylonian king must be Damqi-ilishu – and ends with Ashurbanipal and Kandalanu. The tablet contains four columns: two on the obverse and two on the reverse. Each column is then divided into two sub-columns, with the Assyrian kings in the left subcolumn and the Babylonian kings in the right. All the columns are then divided by horizontal lines into small units, with pairs of contemporaneous kings of Assyria and Babylonia in the same unit. The obverse of the tablet is badly damaged but the reverse is in much better condition. This tablet as well as all the other fragments is inscribed with the Neo-Assyrian script. This list might have been compiled during the reign of Ashurbanipal,46 but the date of other fragments (except A.118) cannot be determined. KAV 10 and 13 can be considered as two discrete parts of one tablet.47 In KAV 10, the Assyrian kings are listed on the left side and the Babylonian kings on the right, as in the format of A.117. There are about ten Assyrian kings from Ninurta-apil-Ekur to Shamshi-Adad IV and nine Babylonian kings from Shirikti-Shuqamuna to Marduk-zakir-shumi I on the fragment. However, one point is worth noting: the Babylonian kings are divided from one another by horizontal lines, but the Assyrian kings are grouped together. Grayson suggested that “the monarchs of the two nations are merely listed in two separate columns with no attempt to arrange them in contemporaneous pairs”.48 There are five Babylonian kings remaining on KAV 13, probably from Ninurta-apla-[…] to Nabu-shuma-ishkun. KAV 9 is badly damaged and is rather obscure. There are about thirteen lines left on the fragment. The first six lines are probably royal names of some kings. Lines 4–6 might be Sennacherib, Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal. But Lines 2–3 cannot be determined.49 The first line is probably Ashur-nadin-shumi. The other seven lines all begin with numbers, which most likely denote the regnal years of kings. We can assume from the numbers that those are the kings of the Middle Assyrian Kingdom from Eriba-Adad I to Tukulti-Ninurta I. However, Grayson suggested that “the fragment comes from a synchronistic list and contains remains of Col. III–IV from the reverse of a large tablet”,50 i.e., what we 45  C AD 20, 111–115; AHw, 1415–1416. 46  See 4.1.2 of the present monograph. 47  Weidner, MVAG 20/4 (1917), 4–5; Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 122–123. 48  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 122. 49  Weidner, AfO 15 (1945–1951), 88, n. 17. 50  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 122; Weidner, AfO 15 (1945–1951), 88, n. 17.

Introduction

9

see on this fragment now are merely two “half-columns”, with one from Col. III listing the Assyrian kings while the other from Col. IV listing the Babylonian kings.51 Grayson thus placed the last seven lines (the left side in the third column) before the first six lines (the right side in the fourth column) in his transliterations.52 If so, the arrangement of the parallel pairs of kings in KAV 9 would be the same as that in A.117, because they both list the Assyrian kings on the left side and the Babylonian kings on the right.53 About nine lines are left on KAV 11, of which the last two are blank. Lines 2–3 and Lines 5–6 are grouped together respectively. This fragment lists the royal names of the Assyrian kings probably from Enlil-nasir II to Arik-den-ili. According to Grayson, this fragment also comes from a similar “synchronistic” list, but the names of Babylonian kings, which might be listed on the left side, are entirely missing.54 However, what is the most interesting is that the kings are divided into several groups by horizontal lines. KAV 12 is the most similar one to A.117 in format, but the arrangement is precisely the reverse: the Assyrian kings are on the right side and the Babylonian kings on the left. There remain about six lines on the Assyrian side and five lines on the Babylonian side. We can identify five Assyrian kings from Ninurta-tukulti-Ashur to Asharid-apil-Ekur. To judge from the traces on the left side, there seem to be three Babylonian kings of the Second Isin Dynasty, from Nebuchadnezzar I to Marduk-nadin-ahhe. The first three lines and the last two lines are grouped together respectively. The right side of Line 4 is kept blank. According to Grayson, A.118 is a fragment from the “lower central” part on the reverse of a large tablet. The original tablet may contain two columns (iii– iv). Each column was probably divided into four sub-columns, listing (from left to right) the Babylonian kings and their ummânū, the Assyrian kings and their ummânū.55 Thus the Babylonian kings are listed on the left side and the Assyrian kings on the right, as in the format of KAV 12. More than a dozen lines remain on the fragment, from which we can identify almost fourteen Babylonian kings from Kashshu-nadin-ahhe to Baba-aha-iddina and two Assyrian kings,

51  Grayson, AOAT 1, 117. 52  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 122. 53  Brinkman suggested that A.117 is the only text listing the Assyrian kings on the left and the Babylonian kings on the right, but the formal arrangement of the ScKL is to list the Assyrian kings on the right and the Babylonian kings on the left. See Brinkman, PKB, 16, n. 65; 27. 54  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 123. 55  Grayson, AOAT 1, 118.

10

Chapter 1

Ashurbanipal and Ashur-etil-ilani.56 The original list might date from the reign of the latter king.57 However, not all of the kings are followed by ummânū. Furthermore, the Babylonian kings are separated by horizontal lines, but the Assyrian kings are grouped together. In addition, “ILIMMU 4” (implying repetition) rather than “MIN” (in A.117) is inscribed on this fragment. 3

Research Review on the Synchronistic King List

3.1 Editions The editions on the fragments of the ScKL are earlier than those on the main tablet, A.117. When checking the omen texts in the Vorderasiatisches Museum Berlin in 1913–1914, Weidner accidentally found three fragments of chronological lists, which were recognized by him and Schroeder as the “synchronistic list of Babylonian and Assyrian Kings”.58 This aroused Weidner’s great interest, for the main exemplars of the AKL had not yet been published and the only available sources of the BKL at that time were the BKLa and the BKLb, meaning that those fragments could shed new light on the chronology of Assyrian and Babylonian dynasties. Later, Weidner found another four similar fragments in the Vorderasiatisches Museum Berlin and published the seven fragments together with full transliterations.59 Weidner grouped KAV 15, 14 and 9 into the series of the AKL (“single-column Assyrian Kinglists”) and KAV 11, 12, 10, 13 into the series of the ScKL (“double-column synchronistic Babylonian-Assyrian Kinglists”). Furthermore, KAV 10 and 13 were recognized by Weidner as belonging to one tablet60 and the two fragments could be taken as useful sources for supplementing the gaps in the BKLa. Meanwhile, Weidner realized that KAV 12 was the only one in which the preserved Assyrian kings and Babylonian kings were listed in parallel. KAV 9, according to Weidner, had no particular value, for only the remains of several Assyrian royal names and several numbers were left.61 In KAV 11, the left side listing the Babylonian kings

56  The original tablet may also contain the names of Sennacherib and Esarhaddon, but on the extant fragment only the title remains: king of Assyria and Babylon. 57  See 4.1.1 of the present monograph. 58  Weidner, MVAG 20/4 (1917), 1. Orig. “synchronistischen Liste babylonischer und assyrischer Könige”. Further German quotes have been translated into English by the author. 59  Weidner, MVAG 20/4 (1917), 1–10; MDOG 58 (1917), 1–10. 60  See also Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 122–123. 61  Weidner, MVAG 20/4 (1917), 7. In a later study, Weidner tried to deduce the royal names of those Assyrian kings by their regnal years. See Weidner, MVAG 26/2 (1921), 7–9.

Introduction

11

had been lost and the remaining royal names of Assyrian kings would have been on the right side of the original tablet. This fragment was thus of great significance, for the kings in the Amarna Period were involved and Weidner attempted to reconstruct the missing royal names of the Babylonian kings.62 As more sources of king lists were identified later, Weidner added another four documents, KAV 17–18 and A.117–118 (the transliterations for A.117–118 and a copy for A.117 were provided by the excavation photos63), to the seven fragments above and grouped the eleven documents together as “the structure of the kinglists of Assyria”.64 Six of them, KAV 10–13 and A.117–118, were recognized as the sources of the ScKL. Weidner tried to restore the missing royal names of the Assyrian kings on KAV 9 by the numbers of their regnal years.65 However, because of the scarcity of the AKL sources at that time, his reconstructions were quite tentative. A.118 was taken as a tiny fragment of the original tablet, which might have contained two columns divided into four sub-columns, with the Babylonian kings in the first sub-column, their ummânū in the second, the Assyrian kings in the third and their ummânū in the fourth.66 Weidner collated and discussed some discrepancies among A.117, the BKLa, the fragments of the AKL and certain Chronicles. Upon the sources of the BKLa, the BKLb and A.117, Weidner believed that the Assyrian and Babylonian chronology could thus be well-grounded.67 Weidner also attempted to calculate the numbers of the Assyrian kings and the Babylonian kings mentioned in the colophon of A.117.68 The two fragments, KAV 10 and 13, which would have originally been from the same tablet, were thought to be the duplicate of A.118, since Lines 1–10 in the second column of KAV 10 might have been completely identical with Lines 4–13 in the third column of A.118. The reconstructions of the missing royal names of the Kassite kings on KAV 11 were also improved by Weidner.69

62  Weidner, MVAG 20/4 (1917), 62–66. Those tentative reconstructions were revised later by Weidner himself in MVAG 26/2 (1921), 54–57. 63  The photo for A.117 (uncleaned tablet) was a microcopy smaller than the actual tablet. Weidner thus stressed that the accuracy for all the signs restored in his copy could not be guaranteed. See Weidner, MVAG 26/2 (1921), 12, n. 2. Except the copy for A.117, the copies for another two fragments, VAT 9812 (KAV 14) and VAT 12058 (KAV 18), were also provided by Weidner in MVAG 26/2 (1921). 64  Weidner, MVAG 26/2 (1921), 2–24. 65  Weidner, MVAG 26/2 (1921), 7–9. 66  See also Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 124–125. 67  Weidner, MVAG 26/2 (1921), 12. 68  Considering that the sources of the AKL and the BKL were rather limited then, his calculation seems to be very tentative. 69  Weidner, MVAG 26/2 (1921), 54–57.

12

Chapter 1

Shortly after Weidner’s editions, the copies for the sources of the ScKL were first provided by Schroeder (KAV 10–13, 182 and 21670) from the excavation photos. Later, when the tablet of A.117 was fortuitously discovered in the Archaeological Museum of Istanbul in 1925, a new photo was offered by Nassouhi to Weidner, who then provided a new copy for the whole tablet of A.117.71 From then on, the copies of Schroeder and Weidner became the only available and the most popular copies for the sources of the ScKL. From the copies of Schroeder and Weidner, Ebeling,72 Luckenbill73 and Oppenheim74 provided respectively the translations for the texts of the ScKL. The colophon of A.118 was excerpted by Hunger into the collections of Babylonian and Assyrian colophons.75 The translations of certain sentences in the last column of A.117 were improved by Neate76 and Brinkman.77 The transliterations and translations for A.118 and the last column of A.117 were also provided by Parpola.78 After the KhKL was published,79 Weidner improved his earlier study on KAV 9.80 By virtue of his own collation on this fragment and the new information provided by the KhKL, Weidner changed his earlier assumptions almost entirely. Firstly, KAV 9 was taken as a fragment of the ScKL, not of the AKL. The original tablet would have listed the parallel Assyrian kings (with their regnal years) and the Babylonian kings, although the extant fragment was merely inscribed on the one side.81 Secondly, Weidner revised the restorations of the Assyrian royal names in the last seven lines according to the numbers of their regnal years. Those were seven Middle Assyrian kings, from Eriba-Adad I to Tukulti-Ninurta I.82 70  K  AV 216 is only the copy of the reverse of A.117. 71  Weidner, AfO 3 (1926), 70–71. Since the revised new copy by the museum photo is more accurate than the old one in MVAG 26/2 (1921) by the excavation photo, we will refer to the new one in AfO 3 (1926) when we mention the copy for A.117 by Weidner in the present monograph. 72  Ebeling, AOTAT, 333–335. 73  Luckenbill, ARAB 2, No. 1188, 1192 and 1193. 74  Oppenheim, ANET, 272–274. 75  Hunger, BAK, No. 238 (F). 76  Neate, Iraq 33 (1971), 55. 77  Brinkman, Or 41 (1971), 246. 78  Parpola, LAS II, 448–449. 79  Poebel, JNES 1/3 (1942), 247–306; JNES 1/4 (1942), 460–492; JNES 2/1 (1943), 56–90. 80  Weidner, AfO 15 (1945–1951), 88, n. 17. 81  It was grouped into the AKL by Weidner in his earlier studies. See Weidner, MVAG 20/4 (1917), 5; MDOG 58 (1917), 2; MVAG 26/2 (1921), 2. 82  For his earlier restorations see Weidner, MVAG 26/2 (1921), 8.

Introduction

13

When the BKLc was published,83 Poebel revised the reconstructions of Weidner on several lines in the second column of A.117,84 where the kings of the Second Isin Dynasty were involved. Since the second column in A.117 was almost totally damaged, the publication of the BKLc was definitely of great help for the reconstruction of that column. The revisions of Poebel are mainly:85 1) the first king of the Second Isin Dynasty was Marduk-kabit-ahheshu in the BKLc,86 not Marduk-shapik-zeri; 2) Itti-Marduk-balatu was the second but not the sixth king of that dynasty;87 3) there was only one but not two kings with the name of Marduk-shapik-zeri, who was the seventh king of that dynasty.88 Before long, Poebel’s revisions were echoed by Weidner,89 who accepted that Marduk-shapik-zeri was the successor of Marduk-nadin-ahhe. Further­ more, Weidner adduced a fragment (Ass. 3072 + 3074 = VAT 10453 + 10465)90 of Tiglath-pileser I Chronicle as direct evidence to prove that, after Marduknadin-ahhe died suddenly following a reign of 18 years (which is identical with the number of his regnal years in the BKLc), Marduk-shapik-zeri ascended the throne as his successor. According to this fragment, moreover, Marduk-shapik-zeri would be also contemporary with Tiglath-pileser I,91 which would disprove the “contemporaneous pairs” in KAV 12 (Lines 5–6).92 In addition, as for A.117, Weidner reemphasized that: “As far as the texts in Assur 14616 c, VS. II, 2. Column (AfO 3, S.70) are concerned, they should be used with great caution, or better yet, disregarded. On the much yellowed photo, after thirty years, one can hardly make out anything and the surface of the original in Istanbul is, as I have found, now almost completely worn away.”93 83  Poebel, AS 15 (1955). 84  Weidner, MVAG 26/2 (1921), 14–15; AfO 3 (1926), 70. 85  The kings from the third to the sixth in Poebel’s list were identical with those from the second to the fifth in Weidner’s copy. 86  The name Marduk-kabit-ahheshu was first ascertained from the BKLc, while in the BKLa the name was damaged and only the first element “Marduk” could be discerned. See Brinkman, PKB, 40. 87  That Weidner listed Itti-Marduk-balatu as the 6th king, according to Poebel, was the “wrong interpolation”. See Poebel, AS 15, 17. 88  For the so-called “Marduk-shapik-zeri-Mati” see Poebel, AS 15, 16–17. 89  Weidner, AfO 17 (1954–1956), 383–385. 90  Weidner, AfO 17 (1954–1956), 384–385. 91  Brinkman, PKB, 132. 92  Brinkman, PKB, 29. 93  Weidner, AfO 17 (1954–1956), 383–384, n. 1.

14

Chapter 1

When outlining the historiographical texts of Assyria and Babylonia, Grayson categorized the ScKL as the “synchronistic texts from Assyria”, in which “the names of contemporary rulers of Assyria and Babylonia are juxtaposed”.94 Later, Grayson collected all the sources of the ScKL, A.117–118 and KAV 9–13, and provided the transliterations (with full bibliographies95 and brief discussions on the texts) for all the documents.96 Undoubtedly, Grayson’s editing was the last systematic study and the most popular research reference for the ScKL from then on. 3.2 Collations The tablet of A.117 was collated by Kraus and Brinkman and the fragments by Grayson. Weidner revised his early readings on some royal names listed in A.117 (mainly concerning the first column) using the collation of Kraus, who got a chance to collate the tablet personally in 1949 and found that the conditions of the obverse of the tablet were very bad.97 Later, Grayson reinvestigated the format of the ScKL fragments (KAV 9–13 and 182) and the readings of the royal names on those fragments with his own collations.98 However, as regards the main exemplar, A.117, Grayson had nothing new to say, although this tablet presented many problems for it was in very bad condition. The main details are: Table 2

The collations of Grayson on some fragments of the ScKL

Exemplar

Collations

KAV 11

1) Several Assyrian kings were grouped together in some lines, which was unique among all the exemplars of the ScKL. 2) The same Assyrian king would be inscribed in consecutive lines. 3) Judging from the two points above, this list would have been arranged according to the Babylonian kings.

94  Grayson, Or 49 (1980), 181. 95  For the bibliographies see also Grayson, ABC, 271, 295. 96  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 116–125. The editions were to a large extent based upon his earlier collations and comments (especially on the ScKL fragments). See Grayson, AOAT 1, 112–115. 97  Weidner, AfO 19 (1959–1960), 138. 98  Grayson, AOAT 1, 112–115. Five of them, KAV 9–13, were collated according to the original fragments. Only one of them, A.118, which was in the museum of Istanbul, was checked by the photo.

Introduction Table 2

15

The collations of Grayson on some fragments of the ScKL (cont.)

Exemplar

Collations

KAV 12

1) The synchronisms in this fragment were different from those in A.117, for the Babylonian kings were on the left side and the Assyrian kings on the right.a 2) It could not be ascertained whether or not the beginning of Line 2 and the ending of Line 4 were inscribed. 3) The trace of a wedge at the beginning of Line 3 in Schroeder’s copy could not be verified. 4) The first horizontal line in Schroeder’s copy was not actually a dividing line. 1) This fragment was a small part of an original synchronistic list, but the Assyrian kings in the third column and the Babylonian kings in the fourth column “ran together”. 2) The regnal years of kings were given in this fragment and so it was different from other exemplars of the ScKL. 3) Nothing could be certified in Line 1 of this fragment. 4) The name in Line 2, Shuzubu, was used for two Babylonian kings, Nergal-ushezib and Mushezib-Marduk, which “was obviously an Assyrian custom”. 5) Lines 1–2 and 7–8 were grouped together without being separated by dividing lines. 1) The two fragments belonged to one tablet, which listed the Assyrian kings and the Babylonian kings separately “with no attempt to arrange them in contemporaneous pairs”. 2) The Babylonian kings were separated from each other by horizontal lines, but the Assyrian kings were grouped together. 3) Only the name of one ummânu was inscribed in one of the two fragments. 4) The sign at the beginning of the lacuna in Line 2 of KAV 10 would have been DUMU and that in Schroeder’s copy might be wrong. 5) The traces in the first line of KAV 13 could not be determined, although it was restored as “Ninurta?-apl?-[x]” by Brinkman.b

KAV 9

KAV 10 and 13

16 Table 2

Chapter 1 The collations of Grayson on some fragments of the ScKL (cont.)

Exemplar

Collations

KAV 182

1) This fragment came from the reverse of a large tablet, the surface of which was separated into four columns, with Babylonian kings, Babylonian ummânū, Assyrian kings and Assyrian ummânū inscribed respectively. 2) The suggestion of Weidner that this fragment could be the duplicate of KAV 10 and 13 could not be proven, for the names of ummânū were not inscribed in the latter fragments. 3) Like the format of KAV 10, dividing lines were drawn under Babylonian kings, but not under the Assyrian kings.

a This arrangement would be the same with that of KAV 11 but differs from that of A.117. b Brinkman, JCS 16 (1962), 99, No. 33; PKB, 214.

Brinkman also got a chance to collate the tablet of A.117 in Istanbul in 1971. His collation showed that the tablet had deteriorated badly over several decades.99 Later in the study on the historical sources of the Kassite Dynasty, Brinkman collated the writings of the names of some Kassite kings preserved on A.117. The discrepancies between Weidner’s reconstructions100 and Brinkman’s personal collations can be seen as follows: Table 3

The names of the Kassite kings in A.117 restored by Weidner and those by Brinkman

Line

Weidner

Brinkman

I. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

mga-an-du-uš ma-g[u]-um maḫrû a[pl]u-šú mkaš-tíl-[a]-šú ma-bi-r[a]-taš mkaš-tíl-a-šú mtaz-zi-g[u-r]u-ma-aš mḫar-ba-[ši-p]ak

mga(?)-[…]-uš/áš(?) mA-⸢gu-um⸣ IGI ⸢(x)⸣ -šú mkaš-til-⸢x⸣-šu mA-bi-⸢Ra⸣ -taš mkaš-til-⸢a⸣-šu mUR-zi-g[u-r]u -ma-áš ⸢mḪar⸣-ba-⸢Ši-pak⸣ (?)

99  Brinkman, Or 42 (1973), 307, n. 5. 100  For the revised transliterations of i 10’–22’, see Weidner, AfO 3 (1926), 67–68; for those of ii 4’–11’, see Weidner, MVAG 26/2 (1921), 14–15.

17

Introduction Table 3

The names of the Kassite kings in A.117 restored by Weidner (cont.)

Line

Weidner

Brinkman

17 18 19 21 22 II. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

mti-ip-ta-[a]k-zi ma-gu-[u]m mbur-na-b[ur-ja]-aš mkaš-tíl-[a-šú] mú-la[m-b]ur -j[a-aš] mK[a-daš-man-ḫar-be] mdRamm[an-šum-iddin] mMIN mdRamman-šum-nâṣir mM[e-l]i-[š]i-pak m[dMar]duk-apal-iddin mdZa-mǎ-m[ǎ-šum-iddin] md[Enlil]-nâdin-[aḫêpl]

m⸢ti-ib-ta⸣-[(x)]-⸢ak-zi⸣ m[…] m⸢Bur-na-B⸣[ur]-⸢…-…-áš⸣ ⸢m⸣[Ka]⸢š-til⸣-[…] […] […] […] [m]MIN m[IM-…] m[…] m[…] […] [mx-y-z]

Notes: I. 10: The initial personal name determinative can be verified. The first sign might be “ga”. The second sign could not be identified except the final vertical wedge. The last sign could not be determined with full certainty, although it might be “somewhat” unusual dimensions for an “uš” or “áš”.101 I. 11: The sings “gu-um” can be determined though “slightly damaged”. The traces of ⸢(x)⸣ were not clear, but it might probably be “A”. The rest signs except ⸢(x)⸣ could be determined without any question.102 I. 12: The traces of ⸢x⸣ might probably be “a”.103 I. 13: This name was relatively complete in A.117.104 I. 15: In A.117, only the following parts were clear: the front part of “gu”, three vertical wedges, the Winkelhaken of “ru” and two horizontal wedges of “ma”.105 I. 16: The first two signs “ḫar-ba” in A.117 could be certain, but the following signs could not be determined by the preserved traces, although “ši-pak” might be not impossible.106 I. 17: Weidner stressed that “ta” is not quite clear in his later edition.107 According to Brinkman, however, all the signs (except “ib”) which were postulated through their traces were quite uncertain.108 101  Brinkman, MSKH, 127. 102  Brinkman, MSKH, 96. 103  Brinkman, MSKH, 174. 104  Brinkman, MSKH, 85. 105  Brinkman, MSKH, 320. 106  Brinkman, MSKH, 129. 107  Weidner, AfO 19 (1959–1960), 138. 108  Brinkman, MSKH, 327.

18

Chapter 1

I. 18: Weidner was merely sure about the sign “gu” and could not determine the first and the final signs in his later edition.109 However, Brinkman merely identified the personal name determinative. The first sign following the determinative began with a horizontal wedge. The next sign was not clear and impossible to be taken as “gu”. The final sign, the traces of which were indefinite, could not be identified.110 I. 19: According to Brinkman, ⸢Bur-na⸣, although damaged, could be certain. The following are only traces or scratches. The last sign might probably be “áš”.111 I. 21: Weidner was not very sure about the readings in his later revisions.112 Brinkman also observed that this line was damaged almost totally, with only some traces left.113 I. 22: Weidner withdrew his earlier reading for this name and only determined the sign “lam” in his later revisions.114 But Brinkman identified nothing in this line. The final sign, according to Brinkman, was clearly not “áš”.115 II. 4: Brinkman could not verify anything in this line.116 II. 5: Brinkman identified nothing in this line.117 II. 6: According to Brinkman, “MIN” could be determined, but the personal name determinative was lost.118 II. 7: Brinkman could read nothing but the initial personal name determinative in this line.119 II. 8: Brinkman could not verify anything except the initial personal name determinative, but he proposed that Weidner’s reading might be highly possible.120 II. 9: Only the initial personal name determinative could be verified in Brinkman’s collation.121 II. 10: Nothing was identified in Brinkman’s collation.122 II. 11: According to Brinkman: 1) x: unclear trace of DINGIR; 2) y: only the left section of the horizontal wedge could be verified; 3) z: unclear trace.123

3.3 Studies 3.3.1 The Royal Names Ungnad discussed the royal names of three Babylonian kings in the 8th century BC in KAV 13, Ninurta-apla-[…], Marduk-bel-zeri and Mardukapla-usur.124 After the tablet of A.117 was discovered in the museum of 109  Weidner, AfO 19 (1959–1960), 138. 110  Brinkman, MSKH, 98. 111  Brinkman, MSKH, 101. 112  Weidner, AfO 19 (1959–1960), 138. 113  Brinkman, MSKH, 174–175. 114  Weidner, AfO 19 (1959–1960), 138. 115  Brinkman, MSKH, 318. 116  Brinkman, MSKH, 148. 117  Brinkman, MSKH, 87. 118  Brinkman, MSKH, 87. 119  Brinkman, MSKH, 89. 120  Brinkman, MSKH, 253. 121  Brinkman, MSKH, 247. 122  Brinkman, MSKH, 321. 123  Brinkman, MSKH, 122. 124  Ungnad, AfK 2 (1924–1925), 26–27. See also Brinkman PKB, 213.

Introduction

19

Istanbul, Weidner revised the readings of some royal names (mostly in the first column).125 When the KhKL was found, Poebel revised the readings of some royal names, e.g. “Lullaja” and “Kidin-Ninua”, by the writings in the KhKL, A.117 and KAV 14.126 In addition to Brinkman’s collations on some names of the Kassite kings in the first two columns of A.117 (see above), several other royal names of the Kassite Dynasty were revised by other scholars. When collating the first column of A.117, Kraus found that the writing of the name of the ninth Kassite king (i 18’ of A.117) reconstructed as “a-gu-um” in Weidner’s early copy was inaccurate.127 As regards the name of this king, Astour rendered a new reading.128 According to Astour, the ninth ruler of the Kassite Dynasty was definitely Agum II, but the reading of that name in A.117 would be “kak-ri-im-me”. Astour found the evidence in the so-called “Agum-kakrime Inscription” (AKI),129 where it is recorded that Agum II brought the Marduk statue back to Babylon from Hana. In this text, that king was first called “[A-gu-um] ka-ak-ri-me”, but then merely “A-gu-um” in three subsequent paragraphs. Astour collated the remnant traces of the name in A.117130 and proposed that the original writing would have been “kak-ri-im-me” (translated by Astour into “thunderbolt”, a particular weapon),131 which might have been the epithet of that king. As suggested by Astour, the scribe of A.117 might have made use of some Babylonian sources and followed the original writing, but when compiling his own list, he did not have enough space (only half a line is left) for the full writing and just inscribed the second part of that name.132 In addition, the names of the seventh and the eighth Kassite kings listed in i 16’–17’ of A.117 were revised by Boese. Using the sources from Level III and Level II of Tell Muhammad (a site in the suburb of modern Baghdad), the two names were restored by Boese as “Ḫu-ur-ba-zum” and “Ši-ip-ta-ul-zi” respectively rather than “Ḫar-ba[ši-p]ak” and “Ti-ip-ta-[a]k-zi” as previously proposed.133

125  Weidner, AfO 3 (1926), 66–77. 126  Poebel, JNES 1/4 (1942), 471–476. 127  Weidner, AfO 19 (1959–1960), 138. 128  Astour, JAOS 106/2 (1986), 327–331. 129  van Koppen, ANEHST, 135–139; Brinkman, MSKH, 97; Longman III, FAA, 83–88; Foster, BMAAL I, 360–364; Oshima, BuB 6 (2012), 225–252; Paulus, JCS 70 (2018), 115–166. 130  Astour, JAOS 106/2 (1986), 330. 131  Astour, JAOS 106/2 (1986), 331. 132  Astour, JAOS 106/2 (1986), 330, n. 31. 133  Boese, ZA 98 (2008), 201–210. For more discussions see Brinkman, KBUK 1, 5, n. 29.

20

Chapter 1

3.3.2 The Synchronisms Among all the fragments of the ScKL, KAV 12 is most similar to A.117 in format, merely with the difference that the Babylonian kings are listed on the left side and the Assyrian kings on the right. The registration of the corresponding pairs in KAV 12 was explained by Weidner as follows: 1) Nebuchadnezzar I was the “contemporary” of three Assyrian kings, Ninurta-tukulti-Ashur, Mutakkil-Nusku and Ashur-resha-ishi I, and thus the two lines under Nebuchadnezzar I were kept blank to avoid “repetition”; 2) that the left side of Line 4 between Ashur-resha-ishi I and Tiglath-pileser I corresponding to Enlil-nadin-apli was also kept blank might imply that the latter was contemporary with those two Assyrian kings; 3) Ashur-resha-ishi I was placed with Nebuchadnezzar I and Tiglath-pileser I with Marduk-nadin-ahhe in the same unit, since each pair of kings was contemporary for the majority of their reigns.134 However, Ungnad posed different explanations on the format of KAV 12.135 Ungnad disagreed with Weidner’s suggestion that the blank space in the right half-line in Line 4 was to avoid “repetition”, for this very device could lead to the mistaken assumption that Enlil-nadin-apli might not be contemporary with Tiglath-pileser I. On the contrary, Ungnad assumed that all the kings inscribed on that fragment might have been arranged according to the chronological order of their accession to the throne; that is, Nebuchadnezzar I, Ninurta-tukulti-Ashur, Mutakkil-Nusku, Ashur-resha-ishi I, Enlil-nadin-apli, Tiglath-pileser I and Marduk-nadin-ahhe would have ascended the throne one after another. Later, Weidner improved his earlier suggestion on the format of KAV 12 and verified that the synchronism of Nebuchadnezzar I with the three Assyrian kings, Ninurta-tukulti-Ashur, Mutakkil-Nusku and Ashur-reshaishi I, in KAV 12 was impossible,136 since Ashur-resha-ishi I had been contemporary with Nebuchadnezzar I and his father Ninurta-nadin-shumi.137 As soon as the text of A.117 was first published, Weidner pointed out that some of the synchronisms, especially those in the third column, might be passable.138 Weidner also noticed that the first three dynasties in the first column of A.117 were listed in successive sequence, despite the fact that they overlapped to some extent.139 According to Poebel, this might be “a rather desperate and reckless makeshift” maneuver made by a later redactor. The editor 134  Weidner, MVAG 20/4 (1917), 8; MDOG 58 (1917), 5–6; MVAG 26/2 (1921), 9–10. 135  Ungnad, ZDMG 72 (1918), 313–316. 136  Weidner, AfO Beiheft 12, No. 55. 137  Weidner, AfO 17 (1954–1956), 384. 138  Weidner, MVAG 26/2 (1921), 22. 139  Weidner, MVAG 26/2 (1921), 23. Weidner supposed that the Neo-Assyrian scribe might know little about the history of the two ancient dynasties.

Introduction

21

of the original text would have been aware of such “overlapping” and listed the contemporary kings in four columns, but the later redactor changed the format and listed them in direct sequence to “avoid the most inconvenient four-column arrangement”. Nevertheless, Poebel thought that this later redactor might also have been aware of such “overlapping”, so he placed Gandash, the first king of the early Kassite Dynasty, and Ea-gamil, the last king of the First Sealand Dynasty, in the same line (i 10’ in A.117). Poebel also proposed that Iliman, the first king of the First Sealand Dynasty, might have been placed with Samsu-iluna or Abishi in the same line, which was unpreserved in the extant tablet.140 In addition, Poebel noticed that the Assyrian king Ninurta-apil-Ekur could not be contemporary with the three Babylonian kings: Adad-shuma-usur, Meli-Shipak and Merodach-Baladan I, although they were all placed into the same unit in ii 7’–9’ of A.117. Based upon his interpretations of a paragraph in a chronicle, Poebel surmised that Adad-shuma-usur and Enlil-kudurri-usur, the predecessor of Ninurta-apil-Ekur, would have died simultaneously when fighting against each other.141 Because Ninurta-apil-Ekur ruled for 13 years and Meli-Shipak for 15 years, if they ascended the thrones in the same year (provided that the predecessors of both kings were killed in the battle), Ninurta-apil-Ekur could not be contemporary with Merodach-Baladan I, the successor of Meli-Shipak. Poebel thus thought that those “synchronisms” might not indicate the “correspondences of the reigns of Assyrian kings with the reigns of Babylonian kings”, but imply only that Adad-shuma-usur “played an important role in the history of Ninurta-apil-Ekur”.142 As regards the inconsistent synchronism of Ninurta-apil-Ekur and Merodach-Baladan I, Poebel proposed that Merodach-Baladan I was inserted under Meli-Shipak (following the principle of “adding each missing king – of Assyria as well as Babylonia – to the equation relating to the king whom he had succeeded”) by a later redactor of the original text of the ScKL, in which Merodach-Baladan I was never mentioned for there were no historical events or contacts between Assyria and Babylonia during the reign of that king, for “a better chronological 140  Poebel, JNES 2/1 (1943), 61, n. 236. 141  Poebel’s interpretations, following the translations of Winckler which were also accepted by Weidner, were rejected by Tadmor, who believed that “a case where two enemy kings were killed in the very same battle is alien to historical reality”. See Tadmor, JNES 17/2 (1958), 131–132. A Neo-Babylonian Chronicle published later proved that Tadmor’s suggestion was correct, because this chronicle related that after he was defeated by Adadshuma-usur, Enlil-kudurri-usur was seized and sent to Adad-shuma-usur by Assyrian officers. See Walker, ZŠ, 401; Glassner, MC, 283. 142  Poebel, JNES 2/1 (1943), 60.

22

Chapter 1

orientation”.143 Thus the ditto sign “MIN”, which can be seen everywhere in A.117, might be used in some entries where “no chronological equation whatever was intended” to indicate that “the king in question continued to rule without interruption by another reign right to the reign of the king who is mentioned in the next compartment”.144 According to this principle, the fact that in i 11’–18’ of A.117 the Assyrian king Shamshi-Adad II was arranged in parallel with eight kings of the early Kassite Dynasty would imply: 1) nothing worth mentioning happened during that period and 2) the seven ditto signs might indicate that there was a direct succession between Shamshi-Adad II and his son Ishme-Dagan II.145 Similarly, the same device could be seen in the entry of Ashur-bel-kala listed in ii 20’–24’ of A.117, where this king is parallel with at least three Babylonian kings and his name is repeated three times, with the last two lines inscribed with ditto signs. According to Poebel, such a device would imply: 1) Ashur-bel-kala was definitely contemporary with the first two of the Babylonian kings, Marduk-shapik-zeri and Adad-apla-iddina, which could be confirmed by the Synchronistic History;146 2) Ashur-bel-kala could not be the contemporary of the third Babylonian king, Marduk-ahhe-eriba; 3) the third writing of Ashur-bel-kala’s name might have been a ditto sign which was misapprehended by a later redactor unaware of the real meaning of such arrangement.147 Since the Kassite kings are listed parallel with the Assyrian kings, the ScKL became an important source for Jaritz’s study on the Kassite chronology.148 As noted by Jaritz, some synchronisms in the ScKL were impossible “at first glance”.149 In addition to noticing the fault of the immediate connection between the First Sealand Dynasty and the Kassite Dynasty, Jaritz thought that the mistakes made by the scribe of A.117 might come from his own confusions of kings with the same name. For instance, the juxtaposition of Shamshi-Adad II with eight Kassite kings from Agum I to Agum II might be due to the fact that the scribe had no idea which “Agum” should be listed there.150 Another significant point suggested by Jaritz is that the parallel entries listed in the first column seem more likely to indicate the synchronisms between Assyria and the First Sealand Dynasty rather than those between Assyria and the Kassite

143  Poebel, JNES 2/1 (1943), 61. 144  Poebel, JNES 2/1 (1943), 61. 145  Poebel, JNES 2/1 (1943), 61, n. 236. 146  Grayson, ABC, 165. 147  Poebel, JNES 2/1 (1943), 61, n. 236. 148  Jaritz, MIO 6 (1958), 187–265. 149  Jaritz, MIO 6 (1958), 194. 150  Jaritz, MIO 6 (1958), 194–195.

Introduction

23

Dynasty.151 Meanwhile, Jaritz also proposed that the scribe of A.117 might have used the records of synchronistic kings then available to compile his text.152 In view of the fact that some synchronisms were actually not contemporary, e.g. ii 11’–18’ of A.117 and 1’–2’, 5’–6’ of KAV 12, Brinkman thus contended that “it is clear that these synchronistic king lists cannot be used as proof for any synchronism without supporting evidence”.153 But Grayson thought that “no blatant error can be proven”, although the format of the list would have led to “some inaccuracy with regard to synchronisms”.154 The ScKL (A.117) was also mentioned by Janssen when investigating the Assyrian-Babylonian Chronology from the 17th to the 15th century BC.155 Janssen tried to inspect the accuracy of the synchronisms recorded in this list by reconsidering the reigns of Assyrian and Kassite kings respectively before the 15th century BC with reference to king lists and other historical resources. Janssen argued that the fourth Kassite king named “Ušši” in the BKLa was omitted in A.117, while the fifth Kassite king (Kashtiliashu II) in A.117 was omitted in the BKLa.156 In addition, Janssen suggested that the synchronism of Puzur-Ashur III and Burnaburiash I, rendered by the Synchronistic History,157 would be false,158 since Burnaburiash I should have ruled in the 16th century BC, preceding Puzur-Ashur III, and the latter’s real contemporary would have been Ulamburiash, the one who occupied Sealand and signed a treaty with Puzur-Ashur III.159 For this reason, Janssen contended that the royal synchronisms between Assyria and Babylonia listed in i 11’, 19’–22’ of A.117 would have been credible.160 3.3.3 The Arrangement of the Parallel Pairs of Kings Weidner proposed that the scribe of the ScKL might have merely placed a list of Assyrian kings and a list of Babylonian kings side by side to produce his own list. In order to eliminate the chronological discrepancy between certain kings, the scribe would have attempted to list one Assyrian king in parallel with several Babylonian kings or vice versa, although his method achieved only very limited success.161 151  Jaritz, MIO 6 (1958), 196. 152  Jaritz, MIO 6 (1958), 196. 153  Brinkman, PKB, 29. 154  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 117. 155  Janssen, Akkadica 132 (2011), 37–57. 156  Janssen, Akkadica 132 (2011), 41. 157  Grayson, ABC, 158. 158  Boese, ZA 98 (2008), 206–207. 159  Janssen, Akkadica 132 (2011), 47. 160  Janssen, Akkadica 132 (2011), 44. 161  Weidner, MVAG 26/2 (1921), 22.

24

Chapter 1

Brinkman thought that the names of Babylonian kings would be generally inscribed on the left side and those of Assyrian kings on the right, and so the format of A.117 would be “the sole exception”.162 The rules for arranging the contemporary pairs of kings were summarized by Brinkman as follows (the following tables are not from Brinkman’s work, where he cited iii 8’ of A.117 and 1’–6’ of KAV 12 as the examples):163 1) One to One: A single Assyrian king and a single Babylonian king are listed parallel in a single line, implying that both kings “are considered to be relatively coextensive in time”: Table 4

The synchronistic type of “One to One” according to Brinkman

Assyrian kings

Babylonian kings

A1 A2 …

B1 B2 …

2)

One to More: If a king is contemporary with several kings of the other land, all the synchronisms would be placed into the same unit created by a horizontal dividing line under the last synchronistic king. The remaining lines under that single king would be kept blank or marked with the ditto sign (MIN):

Table 5

The synchronistic type of “One to More” according to Brinkman

Assyrian kings

Babylonian kings

A1 A2 A3 Blank or DITTO Blank or DITTO …

B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 …

162  Brinkman, PKB, 16, n. 65; 27. 163  Brinkman, PKB, 28.

25

Introduction

3) More to More: When several kings are contemporary with several kings of the other land, the corresponding half-line of the king who is synchronistic partly with two successive kings of the other land would be kept blank:164 Table 6

The synchronistic type of “More to More” according to Brinkman

Assyrian kings

Babylonian kings

A1 A2 A3 Blank or DITTO Blank or DITTO A4 A5

B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 Blank (B5)a B6

a We can explain this arrangement as: the reign of A4 is contemporary with the latter-half reign of B5.

3.3.4 The Ummânū The meanings and functions of ummânū appearing in certain exemplars (especially A.117) of the ScKL were first studied by Schroeder,165 who noticed that beginning with Tiglath-pileser II listed in the third column of A.117, the names of ummânū were always inscribed under the royal names of Assyrian kings.166 Considering that they were listed together with the kings in a king list, those ummânū must have held high political status. Schroeder translated the word ummânū as “Head of the State Chancellery”. But most importantly, Schroeder observed that some Assyrian kings (e.g. Sennacherib and Esarhaddon) had two ummânū. Schroeder thus proposed that if an Assyrian king had “dual kingship” (“King of Assyria and Babylon”), he would nominate two ummânū, one from Assyria and the other from Babylonia.167 Schroeder’s interpretations were improved by Weidner, who thought that: 1) in addition to 164  Brinkman suggested that “this particular method of expressing overlapping reigns is imperfectly developed”. See Brinkman, PKB, 28. 165  Schroeder, OLZ 23 (1920), 204–207. 166  But some ummânū clearly belong to the Babylonian kings and the first appearance of the ummânu in the extant tablet of A.117 would be in the entry of Tukulti-Ninurta I (ii 2’ of A.117). 167  Schroeder, OLZ 23 (1920), 205, 207.

26

Chapter 1

playing a political role, those ummânū, in the first place, would act as “the chief of the scribes and the leader of the temple archive and temple schools”; 2) the fact that those ummânū were recorded in the king list could be used to date the documents to earlier times.168 Similarly, Grayson surmised that the entry of ummânu might indicate that “the list was drawn up by this official or under his direct supervision”.169 In his study on the Assyrian scholars (during the reigns of Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal), Parpola proposed his interpretations on the meanings of ummânu, which can be concluded from four perspectives: the “teacher”, the “scholar”, the “counselor” and the “master (craftsman)”.170 More precisely speaking, the duties of an ummânu would have been two-fold: that is, he might have been the “Chief Scribe” (the leader of all the scribes across the entire country) and the “Master” of the king. Therefore, the ummânū in the Assyrian court would have belonged to the “inner circle” of the king and obviously held a high position. However, their influence on the king’s policy making should not be exaggerated; that is, although they would have played a role in the launching of policies due to their close relationship with the king, such influence would never have been decisive.171 Two ummânū of those scholars listed in A.117 – Nabu-zeru-lishir and his son Ishtar-shuma-eresh – were investigated in great detail by Parpola, who collected their correspondences with the king (mainly Esarhaddon)172 and explored their family relations, particular fields, biographies and the duration of their office tenure.173 3.3.5 The Beginning Entry, the Date and the Purpose As for the fact that A.117 begins with Erishum I and Sumu-la-El, but not with Ilushuma (the predecessor of Erishum I) and Sumu-abum (the predecessor of Sumu-la-El in the BKLa), both of whom could be proven to be synchronous by direct evidence,174 Poebel proposed that it might be due to the fact that Erishum I “heads the Assyrian limmu list as far as it was known to the later generations”.175

168  Weidner, MVAG 26/2 (1921), 10, n. 1. 169  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 117. 170  Parpola, LAS IIA, 6–7. Brinkman translated ummânu as “royal secretaries”. See Brinkman, PKB, 27. 171  Parpola, LAS II, XVI–XIX. 172  Parpola, LAS I, No. 1–33; LAS II, 3–38. 173  Parpola, LAS IIA, 32–33, 41–42. 174  Grayson, ABC, 155. 175  Poebel, JNES 1/3 (1942), 283.

Introduction

27

Grayson thought that A.117 might have been written “late in the reign of ʾaman assumed that the death Ashurbanipal or shortly thereafter”.176 Na‌ of Ashurbanipal and Kandalanu in the same year might have provided “the immediate incentive” for the composition of the ScKL and the author of the document (A.117) was most likely the ummânu of Ashur-etil-ilani (the direct successor of Ashurbanipal), whose name might have appeared in the colophon of the original tablet.177 However, Zawadzki suggested that the original tablet of A.118 would have been written not after the death of Ashur-etil-ilani, but during his reign, for a new entry could only be added into such a king list when a new king came to the throne.178 Poebel tried to interpret the “real character” of the ScKL and argued that the ScKL, which might be edited as an “index” for the Synchronistic History, would be “to serve – for the benefit of historians – as a kind of register to the existing synchronistic histories, each equation between a certain king of Assyria and a certain king of Babylonia representing, as it were, the caption of the corresponding synchronistic history chapter that dealt with the historical relations between the two kings in question”.179 As suggested tentatively by Grayson, although there were “few clues” to recognize the purpose of the list, it cannot be excluded that the author of the list chose to illustrate that the kings of Assyria and Babylonia should be kept apart.180 Hallo, followed by Pruzsinszky,181 viewed the ScKL as a document which “contrived to co-ordinate the histories, respectively the royal successions, of Babylonia and Assyria”.182 4

Main Arguments of This Study

In this study, the texts of the ScKL are reconstructed upon the copies of Weidner and Schroeder, the collations of Kraus, Brinkman and Grayson, the excavation photos of A.117 and A.118, and the personal collations of the present author on the other fragments. The revised reconstructions of the text of A.117, the main exemplar from which most of our knowledge of the ScKL is derived, 176  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 116. 177  Na‌ʾaman, ZA 81 (1991), 249. 178  Zawadzki, ZA 85 (1995), 69–70. In his earlier studies, Zawadzki maintained a possibility that A.118 might have been produced shortly after the reign of Ashur-etil-ilani. See Zawadzki, FAMBR, 24. 179  Poebel, JNES 2/1 (1943), 60. 180  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 117. 181  Pruzsinszky, MCh, 188. 182  Hallo, BCSMS 6 (1983), 12–13.

28

Chapter 1

lies in the second column, where the positions of the Babylonian kings of the Second Isin Dynasty are moved downward by one line. As to the format of the ScKL, in contrast with other king lists in Meso­ potamia which present a “unidimensional” character, the ScKL presents a “bidimensional” character; that is, the entries in the ScKL are arranged both by chronological sequence in the vertical direction and as parallel pairs in the horizontal direction. In general, the arrangement of these entries into separate units follows two rules: 1) avoid listing several kings from one land in parallel with several kings from the other land in one common unit; 2) avoid listing one king in two or more different units. In fact, the grouping of the synchronous pairs, or the separation of the units, is decided by the horizontal dividing lines. To be precise, the dividing lines are drawn according to three “standards”. First, when the relevant information on the synchronizations of kings in certain periods is lacking, the scribe would list the “contemporaries” corresponding in “one to one” pair in a single line. However, when the sources which could confirm two actual contemporaries were available to him, the scribe would group all the other kings above this pair but below the last pair into one unit, ensuring that the actual contemporaries would be placed parallel with each other. Secondly, horizontal dividing lines would be drawn under the names of ummânū. Lastly, if a king from one land was contemporary with two or more kings from the other land, the selection of the parallel pair would be made according to the “main” contemporaries, the two who ruled simultaneously during the majority of their reigns. As to the beginning entries of A.117, that the scribe of A.117 began his entries with Erishum I and Sumu-la-El lays a solid foundation for the composition of the text and emphasizes the preeminence of Babylon initiated by the First Dynasty of Babylon. By comparing the entries in the ScKL with those in the AKL and the BKLa, we can find one more Assyrian king in the ScKL than in the AKL and several Babylonian kings listed in the BKLa who might have been excluded by the ScKL. In view of the fact that the ScKL is later than the AKL, but earlier than the BKLa, the ScKL could have been another revised edition of the AKL, while the BKLa and the ScKL would have added different entries respectively on the basis of the common source used by both of them. As to the sign “MIN”, when representing royal names, “MIN” was used to indicate that the reigns in neighboring units were directly successive, but when denoting royal titles, it would refer to the title listed in the first line of every column. The specific functions of the entries of ummânū cannot be determined, although it is probable that the names of ummânū were used to trace the

Introduction

29

sources referred to by the scribe of the ScKL, since a phenomenon worth noticing is that ummânū appear quite frequently in the last two columns of A.117 but rather sporadically in the first two columns, which could to some extent indicate that in the periods closer to the scribe the sources available to him would have been much more abundant. Furthermore, we can observe that: 1) the horizontal dividing lines can always be seen under the entries of ummânū; 2) the half-lines opposite the ummânū would be kept blank without the sign “MIN”; 3) none of the ummânū would be sandwiched between two successive kings in the same unit. Although “King of Akkad” was seldom assumed by the Babylonian kings after the fall of the Old Akkadian Kingdom, it was nonetheless used by the scribe of A.117 to replace the traditional Babylonian title “King of Babylon”. For one thing, because “King of Babylon” was already included in the titles of the Assyrian kings with dual kingship over both lands, the scribe would not grant this title to kings of Babylonia alone in order to protect the privilege of this title for the dual-crown kings. For another thing, this special title used for the Babylonian kings is related with the Babylonian policy of Ashurbanipal. A.117 can be dated to the reign of Ashurbanipal and A.118 to the reign of Ashur-etil-ilani, the direct successor of Ashurbanipal. The ScKL might have been composed as propaganda to declare that the “separation” policy regarding the thrones of Assyria and Babylonia, as planned by Esarhaddon, was still being maintained by Ashurbanipal – although in actual fact, he was violating that policy by controlling Babylonia personally and turning the official Babylonian monarch into a puppet under his own surveillance. The synchronization between Ashurbanipal and his two counterparts, Shamash-shuma-ukin and Kandalanu, would have provided the original inspiration for the scribe of the ScKL to compile a “synchronistic” king list: that is, to register the names of the previous kings from both lands parallel in one list in the form of corresponding pairs just like that of Ashurbanipal and his two counterparts.

Chapter 2

The Texts of the Synchronistic King List Although we have the copies of the main tablet (A.117) of the ScKL provided by Weidner and Schroeder respectively, Grayson still pointed out that a new copy made from the original tablet was “urgently needed”. However, the present author was unable to do a personal collation in the Archaeological Museum of Istanbul. Fortunately, the author had access to the excavation photos of A.117 and A.118 in the Altorientalistik Institut of Freie Universität Berlin, and obtained the opportunity to collate the other exemplars in the Vorderasiatisches Museum Berlin. Moreover, we have the collations of Kraus and Brinkman on part of the tablet of A.117; we also have the collations of Grayson on those fragments. The texts in this chapter are thus reconstructed on the basis of those copies, photos and collations. The revisions – as some kind of improvement – are mainly concerned with the registration of the Babylonian kings in the second column of A.117. In the commentaries, the damaged writings of the royal names and the lost parts of the main tablet (A.117) are restored with reference to the relevant sources, especially the other king lists (the AKL, the BKLa-c). Besides, the basic information on the individual monarchs, especially the filiations and the regnal years omitted in the ScKL, are supplemented. Most importantly, because of the very nature of the ScKL, i.e. to highlight the synchronizations of the kings of Assyria and Babylonia, the actual synchronicity of each pair of kings is examined by their historical activities recorded in various sources. The distribution of columns and lines of the exemplars can be outlined in the table below: Table 7

The distribution of columns and lines in the exemplars of the synchronistic king list

Exemplars

Columns and lines

A.117

Column×4 Col.I: 25 Lines Col.II: 24 Lines Col.III: 22 Lines Col.IV: 21 Lines

Corresponding lines in A.117

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004430921_003

The Texts of the Synchronistic King List Table 7

The distribution of columns and lines in the exemplars (cont.)

Exemplars

Columns and lines

Corresponding lines in A.117

KAV 10

Column×2 (I–II?) Col.I: 10 Lines Col.II: 11 Lines

Col.II, Lines 7–24 Col.III, Lines 7–22

KAV 13

Column×1: 5 Lines

Lacuna at the end of Col.III

KAV 9

Column×1: 13 Lines

Lacuna at the Beginning of Col.II; Col.II, Line 1; Col.IV, Lines 6–14

KAV 11

Column×1: 9 Lines

Lacuna at the Beginning of Col.II

KAV 12

Column×1: 6 Lines

Col.II, Lines 12–18

A.118

Column×2 (III–IV?) Col.III: 14 Lines Col.IV: 11 Lines

Col.III, Lines 4–22 Col.IV, Lines 10–15

1

31

A.117

1.1 Transliteration

Column I Lacuna

1. ma-[da-si min]

[mdamqi-ili-šu min]

2. mEN-ba-ni min

m[iš-ki-bal min]

3. m[li]-ba-a-a min

mšu-ši [min]

4. mšar-ma-dI[M min]

[mgul-ki-šár min]

5. m[ib]-tar-d30 min

[mGÍŠ]-EN [min]

6. mba-za-a-a min

m [peš-gal]-dàra-meš [min]

7. mlu-ul-la-a min

ma-a-dàra-kalam-[ma] min

8. m[šú-ni]-nu-a min

me-kur-du-an-na min

9. mšar-ma-dIM min

mme-lám-kur-ra min

10. me-ri-šu min

mdDIŠ-ga-mil mga-[…] min

32

Chapter 2

Column I Lacuna (cont.) 11. mšam-ši-dIM min 12. m  min min 13. m  min min 14. m  min min 15. m  min min

m[a-gu-um] IGI [A]-šú min mkaš-til-[a]-šu min ma-bi-r[a]-taš min mkaš-til-[a]-šu min mur-zi-g[u-r]u-ma-áš min

16. m  min min 17. m  min min 18. m  min min

mhar-ba-[ši-pak] min mti-ip-[ta-ak-zi] min m[a-gu-um] min

19. [miš-me]-dDa-gan min

mbur-na-[bur-ia(?)-áš] min

20. [mšam-ši]-dIM min

[m …] min

21. [maš-šur-nārā]rī min

[mkaš-til-a-šu] min

22. [mpuzur-aš-šu]r min 23. [mdIDIM]-PABir min 24. [mnu-u]r-DINGIR min 25. [maš-šur-šadû]-ni min

[mú-lam-bur-ia-áš] min m  [min] min m  [min] min m  [min] min

Column II Lacuna 1. mtukul-ti-d[Ninurta min] 2. [mḪU- …]

[m … min]

3. maš-šur-SUM-A min 4. m MIN min

m[… min] m[… min]

5. [maš]-šur-ERIM.DÁḪ min 6. [mdEnlil-k]u-dúr-PAB min

m[… min] m  min [min]

7. [mdNinurta-apil]-É-[kur] min 8. m  [min] min 9. m  [min] min

m[dAdad-šuma-uṣur min] m[me-li-ši-ḪU min] m[dMarduk-apla-iddina min]

10. maš-[šur-dana]n min 11. m  [min] min

[mdza-ba4-ba4-šuma-iddina min] [mdEnlil-nādin-aḫḫē min]

12.md[Ninurta-tukul-ti-aš-šur min] 13.mmu-[tak-kil-dNusku min]

[mdMarduk-kabit-aḫḫēšu min] [m …]

The Texts of the Synchronistic King List

33

Column II Lacuna (cont.) 14.[maš-šur-rēša-i-ši min] 15.m  [min] min 16.m  [min] min

[mItti-dMarduk-balāṭu min] [mdNinurta-nādin-šumi min] [mdNabû-kudurrī-uṣur min]

17. [mtukul-ti-apil-É-šár-ra min]

[mdEnlil-nādin-apli min]

18. [mdAšarēd-apil-É-kur] min 19.

[mdMarduk-nādin-aḫḫē min] [m …]

20. [maš-šur-bēl-ka-la] min 21. [maš-šur-bēl-ka-la] min 22. [maš-šur-bēl-ka-la] min 23.m  min min 24.m  min min

[mdMarduk-šāpik-zēri min] [mdAdad-apla-iddina min] [md … min] [m … min] [m … min]

Column III 1. mSU-[dAdad MAN KUR aš-šur]ki 2.

[m …] [m … um-man-šu]

3. mšam--dIM min

mdDIŠ-[mukīn-zēri min]

4. maš-šur-PAB-A min

mdkaš-šu-[nādin-aḫḫē min]

5. mdšùl-ma-nu-MAŠ min

mdUl-maš-[šākin-šumi min]

6. maš-šur-ERIM.DÁḪ min

mdMAŠ-ku-[dúr-uṣur min]

7. maš-šur-GALbi min

mši-rík-tú-d[Šuqamuna min]

8. maš-šur-SAG-i-ši min

mdDUMU-É-[apla-uṣur min]

9. mtukul-ti-A-É-šár-[ra min] 10.m  min [min] 11.m  min [min] 12.

[mdNabû-mukīn-apli min] [mdNinurta-ku-dúr]-PAB [min] [mdMār-bīti-aḫḫē]-AŠ [min] md[…] um-man-[šu]

13. maš-šur-danan min 14.mdIM-ERIM.DÁḪ min 15.

mdUTU-SIG 5 [min] m  min [min] mqa-li-ia-a [um-man-šu]

16. mtukul-ti-dMAŠ min 17. [mgab]-bi-DINGIR.MEŠni-APINeš

mdPA-MU-[ukīn min] um-ma-an-[šu]

34

Chapter 2

Column III (cont.) 18. maš-šur-PAB-A min mdPA-A-SUM [min] um-ma-an-[šu] 19. [mga]b-bi-DINGIR.MEŠni-APINeš 20. m[d]Šùl-ma-nu-MAŠ min md[… min] 21. [mluḫ]-ḫa-a-a um-[man-šu] 22. [mšam-ši-dAdad min] [m … min] Lacuna Column IV 1. [ md30]-PAB.MEŠ-SU MAN KUR aš-šur[ki] 2. [m]dPA-A-SUM um-ma-an-šú 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. md30-PAB.MEŠ-SU 8. 9. 10. md30-PAB.MEŠ-SU 11. mEN-ú-pa-ḫír 12. maš-šur-PAB-AŠ DUMU   md30-PAB.MEŠ-SU 13. mdPA-NUMUN-SI.SÁ m15-MUKAMeš

[m …]

[…] MAN KUR URIki EGIR UN.[MEŠ KUR U]RIki ib-bal-kit-u-ma maš-šur-SUM-MU ina GIŠ.AŠ.TE [ú-kin] mU-GUR-še-zib DUMU mg[a-ḫ]úl mmu-še-zib-mar-duk DUMU md[a-k]u-ri LUGAL.MEŠni KUR [U]RIki MAN KUR aš-šur u KÁ.DINGIR.RAki mkal-bu um-ma-[ni]-šú MAN KUR aš-šur u KÁ.DINGIR.RAki um-ma-ni-šú

14. maš-šur-DÙ-A min mdGIŠ.NU 11-MU-GI.NA min 15. maš-šur-DÙ-A min mkan-dàl-a-nu min 16. md15-MU-KAMeš um-man-šú 17. 82 LUGAL.MEŠ KUR aš-šurki 18. EN maš-šur-DÙ-A 19. 98 LUGAL.MEŠ KUR 20. TA ŠÀ msu-mu-la-èl 21. [… mdNabu-tuk-lat]-su

TA ŠÀ me-ri-šú DUMU mDINGIR-šum-ma DUMU maš-šur-PAB-SUMna ak-ka-de-e a-di mkan-dàl-a-nu lú […]

35

The Texts of the Synchronistic King List

1.2 Translation

Column I Lacuna

1. A[dasi

ditto] [Damqi-ilishu ditto]

2. Bel-bani ditto

[Ishkibal ditto]

3. [Li]baja

Shushi [ditto]

ditto

4. Sharma-Ad[ad (I) ditto] [Gulkishar ditto] 5. [Ip]tar-Sin ditto

[GÍŠ]-EN [ditto]

6. Bazaja

ditto

[Peshgal]daramesh [ditto]

7. Lullaja

ditto

Adarakalam[ma] ditto

8. [Kidin-Ni]nua ditto

Ekurduanna ditto

9. Sharma-Adad (II) ditto

Melamkurkurra ditto

10. Erishum (III) ditto

Ea-gamil Ga[ndash]

11. Shamshi-Adad (II) ditto ditto 12. ditto 13. ditto ditto 14. ditto ditto ditto 15. ditto ditto 16. ditto ditto 17. ditto ditto 18. ditto

[Agum] (I) the first (?) his [son] (?) ditto Kashtili[a]shu (I) ditto Abi-R[a]ttash ditto Kashtili[a]shu (II) ditto Urzig[ur]umash ditto Harba-[Shipak] ditto Tip[takzi] ditto [Agum] (II) ditto

19. [Ishme]-Dagan (II) ditto

Burna[buriash] (I) ditto

20. [Shamshi]-Adad (III) ditto

[…] ditto

21. [Ashur-nira]ri (I) ditto

[Kashtiliashu] (III) ditto

22. [Puzur-Ashu]r (III) ditto 23. [Enlil]-nasir (I) ditto 24. [Nu]r-ili ditto 25. [Ashur-shadu]ni ditto

[Ulamburiash] ditto [ditto] ditto [ditto] ditto [ditto] ditto

ditto

36

Chapter 2 Column II Lacuna

1. Tukulti-[Ninurta (I) ditto] [… ditto] 2. [Hu-…] 3. Ashur-nadin-apli ditto ditto 4.   ditto

[… ditto] [… ditto]

5. [As]hur-nirari (III) ditto 6. [Enlil-k]udurri-usur ditto

[… ditto]   ditto [ditto]

7. [Ninurta-apil]-E[kur] ditto 8.  [ditto] ditto 9.  [ditto] ditto

[Adad-shuma-usur ditto] [Meli-Shipak ditto] [Merodach-Baladan (I) ditto]

10. As[hur-da]n (I) ditto 11.  [ditto] ditto

[Zababa-shuma-iddina ditto] [Enlil-nadin-ahhe ditto]

12. [Ninurta-tukulti-Ashur ditto] [Marduk-kabit-ahheshu ditto] 13. Mu[takkil-Nusku ditto] […(is) his ummânu] 14. [Ashur-resha-ishi (I) ditto] [Itti-Marduk-balatu ditto] 15.  [ditto] ditto [Ninurta-nadin-shumi ditto] 16.  [ditto] ditto [Nebuchadnezzar (I) ditto] 17. [Tiglath-pileser (I) ditto] [Enlil-nadin-apli ditto] 18. [Asharid-apil-Ekur] ditto 19.

[Marduk-nadin-ahhe ditto] [… (is) his ummânu]

20. [Ashur-bel-kala] ditto 21. [Ashur-bel-kala] ditto 22. [Ashur-bel-kala] ditto 23.  ditto ditto 24.  ditto ditto

[Marduk-shapik-zeri ditto] [Adad-apla-iddina ditto] [… ditto] [… ditto] [… ditto]

Column III 1. Eriba-[Adad (II) king of Assyria] 2.

[…] […(is) his ummânu]

3. Shamshi-Adad (IV) ditto

Ea-[mukin-zeri ditto]

4. Ashurnasirpal (I) ditto

Kashshu-[nadin-ahhe ditto]

5. Shalmaneser (II) ditto

Ulmash-[shakin-shumi ditto]

The Texts of the Synchronistic King List

37

Column III (cont.) 6. Ashur-nirari (IV) ditto

Ninurta-ku[durri-usur (I) ditto]

7. Ashur-rabi (II) ditto

Shirikti-[Shuqamuna ditto]

8. Ashur-resha-ishi (II) ditto

Mar-biti-[apla-usur ditto]

9. Tiglath-piles[er (II) ditto] 10.  ditto [ditto] 11.  ditto [ditto] 12.

[Nabu-mukin-apli ditto] [Ninurta-kudurri]-usur (II) [ditto] [Mar-biti-ahhe]-iddina [ditto] […] (is) [his] ummânu

13. Ashur-dan (II) ditto 14. Adad-nirari (II) ditto 15.

Shamash-mudammiq [ditto]   ditto [ditto] Qalia [(is) his ummânu]

16. Tukulti-Ninurta (II) ditto 17. [Gab]bi-ilani-eresh

Nabu-shuma-[ukin (I) ditto] (is) [his] ummânu

18. Ashurnasirpal (II) ditto 19. [Ga]bbi-ilani-eresh

Nabu-apla-iddina [ditto] (is) [his] ummânu

20. Shalmaneser (III) ditto 21. [Luh]haja (is) [his] um[mânu]

[… ditto]

22. [Shamshi-Adad (V) ditto] [… ditto] Lacuna Column IV 1. [Sen]nacherib king of Assyria 2. Nabu-apla-iddina (is) his ummânu 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Sennacherib 8. 9. 10. Sennacherib 11. Bel-upahhir, 12. Esarhaddon, son of Sennacherib, 13. Nabu-zeru-lishir, Ishtar-shuma-eresh

[…] […] king of Akkad, after the people of [Akk]ad rebelled [He installed] Ashur-nadin-shumi on throne Nergal-ushezib, son of G[ah]ul Mushezib-Marduk, son of D[akk]uru (were) kings of [Akk]ad king of Assyria and Babylon Kalbu (are) his ummânū king of Assyria and Babylon (are) his ummânū

38

Chapter 2

Column Iv (cont.) 14. Ashurbanipal ditto Shamash-shuma-ukin ditto ditto Kandalanu ditto 15. Ashurbanipal 16. Ishtar-shuma-eresh (is) his ummânu 17. 82 kings of Assyria, 18. to Ashurbanipal, 19. 98 kings of 20. from Sumu-la-El 21. [… Nabu-tuk-lat]-su

from Erishum (I), son of Ilu-shuma son of Esarhaddon Akkad to Kandalanu (who is) […]

1.3 Commentary 1.3.1 Column I 1.3.1.1 Lacuna at the Beginning of Column I: According to the colophon in Column IV, the first Assyrian king in this list is Erishum I and the first Babylonian king is Sumu-la-El. Both of them must have been recorded in the first line in the original tablet. According to the KhKL and the SDAS, from Erishum I, the 33rd king, to Adasi, the 47th king, there would have been fourteen Assyrian kings lost in this part. The Babylonian kings on the right side corresponding to those Assyrian kings come from two dynasties: the First Dynasty of Babylon and the First Sealand Dynasty. According to the BKLa, there are eleven kings in the former dynasty and Damqi-ilishu is the third king of the latter dynasty. In fact, the two dynasties partly overlapped, although the BKLa lists them as immediately successive. Based on the sequence arranged in the BKLa, since Sumu-la-El was the second king of the First Dynasty of Babylon, the number of the lost Babylonian kings would be twelve. That is to say, there are at least fourteen lines lost in this column, possibly with more than one Babylonian king listed alongside one or two of those fourteen Assyrian kings. The lost kings from the two lands may be illustrated as follows: Table 8

The Assyrian kings and the Babylonian kings lost in the Lacuna at the beginning of column I of A.117

Assyrian king

Babylonian king

Erishum I Ikunum Sargon I Puzur-Ashur II

Sumu-la-El Sabium Apil-Sin Sin-muballit

The Texts of the Synchronistic King List Table 8

39

The Assyrian kings and the Babylonian kings lost in the Lacuna (cont.)

Assyrian king

Babylonian king

Naram-Sin Erishum II Shamshi-Adad I Ishme-Dagan I Ashur-dugul Ashur-apla-idi Nasir-Sin Sin-namir Ibqi-Ishtar Adad-salulu

Hammurabi Samsu-iluna Abishi Ammi-ditana Ammi-saduqa Samsu-ditana Iliman Itti-ili-nibi

1.3.1.2 i 1’: Only the personal name determinative and the sign “A” for the name of Adasi can be seen by Weidner’s copy.1 The name is written as “mA-da-si” in the KhKL and the SDAS.2 The name of Damqi-ilishu on the right side is totally lost. It is written as “mSIG 5-ili” (with the last sign “ŠU” being omitted) in the BKLa,3 but “mDam-qí-ì-lí-šu” in the BKLb.4 According to the AKL, Adasi is the last one of the six usurpers (“son of nobody”) succeeding Ashur-dugul,5 who was also a usurper.6 The AKL recorded that the six usurpers exercised kingship for the “bāb ṭuppišu” (“the beginning of a regnal year”) during the time of Ashur-dugul, which would mean – as suggested by Baker – that the total length of their reigns might have been merely no more than one year, that is, during the time of Ashur-dugul, each of them ruled for only the beginning of a one-year period, or none of them completed a full regnal year.7 Alternatively, as suggested by Reade, the six usurpers might possibly have been the “eponyms” of Ashur-dugul, with each of them 1  Weidner, AfO 3 (1926), 70. 2  Gelb, JNES 13/4 (1954), 214, ii 9’; 215, ii 11’. 3  Gadd, CT 36, Plate 24, i 6’. A horizontal wedge “AŠ” is left at the end of this line. See Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 91. 4  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 100. 5  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 106. 6  Reade proposed that Ashur-dugul might be identical with Lullaja (listed in Line 7 of this column). See Reade, JNES 60 (2001), 7. 7  Baker, RA 104 (2010), 158–159. For more discussions on the meaning of “ṭuppišu” see Rowton, JNES 18/3 (1959), 213–221; Bose and Wilhelm, WZKM 71 (1979), 21–23; Gasche et al., MHEM 4, 53–54; Janssen, Akkadica 128 (2007), 99–108; Pruzsinszky, MCh, 62–64.

40

Chapter 2

occupying one year.8 Adasi might have initiated a new “dynasty”, for both the KhKL and the SDAS give a long list of successive reigns leading from him on to the Neo-Assyrian Period.9 Further supporting evidence can be found in the royal inscriptions of Esarhaddon, Ashurbanipal and Shamash-shuma-ukin, where Adasi (as well as his son Bel-bani) was recalled as their royal ancestor.10 According to the BKLa, Damqi-ilishu might have ruled for 26 years.11 Nearly nothing is known about him, except that the city walls of Der built by him were demolished by Ammi-ditana of the First Dynasty of Babylon.12 Therefore, Damqi-ilishu must have ruled earlier than Ammi-ditana or at most parallel with him. Besides, Damqi-ilishu and a certain “Agum” were mentioned on a tablet (K.3992) from the 7th century BC.13 If this “Agum” is none other than Agum I of the Kassite Dynasty, it is probable that the periods of the reigns of both kings are quite close. The synchronism between Adasi and Damqi-ilishu cannot be confirmed. 1.3.1.3 i 2’: The name of Ishkibal on the right side is almost entirely lost, with only the personal name determinative left. His name is written as “mIš-ba” in the BKLa,14 but “mIš-ki-bal” in the BKLb.15 According to the AKL,16 Bel-bani succeeded his father Adasi and ruled for 10 years.17 According to the BKLa, Ishkibal ruled for 15 years.18 No further information about the two kings is known. The synchronism between both kings cannot be confirmed.

8  Reade, JNES 60 (2001), 7. 9  The only exception is the usurper Lullaja, the 53rd king in the AKL. See Poebel, JNES 1/4 (1942), 467. 10  Leichty, RINAP 4, No. 48: 48’, No. 98: Rev. 17’; Novotny and Jeffers, RINAP 5/1, No. 10: v 40’; Frame, RIMB 2, B.6.31.12: 27’, B.6.31.15: 28’, B.6.33.4: 23’; Brinkman, PNA 1/2, 288. 11  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 91. Only the sign for “10” and the sign for “6” could be discerned by the copy. See Gadd, CT 36, Plate 24, i 6’. 12  Horgan, MCS 2/3 (1952), 52; Finkelstein, YOS 13, No. 359; Ungnad, RLA 2 (1938), 189. 13  Landsberger, JCS 8/2 (1954), 68, n. 172; Jaritz, MIO 6 (1958), 227. However, according to Brinkman, “the significance, style, date of composition, and authenticity of this text require further investigation”. See Brinkman, MSKH, 96. 14  Gadd, CT 36, Plate 24, i 7’. 15  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 100. 16  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 106. 17  As can be seen in the royal inscriptions of Esarhaddon, Ashurbanipal and Shamashshuma-ukin, Bel-bani must have been revered as the principal founder of the “Adasi Dynasty”. See Brinkman, PNA 1/2, 288. 18  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 91.

The Texts of the Synchronistic King List

41

1.3.1.4 i 3’: The first sign of the name of the Assyrian king is not so clear; it was restored as “šá” by Weidner in his early study.19 Considering that the name following Bel-bani in the KhKL and the SDAS is written as “mLi-ba-a-a”,20 “li” would be authentic. The name of Shushi is written as “mŠu-uš-ši-(ŠEŠ)” in the BKLa,21 and “mŠu-uš-ši” in the BKLb.22 Libaja was the son of Bel-bani23 and ruled for 17 years according to the AKL.24 According to the BKLa, Shushi ruled for 24 years.25 The synchronism between Libaja and Shushi cannot be confirmed. 1.3.1.5 i 4’: Only the last sign “IM” of the Assyrian king’s name is damaged. The name of the Babylonian king cannot be seen any more. It is written as “mGul-ki-šár” in the BKLb,26 but “mGul-ki” (with the last sign “šár” being probably omitted or lost) in the BKLa.27 According to the AKL,28 Sharma-Adad I succeeded his father Libaja29 and ruled for 12 years. Remarkably, Reade proposed that Sharma-Adad I as well as his two predecessors (Bel-bani and Libaja) would have been the governors of Ashur under Ekallatu (the capital of Ishme-Dagan I) before the time of Puzur-Sin or the governors of Ekallatu independent from Ashur and parallel with Puzur-Sin and Bazaja.30 According to the BKLa, Gulkishar ruled for 55 years.31 Landsberger suggested that the reign of Gulkishar would have been close in time to the reigns of Gandash and Agum I, the first two Kassite kings.32 However, according to Goetze, Gulkishar might have been on the Babylonian

19  Weidner, MVAG 26/2 (1921), 13. 20  Gelb, JNES 13/4 (1954), 214, ii 14’; 215, ii 14’. 21  Gadd, CT 36, Plate 24, i 8’. 22  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 100. 23  Landsberger suggested that Bel-bani might actually have been the brother of Libaja. See Landsberger, JCS 8/1 (1954), 42. 24  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 106. 25  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 91. 26  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 100. 27  Gadd, CT 36, Plate 24, i 9’. A horizontal wedge “AŠ” is left at the end of this line. See Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 91. 28  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 106. 29  Landsberger suggested that Libaja might have been another brother of Bel-bani. See Landsberger, JCS 8/1 (1954), 42. 30  Reade, JNES 60 (2001), 7. 31  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 91. 32  Landsberger, JCS 8/2 (1954), 68–69, n. 174.

42

Chapter 2

throne when Agum II entered Babylon.33 Moreover, a kudurru (BE 1/1 83) from the time of Enlil-nadin-apli records that the time-span from Gulkishar to Nebuchadnezzar I was 696 years.34 The synchronism between Sharma-Adad I and Gulkishar cannot be confirmed. 1.3.1.6 i 5’: The first sign of the Assyrian royal name is difficult to identify. The last sign for “20” must be incorrect, for this name is written as “Ip-tar-d30” in the KhKL.35 In addition, the reading of the first element of this name is uncertain, for “Ip?-tar” (by Gelb), “Ip-ṭar” (by Landsberger) or even “Ipṭir” (by Poebel) have all been suggested.36 The traces for the name of the Babylonian king, except for the last sign “EN”, are too sparse for a definitive reading. Weidner restored it as “…-rien”,37 but Landsberger as “x.KÀD-en”,38 Grayson as “GÍŠ-EN”39 and Dalley as “DIŠ+U-EN”.40 The KhKL recorded that Iptar-Sin was the son of Sharma-Adad I41 and ruled for 12 years.42 Interestingly, as proposed by Reade, Iptar-Sin would have been identical with Puzur-Sin, who claimed to have overthrown the rule of Shamshi-Adad I’s family in one inscription,43 because – as perceived by Reade – all the wedges necessary for writing “Ip-tar” are present in “Puzur” (pùzur8); that is, the scribe of the AKL might have copied it from a damaged tablet carrying the name of “Puzur-Sin”, but mistakenly written it as “Iptar-Sin”.44 33  This could be deduced from two conditions: 1) between Mursili I (ca. 1556–1526 BC) and Agum II there would have been an interval, during which Babylon must have been under the control of the First Sealand Dynasty (which is listed before the Kassite Dynasty in the BKLa); 2) the third predecessor of Gulkishar, Damqi-ilishu, was contemporary with Ammi-ditana, the third-to-last king from the First Dynasty of Babylon, and the sixth successor of Gulkishar, the last king of that dynasty, Ea-gamil, was also contemporary with Ulamburiash, the fourth predecessor of Agum II (see below). See Goetze, JCS 11/3 (1957), 65–66. 34  Brinkman, PKB, 83. 35  Gelb, JNES 13/4 (1954), 214, ii 18’. According to the personal collation of Brinkman, the sign for “30” here was clear. See Brinkman, RLA 5 (1976–1980), 23. 36  Brinkman, RLA 5 (1976–1980), 23. 37  Weidner, MVAG 26/2 (1921), 13. 38  Landsberger, JCS 8/2 (1954), 69. 39  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 117. 40  Dalley, CUSAS 9, 2. 41  Landsberger suggested that Iptar-Sin would also have been the brother of Bel-bani. See Landsberger, JCS 8/1 (1954), 42. 42  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 107. 43  Grayson, RIMA 1, A.0.40.1001. 44  Reade, JNES 60 (2001), 6–7.

The Texts of the Synchronistic King List

43

The name of the Babylonian king is not listed in the BKLa or in the BKLb. It is probable that this “king” was inserted between Gulkishar and Peshgaldaramesh in A.117, which is the only source mentioning him. However, he was recognized as the direct successor of Gulkishar by Eder, who speculated (by calculating the time-span recorded in BE I/1 83) that he would have ruled for about 6 years.45 The synchronism between the two kings in this line cannot be confirmed. 1.3.1.7 i 6’: The first sign “BA” of the Assyrian king’s name was restored inaccurately by Weidner as “Zi-im” in his early study.46 The first two signs of the Babylonian royal name are not clear in this line. The last sign was taken as “MAŠ” by Weidner.47 The name is written as “mPeš-gal-dàra-maš” in the BKLb,48 but “mPeš-gal” in the BKLa.49 According to the KhKL, Bazaja succeeded his father Bel-bani and reigned for 28 years.50 According to the BKLa, Peshgaldaramesh would have been the son of Gulkishar and ruled for 50 years.51 Landsberger suggested that the reign of Peshgaldaramesh and that of Abi-Rattash, the 4th king of the Kassite Dynasty, would have been close in time.52 The synchronism between Bazaja and Peshgaldaramesh cannot be confirmed. 1.3.1.8 i 7’: The name of Lullaja is written as “mLu-ul-la-a-a” in the KhKL.53 According to Poebel, the writing of the name in this line must be a mistake, for the other “A” had been lost.54 The Babylonian royal name is written as “mA-dàra-kalam-ma” (identical with that restored by Weidner in his early study55) in the BKLb,56 but “mA-[a]-dàra” in the BKLa.57 Inasmuch as the writing of the name in the BKLa might be a shorter one omitting the last two signs and that in the BKLb might have lost another “A”, the writing of the name in this line must be complete. 45  Eder, AoF 31 (2004), 216–217. 46  Weidner, MVAG 26/2 (1921), 13. 47  Weidner, MVAG 26/2 (1921), 13. 48  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 100. 49  Gadd, CT 36, Plate 24, i 10’. 50  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 107. 51  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 91. 52  Landsberger, JCS 8/2 (1954), 69. 53  Gelb, JNES 13/4 (1954), 214, ii 22’. 54  Poebel, JNES 1/4 (1942), 471–473. 55  Weidner, MVAG 26/2 (1921), 13. 56  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 100. 57  Gadd, CT 36, Plate 24, i 11’.

44

Chapter 2

Besides, his name appearing on a bronze circlet (where he is given the title of “MAN ŠÚ”, i.e. “king of the world”) found at Tell en-Nasbeh is written as “mA-ia-da-a-ra”.58 As a usurper (“son of nobody”), Lullaja is the only exception not from the royal family of Adasi. Reade surmised that Lullaja and Ashur-dugul, the usurper before Adasi, might have been the same individual.59 According to the KhKL and the SDAS, Lullaja ruled for 6 years.60 The BKLb records that Adarakalamma was another son of Gulkishar61 and the BKLa gives him a reign of 28 years.62 As suggested by Dalley, the First Sealand Dynasty “was a political reality under the kings Pešgaldarameš and Ayadaragalama, with a flourishing economy, presumably just before or after the Old Babylonian dynasty came to an end”.63 The sources of year-names for both kings (mainly for Adarakalamma) have been restored from the Schøyen Collection.64 The synchronism between Lullaja and Adarakalamma cannot be confirmed. 1.3.1.9 i 8’: The name of Ekurduanna is written as “mÉ-kur-du7” in the BKLa,65 and “mA-kur-du7-an-na” in the BKLb.66 As for the Assyrian royal name, the reading of “Kidin-Ninua” has been disputed among scholars. It is inscribed as “ŠÚ-URUAB×HA” in the KhKL and the SDAS,67 but “mŠÚ-U-dAB×HA” in KAV 14.68 Considering that “Nînua” is the name of a city (Nineveh), but not of a deity, the writing in KAV 14, according to Poebel, is “evidently a mistake of the scribe”.69 The beginning signs of this name are damaged in this line and Poebel argued that the original writing would have been “mŠÚ-U” (like that in KAV 14), that is, “the last wedge is not horizontal as in ŠI, but slanting”.70 Gelb

58  Dalley, CUSAS 9, 1. 59  Reade, JNES 60 (2001), 7. 60  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 107. 61  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 100. 62  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 91. 63  Dalley, CUSAS 9, 1. 64  Dalley, CUSAS 9, 1–16. 65  Gadd, CT 36, Plate 24, i 12’. 66  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 100. 67  Gelb, JNES 13/4 (1954), 214, ii 24’; 215, ii 20’. 68  In KAV 14, Kidin-Ninua is listed immediately after the family members of Shamshi-Adad I, with thirteen kings from Ashur-dugul to Lullaja being omitted. 69  Poebel, JNES 1/4 (1942), 475. 70  Poebel, JNES 1/4 (1942), 475.

The Texts of the Synchronistic King List

45

translated this name into “Kidin-Ninua”.71 According to Brinkman, this might be due to the possibility that “ŠÚ” was taken as the logogram of “kidinnu”. Brinkman proposed that “Šu-Ninua” might be more appropriate than “Kidin-Ninua”, for 1) it is by no means certain that the sign “ŠÚ” could be used as a logogram for “kidinnu” and 2) in almost all the AKL exemplars this name is written as “ŠÚ-ni-nu-a”.72 However, the arguments of Brinkman were rejected by Heeßel.73 After the fragment of KAV 14 was recleaned, Heeßel collated the name to be [mKi-d]in-dNINUA. Moreover, the fact that “ŠÚ” was used as a logogram for “kidinnu” can be confirmed by the incantation on a “Pazuzu-Amulett” from the Neo-Assyrian Period as well as a personal name, “dAG-ŠÚ” (“Nabu-kidinnī”). So “Kidin-Ninua” must be the authentic reading. As the son of Bazaja, Kidin-Ninua is also the king who won the Assyrian throne back to the royal family of Adasi after the reign of the usurper, Lullaja. According to the KhKL and the SDAS, Kidin-Ninua ruled for 14 years,74 and according to the BKLa, Ekurduanna ruled for 26 years.75 The synchronism between Kidin-Ninua and Ekurduanna cannot be confirmed. 1.3.1.10 i 9’: Another sign “kur” might have been lost in the writing of the name of Melamkurkurra.76 It is written as “mMe-lám-mà” in the BKLa,77 and “mMe-lámkur-kur-ra” in the BKLb.78 Sharma-Adad II was the son of Kidin-Ninua and ruled for 3 years according to the KhKL and the SDAS.79 According to the BKLa, Melamkurkurra ruled for 7 years.80 The synchronism between both of them cannot be confirmed.

71  Gelb, JNES 13 (1954), 225–226; for the reading “Kidin” see also Landsberger, JCS 8/1 (1954), 42. 72  Brinkman, Or 42 (1973), 318. 73  Heeßel, NABU 2002/3, 60–61. 74  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 107. 75  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 91. 76  There were two signs of “KUR” in the early restorations of Weidner. See Weidner, MVAG 26/2 (1921), 13. 77  Gadd, CT 36, Plate 24, i 13’. 78  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 100. 79  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 107. 80  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 91.

46

Chapter 2

1.3.1.11 i 10’: It seems odd that there are two Babylonian kings listed alongside Erishum III in the right half-line, which is the only exception in A.117.81 The first of them, Ea-gamil, is the last king of the First Sealand Dynasty, and the second, Gandash, is the first king of the Kassite Dynasty. The name of Ea-gamil is written as “mdÉ-a-ga-mil” in the BKLb,82 but “mdBE-ga” (with the sign “mil” being lost) in the BKLa.83 As for the name of Gandash, according to the collation of A.117 made by Brinkman, the first sign “GA” is not clear, the second sign only appears as a final vertical wedge, and the third sign cannot be determined.84 It is written as “mGan-dáš” in the BKLa,85 and “mGa-ad-daš” in a first-millennium copy of the so-called “Gandash Inscription” (BM 77438), where he was entitled “King of the Four Quarters of the World”, “King of the Land of Sumer and Akkad” and “King of Babylon”.86 Erishum III was another son of Kidin-Ninua and ruled for 13 years according to the KhKL and the SDAS.87 According to the BKLa, Ea-gamil ruled for 9 years and Gandash ruled for 26 years.88 The First Sealand Dynasty came to an end with the fall of Ea-gamil, who fled to Elam and was replaced by Ulamburiash.89 However, Ulamburiash was a later Kassite king and there would have existed more than ten Kassite kings preceding him. That is to say: 1) Ea-gamil was actually contemporary with Ulamburiash and much later than Gandash; 2) the arrangement that A.117 lists the two partly overlapping dynasties (the First Sealand Dynasty and the Kassite Dynasty) successively does not follow the chronological order. Thus, Jaritz believed that “the Assyrian-Kassite synchronisms in the list may not be accurate, but the authenticity of the 81  Since Gandash is inscribed following directly Ea-gamil in the same line, but not listed below him, the name of Gandash must have been added later by the scribe; that is, it is only after he had drawn the dividing line under Ea-gamil that the scribe placed the entry of Gandash into that line. On the other hand, according to Poebel, Gandash was placed closely beside Ea-gamil by a later redactor in order to indicate (as a reminder) that the first three partly overlapping Babylonian dynasties in the list should have been arranged in three parallel columns. See Poebel, JNES 2/1 (1943), 61, n. 236. 82  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 100. 83  Gadd, CT 36, Plate 24, i 14’. 84  Brinkman, MSKH, 127. 85  Gadd, CT 36, Plate 24, i 16’. 86  Brinkman, MSKH, 127–128; Landsberger, JCS 8/2 (1954), 68, n. 172. According to Jaritz, this inscription is a “Neo-Babylonian copy of an old tablet”, but Eder believed that it would have been “the translation of an authentic, original Sumerian inscription of the king.” See Jaritz, MIO 6 (1958), 226–227; Eder, AoF 31 (2004), 214, n. 66. 87  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 107. 88  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 91. 89  Grayson, ABC, 156.

The Texts of the Synchronistic King List

47

Assyrian-Sealand synchronisms still remains possible”.90 In view of the fact that Ea-gamil and Gandash were not contemporary,91 the synchronism between the Assyrian king and the two Babylonian kings is impossible. 1.3.1.12 i 11’–18’: Shamshi-Adad II’s Babylonian counterparts in this unit include eight Kassite kings: Agum I, Kashtiliashu I, Abi-Rattash, Kashtiliashu II, Urzigurumash, Harba-Shipak, Tiptakzi and Agum II, each occupying a single half-line. The corresponding half-lines on the left below Shamshi-Adad II are all inscribed with the sign “MIN”. Agum I: The writing of this name is not clear, but it is written as “mA-guum” in the BKLa.92 The signs “IGI [A]-šú” following the name, which can also be seen in the BKLa, could be interpreted as “Agum I, his son” (i.e. the son of Gandaš).93 The last sign is “ŠU” in the copy of Weidner,94 but “šú” as collated by Brinkman, who perceived that “the traces are much clearer on the tablet than on the excavation photo”.95 According to the BKLa, Agum I ruled for 22 years.96 He was once remembered by Agum II as his ancestor in the AKI.97 Furthermore, the Chronicle of Early Kings98 mentioned another Agum, who was the son of a Kashtiliashu and cannot simply be identified with Agum I or Agum II.99 According to Jaritz, Agum I (or Kashtiliashu I) would have been synchronistic with Abishi, the grandson of Hammurabi of the First Dynasty of Babylon.100 Kashtiliashu I: The sign preceding “šu” is not clear.101 This name is written as “m[Kaš-til]-iá-ši” in the BKLa.102 If the name almost wholly damaged in the AKI 90  Jaritz, MIO 6 (1958), 196. 91  According to Jaritz, Gandash might have been the contemporary of Samsu-iluna, the son of Hammurabi, and Ishme-Dagan I. See Jaritz, MIO 6 (1958), 191, 195. 92  Gadd, CT 36, Plate 24, i 17’. 93  Brinkman, MSKH, 96; Landsberger, JCS 8/2 (1954), 68. 94  Weidner, AfO 3 (1926), 70. 95  Brinkman, MSKH, 96. 96  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 91. 97  van Koppen, ANEHST, 135–139; Longman III, FAA, 83–88; Foster, BMAAL I, 360–364; Oshima, BuB 6 (2012), 225–252. See also Brinkman, MSKH, 97; Astour, JAOS 106/2 (1986), 328, n. 11. 98  Grayson, ABC, 156. 99  Brinkman, MSKH, 95, 98. 100  Jaritz, MIO 6 (1958), 193, n. 41. 101  It was restored as “[j]a” but later as “a” by Weidner. See Weidner, MVAG 26/2 (1921), 13; AfO 3 (1926), 67. 102  Gadd, CT 36, Plate 24, i 18’.

48

Chapter 2

did in fact refer to Kashtiliashu I,103 he must have been the son of Agum I and the father of Abi-Rattash. According to the BKLa, he ruled for 22 years.104 Abi-Rattash: The third sign of this name is “ra” in this line, but “rat” in the BKLa.105 The number of his regnal years in the BKLa is lost. Though Abi-Rattash is the immediate successor of Kashtiliashu I in A.117, the scribe of the BKLa must have inserted between both of them another king, whose name is written as “m[…]-ši” followed by “A-šú”. Brinkman restored this name as “Ušši, his son”106 and Landsberger as “Uš-ši-(a-šú)”.107 According to Brinkman’s collation, the first sign might be “DU” or “UŠ” (though quite uncertain), while the second might be “ši” and the number of his regnal years cannot be identified.108 This “Ušši” is probably the son of Kashtiliashu I,109 if one can assume that “A-šú” means “his son”.110 Then we may try to deduce the reason why he is omitted from the genealogy of Agum II in the AKI: he must have been the brother of Abi-Rattash,111 who was the grandfather of Agum II, and so would not have belonged to the direct ancestors of Agum II. Kashtiliashu II: This individual, if he really existed as a king, appears only in A.117. It seems that the BKLa omits Kashtiliashu II, while A.117 omits “Ušši”. However, if “Ušši” in the BKLa is really the son of Kashtiliashu I, he could well have been identical with Kashtiliashu II,112 who is also omitted from the AKI.113 If so, the sequence of Abi-Rattash and Kashtiliashu II in A.117 is the opposite of that in the BKLa.114 Nevertheless, the assumption that the two individuals were identical was rejected by Janssen, who reserved the positions for both of them in the royal sequence of the Kassite kings.115 Urzigurumash: The middle signs “g[u-r]u” in this line are partly damaged but can be restored by the writing of the name in the AKI, “Ur-ši-gu-ru-maš”.116 103  Oshima, BuB 6 (2012), 234, i 17’. 104  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 91. 105  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 91. 106  Brinkman, MSKH, 327. 107  Landsberger, JCS 8/1 (1954), 44; JCS 8/3 (1954), 123. 108  The damaged number perceived by Brinkman is 6 or 8. See Brinkman, MSKH, 327. 109  Probably it is “Kaš-til-a-šú”. See Goetze, JCS 18/4 (1964), 97, n. 11. 110  This can be connected with the entry of Agum I in i 17’ of the BKLa, where “A-šú” is usually understood as “his son”, i.e. “son of Gandaš”. 111  Jaritz, MIO 6 (1958), 206. See also Paulus, JCS 70 (2018), 125. 112  According to Weidner, this point was formerly proposed by Ungnad. See Weidner, AfO 3 (1926), 74, n. 4. 113  According to Goetze, Kashtiliashu II must have been the brother of Abi-Rattash. See Goetze, JCS 18/4 (1964), 97, n. 11. 114  Jaritz, MIO 6 (1958), 190. 115  Janssen, Akkadica 132 (2011), 42, n. 30. 116  Oshima, BuB 6 (2012), 233, i 2’, 13’.

The Texts of the Synchronistic King List

49

The remaining signs of the name in the BKLa are “[ur-zi]-guru12-maš”. According to Brinkman: 1) the first sign is written as “UR”, with the reading of “taš” or “taz” being also possible; 2) the second sign is “zi” (in this line as well as in the BKLa), or “ši” (in the AKI), with none of them being exceptionally reliable.117 The number of the regnal years of Urzigurumash is lost in the BKLa. Harba-Shipak: According to the collation of Brinkman, the signs (one or two) following “Ḫar-ba” cannot be discerned clearly, although the remaining upper right corner of the last sign may be a wedge head belonging to one or two vertical wedges.118 This name can be attested only in A.117, although it must have appeared in the original tablet of the BKLa. By the sources (IM 90602: 19; IM 90606: 36) from Level III of Tell Muhammad, Boese read a royal name of “Hurbazum” (which could be written as “ḫu-ur-ba-[su]m” or “ḫu-ur-ba-[zu/ su-u]m”) and identified him as Harba-Shipak.119 However, as suggested by Janssen, the “Hurbazum” might have borne a similar name to “Harba-Shipak” and would have been a minor king between the fall of Babylon and the expansion of the Kassites, when Babylon had not yet been controlled by the early Kassite rulers.120 Tiptakzi: The name was restored as “mTi-ip-ta-[a]k-zi” by Weidner in his early study.121 Later, the collation of Kraus led Weidner to believe that only the sign “ta” was uncertain.122 However, Brinkman’s collation could only verify the sign “ib”, with the other traces quite blurry.123 The writing of the name was rejected by Boese, who identified it as “Šipta’ulzi” (written as “ši-ip-ta-ul-zi”) by the sources (IM 92720: 50; IM 92728: 21) from Level II of Tell Muhammad,124 although the suggestion of Boese – in view of the chronological facts – was called into question by Janssen.125 Jaritz proposed that Tiptakzi was the last Kassite king before the invasion of Mursili I into Babylon, and that his successor, Agum II, would have been the first Kassite king who began to rule the whole Babylonia.126 Agum II: The writing of the name was restored as “ma-gu-[u]m” by Weidner.127 But he admitted later that, with the help of Kraus’s collation, only 117  Brinkman, MSKH, 320, n. 1. 118  Brinkman, MSKH, 129. See also Beaulieu, HB, 128. 119  Boese, ZA 98 (2008), 203. 120  Janssen, Akkadica 132 (2011), 51–53. See also Brinkman, KBUK 1, 5, n. 29. 121  Weidner, AfO 3 (1926), 68. 122  Weidner, AfO 19 (1959–1960), 138. 123  Brinkman, MSKH, 327. See also Beaulieu, HB, 128. 124  Boese, ZA 98 (2008), 203. 125  Janssen, Akkadica 132 (2011), 51–53. See also Brinkman, KBUK 1, 5, n. 29. 126  Jaritz, MIO 6 (1958), 193, n. 42, 207. 127  Weidner, AfO 3 (1926), 68.

50

Chapter 2

the middle sign “gu” could be confirmed and the remaining traces could not be seen clearly.128 Brinkman might have discerned nothing as for this name in his own collation.129 As noted by Astour, this name is written as “[A-gu-um] Ka-ak-ri-me” at first in the AKI, but then in the following paragraphs of that text, it is written as “A-gu-um”, with the following part being omitted.130 According to Astour, “ka-ak-ri-me” might be some kind of weapon (“thunderbolt”) and this term must have been used as the king’s epithet.131 Astour thus suggested that the signs for the name in this line must be “kak-ri-im-me”, probably inscribed by the scribe of A.117 because of insufficient space on the tablet.132 The activities of Agum II are only attested in the AKI, where it is recorded that he returned the statue of Marduk back to Babylon from Hana. According to the “Marduk Prophecy”, the god Marduk went to the land of Hatti (and later returned to Babylon), which could be echoed by the sack of Mursili I.133 So it is probable that the statue of Marduk returned by Agum II is the very one that went to Hatti and stayed there for 24 years.134 However, Dalley argued that it was from Hana, not from Hatti, that Agum II retrieved the statue, and that the two places were certainly not identical, that is, the statue returned by Agum II must not have been the same one removed by the Hittites.135 Shamshi-Adad II succeeded his father Erishum III and ruled for 6 years according to the KhKl and the SDAS.136 What we know about him is very limited. According to his own royal inscriptions, he might have built a temple in an unknown location at Ashur137 and restored a temple built by ShamshiAdad I.138 It seems highly unlikely that Shamshi-Adad II, who reigned for only six years, would have been contemporary with eight Kassite kings, whose total reign length would be about 150 years.139 Since this group of Kassite kings begins with Agum I and ends with Agum II, Jaritz assumed that the scribe of A.117 might not have known which “Agum” was the real contemporary 128  Weidner, AfO 19 (1959–1960), 138. 129  Brinkman, MSKH, 98. 130  Astour, JAOS 106/2 (1986), 328. 131  Astour, JAOS 106/2 (1986), 330–331. 132  Astour, JAOS 106/2 (1986), 330, n. 31. 133  Grayson and Lambert, JCS 18/1 (1964), 8; Borger, BiOr 28 (1971), 21; van Koppen, ANEHST, 136–137; Neujahr, UDPL, 44–45. 134  Brinkman, MSKH, 97. See also van Koppen, KBUK 1, 65–74. 135  Dalley, AoF 24/1 (1997), 165–166. For recent discussions see Paulus, JCS 70 (2018), 133. 136  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 107. 137  Grayson, RIMA 1, A.0.59.2. 138  Grayson, RIMA 1, A.0.59.1001. 139  Jaritz, MIO 6 (1958), 195.

The Texts of the Synchronistic King List

51

of Shamshi-Adad II.140 However, Janssen suggested that the synchronism between Shamshi-Adad II and Agum II must have been certain, since the reigns of both kings would have partly overlapped.141 1.3.1.13 i 19’: The first two signs of the name of Ishme-Dagan II, which should be “Iš-me” according to the KhKL and the SDAS,142 are damaged. Although only the middle signs of the name of the Babylonian king Burnaburiash I are not clear in Weidner’s copy,143 Brinkman’s collation showed that the traces of the writing of this name must have been quite vague.144 Ishme-Dagan II was the son of Shamshi-Adad II and ruled for 16 years according to the KhKL and the SDAS.145 A certain Burnaburiash (written as “mBur-na-bur-ia-áš”) was mentioned in the Synchronistic History, where it is recorded that he made a treaty with the Assyrian king Puzur-Ashur III.146 This Burnaburiash (I) could be the one we are referring to here, who (with the name written as “Bur-na-bu-ra-ri-ia-aš”) also appears as the father of Ulamburiash in a votive inscription of Ulamburiash (BE 6405),147 although we do not know exactly how many kings with this name there would have been in the Kassite Dynasty.148 If the “Ú-lam-bur-áš” appearing as the brother of Kashtiliashu III in the Chronicle of Early Kings149 could be identical with the “Ú-la-bu-ra-ri-ia-aš” appearing in the votive inscription above, as suggested by Goetze, then this Burnaburiash (I) might have been the father of Kashtiliashu III as well.150 The synchronism between Ishme-Dagan II and Burnaburiash (I) cannot be confirmed. 1.3.1.14 i 20’: Only the last element “dIM” of the name of Shamshi-Adad III is left in this line. His name is written as “mŠam-ši-dIM” in the KhKL and the SDAS, according to which he was the son of a certain Ishme-Dagan (but not Ishme-Dagan II)151 140  Jaritz, MIO 6 (1958), 195. 141  Janssen, Akkadica 132 (2011), 48–49. 142  Gelb, JNES 13/4 (1954), 214, ii 32’; 215, ii 24’. 143  Weidner, AfO 3 (1926), 68. 144  Brinkman, MSKH, 101. 145  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 107. 146  Grayson, ABC, 158–159. 147  Brinkman, MSKH, 101. 148  Brinkman, MSKH, 100. 149  Grayson, ABC, 156. 150  Goetze, JCS 18/4 (1964), 98–99, n. 23. 151  Yamada, ZA 84 (1994), 28, n. 51; Azize, Abr-N 35 (1998), 6.

52

Chapter 2

and ruled for 16 years.152 The name of the Babylonian king on the right is totally lost. The name was restored by Weidner as “[mMe-li-ši-p]ak” in his early study.153 Goetze, by the inscription on a stone knob (BE 6378), recognized a “Kurigalzu” and a “Meli-Shipak” as the successors of Burnaburiash I (the 10th Kassite king),154 but this was questioned by Brinkman,155 who tentatively proposed three candidates for the kings following Burnaburiash (I): Kashtiliashu III, Ulamburiash and Agum III.156 Furlong suggested that Kurigalzu I, as the son of Burnaburiash I, would have been listed in this line.157 1.3.1.15 i 21’: Only a small trace of the sign “ri” for the name of Ashur-nirari I has been left. The name is written as “Aš-šur-ERIM.DÁḪ” in the SDAS.158 The Babylonian king matching him on the right side must be Kashtiliashu III, for the first two signs of the Babylonian royal name seem to be “kaš-til”.159 Brinkman’s collation offered nearly nothing for this name.160 According to the AKL, Ashur-nirari I was the son of Ishme-Dagan II and ruled for 26 years. Little is known about him, although he left some inscriptions on bricks and clay cones at Ashur, where he accomplished several building projects.161 As stated above, Kashtiliashu III might have been another son of Burnaburiash I. According to the Chronicle of Early Kings,162 he must have been succeeded by his brother Ulamburiash and then his son Agum III successively. The synchronism between Ashur-nirari I and Kashtiliashu III cannot be confirmed. 1.3.1.16 i 22’–25’: Four Assyrian kings must have been listed parallel with only one Babylonian king in this unit. The signs for the name of the Babylonian king Ulamburiash are partly damaged in Weidner’s copy, but nothing can be determined by 152  Gelb, JNES 13/4 (1954), 216–217. 153  Weidner, MVAG 26/2 (1921), 14. 154  Goetze, JCS 18/4 (1964), 99. 155  Brinkman, Or 38 (1969), 326; MSKH, 104–105. 156  Brinkman, MSKH, 26, n. 71; KBUK 1, 9. See also Jaritz MIO 6 (1958), 201–202; van Koppen, KBUK 1, 75; Paulus, JCS 70 (2018), 125; Beaulieu, HB, 126. 157  Furlong, AANEC, 54, 91. 158  Gelb, JNES 13/3 (1954), 217, ii 28’. 159  Weidner, AfO 19 (1959–1960), 138. 160  Brinkman, MSKH, 174–175. 161  Grayson, RIMA 1, A.0.60.1–3, 5. 162  Grayson, ABC, 156.

The Texts of the Synchronistic King List

53

Brinkman’s collation.163 The left half-lines below the name of Ulamburiash must have been all inscribed with the sign “MIN”. As mentioned above, Ulamburiash must be the son of Burnaburariash I and the brother of Kashtiliashu III. According to the Chronicle of Early Kings, after Ea-gamil, king of Sealand, fled to Elam, Ulamburiash conquered Sealand and became the overlord of Sealand.164 As attested by his votive inscription (BE 6405), Ulamburiash assumed the title “King of Sealand”.165 Goetze doubted that Ulamburiash had once ruled as king of Babylon.166 But according to Brinkman, the fact that Ulamburiash (as well as Agum III) is recognized as a king in the Chronicle of Early Kings cannot be denied, since he is recorded to have mustered his troops.167 The argument of Brinkman was followed by Janssen, who also suggested that Ulamburiash possibly had already been the king of Babylon when he annexed Sealand.168 According to the AKL, the four Assyrian kings following Ashur-nirari I successively are Puzur-Ashur III, Enlil-nasir I, Nur-ili and Ashur-shaduni.169 Puzur-Ashur III: This name is written as “Pu-zur-Aš-šur” in the KhKL and the SDAS,170 but “Púzur-Aš-šu[r]” in the NaKL.171 He was the son of Ashurnirari I, and ruled for 14 years according to the NaKL, while 24 years according to the SDAS.172 Janssen believed that “14 years” would have been more reliable, since: 1) the NaKL was produced in the 10th century BC, but the SDAS in the 8th century BC (i.e. the former is comparatively nearer to the time of Puzur-Ashur III); 2) the scribe of the SDAS might have made a mistake under the influence of the last entry, that is, the reign of Ashur-nirari I, who ruled for 26 years.173 What we know about him is restricted to his activities at Ashur: he restored the wall of the Step Gate and rebuilt one room in the temple of Ishtar.174 As mentioned above, Puzur-Ashur III must have been synchronistic with Burnaburiash (I), for a treaty was signed between them.

163  Brinkman, MSKH, 318. 164  Grayson, ABC, 156. 165  Brinkman, MSKH, 318. 166  Goetze, JCS 18/4 (1964), 99. See also van Koppen, KBUK 1, 75. 167  Brinkman, MSKH, 98–99. 168  Janssen, Akkadica 132 (2011), 48. 169  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 108. 170  Gelb, JNES 13/4 (1954), 216, ii 38’; 217, ii 29’. 171  Nassouhi, AfO 4 (1927), 4, Obv. ii 34’. 172  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 108. 173  Janssen, Akkadica 132 (2011), 39–40. 174  Grayson, RIMA 1, A.0.61.1–2.

54

Chapter 2

Enlil-nasir I: This name is written as “mdBe-PABir” in the AKL, according to which, he was the son of Puzur-Ashur III and ruled for 13 years.175 Nur-ili: This name is written as “mZALAG-DINGIR” in the AKL, according to which he was the son of Enlil-nasir I and ruled for 12 years.176 Ashur-shaduni: This name177 is written as “Aš-šur-šad-u/ú-ni” in the AKL, according to which he was the son of Nur-ili and ruled for one month.178 The synchronizations of Ulamburiash and all the four Assyrian kings cannot be confirmed. However, according to Janssen, the synchronism between Ulamburiash and Puzur-Ashur III could be considered certain, since the record from the Synchronistic History that Puzur-Ashur III and Burnaburiash (I) fixed a boundary-line may have been incorrect and the truth could have been that it was Ulamburiash who reached an agreement with Puzur-Ashur III on the border,179 which could be understood as the prerequisite or the consequence of Ulamburiash’s conquest of Sealand.180 1.3.2 Column II We have to admit that this column is damaged quite badly and nearly none of the lines preserved can be decided with certainty. So the reconstructions on this column are very tentative. Because the first column ends with Ashur-shaduni and Ulamburiash, this column must originally have begun with Ashur-rabi I and Agum III. However, it is hard to determine the beginning entry on the present tablet (even though the first Assyrian king is probably Tukulti-Ninurta I), for the top right corner of this column, where the names of several Babylonian kings are inscribed, is broken off. But we can make our reconstructions with the help of the next column, which is inscribed on the reverse of the tablet, where the original beginning entry on the top can be decided with more certainty. If the first entry of Column III is known, the last entry of Column II can be deduced. Thus, we could try to reconstruct the second column in reverse order. 175  Nassouhi, AfO 4 (1927), 4, Obv. ii 36’–37’; Gelb, JNES 13/4 (1954), 216, ii 39’–40’; 217, ii 30’; Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 108. 176  Nassouhi, AfO 4 (1927), 4, Obv. ii 38’–39’; Gelb, JNES 13/4 (1954), 216, ii 41’–42’; 217, ii 31’; Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 108. 177  It was restored by Weidner as “[mi]š-[m]e-dda-gan”. See Weidner, AfO 3 (1926), 68. 178  Nassouhi, AfO 4 (1927), 4, Obv. ii 40’–41’; Gelb, JNES 13/4 (1954), 216, ii 43’–44’; 217, ii 32’; Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 108. The writing in the NaKL (probably “Aš-[šur]-šad-[u-ni]”) is not clear. 179  See also Sassmannshausen, MDAR, 61–70; Streck, RLA 11 (2006–2008), 128–129. 180  Janssen, Akkadica 132 (2011), 47–48.

The Texts of the Synchronistic King List

55

1.3.2.1 Lacuna at the beginning of Column II: If the final entry of Ashur-shaduni and Ulamburiash in Column I and the beginning entry of Tukulti-Ninurta I and Kashtiliashu IV in Column II can be decided, then: 1) between Ashur-shaduni (64th) and Tukulti-Ninurta I (78th), according to the AKL, there would have been thirteen Assyrian kings lost; 2) between Ulamburiash and Kashtiliashu IV, according to the restoration on the sequence of Kassite kings by Brinkman181 and the BKLa, there would have been fourteen Babylonian kings lost. The lost kings of both lands would have been: Table 9

The Assyrian kings and the Babylonian kings lost in the Lacuna at the beginning of column II of A.117

Assyrian kings

Babylonian kings

Ashur-rabi Ia Ashur-nadin-ahhe I Enlil-nasir II Ashur-nirari II Ashur-bel-nisheshu Ashur-rim-nisheshu Ashur-nadin-ahhe II Eriba-Adad I Ashur-uballit I Enlil-nirari Arik-den-ili Adad-nirari I Shalmaneser I

Agum III Karaindash Kadashman-Harbe I Kurigalzu I Kadashman-Enlil I Burnaburiash II Karahardash Nazibugash Kurigalzu II Nazimaruttash Kadashman-Turgu Kadashman-Enlil II Kudur-Enlil Shagarakti-Shuriash

a From Ashur-rabi I to Eriba-Adad I, it is a period of “Dark Age”, like most of the units in Column I. The contemporary kings of both lands during that period can hardly be determined.

181  Brinkman, MSKH, 11–16; KBUK 1, 36.

56

Chapter 2

1.3.2.2 ii 1’–2’: The Assyrian king in this unit must be Tukulti-Ninurta I. His name is written as “mGIŠ.KU-ti-dMAŠ” in the KhKL and the SDAS, according to which he was the son of Shalmaneser I and reigned for 37 years.182 The half-line below his name must have been inscribed with the name of his ummânu,183 and the beginning traces might indicate the sign “ḪU”. If so, this ummânu will probably be the first one appearing in the extant tablet of A.117. But it should be noted that the earliest appearance of ummânu in A.117 still remains unknown, because it cannot be determined whether or not the entry of ummânu appeared in the lost parts of the tablet before this unit.184 The name of his Babylonian counterpart on the right side cannot be seen. But according to the sequence of the kings in the BKLa, this Babylonian king must have been Kashtiliashu IV,185 who was defeated and captured by Tukulti-Ninurta I. It has also been suggested that he was appointed as eponym after he was taken back to Assyria, since an eponym with the same name under the reign of Tukulti-Ninurta I has been identified.186 His name in the BKLa is written as “mKaš-til”,187 which must have been a short form. The full writing appears as “(md)Kaš-til-ia/iá/ia4-šu/šú/ši”, “(md)Kaš-til-ia-a-šu”, “(md)Kaš-til-a-šu” or “(md)Kaš-til-a-šum” in different sources.188 According to the BKLa,189 he was the son of Shagarakti-Shuriash190 (who was the son of Kudur-Enlil) and ruled for 8 years. As recorded in Chronicle P, after Adad-shuma-usur revolted and ascended the throne of Babylonia, Tukulti-Ninurta I was deposed and killed by his son and officials. That is to say, Tukulti-Ninurta I must have been contemporary with Kashtiliashu IV and Adad-shuma-usur. Moreover, as can be seen below, 182  Gelb, JNES 13/4 (1954), 218, iii 20’; 219, iii 10’. 183  Ebeling, AOTAT, 334; Oppenheim, ANET, 273. The possibility proposed by Grayson that the name in this place would refer to “Ashur-nasir-apli”, who was one of the successors of Tukulti-Ninurta I, has to be excluded, because: 1) the beginning traces in this line do not support that; 2) Pedersén demonstrated convincingly later that “Ashur-nasir-apli” should be a variant writing for “Ashur-nadin-apli”. See Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 121; Pedersén, AOAT 267, 369–373. 184  Note that the ummânu (whose name is lost) of Enlil-nirari was registered in KAV 11 (see below). 185  Weidner, MVAG 26/2 (1921), 14; Ebeling, AOTAT, 334; Oppenheim, ANET, 273. 186  Freydank, BMCG, 51–52; Bloch, Or 79 (2010), 13 (n. 44), 29. 187  Gadd, CT 36, Plate 24, ii 7’. 188  Brinkman, MSKH, 186–188. 189  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 91. 190  A certain Shagarakti-Shuriash, “servant of Suhi”, is also mentioned in the letter (KBo 28. 61–64) from Tukulti-Ninurta I to Suppiluliuma II (ca. 1207–1178 BC). See Freydank, AoF 18 (1991), 23–31; Durand and Marti, RA 99 (2005), 127–128; Singer, CDOG 6, 223–227.

The Texts of the Synchronistic King List

57

if our reconstructions on the reigns of those three Babylonian kings between Kashtiliashu IV and Adad-shuma-usur can stand, then Tukulti-Ninurta I must be synchronistic with all of them. 1.3.2.3 ii 3’–4’: The Assyrian king in this unit must have been Ashur-nadin-apli according to the NaKL (written as “[mAš-šu]r-SUM-IBILA”)191 and the KhKL (written as “mAš-šur-SUM-IBILA”),192 but Ashur-nasir-apli according to the SDAS (written as “mAš-šur-PAB-IBILA”).193 Furthermore, Ashur-nadin-apli was given a reign of 4 years by the NaKL, but 3 years by the KhKL, while Ashur-nasir-apli was given a reign of 3 years by the SDAS.194 Moreover, as can be seen below, the father of Ashur-nirari III was Ashur-nadin-apli according to the NaKL, but Ashur-nasir-apli (written as “mAš-šur-PAB-A”) according to the KhKL and the SDAS. Neither of the two names can be rejected immediately, for apart from the AKL, both names are found in other sources. The fact that Ashur-nadin-apli succeeded his father Tukulti-Ninurta I can be proven by his own royal inscription.195 It can also be well attested that Ashur-nadin-apli once held the office of eponym during the reign of Tukulti-Ninurta I.196 On the other hand, in accordance with Chronicle P, it was Ashur-nasir-apli who deposed and killed his father Tukulti-Ninurta I.197 In addition, the name of “Ashur-nasir-apli” also appears on a broken stele from the row of steles carrying the names of eponyms, where he might have been recorded as “son of [Tukulti]-Ninurta”.198 Many solutions have been provided to resolve the confusion caused by the two names, and the core of the problem is: would the two names have pointed to one individual or two? Poebel proposed that Chronicle P merely recorded that Ashur-nasir-apli deposed and assassinated Tukulti-Ninurta I, but never indicated that he ultimately succeeded him, while the KhKL and the NaKL only stated that Ashur-nadin-apli succeeded Tukulti-Ninurta I, but never related whether or 191  Nassouhi, AfO 4 (1927), 5, Rev. i 30’–31’. 192  Gelb, JNES 13/4 (1954), 218, iii 21’–22’. 193  Gelb, JNES 13/4 (1954), 219, iii 11’–12’. 194  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 110. 195  Grayson, RIMA 1, A.0.79.1–3. 196  Saporetti, EMA, 116–117; Freydank, BMCG, 42. 197  Grayson, ABC, 176. 198   It was suggested that this “Ashur-nasir-apli” would be Ashurnasirpal II (the son of Tukulti-Ninurta II), but, as noticed by Grayson, this would leave two steles to Ashurnasirpal II, who held the office of eponym only once. See Grayson, ARI 1, 134–135, n. 261.

58

Chapter 2

not he deposed and assassinated him. That is to say, the truth might be: it was Ashur-nasir-apli who rebelled against Tukulti-Ninurta I, but Ashur-nadin-apli who succeeded him eventually. Both Ashur-nadin-apli and Ashur-nasir-apli were probably the sons of Tukulti-Ninurta I.199 Another solution maintaining the co-existence of Ashur-nadin-apli and Ashur-nasir-apli as two brothers was provided by Hagens, who, accepting the assumption of Poebel that the empire of Tukulti-Ninurta I might have split apart after his death,200 proposed that the royal power was divided between the two sons of Tukulti-Ninurta I: Ashur-nadin-apli ascended the throne at Ashur and Ashur-nasir-apli at Kar-Tukulti-Ninurta, the new capital built by Tukulti-Ninurta I, where he was killed.201 The former ruled for 4 years, but the latter was soon succeeded after a brief reign by his own son Ashur-nirari III. According to this explanation, the discrepancies reflected in different exemplars of the AKL might be due to the different traditions hidden behind the compilation of the AKL. But the point is: further evidence for the split of Assyria at that time is still absent. Furthermore, it has also been suggested that Ashur-nadin-apli and Ashur-nasir-apli would have referred to one person. Yamada thought that the writing of “Ashur-nasir-apli” was a scribal error for “Ashur-nadin-apli” in the KhKL and the SDAS.202 According to Yamada, this mistake, which might also have infiltrated Chronicle P, where the murderer of Tukulti-Ninurta I was recorded as Ashur-nasir-apli, was caused under the influence of the entry of “Ashurnasirpal II, son of Tukulti-Ninurta II” in the AKL.203 However, the solution provided by Pedersén204 might be more appropriate. According to Pedersén, the sign “PAB” could be used as the logogram for “nadānu” as well as “naṣāru”, while the sign “A” could indicate “aḫu” as well as “aplu” in writing the personal names in the Middle Assyrian Period. The writing of “mAš-šur-SUM-IBILA” would have been standard, while “mAš-šurPAB-A” might have been a shorter written form, used when there was not enough space for inscribing, although the latter was never used in Babylonia or in the Neo-Assyrian Period. That is, the two names might refer to one person, the authentic writing for whose name might be “mAš-šur-SUM-IBILA”, read as Ashur-nadin-apli. 199  Poebel, JNES 1/4 (1942), 486–487. See also Beaulieu, HB, 148–149. 200  Poebel, JNES 2/1 (1943), 56. 201  Hagens, Or 74 (2005), 39. 202  Yamada, NABU 1998/1, 26–27; EI 27 (2003), 269. 203  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 114. 204  Pedersén, AOAT 267, 369–373.

The Texts of the Synchronistic King List

59

As can be seen from the remaining traces for this name in this unit, which might refer to the signs “SUM” and “A” by the copy of Weidner, the writing of “Ashur-nadin-apli” would have been the more probable one.205 Thus according to the AKL, the regnal years of Ashur-nadin-apli (Ashur-nasir-apli) would vary between four years (according to the NaKL) and three years (according to the KhKL and the SDAS). Recently, through counting the number of eponyms from the death of Tukulti-Ninurta I to the death of Ninurta-apil-Ekur, which is 28, Bloch concluded that Ashur-nadin-apli (Ashur-nasir-apli) would have ruled for four years.206 The half-line below the name of the Assyrian king is inscribed with the sign “MIN”. The names of the two Babylonian kings on the right are entirely lost, but according to the BKLa207 they would have been Enlil-nadin-shumi and Kadashman-Harbe II.208 Enlil-nadin-shumi: The name is written as “[md]EN.LÍL-MU-MU” in the BKLa,209 and “mdEN.LÍL-na-din-MU” in Chronicle P.210 According to the proposition of Brinkman, he might not have come from the Kassite royal family but ruled as a subordinate king under the sway of Tukulti-Ninurta I.211 According to the BKLa, he ruled for one year and six months.212 Kadashman-Harbe II: The name is written as “[m]Ka-dáš-man-Ḫar-be” in the BKLa,213 and “Kad-aš-man-Ḫar-be” in other sources.214 His filiation is unknown to us. According to the BKLa, he ruled for one year and six months.215 No evidence can prove that Ashur-nadin-apli was contemporary with Enlil-nadin-shumi or Kadashman-Harbe II. The fact that Enlil-nadin-shumi and Kadashman-Harbe II as well as their successor Adad-apla-iddina are listed between Kashtiliashu IV and Adad-shuma-usur in the BKLa has created great 205  See Ebeling, AOTAT, 334; Oppenheim, ANET, 273. 206  That is, 28 eponyms from that period would correspond to 28 years of reigns of the four Assyrian kings: 4 years of reign should be given to Ashur-nadin-apli (Ashur-nasir-apli), 6 years to Ashur-nirari III, 5 years to Enlil-kudurri-usur and 13 years to Ninurta-apil-Ekur. See Bloch, JAC 25 (2010), 30–40. 207  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 91. 208  The reconstructions of Weidner can be seen in MVAG 26/2 (1921), 14. See also Ebeling, AOTAT, 334; Oppenheim, ANET, 273. It was also suggested that the successor of Enlil-nadin-shumi would have been Kadashman-Harbe III. See Sassmannshausen, MDAR, 61. 209  Gadd, CT 36, Plate 24, ii 8’. 210  Grayson, ABC, 176. 211  Brinkman, MSKH, 125. 212  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 91. 213  Gadd, CT 36, Plate 24, ii 9’. 214  Brinkman, MSKH, 149. 215  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 91.

60

Chapter 2

confusion for the recognition of their reigns and their Assyrian counterpart(s). According to Chronicle P,216 after he conquered Babylonia and captured Kashtiliashu IV, Tukulti-Ninurta I controlled Babylonia for 7 years, although he was not listed in the BKLa as the legitimate Babylonian monarch. Then, Adad-shuma-usur rebelled against Assyria and was put on the throne of his father (whose name is not mentioned but might have been Kashtiliashu IV) by the Akkadian nobles. If we view the control of Tukulti-Ninurta I over Babylonia as the interregnum between the reign of Kashtiliashu IV and that of Adad-shuma-usur, then a contradiction appears: the length of 7 years is shorter than that of the total regnal years of those three Babylonian kings between Kashtiliashu IV and Adad-shuma-usur in the BKLa, which is 1.5 + 1.5 + 6 = 9 years. So, the problem is: what were the relations of Tukulti-Ninurta I to those three Babylonian kings? Many tentative solutions have been proposed.217 Firstly, the assumption that the position of the three Babylonian kings might have followed Adad-shuma-usur (i.e. the sequence in the BKLa might be false) has already been rejected, since the narratives in Chronicle P are not necessarily made in accordance with the chronological order.218 Nor could the suggestion be accepted that the three Babylonian kings were no more than officials or governors appointed by Tukulti-Ninurta I, for such governors would not have been listed in the BKLa.219 Furthermore, one might suggest that Enlil-nadin-shumi, KadashmanHarbe II and Adad-shuma-iddina were vassals installed by Tukulti-Ninurta I220 and those officials appointed by the Assyrian king might have been their supervisors. As for the discrepancy between 7 years and 9 years, there could be several possibilities. One is that the length of the reigns of those three Babylonian kings might have been interpreted incorrectly, for “MU 1 ITTI 6”, assigned by the BKLa to Kadashman-Harbe II and Adad-shuma-iddina, might possibly have meant not “one year and six months”, but “one year (that is) six months”.221 This would then render the total regnal years of the three Babylonian kings as 7 years,222 exactly equal to the duration of Tukulti-Ninurta I’s control 216  Grayson, ABC, 175–176. 217   Munn-Rankin, CAH 2/2, 288–290. 218  Yamada, Orient 38 (2003), 154, 160. 219  Tadmor, JNES 17/2 (1958), 137. 220  Walker, ZŠ, 403–404. 221  However, such an interpretation seems untenable since the economic text dated by the reign of Kadashman-Harbe II would indicate that he ruled for 14 months at least. See Yamada, Orient 38 (2003), 173, n. 11. 222  It has also been proposed that the 1.5 years given to the two kings by the BKLa might be “made-up”. See Tadmor, JNES 17/2 (1958), 137.

The Texts of the Synchronistic King List

61

over Babylonia. Another possibility is that the control of Tukulti-Ninurta I over Babylonia did not begin with the capture of Kashtiliashu IV, but with the fall of Babylon. That is to say, it might be possible that Enlil-nadin-shumi ascended the throne in Babylon immediately after Kashtiliashu IV was defeated in the battlefield, when Tukulti-Ninurta I had not yet marched to Babylon. Thus, Enlil-nadin-shumi continued to resist the advancing Assyrians during his reign and so did Kadashman-Harbe II during the first half-year of his reign. After Babylon was taken, Kadashman-Harbe II (in the next year of his reign) and then Adad-shuma-iddina (in his full reign of 6 years) were fostered successively as vassals of Tukulti-Ninurta I. Accordingly, the 7 years, i.e. the length of Tukulti-Ninurta I’s domination over Babylonia, would consist of 1 year of Kadashman-Harbe II and 6 years of Adad-shuma-iddina. Furthermore, another possibility is that the reigns of Enlil-nadin-shumi, Kadashman-Harbe II and Adad-shuma-iddina might not have been consecutive.223 For example, after Kashtiliashu IV was deposed, Enlil-nadin-shumi might have been installed as a puppet king by Tukulti-Ninurta I, but meanwhile, Kadashman-Harbe II might have ascended the throne at Ur,224 continuing to resist the Assyrian armies. If so, the 9 years of the three kings’ reigns might in fact have partly overlapped and 7 years might be the true length. However, the hypothesis, upon which the reconstructions above are based, that these Babylonian kings are vassals of Tukulti-Ninurta I (i.e. the 7 years and the 9 years fully or partly overlapped) deserves a re-examination.225 First, if Tukulti-Ninurta I really needed the native vassals obeying him to control Babylonia, why did he not install his captive Kashtiliashu IV as his puppet, but take him as prisoner back to Assyria? This is not consistent with the usual policy of Assyria at that time, which can be seen in their conquest of the mountain tribes and Hanigalbat, where the defeated rulers who swore to be loyal to Assyria were always sent back to their native lands to serve as the vassals of Assyrian kings and pay tributes to Assyria regularly. Furthermore, as mentioned above, Tukulti-Ninurta I styled himself as “King of Karduniash” and “King of Sumer and Akkad”. Those titles were usually assumed by Babylonian kings, but were taken by Tukulti-Ninurta I himself. This is a strong signal for the direct control of Tukulti-Ninurta I over Babylonia.226 Moreover, the direct 223  Smith, EHA, 286, 356. 224  The economic texts dated to his accession year were found at Ur. See Gurney, MBLE, Text 2 (IM 85473); see also Brinkman, OIP 111, 14 N 211 (IM 80114). 225  Yamada, Orient 38 (2003), 155–156, 161. 226  Cifola, AVART, 47. The same examples can be seen in the rule of Tiglath-pileser III and that of Sargon II over Babylonia, where both kings also assumed those traditional Babylonian royal titles, but had no vassals or agents in Babylonia, for they themselves

62

Chapter 2

control of Tukulti-Ninurta I over Babylonia can also be evidenced by an economic text dated with his accession year at Nippur.227 Therefore, Yamada argued that the 7 years of Tukulti-Ninurta I would have been distinct from the 9 years of those three Babylonian kings. According to the reconstructions of Yamada: 1) the three Babylonian kings would have been the vassals installed by Tukulti-Ninurta I after Kashtiliashu IV was captured; 2) the suzerainty of Assyria over Babylonia was interrupted twice (i.e. the reigns of Enlil-nadin-shumi and Adad-shuma-iddina were overthrown) by the Elamites, which can be proven by Chronicle P;228 3) the 7 years of Tukulti-Ninurta I’s control over Babylonia should be placed between the enthronement of Adad-shuma-iddina and the accession of Adad-shumausur, indicating that the Assyrian policy on Babylonia had changed, that is, turned from indirect control through vassals to direct control by the Assyrian king himself.229 The basic points of Yamada’s theory – that the direct control of TukultiNinurta I over Babylonia never overlapped with any other reigns and would have begun after the reign of Adad-shuma-iddina – were accepted by Bloch. However, Bloch disagreed with Yamada on the point that the 7 years of Tukulti-Ninurta I’s rule mentioned in Chronicle P would be only – as believed by most scholars – the period of Tukulti-Ninurta I’s so-called “direct control”, since to insert the 7 years between Adad-shuma-iddina and Adad-shuma-usur would be “chronologically impossible” and it remains unclear whether or not the 7 years of Tukulti-Ninurta I would have coincided with the 9 years of those three Babylonian kings.230 On the contrary, Bloch postulated that Enlil-nadin-shumi and Adad-shuma-iddina were vassals installed by TukultiNinurta I, while Kadashman-Harbe II was the vassal of Kidin-Hutran, the were Babylonian kings. Contrarily, in those cases where a vassal was installed, the Assyrian kings never assumed the native royal title of the vassal lands. For example, in Hanigalbat, after the revolts of Shattuara I and Uasashatta were put down by Adad-nirari I (Grayson, RIMA 1, A.0.76.3), Hanigalbat continued to be the vassal land of Assyria, but the title of “King of the Land Hanigalbat” was never assumed by Adad-nirari I. Even in the last revolt of Hanigalbat during the reign of Shalmaneser I, Shattuara II was still called “King of the Land Hanigalbat” (Grayson, RIMA 1, A.0.77.1). That is to say, when the Assyrian king installed a puppet king in the conquered land, he did not assume the title which would have been “king of (the vassal land)”, but left this title to the vassal king; otherwise, if the Assyrian king assumed such a title, it would have implied that he must have ruled the conquered land directly on his own without installing any vassals. 227  Brinkman, MSKH, 315; Yamada, Orient 38 (2003), 155. 228  Grayson, ABC, 176–177. 229  Yamada, Orient 38 (2003), 162–163, 165–168. 230  Bloch, JAC 25 (2010), 72–73, n. 45.

The Texts of the Synchronistic King List

63

Elamite king.231 Since Chronicle P related that Kidin-Hutran invaded Baby­ lonia and overthrew Enlil-nadin-shumi, and a Middle-Assyrian document (VAT 18100)232 recorded another campaign of Tukulti-Ninurta I to Babylonia (which was dated by Bloch to be three years later, after the capture of Kashtiliashu IV), Bloch believed that it would have been Kidin-Hutran who installed Kadashman-Harbe II on the Babylonian throne after deposing the Assyrian vassal Enlil-nadin-shumi. After that, Tukulti-Ninurta I carried out another punitive expedition to Babylonia, expelling the Elamite vassal Kadashman-Harbe II and installing Adad-shuma-iddina, a new vassal of his own on the throne of Babylonia. Thus, the real length of Tukulti-Ninurta I’s 7 years (which would be “a rounded figure” only in the typological sense) mentioned in Chronicle P would have been 7.5 years: 1.5 years for Kadashman-Harbe II and 6 years for Adad-shuma-iddina.233 As for the direct rule of Tukulti-Ninurta I over the whole of Babylonia, established before the accession of Adad-shumausur – who would have assumed the throne in southern Babylonia at the earliest in the year immediately following the year when the economic text from Nippur was dated with the accession year of Tukulti-Ninurta I – Bloch suggested that this period, though the precise length is unknown, might have spanned several years.234 In fact, in the opinion of the present author, it would be unnecessary to reject the recognition of the 7 years of Tukulti-Ninurta I’s rule recorded in Chronicle P with his direct rule over Babylonia (intending to categorize these Babylonian kings before Adad-shuma-usur as vassal kings), inasmuch as the scribe of Chronicle P would not have labeled the reigns of those three kings as the period of the rule of Tukulti-Ninurta I, especially when the entries for two of the three Babylonian kings, Enlil-nadin-shumi and Adad-shuma-iddina, had already been included in the following passages of Chronicle P. Thus, if Tukulti-Ninurta I ruled Babylonia directly and the three Babylonian kings were listed following Kashtiliashu IV in the BKLa, it must be impossible that the 7 years and the 9 years fully or partly overlapped; that is, the rule of Tukulti-Ninurta I over Babylonia would have been independent from the reigns of the three Babylonian kings, but the reigns of those three Babylonian kings are not definitely consecutive. That Tukulti-Ninurta I was omitted from the BKLa could be explained by the fact that he had destroyed Babylon and

231  Bloch, JAC 25 (2010), 70–74. 232  Freydank, MARV 4, No. 34, 14’–21’. See also Llop, AOAT 372, 107. 233  Bloch, JAC 25 (2010), 73, n. 46. 234  Bloch, JAC 25 (2010), 75–77.

64

Chapter 2

desecrated the gods there,235 which can be proven by Chronicle P. On the other hand, four events can be extracted from the campaign of Tukulti-Ninurta I against Babylonia as well as its aftermath: 1) the capture of Kashtiliashu IV; 2) the fall of Babylon; 3) the control of the whole of Babylonia and 4) the accession of Adad-shuma-usur. In view of the record in Chronicle P that Adadshuma-usur had already rebelled against Assyria before Tukulti-Ninurta I was assassinated,236 the position of the three Babylonian kings (between Kashtiliashu IV and Adad-shuma-usur) in the BKLa implies that they could only have ascended the Babylonian throne in three time-spans: 1) after Kashtiliashu IV was captured and before Babylon was seized; 2) after Baby­ lon fell and before Tukulti-Ninurta I occupied the whole of Babylonia; or 3) after the rule of Tukulti-Ninurta I over Babylonia had ended and before Adad-shuma-usur became the new Babylonian king.237 The economic document dated to the reign of Enlil-nadin-shumi found in Babylon238 proves that his reign must have been confined to the first time-span, but the situation of the reigns of Kadashman-Harbe II and Adad-shuma-iddina cannot be determined, although one economic text from Ur can be dated to KadashmanHarbe II and two such texts to the reign of Adad-shuma-iddina.239 1.3.2.4 ii 5’–6’: Two Assyrian kings are listed corresponding to one Babylonian king in this unit. According to the BKLa, the Babylonian king on the right must be Adad-shuma-iddina. The remaining signs of this name are “mdIM-MU” in the BKLa240 and the full writing is “mdIM-MU-SUM-na” in a kudurru and some 235  Yamada, Orient 38 (2003), 162–163. 236  This is obtained from the translations of Grayson in ABC, 175–176, but Yamada proposed that the accession of Adad-shuma-ususr and the death of Tukulti-Ninurta I might not be chronological in the statements of Chronicle P. See Yamada, Orient 38 (2003), 163. 237  These speculations can also be found in the Master Degree Thesis (in Chinese) of the present author, Study on the Political Crisis of Tukulti-Ninurta I, King of Middle Assyrian Empire (submitted to the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences Graduate School in 2010), where six possibilities of the sequence of those Babylonian kings are concluded. However, it must be noted that Bloch, in the study of the eponyms from the reign of Tukulti-Ninurta I, pointed out that before Kashtiliashu IV was captured (in the Eponym Year of Ina-Ashur-shumi-asbat, i.e. the 18th year of Tukulti-Ninurta I according to Bloch) Tukulti-Ninurta I had probably already occupied Babylon and even most of Babylonia as far as the Persian Gulf. See Bloch, Or 79 (2010), 15–21. For the year when Kashtiliashu IV was captured, see Cancik-Kirschbaum, MAB, 16; Yamada, Orient 38 (2003), 170; Bloch, Or 79 (2010), 10–15. For recent discussions see Miller, KBUK 1, 102–110. 238  Clayden, Iraq 58 (1996), 111. 239  Rowton, JNES 19/1 (1960), 19. 240  Gadd, CT 36, Plate 24, ii 10’.

The Texts of the Synchronistic King List

65

other sources.241 His relationship to his predecessor or successor is unknown. According to the BKLa, he ruled for 6 years.242 The right half-line below the name of Adad-shuma-iddina is inscribed with “MIN”. The two Assyrian kings are Ashur-nirari III and Enlil-kudurri-usur. Ashur-nirari III: The traces for this name are not clear except for the last sign “DÁḪ”. The full writing is “mAš-šur-ERIM.DÁḪ” in the AKL, according to which he ruled for 6 years.243 The filiation of Ashur-nirari III is inconsistent among different exemplars of the AKL: the NaKL records that he was the son of Ashur-nadin-apli, who was the successor of Tukulti-Ninurta I, but the KhKL and the SDAS both record that his father was Ashur-nasir-apli, the one mentioned by Chronicle P as the murderer of Tukulti-Ninurta I.244 According to Poebel, the information provided by the NaKL might be mistaken, for on the tablet of the KhKL, the second element (“PAB”) for the name of “Ashur-nasir-apli” was probably rewritten on an erased sign (which might be “SÌ”); that is, the original name must have been “Ashur-nadin-apli”. The error of the NaKL might have arisen from the traditional “tendency” in composing the king list that a king should be succeeded by his son, but this mistake was found and corrected later by the scribe of the KhKL.245 Before the theory of Pedersén was posed that “Ashur-nasir-aplil” is a variant writing of “Ashur-nadin-apli”,246 such an interpretation seemed not unreasonable, since Ashur-nirari III’s father is also Ashur-nasir-apli in the SDAS (which is later than the KhKL). Enlil-kudurri-usur: The traces of the first two elements of this name are not clear, but the last two signs might be “dúr-PAB”. His name is written as “dBE-ku-dúr-PAB” in the AKL, according to which he, as the son of TukultiNinurta I, succeeded his nephew Ashur-nirari III and ruled for 5 years.247 The synchronization of Ashur-nirari III and Adad-shuma-iddina cannot be confirmed. However, the fact that Ashur-nirari III was synchronistic with Adad-shuma-usur can be proven by an insulting letter (ABL 924 = K. 3045+) sent to him and Ili-pada (the father of Ninurta-apil-Ekur) by Adad-shuma-usur,248 in which Ashur-nirari III was ridiculed and scorned: “the great (gods) have 241  Brinkman, MSKH, 88. 242  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 91. 243  Nassouhi, AfO 4 (1927), 5, Rev. i 32’–33’; Gelb, JNES 13/4 (1954), 218, iii 23’–24’; 219, iii 13’; Schroeder, KAV 15, Rev. 1’; Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 110. 244  Grayson, ABC, 176. 245  Poebel, JNES 1/4 (1942), 487–488. 246  Pedersén, AOAT 267, 369–373. 247  Nassouhi, AfO 4 (1927), 5, Rev. i 34’–35’; Gelb, JNES 13/4 (1954), 218, iii 25’–26’; 219, iii 14’; Schroeder, KAV 15, Rev. 3’; Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 110. 248  Llop and George, AfO 48–49 (2001–2002), 10; Llop, PIHANS 125, 256–257.

66

Chapter 2

driven you mad you speak […]. Your faces […… with] iniquitous and criminal counsel”.249 Adad-shuma-usur was also contemporary with Enlil-kudurri-usur, which can be confirmed by the Synchronistic History, where it is recorded that they were once engaged in battle.250 After Enlil-kudurri-usur was defeated, according to a Neo-Babylonian chronicle,251 he was seized and sent as prisoner by his officers to Adad-shuma-usur. 1.3.2.5 ii 7’–9’: The Assyrian king in this unit must be Ninurta-apil-Ekur. His name is written as “mdMAŠ-IBILA/A-É-kur” in the AKL,252 according to which he, as the son of Ili-pada (the descendant of Adad-nirari I),253 returned from Babylonia and seized the Assyrian throne.254 The KhKL and the SDAS give him a reign of 3 years but the NaKL 13 years. It is generally accepted that “13” must be the correct number.255 Ninurta-apil-Ekur is listed parallel with three Babylonian kings, who would have been: Adad-shuma-usur, Meli-Shipak and Merodach-Baladan I. The two half-lines below the name of Ninurta-apil-Ekur are all inscribed with the sign “MIN”.

249  Grayson, ARI 1, 138. 250  Grayson, ABC, 161–162. 251  Walker, ZŠ, 401. See also Glassner, MC, 283. 252  Nassouhi, AfO 4 (1927), 5, Rev. i 36’; Gelb, JNES 13/4 (1954), 218, iii 27’; 219, iii 15’; Schroeder, KAV 15, Rev. 5’; Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 111. 253   Ili-pada was king of Hanigalbat and held the office of vizier during the reign of Ashur-nirari III. See Brinkman, RLA 5 (1976–1980), 50–51; Freydank, BMCG, 59–61; Cancik-Kirschbaum, AoF 26/2 (1999), 215–220. 254  This episode could, to some extent, be verified by the records of the Synchronistic History (see Grayson, ABC, 162), according to which he went home to muster his troops and marched to conquer Ashur, when Enlil-kudurri-usur and Adad-shuma-usur were fighting against each other. His attempt to grasp the Assyrian kingship failed, but how he eventually ascended the throne is unknown to us, although it was suggested by scholars that he possibly managed it with the support of Adad-shuma-usur. See Grayson, RLA 9 (1998– 2001), 524–525. 255  Brinkman pointed out that “there is not a single shred of positive evidence in favor of either alternative”. See Brinkman, Or 42 (1973), 313. However, according to Rowton, the lower figure “3” was inappropriate, because the time-span from Ninurta-apil-Ekur to Tiglath-pileser I (106 years) would have been shorter than that from Meli-Shipak to Marduk-nadin-ahhe (108 years). See Rowton, JNES 25/4 (1966), 241–242; see also Tadmor, JNES 17/2 (1958), 135. In fact, the eponyms during the reign of Ninurta-apil-Ekur attested by the Middle Assyrian archives from Tell Šēḫ Ḥamad could confirm that he ruled for more than 3 years. See Freydank, BMCG, 29, 195; Cancik-Kirschbaum, AoF 26/2 (1999), 217; Bloch, JAC 25 (2010), 28–30.

The Texts of the Synchronistic King List

67

Adad-shuma-usur: The name is written as “(m)dIM-MU-ŠEŠ” in the BKLa256 and many other sources.257 In accordance with the BKLa, he ruled for 30 years.258 His father might have been Kashtiliashu IV, which can only be attested by the inscription on a luristan bronze dagger,259 but he was also recorded as the son of a certain Dunna-Sah by a letter from Elam to Babylon (VAT 17020),260 which might have indicated that he did not come from the previous Kassite royal family.261 Meli-Shipak: This name is written as “Me-li-ŠI-ḪU” in the BKLa262 as well as in some kudurrus and royal inscriptions.263 The fact that he was the son of Adad-shuma-usur can be confirmed by a kudurru,264 although he never referred to Adad-shuma-usur by name as his father.265 As recorded in the BKLa, he ruled for 15 years.266 Merodach-Baladan I: The name is written as “mdŠÚ-A-MU” in the BKLa,267 and “(m)dAMAR.UTU-IBILA-SUM-na” in many other sources.268 According to the BKLa, he was the son of Meli-Shipak269 and reigned for 13 years.270 Since Ninurta-apil-Ekur ascended the throne (when Adad-shuma-usur was still alive) earlier than Meli-Shipak, who reigned for 15 years, it would have been impossible for him to be contemporary with Merodach-Baladan I, if he ruled for only 13 years. The synchronism of Ninurta-apil-Ekur and MeliShipak can be confirmed directly by an economic document.271 1.3.2.6 ii 10’–11’: The Assyrian king in this unit must be Ashur-dan I. His name is written as “mAš-šur-dan-an” in the KhKL and the SDAS, according to which he was the 256  Gadd, CT 36, Plate 24, ii 11’. 257  Brinkman, MSKH, 93–94. 258  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 92. 259  Dossin, IrAnt 2 (1962), 151. 260  van Dijk, Or 55 (1986), 161–162. 261  Singer, CDOG 6, 232. For more discussions see Paulus, IRW 1, 74; Roaf, KBUK 1, 193–194; Jacob, CA, 131. 262  Gadd, CT 36, Plate 24, ii 12’. 263  Brinkman, MSKH, 257–258. 264  Brinkman, MSKH, 253, n. 2. 265  Brinkman, Or 38 (1969), 326. 266  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 92. See also Boese, UF 14 (1982), 15–26. 267  Gadd, CT 36, Plate 24, ii 13’. 268  Brinkman, MSKH, 251. 269  His filiation can be confirmed by several other sources. See Brinkman, MSKH, 247, n. 2. 270  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 92. 271  Frahm, MDOG 134 (2002), 75; Llop, PIHANS 125, 257.

68

Chapter 2

son of Ninurta-apil-Ekur and ruled for 46 years.272 The number of his regnal years in the NaKL is partly lost: 26 + [x],273 restored to be 36 by Nassouhi,274 and 46 by Weidner.275 The number 46 must be more reliable. A broken inscription states that 132 years elapsed between the restoration of Ashur temple made by Shalmaneser I and that by Ashur-resha-ishi I,276 and it has been suggested, based on the hypothesis that the scribe of that inscription might have got this number 132 by counting from the accession of Shalmaneser I to that of Ashur-resha-ishi, that the length of both reigns of Ninurta-apil-Ekur and Ashur-dan I would have been 49 years, that is, there might be two possibilities: 13 + 36 years or 3 + 46 years.277 Because the alteration of the number 3 into 13 is highly improbable, the first possibility was thought to be “more likely”.278 At the same time, according to the statements in the annals of Tiglath-pileser I, a timespan of 60 years from the restoration of Anu-Adad temple by Ashur-dan I to that by Tiglath-pileser I279 will indicate that the regnal years of Ashur-dan I would have been 36 years. However, as noted by Na‌ʾaman, this was counted from the accession year of Ashur-dan I to the 6th year of Tiglath-pileser I’s reign. Such inconsistent counting methods do not seem very plausible, for as demonstrated by Rowton, “these building inscriptions state that the figures in question represent intervals between the actual building operations and not between the accession of the kings involved” and it is impossible that the scribes of those inscriptions would not have known the exact date of Shalmaneser I or Ashur-dan I, considering that neither of those kings ruled long before them.280 On the other hand, Hagens proposed that, if Assyria split into several domains of authority after the death of Tukulti-Ninurta I and the two capitals (Ashur and Kar-Tukulti-Ninurta) were seized by independent successors, Ninurta-apil-Ekur might have spent the first 3 years of his reign at Kar-Tukulti-Ninurta and then the next 10 years at Ashur, with the latter being “a period of co-regency, or possibly a temporary occupation of both capitals”.281 272  Gelb, JNES 13/4 (1954), 218, iii 31’; 219, iii 18’; Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 111. 273  Nassouhi, AfO 4 (1927), 5, Rev. i 42’; Brinkman, Or 42 (1975), 309. 274  Nassouhi, AfO 4 (1927), 7, Rev. i 42’. 275  Weidner, AfO 15 (1945–1951), 88, n. 16. 276  Grayson, RIMA 1, A.0.86.11. 277  Boese and Wilhelm, WZKM 71 (1979), 19–38. 278  Na‌ʾaman, Iraq 46 (1984), 117, n. 15. 279  Grayson, RIMA 2, A.0.87.1: vii 60’–70’. 280  Rowton, JNES 25/4 (1966), 254–255. Na’aman held that “these statements are of no value for the establishment of an exact chronological scheme or for the confirmation of a given chronological system”. See Na‌ʾaman, Iraq 46 (1984), 116. Janssen also contended that we should not consider the time-spans alone without taking the king lists or eponym lists into account. See Janssen, Akkadica 130 (2009), 85. 281  Hagens, Or 74 (2005), 40.

The Texts of the Synchronistic King List

69

That is, the regnal years of Ninurta-apil-Ekur would be 3 + 10 = 13 years and that of Ashur-dan I would be 46–10 = 36 years. However, since the hypothesis on the split of Assyria and the “co-regency” of Ninurta-apil-Ekur and Ashur-dan I still needs more substantial evidence, such a reconstruction must be quite tentative. By the sources available until now, it seems better to accept that the length of Ashur-dan I’s reign is 46 years, for both later exemplars of the AKL (the KhKL and the SDAS) render that figure. Moreover, by comparing the timespan from the capture of Kashtiliashu IV to the death of Marduk-nain-ahhe obtained from the Babylonian chronology with that obtained from the AKL on the basis of the Assyrian-Babylonian synchronisms (especially those in the period of Tukulti-Ninurta I), Bloch argued that a reign of 46 years for Ashur-dan I would be more appropriate.282 The left half-line below the name of Ashur-dan I is partly damaged, but the sign “MIN” at the end can be seen clearly. The corresponding Babylonian kings on the right side must be Zababa-shuma-iddina and Enlil-nadin-ahhe, for they are directly followed by Marduk-kabit-ahheshu in the BKLa.283 Zababa-shuma-iddina: The full writing of the name, which is “mdZa-ba4ba4-MU-AŠ”, is attested in the Synchronistic History.284 Only the first three elements of the name, which are “mdZa-ba4-ba4”, are preserved in the BKLa, according to which he ruled for one year (ca. 1158 BC).285 The writing on K. 2660 would be “[mdZa-ba4-ba4]-MU.ŠÈ-na” as restored by Tadmor,286 or “[x x x]-⸢MU⸣-SUM-na” according to the collation of Brinkman.287 Enlil-nadin-ahhe: The name is written as “mdEN.LÍL-MU-[ŠEŠ]” in the BKLa,288 and “dBAD-MU-ŠEŠ” in a historical text (K. 2660).289 According to the BKLa, he ruled for 3 years.290 The long reign of Ashur-dan I would have made him contemporary with several Babylonian kings. Firstly, according to the Synchronistic History,291 Ashur-dan I captured several sites in Babylonia during the reign of Zababashuma-iddina. Moreover, because Ninurta-apil-Ekur (the direct predecessor of Ashur-dan I) came to the throne earlier than Meli-Shipak but reigned for a shorter time than he did, Ashur-dan I must have been contemporary 282  Bloch, JAC 25 (2010), 74–78. See also Sassmannshausen, BaM 37 (2006), 165. 283  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 92. 284  Glassner, MC, 178. 285  Gadd, CT 36, Plate 24, ii 14’; Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 92. 286  Tadmor, JNES 17/2 (1958), 137. 287  Brinkman, MSKH, 322. See also Frame, RIMB 2, B.2.4.6: Obv. 2’. 288  Gadd, CT 36, Plate 24, ii 15’. It is also written as “dEN.LÍL-MU-ŠEŠ” in one kudurru. See Brinkman, MSKH, 123, n. 5. 289  Tadmor, JNES 17/2 (1958), 137; Frame, RIMB 2, B.2.4.6. 290  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 92. 291  Grayson, ABC, 162.

70

Chapter 2

with both Meli-Shipak and his successor Merodach-Baladan I. In addition, in view of the fact that the length from the accession of Ashur-nadin-apli to the end of Ashur-dan I was 73 years, but that from the accession of Adad-shumausur to the end of Enlil-nadin-ahhe was 62 years, and Ashur-nadin-apli came later than Adad-shuma-usur, the death of Ashur-dan I must have been much later than the end of the Kassite Dynasty; that is, Ashur-dan I would have also been contemporary with Enlil-nadin-ahhe, the last king of the Kassite Dynasty. 1.3.2.7 ii 12’–13’: The two Assyrian kings in the two lines would have been the sons of Ashurdan I: Ninurta-tukulti-Ashur and Mutakkil-Nusku. Their names are written as “dMAŠ-(GIŠ).KU-ti-aš-šur” and “Mu-tak/tàk-kil-dNusku” in the AKL.292 The length of their reigns might have been only one year, since both of them reigned for “ṭuppišu” according to the AKL.293 The Babylonian king on the right side must be Marduk-kabit-ahheshu,294 with his ummânu being inscribed below his name.295 The name of Mardukkabit-ahheshu is written as “mdAMAR.UTU-IDIM-ŠEŠ.MEŠ-šú” in the BKLc.296 He ruled for 18 years according to the BKLc,297 but 17 years according to the BKLa.298 As proposed by Brinkman, Marduk-kabit-ahheshu, the founder of the Second Isin Dynasty, might have begun to rule at Isin when he was still a local ruler and controlled northern Babylonia around Babylon by the end of his reign.299 The synchronism between the two Assyrian kings and Marduk-kabitahheshu cannot be confirmed. But several hints from some important sources 292  Nassuhi, AfO 4 (1927), 5, Rev. i 43’, 45’; Gelb, JNES 13/4 (1954), 218, iii 32’, 34’; 219, iii 19’–20’; Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 111. 293  Baker, RA 104 (2010), 159. 294  Weidner restored the king in this unit to be Marduk-shapik-zeri, who is actually the 7th king of the Second Isin Dynasty. See Weidner, MVAG 26/2 (1921), 15; AfO 3 (1926), 70. 295  Poebel proposed that the name in the next half-line should be Itti-Marduk-balatu, the successor of Marduk-kabit-ahheshu. See Poebel, AS 15, 14. Furthermore, Brinkman proposed that a horizontal dividing line might have been drawn between the two lines. See Brinkman, PKB, 41, n. 178. 296  Poebel, AS 15, 3. The second element of “IDIM” is also written as “DUGUD” in another source. See VAS 1, No. 112. 297  Poebel, AS 15, 3. 298  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 92. 299  Brinkman, PKB, 93. However, the date of the beginning of this dynasty is uncertain, since the fact that the dynasty follows the Kassite Dynasty directly is only supported by the tradition of the BKLa.

The Texts of the Synchronistic King List

71

must be of value. In a letter sent by a king of the Second Isin Dynasty to an Assyrian king,300 Ninurta-tukulti-Ashur is mentioned to have come to Babylonia, seeking the protection from the father of the addresser.301 Furthermore, the addresser reproached his Assyrian counterpart for his disrespectful wording in the previous correspondence as well as his breaking an appointment with him and threatened that he would set Ninurta-tukulti-Ashur, the former Assyrian king, on the Assyrian throne (“Ninurta-tukulti-Ashur will depart with me to go home”).302 According to Brinkman, this letter was most probably written shortly after Ninurta-tukulti-Ashur was deported to Babylonia by Mutakkil-Nusku, but neither the addresser nor the addressee could be determined. Brinkman proposed several candidates: Mutakkil-Nusku or Ashurresha-ishi I as the addressee, while Itti-Marduk-balatu, Ninurta-nadin-shumi or Nebuchadnezzar I as the addresser, with the pair of Ashur-resha-ishi I and Nebuchadnezzar I being “the least objectionable”.303 On the other hand, Llop thought that the addressee would have been Mutakkil-Nusku.304 Apart from that, as is recorded in Chronicle P, the Marduk statue removed by Tukulti-Ninurta I was returned to Babylon in the time of Ninurta-tukultiAshur. The Babylonian king at that time is not indicated by the text. Consider­ ing that the Kassite Dynasty came to an end during the period of Ashur-dan I, 300  This letter was first restored by two fragments (K. 212 + K. 4448 and BM 104727), which should have been Neo-Assyrian copies according to Brinkman, but it cannot be decided if they came from one or two letters. Later, more fragments (Sm. 2116, BM 55498+55499 and BM 53351) were added. See Brinkman, PKB, 101, 361; Grayson, ARI 1, 144; Llop and George, AfO 48–49 (2001–2002), 2; Llop, PIHANS 125, 261. 301  The exile of Ninurta-tukulti-Ashur is echoed by the AKL, where it is stated that Mutakkil-Nusku, his brother, fought against him and deported him to Babylonia. See Gelb, JNES 13/4 (1954), 218, iii 34’–36’; 219, iii 20’–22’. However, according to Llop, the statements in the AKL might be untenable, for the hiding-place of Ninurta-tukulti-Ashur, the city “Sišil” (BM 55498 + 55499: Rev. 26’), would have been located in the border area between Assyria and Babylonia and belonged to the territory of Assyria at that time; that is, Ninurta-tukulti-Ashur would have not escaped out of Assyria, which would have meant that he might have been waiting for an opportunity to seize back the throne. At the same time, more details about the strife between the two brothers can be provided by other sources, according to which a civil war might have broken out between two camps within Assyria: the provinces siding with Ninurta-tukulti-Ashur and the heartland supporting Mutakkil-Nusku. See Llop and George, AfO 48–49 (2001–2002), 16–18. 302  Grayson, ARI 1, 146. To judge from the words of the Assyrian king quoted in this letter, as noted by Grayson, he might have been seeking “friendship” from the Babylonian king. Therefore, the diplomatic situation between Assyria and Babylonia at that time can be detected through this letter: the balance of power had tipped apparently in favor of Babylonia. 303  Brinkman, PKB, 103–104. 304  Llop and George, AfO 48–49 (2001–2002), 8.

72

Chapter 2

this Babylonian king – if he received the statue indeed from Ninurtatukulti-Ashur – would have been from the Second Isin Dynasty. However, it should be noted that the name of the Assyrian king who returned the Marduk statue is written as “mTukul-ti-Aššur” in Chronicle P.305 Since an Assyrian king called “Tukulti-Ashur” is unattested, this name can only refer to “Ninurta-tukulti-Ashur”. But as is known to us, the Elamites had already carried the statue of Marduk to Susa at the end of the Kassite Dynasty306 and Nebuchadnezzar I of the Second Isin Dynasty took it back to Babylon later.307 Accordingly, Ninurta-tukulti-Ashur could not have returned the statue to Babylon after the Elamites had removed it. That the Babylonians might make another new statue to supplement the lost one seems impossible, for statues of gods and the gods themselves were identical.308 Otherwise, the Babylonian historical tradition would not place so much importance on the return of the Marduk statue and certain special religious rites (e.g. the New Year Festival) would not have been discontinued when the god (the statue) was absent. Moreover, it has also been suggested that there might have been more than one Marduk statue in the temple of Marduk at Babylon.309 However, this hypothesis was based on a copy of a religious text from the 1st Millennium BC;310 thus we cannot determine whether or not it reflects the actual situation in the 2nd Millennium BC. Furthermore, this hypothesis could not explain the reasons why: 1) there is no radical difference by which the variant statues can be distinguished, between the descriptions in the texts recording the capture of the statue carried out by Assyrians and Elamites respectively; and 2) neither Assyrians nor Elamites would move away all the statues to manifest their victories. In view of the fact that the name of Ninurta-tukulti-Ashur is not full in Chronicle P, where the first element “Ninurta” is omitted, it is probable that the scribe of Chronicle P had mistaken another Assyrian king as Ninurta-tukulti-Ashur. If this point can be accepted, it might be reasonable to suppose that the Assyrian king returning the statue would have been Ninurta-apil-Ekur, considering that: 1) the two kings are quite close in the sequence of the AKL, which is likely to have caused some kind of confusion for the scribe; 2) the Babylonian king Adad-shuma-usur, the 305  Grayson, ABC, 176. See also Brinkman, KBUK 1, 28, n. 248. 306  Frame, RIMB 2, B.2.4.6. 307  Frame, RIMB 2, B.2.4.8–9. 308  Katz, BSAW 1 (2011), 123. 309  Dalley, AoF 24/1 (1997), 166–167. 310  George, Iraq 57 (1995), 174.

The Texts of the Synchronistic King List

73

opponent of Ninurta-apil-Ekur, was in a position of superiority over the latter after he had defeated Enlil-kudurri-usur; 3) the reacquisition of the Marduk statue would have gained more political support for Adad-shuma-usur if he had just entered Babylon after vanquishing Enlil-kudurri-usur and 4) the return of the statue to Babylon might have been a political deal between Ninurta-tukulti-Ashur and Adad-shuma-usur, by which the former could have received assistance from the latter to consolidate his royal power.311 1.3.2.8 ii 14’–16’: The Assyrian king in this unit must be Ashur-resha-ishi I, whose name is written as “Aš-šur-SAG-i-ši” in the KhKL and the SDAS, according to which he was the son of Mutakkil-Nusku and ruled for 18 years.312 The two half-lines below his name on the left side are inscribed with “MIN”. The three Babylonian kings listed with him on the right must be Itti-Marduk-balatu, Ninurta-nadin-shumi and Nebuchadnezzar I.313 Itti-Marduk-balatu: The name is written as “mKI-dAMAR.UTU-DIN” in the BKLc,314 but “KI-dAMAR.UTU-TI.LA” in one kudurru from the reign of Meli-Shipak.315 That he is the son of Marduk-kabit-ahheshu can be attested by his own royal inscriptions.316 He ruled for 8 years according to the BKLc,317 but 6 years according to the BKLa318 (although Grayson restored the number tentatively as 8).319 Ninurta-nadin-shumi: The name is written as “mdMAŠ-na-din-MU” in the BKLc, according to which he ruled for 6 years.320 The other forms of the writing in different sources are mainly: “mdNIN.IB-SUM-MU”, “mdNIN.IBna-din-šu-mi” and possibly “m[dNIN.IB]-SUM-MU.MEŠ”.321 His filiation is unknown.

311  For the detailed demonstration see an article (in Chinese) of the present author in AB 2014/2, 189–194. For other discussions, see Llop and George, AfO 48–49 (2001–2002), 12; Astour, Emar, 48. 312  Gelb, JNES 13/4 (1954), 218, iii 37’–38’; 219, iii 23’–24’. 313  For demonstrations see the commentaries in ii 18’–19’ of A.117 below. 314  Poebel, AS 15, 3. 315  King, BBSt, No. 4: i 17’. 316  Frame, RIMB 2, B.2.2.1: 4’. 317  Poebel, AS 15, 3. 318  Gadd, CT 36, Plate 24, ii 18’. 319  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 92. 320  Poebel, AS 15, 3. 321  Brinkman, PKB, 98, n. 529.

74

Chapter 2

Nebuchadnezzar I: The name is written as “dAG-NÍG.DU-ŠEŠ” in the BKLc, which gives him a reign of 22 years.322 The beginning traces of the royal name in this place on the tablet of A.117 would refer to “PA-KU”.323 Nebuchadnezzar I might have been the son of Ninurta-nadin-shumi.324 As recorded in a fragmental chronicle,325 Ashur-resha-ishi I once campaigned against Ninurta-nadin-shumi (whose name is written as “m[dNinu]rta-SUM.MU.MEŠ”) and defeated him at Arbil. The Synchronistic History also records that Ashur-resha-ishi I fought twice with Nebuchadnezzar I,326 which could probably be echoed by another document (A.1471).327 But the synchronization between Ashur-resha-ishi I and Itti-Marduk-balatu cannot be confirmed. 1.3.2.9 ii 17’: The Assyrian king in this line must be Tiglath-pileser I, whose name is written as “mGIŠ.KU-ti-A-É-šár-ra” in the AKL, according to which he was the son of Ashur-resha-ishi I and ruled for 39 years.328 The Babylonian king listed on the right side must be Enlil-nadin-apli,329 the son of Nebuchadnezzar I. His name is written as “mdEN.LÍL-na-din-IBILA” in the BKLc, according to which he ruled for 4 years.330 There is no direct evidence confirming the synchronization of Tiglathpileser I and Enlil-nadin-apli, although Enlil-nadin-apli once campaigned in Assyria, possibly marching to conquer Ashur, according to a Babylonian chronicle.331 However, the synchronism of Tiglath-pileser I and Marduk-nadinahhe can be attested well. Marduk-nadin-ahhe invaded Assyria during the 322  Poebel, AS 15, 3. 323  Chen, NABU 2016/1, 43. 324  According to Brinkman, there is no direct evidence for the filiation of Nebuchadnezzar I in his own inscriptions, but the relevant information can be obtained from the sources of Nabonidus. See Brinkman, PKB, 104, n. 566. 325  See Grayson, ABC, 187–188; see also Glassner, MC, 186, 189. 326  At the first time, Nebuchadnezzar I tried to conquer Zanqi, a fortress of Assyria, but encountered the resistance of Ashur-resha-ishi I’s chariots. Nebuchadnezzar I burnt the siege engines and went home. The second time, Nebuchadnezzar I went to attack another fortress of Assyria, Idi, but suffered a crushing defeat from Ashur-resha-ishi I, who slaughtered his troops, carried off his camp, took away his chariots and captured his field marshal. See Grayson, ABC, 164. 327  Donbaz, UHKB, 183; Llop, PIHANS 125, 262. 328  Nassuhi, AfO 4 (1927), 5, Rev. ii 6’–7’; Gelb, JNES 13/4 (1954), 218, iii 21’–22’; 219, iii 11’–12’; Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 112. 329  For demonstrations see the commentaries in ii 18’–19’ of A.117 below. 330  Poebel, AS 15, 3. 331  Walker, ZŠ, 402.

The Texts of the Synchronistic King List

75

reign of Tiglath-pileser I and captured Ekallatu, taking away the statues of Adad and Shala.332 On the other hand, according to the Synchronistic History, Tiglath-pileser I campaigned against Marduk-nadin-ahhe by the Lower Zab, opposite Arzuhina, and then (in the next year) defeated him in Gurmarriti,333 which can also be echoed by his own royal inscriptions (with more details).334 It is thought that the expeditions of Tiglath-pileser I aim to retrieve the two statues removed by Marduk-nadin-ahhe from Ekallatu or revenge his two sons who were probably murdered by the Babylonians (A.1123).335 Moreover, according to an Assyrian chronicle fragment336 where Tiglath-pileser I is mentioned, Marduk-nadin-ahhe abdicated later337 and was succeeded by Marduk-shapik-zeri. As proposed by Younger Jr., this event might have happened in the 32nd year of Tiglath-pileser I’s reign.338 If so, Tiglath-pileser I must also have been contemporary with Marduk-shapik-zeri. 1.3.2.10 ii 18’–19’: The Assyrian king in this unit must have been Asharid-apil-Ekur, who was the son of Tiglath-pileser I and reigned for 2 years according to the AKL.339 The name of Asharid-apil-Ekur is written as “[mS]AG-A-É-kur” in the NaKL,340 but “mA-šá-rid-A-É-kur” in the KhKL and “mSAG.KAL-IBILA-É-kur” in the SDAS.341 The left half-line below the name of Asharid-apil-Ekur is kept blank and the right half-line below the Babylonian royal name must be an ummânu. 332  This incursion can be confirmed by an inscription of Sennacherib, where it is related that “The god Adad (and) the goddess Šala, gods of the city Ekallātum whom Marduk-nādin-aḫḫē, king of Akkad, had taken and brought to Babylon during the reign of Tiglath-pileser (I), king of Assyria – I had (them) brought out of Babylon after 418 years and I returned them to the city E[kallātum], their (proper) place”. See Grayson and Novotny, RINAP 3/2, No. 223: 48’–50’. 333  Grayson, ABC, 164. 334   Tiglath-pileser I must have penetrated deep into Babylonia and conquered many places and forts, including Dūr-Kurigalzu, Sippar-sha-Shamash, Sippar-sha-Anunitu, Babylon and Upe. He also “plundered Ugarsallu as far as Lubdi” and “ruled every part of Suhi as far as Rapiqi”. See Grayson, RIMA 2, A.87.4: 37’–51’. For the places above see Brinkman, PKB, 128, n. 756, n. 758. 335  Llop, Or 72 (2003), 204–210; PIHANS 125, 263. 336  Grayson, ABC, 189. 337   Weidner suggested that Marduk-nadin-ahhe “died an unnatural death” (AfO 17 [1954–1956], 385), but Brinkman argued that he just “disappeared” (PKB, 130, n. 767). Moreover, Brinkman thought that his disappearance would have had nothing to do with Tiglath-pileser I (PKB, 129, n. 762). 338  Younger Jr., USF, 148. 339  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 112. 340  Nassouhi, AfO 4 (1927), 5, Rev. ii 8’. 341  Gelb, JNES 13/4 (1954), 220, iii 41’; 221, iii 27’.

76

Chapter 2

However, the Babylonian king on the right is quite uncertain. Weidner restored it as “Itti-Marduk-balatu”,342 mistaking the 2nd king of the Second Isin Dynasty as the 6th. On the other hand, Poebel placed “Marduk-shapik-zeri”, who was listed in ii 20’, again in this line. The method applied by Poebel to amend the sequence of these Babylonian kings in this part was: 1) to change the first king of the Second Isin Dynasty (who was Marduk-shapik-zeri according to Weidner) to “Marduk-kabit-ahheshu” (according to the BKLc) and replace the ummânu listed below this name with “Itti-Marduk-balatu”; 2) to keep the sequence of ii 14’–17’ in Weidner’s copy unchanged; 3) to repeat the name of “Marduk-shapik-zeri” in ii 18’.343 Nevertheless, such reconstructions cannot stand reasonably either, for: 1) to place “Marduk-kabit-ahheshu” and “Itti-Marduk-balatu” together matching two Assyrian kings in one unit would give rise to a format in which several Assyrian kings and several Babylonian kings are listed side by side, which is never seen throughout the entire tablet of A.117, and 2) to restore the name in ii 20’ to “Marduk-shapik-zeri” would make that name repeated in different units, which cannot be confirmed either for any entry in A.117. Accordingly, in order not to break the two “principles”, i.e. never list several Assyrian kings parallel with several Babylonian kings in one unit and never list one king in different units, a better way might be to combine the restorations of Weidner and the revisions of Poebel together to adjust the sequence of those kings of the Second Isin Dynasty. Firstly, the king in ii 18’ should be Marduk-nadin-ahhe, the 6th king of that dynasty and the predecessor of Marduk-shapik-zeri. At the same time, the kings listed in ii 14’–17’ should be the four kings (from the 2nd to the 5th king of that dynasty): Itti-Marduk-balatu, Ninurta-nadin-shumi, Nebuchadnezzar I and Enlil-nadin-apli, as listed in the BKLc. Lastly, the first king of that dynasty in ii 12’ must be Marduk-kabit-ahheshu, as determined by the BKLc, and the halfline below his name might have been inscribed with the name of an ummânu, as suggested by Weidner.344 Certainly, such a scheme would be based upon two prerequisites: 1) there are indeed five lines in the unit of ii 20’–24’, where five 342  Weidner, MVAG 26/2 (1921), 15; AfO 3 (1926), 70. 343  Poebel, AS 15, 12–14. 344  Weidner restored this line as “mAN-[… um-man-šu]” in MVAG 26/2 (1921), 15. See also Ebeling, AOTAT, 334; Oppenheim, ANET, 273. According to Brinkman, however, in this line, “the traces are so obscure that no conclusions can be drawn as to the original contents of the text at this point”. Nonetheless, Brinkman proposed that “according to the usual style of the synchronistic kinglists, one would expect a horizontal dividing line to be drawn between ii 12’ and 13’”. See Brinkman, PKB, 41, n. 178. Moreover, Grayson suggested that if it was not a horizontal dividing line but an ummânu in Line 13, then the entry of Itti-Marduk-balatu would have been mistakenly omitted. See Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 121.

The Texts of the Synchronistic King List

77

Babylonian kings are listed parallel with Ashur-bel-kala and 2) the two “principles” concluded above can be accepted.345 The name of Marduk-nadin-ahhe is written as “mdAMAR.UTU-na-din-MU” in the BKLc.346 The remaining traces in this place on the tablet of A.117, which seem to be two crossed wedges and a vertical wedge, would refer to “PAB. MEŠ”, the last element of the royal name.347 Marduk-nadin-ahhe is the son of Ninurta-nadin-shumi and ascended the throne by deposing his nephew, Enlil-nadin-apli, with the support of the Babylonian nobles.348 He ruled for 18 years according to the BKLc349 and a Neo-Babylonian chronicle.350 The synchronization of Asharid-apil-Ekur and Marduk-nadin-ahhe is impossible, because Marduk-shapik-zeri was the contemporary of Tiglathpileser I, and it has been suggested that the two years of Asharid-apil-Ekur’s reign would have fallen in the interval between the 2nd year and the 9th year of Marduk-shapik-zeri’s reign.351 1.3.2.11 ii 20’–24’: The initial kings in Column III must be Eriba-Adad II and SimbarShipak,352 the first king of the Second Sealand Dynasty. So according to the AKL and the BKLa, the last kings at the end of Column II will be Ashur-bel-kala and Nabu-shumu-libur, the last king of the Second Isin Dynasty. The writing of the name of Ashur-bel-kala must be “mAš-šur-EN-ka-la”, as can be seen in the AKL, according to which he was the son of Tiglath-pileser I and ruled for 18 years.353 In this unit, the name of Ashur-bel-kala is rewritten three times and then replaced with “MIN” in the last two half-lines according to Weidner’s copy.354 Accordingly, there would have been five Babylonian kings matching him on the right side,355 for which the restorations of Weidner 345  For more discussions see Chen, NABU 2016/1, 42–44. 346  The last signs should be “ŠEŠ.MEŠ” and the original sign “MU” on the tablet of the BKLc must be false according to Poebel. See Poebel, AS 15, 3. 347  Chen, NABU 2016/1, 43. 348  Walker, ZŠ, 411. See also Glassner, MC, 283. 349  Poebel, AS 15, 3. 350  Grayson, ABC, 189. 351  Rowton, CAH 1/1, 204. 352  See Ebeling, AOTAT, 334. 353  Nassouhi, AfO 4 (1927), 5, Rev. ii 10’–11’; Gelb, JNES 13/4 (1954), 220, iii 43’–44’; 221, iii 29’– 30’; Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 112. 354  The first two lines (ii 20’–21’) in this unit are separated by a dividing line according to the earlier restorations of Weidner. See Weidner, MVAG 26/2 (1921), 15. 355  Undoubtedly, this point would depend on whether or not there are two signs for “MIN” inscribed beside the name of Ashur-bel-kala.

78

Chapter 2

rendered only a few traces for the beginning signs in the first three halflines. If the last one of them is Nabu-shumu-libur, the other four preceding him must be Marduk-shapik-zeri, Adad-apla-iddina, Marduk-ahhe-eriba and Marduk-zer-[…], according to the BKLa.356 Marduk-shapik-zeri: This name is written as “dAMAR.UTU-DUBNUMUN” in the BKLc.357 The various writings in different sources appear as “dAMAR.UTU-ša-bi-ik-NUMUN” or “dAMAR.UTU-ša-bi/pi-ik-ze-ri-im”358 In addition, the name is written as “dAMAR.UTU-šá-pi-ik-NUMUN-(KUR)” in the Synchronistic History. As observed by Poebel, it must have been under the influence of the writing in the Synchronistic History that Weidner restored the name in this line as “Marduk-shapik-zeri-KUR” and took him as the 7th king of the Second Isin Dynasty, but recognized “Marduk-shapik-zeri” in ii 12’ of A.117 as the first king of that dynasty.359 With the evidence from the BKLc, Poebel rejected such reconstructions and argued that there would have been only one king with the name of “Marduk-shapik-zeri”, who should have been the 7th king of the Second Isin Dynasty,360 and the writing in the Synchronistic History followed by the sign “KUR” must have been a scribal error.361 Marduk-shapik-zeri is given a reign of 13 years by the BKLc,362 but 356  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 92. 357  Poebel, AS 15, 3. 358  Brinkman, PKB, 130, n. 769. 359  Weidner, MVAG 26/2 (1921), 15; AfO 3 (1926), 70; Poebel, AS 15, 16. 360  Clay (YOS 1, No. 37) suggested that, according to a Babylonian kudurru – which had mentioned Marduk-shapik-zeri on the obverse and Marduk-nadin-ahhe (the sixth king of the Second Isin Dynasty) on the reverse and was dated by Clay to the reign of Marduk-nadin-ahhe – Marduk-shapik-zeri might have ruled before Marduk-nadin-ahhe. On the other hand, as verified by the Synchronistic History, the reign of the so-called Marduk-shapik-zeri-Mati (KUR) would have been later than that of Marduk-nadin-ahhe. Clay thus surmised that Marduk-shapik-zeri and Marduk-shapik-zeri-Mati were two kings, although he was not sure that Marduk-shapik-zeri was the first king of the Second Isin Dynasty. However, as contended by Poebel, this was uncertain. First, there was no sufficient reason to date that kudurru to the reign of Marduk-nadin-ahhe, for the obverse and the reverse of the kudurru as determined by Clay might be in fact the reverse and the obverse, which means, Marduk-shapik-zeri might have ruled in reality later than Marduk-nadin-ahhe. Moreover, it cannot be excluded, provided that Clay’s determination was right, that “the later date occurs on the obverse and the earlier date on the reverse”. See Poebel, AS 15, 17–19; see also Brinkman, PKB, 42–43. 361  The last element of the name “Marduk-šapik-zeri-Mati” was probably a mistake made by the scribe, who might have intended to write “MAN” instead of “KUR” following the authentic name of the king, Marduk-shapik-zeri. See Poebel, AS 15, 20. 362  Poebel, AS 15, 3.

The Texts of the Synchronistic King List

79

his relationship to his predecessor is unknown to us. However, the name of Marduk-shapik-zeri is mentioned in a letter sent by a Babylonian astrologer to Esarhaddon, where it is stated that “Bel has said: May Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, be seated on his throne like Marduk-šapik-zeri! I will deliver all the countries into his hands!”,363 by which it was suggested that he might have been a younger son of Nebuchadnezzar I or Marduk-nadin-ahhe and have seized the throne in a power struggle.364 Adad-apla-iddina: This name is almost totally lost in the BKLa. The various writing forms of this name, such as “dIM-IBILA-SUM-na”, “dIM-IBILA-i-dinnam”, “dIM-IBILA-i-di-na-am”, “dIM-IBILA-MU” and “dIM-A-SUM-na” can all be confirmed.365 His filiation is not clear, since various sources rendered different accounts.366 It was suggested that he might have been an Aramean,367 although his name does not seem to support this.368 But it is mostly probable that, as suggested by Brinkman, “he was not of royal descent and came to the throne in an extra-legal manner”.369 The BKLa recorded that he ruled for 22 years.370 Marduk-ahhe-eriba: This name is written as “mdŠÚ-ŠEŠ-[…]” in the BKLa371 and “mdAMAR.UTU-ŠEŠ.MEŠ-SU” in a kudurru.372 The length of his reign is given as one year and six months in the BKLa,373 but he might have actually ruled for only 6 months according to Brinkman.374 Marduk-zer-[…]: Only the first two elements of this name can be seen in the BKLa.375 The full writing of this name cannot be restored with certainty, although Brinkman proposed several possibilities.376 According to the BKLa, he ruled for 12 years.377

363  Nissinen, PPANE, No. 106. See also Parpola, SAA 10, No. 111. 364  Birnkman, PKB, 131, n. 772. 365  Brinkman, PKB, 135, n. 806. 366  Brinkman, PKB, 135–136. 367  Longman III, FAA, 159. 368  Brinkman, PKB, 136. 369  Brinkman, PKB, 137. 370  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 92. 371  Gadd, CT 36, Plate 25, iii 2’. 372  Brinkman, PKB, 144, n. 870–871. 373  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 92. 374  Brinkman, PKB, 144. 375  Gadd, CT 36, Plate 25, iii 3’. 376  Brinkman, PKB, 146. 377  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 92.

80

Chapter 2

Nabu-shumu-libur: This name is written as “dAg-mu-[…]” in the BKLa.378 According to other sources, the writing of his name might be “dAg-mu-li-bur”.379 He is given a reign of 8 years by the BKLa.380 According to the Synchronistic History, Ashur-bel-kala was contemporary with two Babylonian kings, Marduk-shapik-zeri and Adad-apla-iddina, for: 1) a treaty was concluded between Ashur-bel-kala and Marduk-shapik-zeri and 2) it was Ashur-bel-kala who appointed Adad-apla-iddina to the throne of Babylonia.381 However, in view of the fact that Ashur-bel-kala reigned for 18 years, but Adad-apla-iddina for 22 years and the former came to the throne earlier than the latter, the death of Ashur-bel-kala must have come before that of Adad-apla-iddina; in other words, Ashur-bel-kala cannot have been contemporary with the successors of Adad-apla-iddina. Accordingly, the synchronism between Ashur-bel-kala and the five Babylonian kings is impossible. 1.3.3 Column III 1.3.3.1 iii 1’–2’: The Assyrian king in this unit must have been Eriba-Adad II. The name was copied as “mSU-[dIM]” byWeidner,382 but “mdDIŠ-A-GÚ-A-[…]” by Schroeder.383 The writing of the name is “mSU-dIM” in the AKL.384 The last sign following the royal name clearly indicates a “KI”. In view of the fact that the beginning line in each column must have contained the title of the king, which would then have been simplified as “MIN” for other kings in the following units, those lost signs would probably have been “MAN KUR Aš-šur” (“king of Assyria”). The half-line below this name is kept blank, but the two half-lines on the right side are lost. The first must have been inscribed with the name of a Babylonian king with his title385 and the next an unknown Babylonian ummânu.386 This Babylonian king must be Simbar-Shipak, because according to the BKLa, the next one in the following unit whose name begins with the sign “DIŠ” (“dEa”) must have

378  Gadd, CT 36, Plate 25, iii 4’. 379  Brinkman, PKB, 147, n. 883. 380  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 92. 381  Grayson, ABC, 165. 382  Weidner, AfO 3 (1926), iii 1’. 383  Schroeder, KAV 216, iii 1’. 384  Nassouhi, AfO 4 (1927), 5, Rev. ii 12’; Gelb, JNES 13/4 (1954), 220, iii 45’; 221, iii 31’; Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 112. 385  The title of the Babylonian king was “šar Bâbiliki” according to Weidner (MVAG 26/2 [1921], 15), but “šar māt Akkadî” according to Grayson (RLA 6 [1980–1983], 119). Because the Babylonian kings are called “šarrānimeš Ak-ka-de-e” in the colophon at the end of Column IV, the restoration of Grayson seems more reliable. 386  Weidner, MVAG 26/2 (1921), 15; Ebeling, AOTAT, 334; Oppenheim, ANET, 273.

The Texts of the Synchronistic King List

81

referred to his direct successor, Ea-mukin-zeri.387 The name of Simbar-Shipak appears as “mSim-bar-ši” in the BKLa.388 But the full writing might have been “Si-im-bar-ši-ḪU”, “mSim-bar-dŠi-i-ḪU” or “mSim-bar-ši-ḪU” according to various sources.389 According to the AKL, Eriba-Adad II was the son of Ashur-bel-kala and ruled for 2 years.390 Simbar-Shipak is the founder of the Second Sealand Dynasty, but he might not have had any royal blood at all, for the Dynastic Chronicle records that he was “the knight, resident of the Sealand” and “son of Eriba-Sin, soldier of the dynasty of Damqi-ilishu”.391 He is given a reign of 18 years by the BKLa,392 but 17 years by the Dynastic Chronicle.393 However, Eriba-Adad II cannot have been contemporary with Simbar-Shipak, since as proposed by Brinkman, the event that Eriba-Adad II was deposed and succeeded by his uncle Shamshi-Adad IV (recorded by the AKL394) “can have taken place only towards the end of the reign of Adad-apla-iddina” (the predecessor of Simbar-Shipak in the BKLa).395 1.3.3.2 iii 3’: The Assyrian king in this line is Shamshi-Adad IV, who was the son of Tiglath-pileser I and reigned for 4 years according to the AKL.396 The name must have been written erroneously as “mŠam-dIM” by the scribe, with the middle sign “ši” being dropped, since the full writing of the name in the SDAS is “mŠam-ši-dIM”.397 The corresponding Babylonian king on the right side must have been Ea-mukin-zeri. The only remaining sign of the name is “DIŠ”. This name is written as “mdBAD-mu-[kin]” in the BKLa.398 He reigned for 5 months according to the BKLa,399 but 3 months according to the Dynastic Chronicle,400 which records that he was a usurper from the tribe of Bit-Hashmar and was 387  Gadd, CT 36, Plate 25, iii 7’; Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 92. 388  Gadd, CT 36, Plate 25, iii 6’; Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 92. 389  Brinkman, PKB, 150, n. 901. 390  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 112. 391  Grayson, ABC, 142. Brinkman proposed that Simbar-Shipak might have been a soldier of humble rank from Sealand. However, considering that the length of his reign is the longest in his dynasty, he might have been the most notable king of that dynasty. See Brinkman, PKB, 150–151. 392  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 92. 393  Grayson, ABC, 142. 394  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 112–113. 395  Brinkman, PKB, 338. 396  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 112–113. 397  Gelb, JNES 13/4 (1954), 221, iii 33’. 398  Gadd, CT 36, Plate 25, iii 7; Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 92. 399  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 92. 400  Grayson, ABC, 143.

82

Chapter 2

buried in the swamp of his tribe.401 According to Brinkman, he might have been a priest from southern Babylonia (at Eridu) before his accession.402 Only a few fragments of Shamshi-Adad IV’s inscriptions, mainly concerning his building activities, have been found,403 and nearly nothing is known about Ea-mukin-zeri. The synchronization between the two kings cannot be confirmed. 1.3.3.3 iii 4’: The Assyrian king in this line is Ashurnasirpal I, who was the son of ShamshiAdad IV and ruled for 19 years according to the KhKL.404 The Babylonian king on the right side must be Kashshu-nadin-ahhe. Only the first two elements of the name, i.e. the signs “kaš” and “šu”, have been left. His name is written as “mKaš-šú-MU-ŠEŠ” in the BKLa, according to which he ruled for 3 years.405 He was the son of a certain Sappaja (“mSAP-pa-a-a”).406 The synchronism between the two kings cannot be confirmed. 1.3.3.4 iii 5’: The Babylonian king in this line must be Eulmash-shakin-shumi. Only two elements of his name “mdul-maš” have been left and possibly the first element “É” has been lost.407 This name is written as “mdÉ-ul-maš-GAR-MU” in the BKLa,408 while in one fragment of the ScKL (A.118), the initial element “É” can be deduced from the head of the horizontal wedge.409 The writing for this name can also be seen in other sources.410 Eulmash-shakin-shumi was the founder of the Bazi Dynasty, a new dynasty following the Second Sealand Dynasty in the BKLa. He reigned for 17 years according to the BKLa,411 but 14 years according to the Dynastic Chronicle.412 His genealogy cannot be traced, but another man with the same name appearing on some kudurrus

401  For the discussion on the land of Bit-Hashmar see Brinkman, PKB, 156, n. 941. 402  Brinkman, PKB, 155. 403  Grayson, RIMA 2, A.0.91. 404  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 113. 405  Gadd, CT 36, Plate 25, iii 8’; Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 92. 406  Brinkman, PKB, 156, n. 944. 407  Brinkman gave two explanations for such a variant: 1) it is a shorter term for the temple name of Eulmash or 2) it might be due to a scribal error. See Brinkman, PKB, 46–47. 408  Gadd, CT 36, Plate 25, iii 10’. 409  Schroeder, KAV 182, iii 2’. 410  Brinkman, PKB, 160, n. 971. 411  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 92. 412  Grayson, ABC, 143.

The Texts of the Synchronistic King List

83

from the reign of Marduk-nadin-ahhe might have been one of his ancestors.413 His name was also inscribed on a bronze sword and some arrowheads, where he is styled as “šar kiššati” (“king of the world”).414 The Eclectic Chronicle415 mentions the 5th year of his reign, when the Akitu Festival must have been discontinued, for “(Marduk stayed) on the dais” at that time. Shalmaneser II416 was the son of Ashurnasirpal I and reigned for 12 years according to the KhKL.417 However, his name is omitted between Ashurnasirpal I and Ashur-nirari IV in the NaKL.418 Since there are several Assyrian kings named Shalmaneser, the attributions of many sources, including the royal inscriptions, one dedication text to Ishtar419 and an inscribed disk,420 cannot be determined. Only one of the royal inscriptions, inscribed on a stele found at Ashur, can be attributed to Shalmaneser II, for his genealogy is made clear: son of Ashurnasirpal I.421 In addition, a temple endowment also records the donations made by Shalmaneser II.422 Most importantly, 413  There are three kudurrus mentioning this previous Eulmash-shakin-shumi. In one kudurru dated to the 10th year of Marduk-nadin-ahhe’s reign, Eulmash-shakin-shumi appears as an “officer of the lands”. See King, BBSt, No. 8: i 29’–30’. In another kudurru dating from the 13th year of Marduk-nadin-ahhe’s reign, Eulmash-shakin-shumi might have held the post of “chariot officer” under Marduk-nadin-ahhe. See Livingstone, RA 100 (2006), 76. The third one dated to the 13th year of Marduk-nadin-ahhe’s reign is only a small fragment. See Sayce, PSBA 19 (1897), 70–73. According to Brinkman, the possible ancestor of Eulmash-shakin-shumi is postulated from the fact that the two men with the same name came from the tribe of Bazi and “the distance of over eighty years between the attestation of the first Eulmash-shakin-shumi and the accession of the later one to the throne would allow ample time for the repetition of the same name in the same family in a society which occasionally observed papponymy (i.e., naming the eldest male child after his grandfather)”. See Brinkman, PKB, 161–162, n. 972. 414  Sass, UF 21 (1989), 349–356. See also Millard, PG, 104. 415  Grayson, ABC, 181. 416  It has been suggested that the first element (“DI”) of this royal name should be read as “sal” rather than “šul”. See Radner, WO 29 (1998), 34–35, 37–38. 417  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 113. The number of his regnal years is partly damaged in the KhKL and it was restored by Gelb as 12. See Gelb, JNES 13/4 (1954), 220, iv 6’–7’. 418  Furlong surmised that it might be Ashur-dan II who deposed Shalmaneser II and introduced his own three immediate ancestors – Ashur-rabi II, Ashur-resha-ishi II and Tiglath-pileser II, who would have been the local rulers of other political realms within the “Great Assyria” – into the AKL. Thus, the reigns of the three predecessors of Ashur-dan II in the AKL would have been contemporary with those of his real predecessors and the reign of Ashur-nirari IV, the successor of Shalmaneser II, would have overlapped with his first six regnal years. See Furlong, AANEC, 18, 38. 419  Ebeling, KAR 98. 420  Grayson, ARI 1, 99. 421  Grayson, ARI 2, 69. 422  Schroeder, KAV 78. See also Lambert, RLA 5 (1976–1980), 31.

84

Chapter 2

his reign would have been marked with the troubles with the Arameans and other tribes, for the inscriptions of Ashur-dan II and Ashurnasirpal II both mentioned the destructions and invasions of Arameans during his reign.423 Shalmaneser II’s reign of 12 years can be proven by the list of eponyms of his time,424 in which he assumed the office of eponym in his first year and the last year was named as “one after …”, which probably indicates that the appointment of eponyms might have been prevented or postponed in his troubled reign.425 The synchronism of Shalmaneser II and Eulmash-shakin-shumi cannot be confirmed. 1.3.3.5 iii 6’: The Babylonian king beside Ashur-nirari IV must have been Ninurta-kudurriusur I. In this unit as well as in the BKLa,426 only the first element of this name, “mdMAŠ”, can be determined. The following traces in this line might indicate a sign “KU” and those in the BKLa would probably be “[NÍG-DU]”.427 In the Dynastic Chronicle, the name is written as “[…-D]U-ŠEŠ”.428 Ashur-nirari IV was the son of Shalmaneser II and reigned for 6 years according to the KhKL.429 In the eponym list of his reign, except for the first eponym year when he himself took the office of eponym, the other 5 years are labeled as “one after … the second after … the third after …”,430 and so on. Ninurta-kudurri-usur I ruled for 3 years according to the BKLa,431 but 2 years according to the Dynastic Chronicle.432 He must have come from the tribe of Bazi,433 but his filiation is unknown to us. It is uncertain whether or not some arrowheads carrying the name “Ninurta-kudurri-usur” can be attributed to Ninurta-kudurri-usur I.434 It is probable that the king who ruled for 3 years in one prophecy435 where a period of chaos was recorded is none other than Ninurta-kudurri-usur I. Furthermore, a legal document dated to the

423  Younger Jr., USF, 159, 161. See also Grayson, RIMA 2, A.0.98.1: 16’–18’; A.0.101.19: 92’–94’. 424  Grayson, ARI 2, 69. 425  Larsen, RA 68 (1974), 21. 426  Gadd, CT 36, Plate 25, iii 11’. 427  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 92. 428  Grayson, ABC, 143. 429  Gelb, JNES 13/4 (1954), 220, iv 8’. 430  Grayson, ARI 2, 70. 431  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 92. 432  Grayson, ABC, 143. 433  Brinkman, PKB, 162. 434  Brinkman, RLA 9 (1998–2001), 525. 435  Longman, FAA 153–154, 161.

The Texts of the Synchronistic King List

85

second year of his reign was recalled in a kudurru of Nabu-mukin-apli.436 The synchronism between Ashur-nirari IV and Ninurta-kudurri-usur I cannot be confirmed. 1.3.3.6 iii 7’: The Babylonian king on the right side must be Shirikti-Shuqamuna. The first element of his name would be “ŠI”. The second was restored as “PA” by Schroeder,437 but “ZUM” by Weidner.438 The following traces might refer to “UD-DINGIR”. The writing of the name in the BKLa is not so clear,439 but the full writing might be “mŠi-rik-ti-dŠu-qa-mu-nu”.440 Ashur-rabi II, as the son of Ashurnasirpal I, succeeded his own nephew Ashur-nirari IV and ruled for 41 years according to the KhKL.441 No royal inscription of Ashur-rabi II is left. According to a fragmental inscription of Ashurnasirpal II, Ashur-rabi II once worked on the Bīt-natḫi of the Ishtar temple at Nineveh.442 The reign of Ashur-rabi II seems not so remarkable, because Shalmaneser III stated that two cities of Assyria were lost to Aram at the time of Ashur-rabi II.443 Shirikti-Shuqamuna was the last king of the Bazi Dynasty and ruled for only 3 months according to the BKLa.444 The Shamash-shuma-ukin Chronicle recorded that he was the brother of a certain Ninurta-kudurri-usur, who must be his predecessor Ninurta-kudurri-usur I.445 The synchronism between Ashur-rabi II and Shirikti-Shuqamuna cannot be confirmed. 1.3.3.7 iii 8’: The Babylonian king on the right side must be Mar-biti-apla-usur. However, only the first two elements of his name, i.e. the signs “DUMU.É”, can be seen clearly in this line, and the name is almost totally damaged in the BKLa.446 The full writing of this name might be “dDUMU.É-A-PAB”, which can be seen

436  King, BBSt, No. 9. 437  Schroeder, KAV 216, iii 7’. 438  Weidner, AfO 3 (1926), 71. 439  Gadd, CT 36, Plate 25, iii 12’; Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 92. 440  Millard, Iraq 26 (1964), Plate VII, 20’. For the writings of this name in other sources see Brinkman, PKB, 164, n. 996. 441  Gelb, JNES 13/4 (1954), 220, iv 9’. 442  Grayson, RIMA 2, A.0.101.58. 443  Grayson, RIMA 3, A.0.102.2: ii 36’–38’. 444  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 92. 445  Grayson, ABC, 130. The original writing of this name is “Nabu-kudurri-usur”, with the first element being probably incorrect. See Millard, Iraq 26 (1964), 30; Brinkman, PKB, 163–164. 446  Gadd, CT 36, Plate 25, iii 14’; Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 92. a.

86

Chapter 2

in some bronze arrowheads, or “dA.É-A×A-ŠEŠ” according to the Eclectic Chronicle.447 Ashur-resha-ishi II was the son of Ashur-rabi II and reigned for 5 years according to the KhKL.448 His single royal inscription, which can confirm his filiation, was found on his stele at Ashur.449 Furthermore, his name also appears on a clay cylinder belonging to a certain Bel-erish, who might have been the ruler of Shadikannu in the area of Habur River.450 Mar-biti-apla-usur is the only king whose reign of 6 years constituted an ephemeral dynasty, which is usually called the “Elamite Dynasty”. This might be due to the fact that the Dynastic Chronicle stated that he was a descendant of a certain Elamite.451 However, the truth might be that he was just “a Babylonian who could claim an Elamite (and possibly an Elamite king) among his ancestors”.452 As for the reign of Mar-biti-apla-usur, little is known to us, although his fourth year is mentioned in the Eclectic Chronicle, without any event being related.453 The synchronization of Ashur-resha-ishi II and Mar-biti-apla-usur cannot be confirmed. iii 9’–12’: 1.3.3.8 Tiglath-pileser II is listed parallel with three Babylonian kings in this unit. The next two half-lines below his name are inscribed with “MIN”454 and the last half-line is kept blank. The Babylonian kings matching him on the right side must be Nabu-mukin-apli, Ninurta-kudurri-usur II and Mar-biti-ahheiddina, while the last half-line below them must be a Babylonian ummânu. Nabu-mukin-apli: The only remaining sign for the name would be “A”, although it is “NÍG” according to the copy of Schroeder.455 The variant writings of this name in other sources include: “dAG-DU-A”, “dAG-GI.NA-A”,

447  Brinkman, PKB, 165, n. 1002. 448  Gelb, JNES 13/4 (1954), 220, iv 10’–11’. 449  Grayson, ARI 2, 71. 450  Grayson, ARI 2, 72–73. 451  Grayson, ABC, 143. 452  According to Brinkman, Mar-biti-apla-usur must not be an Elamite king, because: 1) it is impossible for an Elamite king to have an Akkadian name; 2) he was never regarded as a foreign ruler by the later traditions; 3) his burial would support that he was a legitimate Babylonian ruler. See Brinkman, PKB, 165–166. 453  Grayson, ABC, 181. 454  The signs of “MIN” are found in the copy of Weidner (AfO 3 [1926], 71), but not in KAV 216 of Schroeder. However, as can be seen on the excavation photo of the tablet, the “MIN” signs in those two lines are very clear. 455  Schroeder, KAV 216, iii 9’.

The Texts of the Synchronistic King List

87

“dPA-DU-A” and “dPA-GI.NA-A”.456 The origin of Nabu-mukin-apli is unknown, but he is the founder of a new dynasty and reigned for 36 years according to the BKLa.457 His dynasty consists of three monarchs and his two successors are his sons: Ninurta-kudurri-usur II and Mar-biti-ahhe-iddina. Ninurta-kudurri-usur II: The remaining sign of the name in this line is a “PAB”. His name is written as “mdMAŠ-NÍG.DU-PAB” in a bronze situla458 as well as two fragments of the ScKL (ii 4’ of KAV 10 and iii 7’ of A.118), but “(md) NIN.IB-NÍG.DU-PAB” on a kudurru from Sippar dated to the 25th year of the reign of Nabu-mukin-apli.459 According to the BKLa, he might have reigned for 8 months and 12 days.460 Mar-biti-ahhe-iddina: The only sign for this name left in this line is an “AŠ”.461 His name is written as “mdDUMU.É-PAB-AŠ” in two fragments of the ScKL (ii 5’ of KAV 10 and iii 8’ of A.118), but “mdDUMU.É-ŠEŠ.MEŠ-SUM-na” on the kudurru from the reign of Nabu-mukin-apli.462 The length of his reign is unknown. The writing of the name of the ummânu below the Babylonian kings cannot be restored, since only the beginning divine determinative is left. Tiglath-pileser II was the son of Ashur-resha-ishi II and ruled for 32 years according to the AKL.463 Little is known about Tiglath-pileser II. Equally, the sources concerning those Babylonian kings cannot provide further information either. Some kudurrus464 and an economic text465 dated to the reign of Nabu-mukin-apli have been found. Many years of Nabu-mukin-apli’s reign are mentioned in the Religious Chronicle,466 according to which the New Year Festival had to be suspended because of the trouble with the Arameans. 456  Brinkman, PKB, 171, n. 1034. 457  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 92. 458  Brinkman, PKB, 175, n. 1073; Amandry, AK 9/2 (1966), 59. 459  King, BBSt, No. 9: iva 30’; Brinkman, PKB, 175, n. 1073. 460  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 92. 461  Weidner inferred a “PAB” preceding this sign from the previous traces. See Weidner, AfO 3 (1926), 71, iv 11’. 462  King, BBSt, No. 9: iva, 32’; Brinkman, PKB, 176, n. 1078. 463  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 113–114. Note that the NaKL might have given him a reign of [30] + 3 years. See Nassouhi, AfO 4 (1927), 5, Rev. ii 28’. 464  The one from Sippar dated to the 25th year of his reign concerns a legal case with his three sons as witnesses. See King, BBSt, No. 9. The second is merely a fragment without any valuable information. See J. A. and M. E. Brinkman, ZA 62/1 (1972), 91–98. The third from the Diyala region dated to the 16th year of his reign concerns a land sale. See Weszeli, RA 104 (2010), 99–130. 465  Sollberger, JCS 5/1 (1951), 19. 466  Grayson, ABC, 136–138.

88

Chapter 2

Furthermore, two years of his reign are listed in the Eclectic Chronicle,467 although the relevant narratives are lost. Ninurta-kudurri-usur II and Mar-biti-ahhe-iddina only appear as witnesses on the kudurru from the reign of Nabu-mukin-apli.468 One year of Mar-biti-ahhe-iddina was mentioned in the Eclectic Chronicle, but nothing is known about that year.469 The synchronism between Tiglath-pileser II and the three Babylonian kings cannot be confirmed. 1.3.3.9 iii 13’–15’: Two Assyrian kings, Ashur-dan II and Adad-nirari II, are listed parallel with the Babylonian king Shamash-mudammiq in this unit. The left half-line under the name of Adad-nirari II is kept blank, while the right half-line below the name of Shamash-mudammiq is marked with “MIN”.470 In the last halfline on the right side is the Babylonian ummânu named Qalia. The name of Shamash-mudammiq also appears on two fragments of the ScKL (ii 6’ of KAV 10 and iii 9’ of A.118). The other forms of the writing of this name are “mdŠá-maš-mu-SIG 5” and “mdUTU-mu-SIG 5”.471 Shamash-mudammiq is probably the inaugurator of the E Dynasty (if he succeeded directly Mar-biti-ahhe-iddina),472 but his filiation and reign length are unknown to us. According to the KhKL and the SDAS, Ashur-dan II was the son of Tiglath-pileser II and reigned for 23 years, and Adad-nirari II was the son of Ahsur-dan II and ruled for 21 years.473 Since the information on the reign of Ashur-dan II mainly concerns his campaigns principally oriented to the north and his building activities can only be attested at Ashur and Kalizi,474 his relations with the Babylonian kings during his reign are entirely unknown. But the relations of Adad-nirari II with his Babylonian counterparts can be seen from the Synchronistic History,475 according to which, Adad-nirari II campaigned against Shamash-mudammiq and his son

467  Grayson, ABC, 181. 468  King, BBSt, No. 9. 469  Grayson, ABC, 181. 470  The initial personal name determinative was copied also as “MIN” by Schroeder in iii 14’ of KAV 216. 471  Brinkman, PKB, 177, n. 1088. 472  Brinkman, PKB, 177. 473  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 114. 474  Grayson, CAH 3/1, 248–249. 475  Grayson, ABC, 166.

The Texts of the Synchronistic King List

89

Nabu-shuma-ukin I476 and defeated both of them. Later, the tension between the two lands appeared to subside after the war, since Adad-nirari II and Nabu-shuma-ukin I “gave their daughters to one another (in marriage)” and “made an entente cordiale”.477 However, the synchronization of Adadnirari II and Nabu-shuma-ukin I is not reflected in this unit, for the two kings are separated, with the latter being “contemporary” with the successor of Adad-nirari II in the next unit. 1.3.3.10 iii 16’–17’: Tukulti-Ninurta II was the son of Adad-nirari II and ruled for 7 years according to the AKL.478 The corresponding Babylonian king on the right side is Nabu-shuma-ukin I. Only the first two elements of the Babylonian royal name, “mdPA-MU”, are left. The full writing, “mdPA-MU-ú-kin”, can be seen in iii 10’ of KAV 182. The writing of his name must have been “mdAG-MUú-kin” in the Eclectic Chronicle.479 However, his name was miswritten as “Nabu-shuma-ishkun” (“mdPA-MU-GARun”), the king of the E Dynasty, in the Synchronistic History.480 Neither his regnal years nor his genealogy can be determined. The next line is an Assyrian ummânu (directly below the name of Tukulti-Ninurta II) named Gabbi-ilani-eresh. The synchronism between Tukulti-Ninurta II and Nabu-shuma-ukin I can be proven immediately by the Eclectic Chronicle.481 1.3.3.11 iii 18’–19’: Ashurnasirpal II was the son of Tukulti-Ninurta II and ruled for 25 years according to the AKL,482 while the Babylonian king Nabu-apla-iddina was the son of Nabu-shuma-ukin I and ruled for 33 years at least.483 In the last line the Assyrian ummânu Gabbi-ilani-eresh appears again. The synchronism 476  The Babylonian royal name was written as “Nabu-shuma-ishkun” falsely by the scribe of the Synchronistic History. See Grayson, ABC, 166. 477  Grayson, ABC, 166. 478  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 114. 479  Grayson, ABC, 182; Glassner, MC, 286. 480  Grayson, ABC, 166; Glassner, MC, 180. See also Brinkman, PKB, 180, n. 1105. 481  Grayson, ABC, 182. The signs of both kings’ names are partly preserved. But, as is proposed by Brinkman, “the traces in this section of the chronicle can fit only these two kings”. See Brinkman, PKB, 182, n. 1118. 482  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 114. 483  The 33rd year of his reign can be proven by a kudurru, where the name of the king is partly damaged, but the traces would fit Nabu-apla-iddina perfectly according to Brinkman. See Brinkman, PKB, 182–183, n. 1121.

90

Chapter 2

of the two kings can be confirmed directly by the Eclectic Chronicle.484 If Nabu-apla-iddina died in the 8th year of Shalmaneser III,485 the direct successor of Ashurnasirpal II, then the accession year of Nabu-apla-iddina would almost have been the accession year of Ashurnasirpal II. Moreover, there is further evidence in one of Ashurnasirpal II’s inscriptions, where he stated that in the Eponym Year of Dagan-bel-nasir (the 6th year of his reign) he captured 50 cavalrymen together with the troops of Nabu-apla-iddina.486 1.3.3.12 iii 20’–21’: Shalmaneser III was the son of Ashurnasirpal II and reigned for 35 years according to the AKL.487 The corresponding Babylonian king on the right side must be Marduk-zakir-shumi I, who was the son of Nabu-apla-iddina and might have ruled for 27 years.488 Only the divine determinative for the name of Marduk-zakir-shumi I is left. The full writing of this name might have been “mdAMAR.UTU-MU-MU” or “mdAMAR.UTU-za-kir-MU” or “mdŠIDMU-MU”.489 The second line under the name of Ashurnasirpal II must be an Assyrian ummânu, for whose name only the signs “ḪA-A-A” and the beginning traces implying a “LUḪ” can be determined. Shalmaneser III is contemporary with both Nabu-apla-iddina and Mardukzakir-shumi I, which can be confirmed by the Synchronistic History:490 1) Shalmaneser III made a treaty with Nabu-apla-iddina; 2) Shalmaneser III helped Marduk-zakir-shumi I to suppress his rebellious brother, Mardukbel-usate (another son of Nabu-apla-iddina), who vied with him for the Babylonian throne (which can also be confirmed by the royal inscriptions of Shalmaneser III).491 Moreover, the Eclectic Chronicle also records that Shalmaneser III was the king of Assyria at the time of Marduk-zakir-shumi and Marduk-bel-usate.492

484  Grayson, ABC, 182. 485  Grayson, RIMA 3, A.0.102.16: 44’–45’. 486  Grayson, RIMA 2, A.0.101.1: iii 19’. 487  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 114. 488  The exact length of his reign is not clear. See Brinkman, PKB, 193, n. 1181. 489  The writings in KAV 182 (iii 12’), “mdPA-za-kir-MU”, might be a scribal error. For details see Brinkman, PKB, 192–193, n. 1179. 490  Grayson, ABC, 167. 491  Grayson, RIMA 3, A.0.102.5. 492  Grayson, ABC, 182.

The Texts of the Synchronistic King List

91

1.3.3.13 iii 22’: The Assyrian king in this line must be Shamshi-Adad V. The traces in Weidner’s copy might refer to the sign “ši” and the divine determinative for “Adad”,493 although Schroeder’s copy provided nothing for this line.494 This name is written as “mdŠam-ši-dIM” in the KhKL.495 The Babylonian king on the right side must be Marduk-balassu-iqbi, whose name is written as “mdAMAR. UTU-TI/DIN-su-iq-bi”, “mdŠID-TI-SU-DUG 4”, or “mdŠID-DIN-su-iq-bi”.496 Shamshi-Adad V was the son of Shalmaneser III and ruled for 13 years according to the AKL.497 Marduk-balassu-iqbi was the son of Marduk-zakirshumi I. But the length of his reign is unknown. The fact that ShamshiAdad V was contemporary with several Babylonian kings can be proven by many sources, although the relations of Shamshi-Adad V with his Babylonian contemporaries were extremely antagonistic.498 Firstly, part of the reign of Shamshi-Adad V would have been synchronistic with the close end of Marduk-zakir-shumi I’s reign, for the fact that Nabu-apla-iddina passed away in the 8th year of Shalmaneser III (who ruled for 35 years) would have made the accession year of Shamshi-Adad V almost the same as the last year of Marduk-zakir-shumi I (who might have ruled for 27 years). Moreover, a treaty was signed by Shamshi-Adad V and Marduk-zakir-shumi I,499 which might 493  Weidner, AfO 3 (1926), 71, iii 22’. 494  Schroeder, KAV 216, iii 22’. 495  Gelb, JNES 13/4 (1954), 222, iv 23’. 496  Brinkman, PKB, 205, n. 1270. 497  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 114. 498  The hostility of Shamshi-Adad V towards Babylonia might originate from his desire for wreaking vengeance on Babylonia, since he had suffered humiliation from the treaty concluded with Marduk-zakir-shumi I (see below). See Grayson, CAH 3/1, 270. 499  Parpola and Watanabe, SAA 2, 4–5. It was thought that Shamshi-Adad V would have been placed on an inferior footing, for the Assyrian god Ashur was omitted in the curses (Borger, Or 34 [1965], 168–169; Zaccagnini, SAAB 7/1 [1993], 59–60). Furthermore, it seems probable that Shamshi-Adad V would have had to rely on the silence or even assistance of Marduk-zakir-shumi I to quell the revolt of his brother, Ashur-da‌ʾin-apla, who staged an uprising in the last years of Shalmaneser III to strive for the kingship, although he stated in his annals (Grayson, RIMA 3, A.0.103.1) that he defeated his brother by his own strength avoiding any mention of the aid of the Babylonian king. See Brinkman, PKB, 204; Grayson, CAH 3/1 (1982), 269–270. However, Parpola and Watanabe held a different theory: 1) since Shamshi-Adad V was not called king, this treaty might be concluded at the end of Shalmaneser III’s reign (before the accession of Shamshi-Adad V); 2) this treaty should be a “mutual friendship and peace treaty”, indicating the equality between both lands, but not the Babylonian supremacy over Assyria. See Parpola and Watanabe, SAA 2, XXVI–XXVII.

92

Chapter 2

also have been mentioned in a damaged paragraph of the Synchronistic History.500 But later, Shamshi-Adad V campaigned against Marduk-balassuiqbi during his first two expeditions to Babylonia501 and Baba-aha-iddina, the successor (but not son) of Marduk-balassu-iqbi,502 during his third expedition to Babylonia,503 and captured both of them alive. 1.3.3.14 Lacuna at the end of Column III: Because this column ends with Shamshi-Adad V and the next column begins with Sennacherib, there would have been seven Assyrian kings (from Adad-nirari III to Sargon II according to the AKL) lost in this part. However, the lost Babylonian kings can hardly be determined precisely, due to the lacuna at the end of the third column and the beginning of the fourth column of the BKLa.504 Nevertheless, if the first Babylonian king at the beginning of Column IV was Marduk-zakir-shumi II,505 the lost kings of both lands can be restored as follows:

500  Grayson, ABC, 167–168. 501  They are the 4th and the 5th campaigns in the annals of Shamshi-Adad V. See Grayson, RIMA 3, A.0.103.1–2. See also Grayson, ABC, 168. 502  Brinkman, PKB, 211. 503  It is the 6th campaign in the annals of Shamshi-Adad V. See Grayson, RIMA 3, A.0.103.2. See also Grayson, ABC, 168. The campaigns of Shamshi-Adad V are also recorded in the Eponym Chronicle. See Glassner, MC, 168–169. However, as proposed by Brinkman, the campaigns listed in the Eponym Chronicle might have been combined in the annals of Shamshi-Adad V. See Brinkman, PKB, 207–208, n. 1290–1291; see also Weidner, AfO 9 (1933–1934), 89–104. 504  In accordance with the Eclectic Chronicle, between Marduk-balassu-iqbi / Mardukzakir-shumi I and Eriba-Marduk, “for […] years, there was no king in the land (Babylonia)” See Grayson, ABC, 182. But according to one fragment of the ScKL (KAV 13) and the Dynastic Chronicle (Grayson, ABC, 144), there would have been at least three Babylonian kings before Eriba-Marduk, who is the first monarch appearing at the beginning of the fourth column of the BKLa: Ninurta-apla-[…], Marduk-bel-zeri and Marduk-apla-usur, whose historical background is quite vague. Furthermore, there would have been an unknown interregnum between Baba-aha-iddina and Ninurta-apla-[…]. See Brinkman, PKB, 213–220; AM, 339. See also Beaulieu, HB, 178. 505  See the commentaries on iv 10’–11’ of A.117 below.

The Texts of the Synchronistic King List Table 10

93

The Assyrian kings and the Babylonian kings lost in the Lacuna at the end of column III of A.117

Assyrian kings

Babylonian kings

Adad-nirari III Shalmaneser IV Ashur-dan III Ashur-nirari V Tiglath-pileser III Shalmaneser V Sargon II

Baba-aha-iddina Unknown Interregnum Ninurta-apla-[…] Marduk-bel-zeri Marduk-apla-usur Eriba-Marduk Nabu-shuma-ishkun Nabonassar Nabu-nadin-zeri Nabu-shuma-ukin II Nabu-mukin-zeri Merodach-baladan II

1.3.4 Column IV This column is preserved much better, although the beginning part on the right side is damaged and the Babylonian counterparts of Sennacherib in that part cannot be decided exactly. This column includes three famous Assyrian kings: Sennacherib, Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal. However, the entry of Sennacherib and that of Esarhaddon are not separated506 and the name of Sennacherib is written out for three times. 1.3.4.1 iv 1’–6’: The Assyrian king in this section is Sennacherib, who was the son of Sargon II and ruled for 24 years. Although the beginning signs of the name are lost, the writing of the name can be restored as “md30-PAB.MEŠ-SU” according to the full writing in the following lines where the name is repeated. The title of Sennacherib is “King of Assyria” (“King of the Land of Ashur”). The right halfline is totally damaged, although it has been suggested that the title “(King) of Babylon”, which is part of the full title “King of Assyria and Babylon”, would

506  Grayson proposed that a horizontal dividing line would have been omitted mistakenly under Line 11 of this column. See Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 121.

94

Chapter 2

have been written there.507 The next line below the name of Sennacherib is an Assyrian ummânu, whose name is Nabu-apla-iddina, and the corresponding right half-line must have been kept blank.508 The left part from Line 3 to Line 6 is left blank. The third half-line on the right would have been the name of another Babylonian counterpart of Sennacherib, although Weidner translated this line (combined with the next line) into “[2] Yea[rs] (was) [Sanher]ib King of Akkad”.509 Interestingly, judging from the narrative style, the records in the remaining half-lines following that unknown Babylonian king seem more likely to be chronicle, containing two points of information: 1) the title of the unknown Babylonian king above must have been “King of Akkad”; and 2) after an event that occurred in Babylonia (Lines 4–6), Sennacherib installed his son Ashur-nadin-shumi on the Babylonian throne. The reconstructions of Lines 4–6 are problematic. The three lines were copied by Weidner as “MAN-KUR-URIki EGIR KALAM-[…-U]RIki / [ib]-balkit u-[…]-ma / maš-šur-SUM-MU AD AŠ.TE … šú”,510 but by Schroeder as “[EŠ …-É-…] / 3 (EŠ 5)-bal-É u-[…]-ma / maš-šur-SUM-MU maš-šur-UD-[…]”.511 The restorations of Weidner must be more reliable. Weidner translated these lines as “Afterwards the people [of the land] of Akkad rebelled. Aššurnâdinšumi – the father [ga]ve him the throne – … ”,512 which was accepted by Ebeling,513 Oppenheim,514 Neate515 as well as Parpola.516 However, 507   The traces were restored as “[u bâbili]k[i]” by Weidner (AfO 3 [1926], 75), but “[u Akkadîk]i(?)” by Grayson (RLA 6 [1980–1983], 120). Ebeling (AOTAT, 334) and Oppenheim (ANET, 273) translated it into “[and of Babylon]”. This reconstruction could be reasonable to a certain extent, if we believe that the Assyrian-Babylonian dual crown would have been passed from Sargon II to Sennacherib, who might have kept it during the beginning years of his reign (Brinkman, JCS 25/2 [1973], 90–91). However, considering that in Lines 7 and 12 the title for the dual crown is inscribed in the right half-line, with the left half-line only inscribed with the royal name, but in the first line the royal name and the title are written together in the left half-line, such a reconstruction would make the arrangement in the same column inconsistent. Accordingly, the title for Sennacherib in the beginning line would refer to the single kingship of Assyria, but not the dual kingship of Assyria and Babylonia, while in the right half-line would be the name of a Babylonian king. 508  For the reason see the discussions in the next chapter. 509  Weidner, AfO 3 (1926), 75. 510  Weidner, AfO 3 (1926), 71. For transliterations see Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 120. 511  Schroeder, KAV 216, iii 4’–6’. 512  Weidner, AfO 3 (1926), 75–76. 513  Ebeling, AOTAT, 335. 514  Oppenheim, ANET, 273. 515  Neate, Iraq 33 (1971), 55. 516  Parpola, LAS II, 448.

The Texts of the Synchronistic King List

95

based upon his personal collation, Brinkman restored Line 5 as “[mAš+š]urSUM-MU ina GIŠ.AŠ.TE [ú]-[kin(?)]” and translated it into “he (presumably Sennacherib) installed [Ašš]ur-nādin-šumi on the throne”.517 1.3.4.2 iv 7’–9’: The name of Sennacherib is repeated in this part. However, his royal title is omitted. The left half-lines below his name are kept blank. There are two Babylonian counterparts on the right side: Nergal-ushezib, son of Gahul, and Mushezib-Marduk, son of Dakkuru.518 In the right half-line is their title, “Kings of Akkad”. 1.3.4.3 iv 10’–11’: The name of Sennacherib is rewritten again in this part. His royal title, “King of Assyria and Babylon”, is inscribed in the right half-line, although Sennacherib himself never assumed this title. There are two Assyrian ummânū in the next line: Bel-upahhir and Kalbu,519 both of whom also appear in iv 2’–3’ of A.118, where the latter appears preceding the former. The problem of Babylonia was a hard nut for Sennacherib to crack. An investigation into the development of Sennacherib’s policy towards Babylonia will be necessary for the analysis on the entries relating to Sennacherib in this part. Little is known about the beginning years of Sennacherib’s reign, but he must have been preoccupied with filling the power vacuum left by Sargon II, who was killed on the battlefield. Soon after Sennacherib came to the throne, the Babylonian kingship fell into the hands of a provincial governor named Marduk-zakir-shumi (II), who held the throne for only about one month and was then deposed by Merodach-baladan II, who came back from the exile in Elam and seized the throne for the second time. Sennacherib launched an expedition immediately to Babylonia and overthrew the short reign (9 months) of Merodach-baladan II, who escaped again from being killed. However, Sennacherib himself did not assume the Babylonian kingship, but installed Bel-ibni, a Babylonian raised at the Assyrian court, as the new Babylonian king. Undoubtedly, the performance of Bel-ibni was not satisfactory and Merodach-baladan II might have plotted to make new troubles in Babylonia. Sennacherib reacted quickly and resolutely crushed 517  Brinkman, Or 41 (1972), 246. 518  Weidner (AfO 3 [1926], 76) interpreted it as the origin of Mushezib-Marduk: “from Bît-D[âk]ûri”, which was accepted by Oppenheim (ANET, 273). See also Brinkman, PE, 60–61. 519  They appear to have been Babylonians. See Schroeder, OLZ 23 (1920), 207; Parpola, LAS II, 449.

96

Chapter 2

Merodach-baladan II, who was forced to take refuge in Elam for the last time and eventually died there. Then, Bel-ibni was taken back to Assyria and Ashur-nadin-shumi was appointed to be the new ruler of Babylonia.520 The peaceful six years of Ashur-nadin-shumi’s reign was interrupted by another revolt, through which the local Babylonians deposed Ashur-nadin-shumi and banished him to Elam, where he was killed. Meanwhile, the Babylonian throne was seized by Nergal-ushezib. But the revolt was put down before long and Nergal-ushezib was taken captive to Nineveh and executed. Then, the vengeance of Sennacherib turned to Elam. During his campaign in Elam, the Babylonian kingship was captured by Mushezib-Marduk. After the trouble of Elam was settled, Sennacherib returned to conquer Babylonia and deposed Mushezib-Marduk. This time, Sennacherib destroyed Babylonia savagely, leaving that land kingless for the next eight years.521 Accordingly, the fact that Sennacherib is listed in Line 10 and is given the title “King of Assyria and Babylon” could be considered against the background of his last conquest of Babylonia, although he did not assume the Babylonian royal title. The fact that Sennacherib is arranged in parallel with Nergal-ushezib and Mushezib-Marduk is precisely consistent with the situation after Ashur-nadin-shumi was deposed. Considering that Ashur-nadin-shumi is placed in Line 6, the preceding Babylonian king in Line 3 must have been Bel-ibni. If we accept that the title of Sennacherib in that line is simply “King of Assyria” and that the second half-line corresponding to the Assyrian ummânu is blank, then we have to answer: who is the Babylonian king in the first line? Apparently, only Marduk-zakir-shumi II or Merodach-baladan II would fit this entry. But it seems that the former would have been the more probable candidate, for Merodach-baladan II had already held the Babylonian throne for twelve years during the reign of Sargon II and might have been listed in parallel with Sargon II at the end of the third column of A.117. 1.3.4.4 iv 12’–13’: The Assyrian king in this part is Esarhaddon, who was the son of Sennacherib and ruled for 12 years. His royal title is given as “King of Assyria and Babylon”, identical to that employed in his own royal inscriptions. The kingless period in Babylonia came to an end with the accession of Esarhaddon. The Babylonian 520  Millard, Iraq 26/1 (1964), 17. 521  As observed by Frame, only three inscriptions of Sennacherib mentioned the destruction of Babylon (Grayson and Novotny, RINAP 3/2, No. 168: 36’–44’; No. 223: 50’–54’; RINAP 3/1, No. 24: vi 7’–16’), while his other inscriptions “may have avoided the subject because it was a sensitive topic”. See Frame, BPH, 53.

The Texts of the Synchronistic King List

97

policy of Esarhaddon was more temperate than that of his father. The control of Assyria over Babylonia was consolidated remarkably and the peace of Babylonia would last for up to three decades. There are also two Assyrian ummânū under Esarhaddon in the next line: Nabu-zeru-lisir and Ishtar-shuma-eresh, both of whom, with the former being the father of the latter, also appear in iv 4’–5’ of A.118. According to Parpola, the father’s name is sometimes written as “mdPA-NUMUN-GIŠ” or “mdAG-NUMUN-GIŠ”, while the son’s name is also written as “md15-MUAPINeš”.522 Parpola proposed (although quite tentatively) that Nabu-zeru-lishir might have been an exorcist, for two of his letters were concerned with the ritual of the substitute king. Furthermore, one of his sons (the brother of Ishtar-shuma-eresh) performed the same job. In the Assyrian court, Nabuzeru-lishir acted as the “master” (and “chief scribe”) of Esarhaddon and his position was inherited later by his son Ishtar-shuma-eresh, who held this office during the reigns of Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal. 1.3.4.5 iv 14’–16’: The Assyrian king in this unit is Ashurbanipal, who was the son of Esarhaddon and ruled for 42 years.523 The name of Ashurbanipal was written twice in two half-lines on the left side and the corresponding Babylonian counterparts on the right are Shamash-shuma-ukin (the brother of Ashurbanipal) and Kandalanu (whose genealogy cannot be determined524), who ruled for 20 years

522  Parpola, LAS IIA, 32, 41. 523  The eponym list (the Eponym Canon) breaks off in the 20th year (649 BC) of the reign of Ashurbanipal and the latest economic document during his reign is dated to his 38th year, i.e. 631 BC. See Millard, SAAS 2, 54; Brinkman and Kennedy, JCS 35 (1983), 24. For the post-canonical eponyms see Falkner, AfO 17 (1954–1956), 100–120; Whiting, SAAS 2, 72–78. Moreover, there is no Eponym Chronicle during his reign and perhaps only two of his inscriptions survived after 639 BC. See Grayson, ZA 70 (1980), 227–235; Frahm, CA, 190. The propositions on the regnal years of Ashurbanipal are diverse among scholars. However, the length of this reign is given as 42 years in the Harran Inscription, where the reign of Ashurbanipal and that of his successor, Ashur-etil-ilani, are directly successive (see below). It must be stressed that the Harran Inscription is the only available source recording the exact reign length of Ashurbanipal. See Frame, BPH, 18. 524  The identification of Kandalanu with Ashurbanipal should be discarded, even though “Kandalanu” is only a name in various sources and he might have died with Ashurbanipal in the same year. See Brinkman, CAH 3/2, 60–61; Na‌ʾaman, ZA 81 (1991), 251–252; Frame, BPH, 296–306. On the other hand, the possibility that Kandalanu might have been a member of the royal family of Ashurbanipal could be tentatively deduced from a letter (CT 53, 966), in which Sheruʾa-eterat (the sister of Ashurbanipal) and Kandalanu were mentioned in successive lines, as well as the later traditions of Berossos recording that

98

Chapter 2

and 21 years respectively.525 In the last line is the ummânu of Ashurbanipal, Ishtar-shuma-eresh, the same one listed in Line 13 of this column. The fact that his holding the post of “chief scribe” can only be proven during the reign of Ashurbanipal would imply that he inherited the position from his father when Esarhaddon was still on the throne, but served mostly under Ashurbanipal.526 By the last will of Esarhaddon, the political legacy of his empire was divided between his two sons: Ashurbanipal, who ascended the Assyrian throne, and Shamash-shuma-ukin, who became the Babylonian king, with the former being superior to the latter. There is no doubt that the will of his father was followed by Ashurbanipal dutifully (on the surface at least), for in the year after his accession, Shamash-shuma-ukin ascended the Babylonian throne. However, the harmonious relationship between the two brothers did not last for long: in the 16th year of his reign, Shamash-shuma-ukin rebelled against Ashurbanipal, with the assistance of Assyria’s hostile neighbors. The civil war lasted nearly 5 years (652–648 BC)527 and ended with Shamash-shuma-ukin’s defeat and self-immolation. After that, Ashurbanipal did not take over the Babylonian throne personally, but appointed Kandalanu as the new Babylonian ruler; that is, the political framework devised by Esarhaddon remained unchanged. Fortunately for Ashurbanipal, Kandalanu, the humble puppet, never made any trouble and the peace between the two lands could continue until the end of both reigns. 1.3.4.6 iv 17’–21’: This part is a summary for the entire text, containing three points of information: 1) there are 98 Assyrian kings and 82 Babylonian kings in this list; 2) the list begins with Erishum I and Sumu-la-El; 3) the title for the Assyrian monarchs is “King of Assyria” and that for the Babylonian monarchs is “King Kandalanu (Sardanapallos) succeeded his brother Shamash-shuma-ukin (Samoges). See Frame, BPH, 195; Brinkman, PE, 105, n. 525. 525  The beginning and ending years of Shamash-shuma-ukin’s reign were dated to be 668 BC and 648 BC by Grayson. See Grayson, ZA 70 (1980), 239–240. The last economic document from the reign of Kandalanu is dated as the 21st year of his reign and the 22nd year is labeled as the year after his death. See Brinkman and Kennedy, JCS 35 (1983), 48–49. Their regnal years are not preserved in the BKLa. See Gadd, CT 36, Plate 25, iv 21’–22’. According to Ptolemy’s Canon (Grayson RLA 6 [1980–1983], 101), Shamash-shuma-ukin ruled for 20 years and Kandalanu for 22 years. Probably, this scheme would have taken the 22nd year of Kandalanu as his last year, although the total length of the two reigns is equal to the length of Ashurbanipal’s reign. 526  Parpola, LAS IIA, 32, 42. 527  Grayson, ZA 70 (1980), 231.

99

The Texts of the Synchronistic King List

of Akkad”. The last line was restored by Grayson as “[…] ša11 dNabû-tuklat (nir)-su”.528 However, the sign “lú” (“ša11”) and the preceding sign “su” (both in the middle part of this line) can be determined with more certainty. Thus, the signs before “lú” must refer to a personal name, while the signs after “lú” will definitely denote the title or occupation of that man. Since the personal name appearing in the colophon of A.118 (see below) is clearly “Nabu-tuk-lat-su”,529 the name in this line ending with “su” would most probably be the same one. 2

KAV 10

2.1 Transliteration Column I Lacuna 1. [mdNinurta-apil-É]-kur 2. [maš-šur-d]anan 3. [mdM]AŠ-tukul-ti-aš-šur 4. [mmu]-tak-kil-dNusku 5. [maš-šur]-SAG-i-ši 6. [mtukul]-ti-A-É-šár-ra 7. [mS]AG.KAL-A-É-kur 8. [maš-šur-bēl]-ka-la 9. [mErība-d]10 10. [mŠamšī-d]10 Lacuna

Column II Lacuna 1. mŠ[i-rikti-dŠuqamuna] 2. mdD[UMU-bīti-apla-uṣur] 3. mdPA-[mukīn-apli] 4. mdMAŠ-NÍG.DU-[PAB] 5. md[DUMU-É]-PAB-AŠ 6. mdU[TU]-(MU?)-SI[G5] 7. mdPA-MU-[ukīn] 8. mdPA-A-[iddina] 9. mdMEZ-[zākir-šumi] 10. mMU-[…] 11. […] Lacuna

528  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 120. 529  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 125; Hunger, BAK, No. 238 (F).

100

Chapter 2

2.2 Translation Column I Lacuna 1. [Ninurta-apil-E]kur 2. [Ashur-d]an (I) 3. [Nin]urta-tukulti-Ashur 4. [Mu]takkil-Nusku 5. [Ashur]-resha-ishi (I) 6. [Tigla]th-pileser (I) 7. [Asha]rid-apil-Ekur 8. [Ashur-bel]-kala 9. [Eriba]-Adad (II) 10. [Shamshi]-Adad (IV) Lacuna

Column II Lacuna 1. Sh[irikti-Shuqamuna] 2. M[ar-biti-apla-usur] 3. Nabu-[mukin-apli] 4. Ninurta-kudurri-[usur] (II) 5. [Mar-biti]-ahhe-iddina 6. Sha[mash]-muda[mmiq] 7. Nabu-shuma-[ukin] (I) 8. Nabu-apla-[iddina] 9. Marduk-[zakir-shumi] (I) 10. MU-[…] 11. […] Lacuna

2.3 Commentary On this fragment, Column I on the left side contains ten Assyrian kings from Ninurta-apil-Ekur to Shamshi-Adad IV. The beginning parts of all ten lines are damaged to a greater or lesser extent, but the royal names can be restored by the remaining traces and the sequence of the kings in the AKL. There is no horizontal dividing line below each entry. Column II on the right side lists nine Babylonian kings from the 10th to the 9th century BC. Almost all of them have appeared in iii 7’–18’ of A.117 and iii 4’–12’ of A.118. The first five of them can also be attested by iii 12’–17’ of the BKLa. A horizontal dividing line is drawn under each entry. The beginning line in this part of the fragment is almost totally damaged. Only the lower part of a personal name determinative can be perceived on the tablet, but the copy of Schroeder begins with the following line.530

530  The commentaries on KAV 9–13 are mainly based upon the author’s personal collations of those fragments.

The Texts of the Synchronistic King List

101

2.3.1 i 1’: Only the last sign “KUR” is left. The vertical trace preceding “KUR” copied by Schroeder – which might be part of the sign “É” – is lost now. 2.3.2 i 2’: The last sign “AN” is very clear, but the preceding sign “DAN” is not complete. 2.3.3 i 3’: The writing of the name is almost complete, with only the beginning personal name determinative and the divine determinative being lost. The sign “MAŠ” can be decided with certainty, although it is partly damaged. 2.3.4 i 4’: The first element (“MU”) of the name is lost, but the remaining signs are quite clear. 2.3.5 i 5’: The signs for “aš-šur” are lost and the remaining traces on the copy of Schroeder cannot be seen now. The following signs can be determined with certainty. 2.3.6 i 6’: The beginning part of “KU” is lost. The following signs are clear, except that the sign “ŠÁR” is partly damaged. 2.3.7 i 7’: As copied by Schroeder, the first element “SAG” is partly damaged, but the remaining signs can be determined with certainty. 2.3.8 i 8’: The beginning traces must be the heads of two vertical wedges for the sign “EN”. The sign “KA” is clear. The last sign should be “la” (though not very clear), but Schroeder copied it as “li”. 2.3.9 i 9’–10’: As can be seen in the copy of Schroeder, only the last sign for “Adad” is left in both lines. However, the part preceding the two signs is damaged and the divine determinatives must have been lost. The first element (preceding “Adad”) of the royal name in the 9th line, which should have been “SU”, was restored incorrectly by Weidner as “Šamši”.531 531  Weidner, MVAG 20/4 (1917), 4.

102

Chapter 2

2.3.10 ii 1’: The trace following the personal name determinative might be the beginning part of “ŠI”. No other traces can be seen. 2.3.11 ii 2’: The sign following the divine determinative is not so clear, but Grayson contended that it was “DUMU”.532 The following part is damaged. 2.3.12 ii 3’: The first two signs would clearly refer to “dPA”, but the following traces cannot be decided, although they must have constituted part of “DU”. 2.3.13 ii 4’: The first two signs are apparently “dMAŠ”. The following signs, copied by Schroeder as “NÍG.DU” are not clear, but the traces can be perceived. The last sign “PAB” is damaged. ii 5’: 2.3.14 This line is comparatively intact, although the first two elements “DUMU-É” are not so clear. 2.3.15 ii 6’: The signs following the divine determinative are partly damaged. The part between “UTU” (only the traces for a Winkelhaken can be seen) and “SIG 5” (only “ŠI” can be seen) is completely lost, but there would have been a “MU” if this name was written as “mdUTU-mu-SIG 5”, although it could have been written simply as “mdUTU-SIG 5”, just as in iii 13’ of A.117.533 2.3.16 ii 7’: Only the signs for “dPA-MU” are left, although the sign “MU” is not quite clear. 2.3.17 ii 8’: Only the signs for “dPA” are extant. The following sign “A” is not intact, for the right part has been lost.

532  Grayson, AOAT 1, 114. 533  For the diverse writings of this name see Brinkman, PKB, 177, n. 1088.

The Texts of the Synchronistic King List

103

2.3.18 ii 9’: The name restored by Weidner was “Marduk-[bêl-usâti]”.534 Only the divine determinative can be seen clearly. The following sign “MEZ” is badly damaged. 2.3.19 ii 10’: There is a short horizontal line at the beginning of this line. The following two signs might be “mMU”, though they are not very clear. Weidner interpreted the two signs as “1 MU”, which was attributed to the reign length of Marduk-bel-usate, the brother of Marduk-zakir-shumi I.535 However, as observed by Brinkman,536 this must be untenable, since the ScKL only records the names and the titles of kings and the names of the ummânū; that is, the regnal years of kings are not added. Moreover, Marduk-bel-usate might never have become king, for his name is omitted by A.118. On the other hand, Grayson restored the name as “MU-PAP” according to the name listed in iii 12’ of A.118, which would be identical with “[Mu]-ḫa-a-a” (which was taken as “a syllabic writing of at least part of the name”) in iii 21’ of A.117, and argued that he was an ummânu of Marduk-zakir-shumi I.537 Brinkman proposed that the name would also have been identical with “MU.ŠEŠ”,538 the scribe of Mardukzakir-shumi I and “kalû-priest” of Marduk from the famous scribal family of “Shumu-libshi” (written as “MU-KAL-ŠI” or “MU-LIB-ŠI”).539 However, the first sign preceding “ḫa-a-a” in iii 21’ of A.117 would apparently not have been the sign “MU”, but the right part of the sign “LUḪ” (with three vertical wedges and a slant wedge). Furthermore, we can hardly say that “ḫa-a-a” would be the syllabic writing for the sign “PAP”. More importantly, in view of the fact that the name of the ummânu on A.117 is listed in the right half-line under the name of Shalmaneser III, the one named “[…]-ḫa-a-a” (possibly read as “Luhhaja” or “Lahhaja” coming from the month name “Laḫḫum”540) would have been an Assyrian ummânu, but not a Babylonian ummânu. Accordingly, the name in this line and that in iii 12’ of A.118 might refer to the same ummânu of Marduk-zakir-shumi I, who cannot be identified as the one listed below Shalmaneser III in iii 21’ of A.117.541 534  Weidner, MVAG 20/4 (1917), 4. 535  Weidner, MVAG 20/4 (1917), 4; MVAG 26/2 (1921), 11. 536  Brinkman, JCS 16 (1962), 96, n. 20. 537  Grayson, AOAT 1 (1969), 114. 538  Brinkman, JCS 16 (1962), 96, n. 20. 539  Lambert, JCS 11 (1957), 5–6, 112; Thureau-Dangin, RA 16/3 (1919), 130. 540  AHw, 528; CAD 9, 41. 541  Chen, NABU 2015/1, 24–25.

104

Chapter 2

2.3.20 ii 11’: The remaining traces in this line appear to be the heads of two vertical wedges. According to the sequence of the kings listed in A.118, this name would have been Marduk-balassu-iqbi, the son of Marduk-zakir-shumi I, although Weidner restored it as “[Marduk-zâkir-šum]” in his early study.542 3

KAV 13

3.1 Transliteration

Lacuna

1. [mdMAŠ-A-…] 2. mdMEZ-E[N-zēri] 3. mdMEZ-A-[uṣur] 4. mSU-mar-[duk] 5. mdPA-M[U-iškun] Lacuna

3.2 Translation

Lacuna

1. [Ninurta-apla-…] 2. Marduk-b[el-zeri] 3. Marduk-apla-[usur] 4. Eriba-Mar[duk] 5. Nabu-sh[uma-ishkun] Lacuna

3.3 Commentary According to Weidner543 and Grayson,544 this fragment and KAV 10 would have belonged to the same tablet. Only five lines are left on this fragment, containing 542  Weidner, MVAG 20/4 (1917), 4. 543  Weidner, MVAG 20/4 (1917), 5. 544  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 122.

The Texts of the Synchronistic King List

105

five Babylonian kings from the 8th century BC, with each of them inscribed in a single line. The last two of them also appear in iv 1’–2’ of the BKLa. This part would have fit into the gap at the end of Column II of A.117. 3.3.1 1’: This line is largely damaged and nearly nothing can be determined. The sparse traces in the copy of Schroeder cannot be seen anymore. The first two signs would have been “dMAŠ”. This king can only be attested by this fragment. His name could be restored as “Ninurta-apla-[…]”, although Brinkman is not very sure about the middle element.545 Another two names with the same first two elements, “Ninurta-apla-ibni” and “Ninurta-apla-iddina”, are found in a Neo-Babylonian economic text and a kudurru from the Kassite Period.546 But we have no good reason to confirm any positive identification. Nothing is known about this king. 3.3.2 2’: The first two signs “dMEZ” are extant, but the next sign “EN” is partly damaged. One economic text from the time of Nabonassar was dated with the accession year of Marduk-bel-zeri, where his name is written as “dAMAR. UTU-EN-NUMUN”.547 Nearly nothing is known about this king. 3.3.3 3’: Only the last sign of this name is lost in this line. Marduk-apla-usur also appears in the Dynastic Chronicle, where his name is written as “dAMAR. UTU-A-ŠE[Š]”.548 His reign length, which must have been recorded by the Dynastic Chronicle, cannot be restored any more. 3.3.4 4’: The last sign of this name in this line is lost. The sign following “SU”, as copied by Schroeder, would have been “mar”. The name of Eriba-Marduk can also be written as “Eri-ba-dAMAR.UTU”, “mEri-ba-dŠÚ” or “SU-dAMAR. UTU”.549 According to Brinkman, Eriba-Marduk might have been the son of Marduk-shakin-shumi (who was not a king) and come from the Yakin tribe of Chaldeans in Sealand.550 The reign length of Eriba-Marduk is lost in the 545  Brinkman, JCS 16 (1962), 99, No. 33. 546  Brinkman, PKB, 214. 547  Brinkman, PKB, 214, n. 1331; Clay, JAOS 41 (1921), 313; Sayce, Babylonica 7 (1913–1923), 242. 548  Grayson, ABC, 144. 549  Brinkman, PKB, 220, n. 1381. 550  Brinkman, PKB, 221, n. 1382.

106

Chapter 2

Dynastic Chronicle.551 In the later period, Eriba-Marduk was mentioned by Merodach-baladan II as his ancestor and recognized as “King of Babylon”.552 3.3.5 5’: Only the upper part of “dPA” is left. The traces following “PA” must be part of “MU”. The name of Nabu-shuma-ishkun can be written as “dPA-MU-GAR”, “dAG-MU-GAR-un” or “dAG-MU-iš-kun”.553 Nabu-shuma-ishkun was also from the Dakkuru tribe and ruled for at least 13 years.554 4

KAV 9

4.1 Transliteration

Lacuna

1….[maš-šur-nādin-šumi(?)] 2…. m[šu-…] 3…. mšu-[…] 4…. md30-[aḫḫē-erība] 5…. maš-šur-[aḫa-iddina] 6…. maš-šur-[bāni-apli] 7….27 [Erība-Adad (?)] 8….35 [Aššur-uballiṭ (?)] 9….10 [Enlil-nārārī (?)] 10….12 [Arik-dēn-ili (?)] 11….[x+]13 [Adad-nārārī (?)] 12….[x+]10 [Šulmānu-ašarēd (?)] 13….[x+]7 [Tukultī-Ninurta (?)] Lacuna

551  Grayson, ABC, 144. 552  Frame, RIMB 2, B.6.21.1: 13’. 553  Brinkman, PKB, 224, n. 1408. 554  Brinkman, PKB, 224.

The Texts of the Synchronistic King List

4.2 Translation

107

Lacuna

1…. [Ashur-nadin-shumi (?)] 2…. [Nergal-ushezib (?)] 3…. [Mushezib-Marduk (?)] 4…. Senn[acherib] 5…. Esarh[addon] 6…. Ashur[banipal] 7…. 27 (years) [Eriba-Adad (I) (?)] 8…. 35 (years) [Ashur-uballit (I) (?)] 9…. 10 (years) [Enlil-nirari (?)] 10…. 12 (years) [Arik-den-ili (?)] 11…. [x+]13 (years) [Adad-nirari (I) (?)] 12…. [x+]10 (years) [Shalmaneser (I) (?)] 13….[x+]7 (years) [Tukulti-Ninurta (I) (?)] Lacuna

4.3 Commentary According to the interpretation of the format tentatively posed by Grayson, this fragment would have consisted of two columns (Columns III and IV which are divided into two sub-columns respectively with the Assyrian kings on the left side and the Babylonian kings on the right) on the reverse of a large tablet.555 The first six lines are all separated from each other by horizontal dividing lines. Since there is no single trace of such a dividing line between the first two lines, it cannot be determined whether or not the first two lines are divided. If the six lines were inscribed with the Babylonian rulers (in Column III) succeeding Bel-ibni, who was imposed on the throne of Babylonia by Sennacherib, it would be absurd that Ashurbanipal, who never assumed Babylonian kingship, is also included in that group. The numbers only left in the following seven lines would refer to the regnal years of the kings. According to the numbers, the Assyrian kings (in Column IV) would have been those 555  Grayson, AOAT 1 (1969), 113, 117.

108

Chapter 2

from Eriba-Adad I to Tukulti-Ninurta I.556 If the proposition of Grayson can be accepted, the arrangement with the regnal years of Assyrian monarchs being listed below the names of Babylonian kings might be due to the fact that the scribe squeezed those numbers into the Babylonian column because of insufficient space.557 4.3.1 1’: This line is totally lost. The trace of a small horizontal wedge as copied by Schroeder cannot be confirmed. The entry of Ashur-nadin-shumi can be restored from the lines that follow. 4.3.2 2’: Only a horizontal wedge, which might be part of the sign “ŠU”, is left in this line. According to Weidner, this name could be restored as “Š[u-zu-bu]”, representing Nergal-ushezib listed in the BKLa,558 who deposed Ashur-nadin-shumi and seized the Babylonian throne. 3’: 4.3.3 From this line to the 6th line, the personal name determinative heading each line is quite clear. Only the sign “ŠU” is intact in this line. Weidner proposed that this name would also have been written as “Šu-[zu-bu]”, referring to Mushezib-Marduk, the one succeeding Nergal-ushezib in the BKLa.559 4.3.4 4’: The divine determinative is clear. But the sign for “30”, the third wedge of which is not very clear, seems to be on the upper right of the preceding divine determinative. No traces of the other signs are left. 4.3.5 5’–6’: Only the first two signs “AŠ-ŠUR” can be seen in the two lines.

556  Those Assyrian monarchs were restored by Weidner as those from Ninurta-apil-Ekur to Ashur-bel-kala, when the KhKL had not yet been discovered. See Weidner, MVAG 26/2 (1921), 8. But after the KhKL was published, Weidner corrected his former reconstructions. See Weidner, AfO 15 (1945–1951), 88, n. 16. 557  Grayson, AOAT 1 (1969), 113, n. 30. 558  Weidner, AfO 15 (1945–1951), 88, n. 17; Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 93; Beaulieu, HB, 204–206. 559  Weidner, AfO 15 (1945–1951), 88, n. 17; Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 93; Beaulieu, HB, 204–206.

The Texts of the Synchronistic King List

109

4.3.6 7’: The number 27 is consistent with the number of the regnal years of EribaAdad I in the KhKL,560 but the traces for “7”, which appear as a group of seven vertical wedges in the copy of Schroeder, are not very clear on the fragment. 4.3.7 8’: The number in this line is 35, differing from the number of the regnal years (36) of Ashur-uballit I in the KhKL.561 4.3.8 9’: The number in this line is 10, identical with the number of the regnal years of Enlil-nirari in the KhKL and the SDAS.562 From this line on, a horizontal line following the number, which is evidently not a dividing line, can be seen clearly on the fragment. 4.3.9 10’: The number is 12, identical with the number of the regnal years of Arik-den-ili in the KhKL and the SDAS.563 We can only surmise the original and exact numbers through the traces in the following three lines. Meanwhile, by virtue of the regnal years and the sequence of the kings in the AKL, those Assyrian kings can thus be deduced. 4.3.10 11’: The remaining number is 13. If the original number is 33 (with two signs for “10” being lost), there would have been one more year than the reign length (32 years) of Adad-nirari I recorded in the KhKL.564 4.3.11 12’: The remaining number in this line is 10. The original number might have been 30 (with two signs for “10” being lost), consistent with the regnal years of Shalmaneser I recorded in the KhKL and the SDAS.565

560  Gelb, JNES 13/4 (1954), 218, iii 12’. 561  Gelb, JNES 13/4 (1954), 218, iii 14’. 562  Gelb, JNES 13/4 (1954), 218, iii 15’; 219, iii 6’. 563  Gelb, JNES 13/4 (1954), 218, iii 16’; 219, iii 7’. 564  Gelb, JNES 13/4 (1954), 218, iii 18’. 565  Gelb, JNES 13/4 (1954), 218, iii 19’; 219, iii 9’.

110

Chapter 2

4.3.12 13’: The remaining number in this line is 7, although it is not so clear. If the preceding three signs for “10” were lost, this number would be identical with that of Tukulti-Ninurta I’s regnal years recorded in the SDAS.566 5

KAV 11

5.1 Transliteration

Lacuna

1. [m]d[BE-PABir maš-šur-nārārī] 2. maš-šur-EN-UN.M[EŠ-šú] 3. maš-šur-ÁG-UN.M[EŠ-šu] 4. maš-šur-SUM-PAB mSU-10 maš-[šur-uballiṭ] 5. mdBE-ERIM.[DÁḪ] 6. um-ma-an-[šu] 7. mGÍD-DI-DI[NGIR] 8. m 9. m Lacuna

5.2 Translation

Lacuna

1. [Enlil-nasir (II) Ashur-nirari (II)] 2. Ashur-bel-nish[eshu] 3. Ashur-rim-nish[eshu] 4. Ashur-nadin-ahhe (II) Eriba-Adad (I) As[hur-uballit (I)] 5. Enlil-ni[rari] 6. [his] ummânu 7. Arik-den-i[li] 8. 9. Lacuna 566  Gelb, JNES 13/4 (1954), 218, iii 10’.

The Texts of the Synchronistic King List

111

5.3 Commentary This fragment only lists the Assyrian kings from Enlil-nasir II to Arik-den-ili, although Weidner567 as well as Grayson568 proposed that the corresponding Babylonian kings inscribed on the left side in the original tablet might have been entirely lost. To judge from the remaining Assyrian kings, this part would fit into the gap at the beginning of Column II in A.117. It seems odd that those Assyrian kings were separated into several groups by dividing lines, just like the format of one fragment of the AKL (KAV 14).569 5.3.1 1’: Only the beginning divine determinative can be identified. The other traces on the copy of Schroeder cannot be seen now. The entries of Enlil-nasir II and Ashur-nirari II can be restored from the following lines, although the restorations of Weidner contain another king: Ashur-rabi I,570 who precedes the two kings in the AKL. The name of Enlil-nasir II is written as “mdBe-PABir” in the KhKL,571 according to which he seized the throne from his brother, Ashur-nadin-ahhe I, and ruled for 6 years.572 The name of Ashur-nirari II is written as “mAš-šur-ERIM.DÁḪ” in the KhKL,573 according to which he ruled for 7 years.574 He was the son of Ashur-rabi I according to the royal inscriptions of Ashur-rim-nisheshu,575 but the KhKL records mistakenly that he was the son of Enlil-nasir II.576 5.3.2 2’: From this line to the last line, the personal name determinative remains only as the head of the wedge. The signs in this line are very clear, although the sign “MEŠ” is partly damaged and the last sign is lost. The name of Ashur-bel-nisheshu is written as “Aš-šur-EN-UN.MEŠ-šú” in the KhKL,577 according to which he was the son of Ashur-nirari II and ruled for 9 years.578 Ashur-bel-nisheshu and

567  Weidner, MVAG 20/4 (1917), 9. 568  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 123. 569  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 115. 570  Weidner, MVAG 20/4 (1917), 3. 571  Gelb, JNES 13/4 (1954), 216, iii 1’. 572  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 108. 573  Gelb, JNES 13/4 (1954), 216, iii 3’. 574  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 109. 575  Grayson, RIMA 1, A.0.70.1. 576  Brinkman, Or 42 (1973), 312; Yamada, ZA 84 (1994), 31, n. 69; EI 27 (2003), 268. 577  Gelb, JNES 13/4 (1954), 216, iii 5’–6’. 578  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 109.

112

Chapter 2

Karaindash, the king of the Kassite Dynasty, once made a treaty and took an oath on the boundary according to the Synchronistic History.579 5.3.3 3’: Of the last sign “MEŠ” in this line, as in the preceding line, only the beginning part is left. The name of Ashur-rim-nisheshu is written as “mAš-šur-ÁG-UN. MEŠ-šu” in the KhKL,580 according to which he ruled for 8 years.581 He was the son of Ashur-nirari II according to his own royal inscriptions,582 but the KhKL and the SDAS record mistakenly that he was the son of Ashur-bel-nisheshu.583 5.3.4 4’: This line probably contains the names of three Assyrian kings: Ashur-nadin-ahhe II, Eriba-Adad I and Ashur-uballit I. The writings of the first two names are comparatively complete. The first name is written as “mAš-šur-SUM-PAB. MEŠ” in the SDAS,584 but the plural determinative “MEŠ” is omitted in this line. The personal name determinative of the second name is cut by a horizontal line and the left part of the next sign, which should be “SU”, but was copied as “ZU” by Schroeder, is not so clear. Considering that this name is written as “mSU-dIM” in the SDAS,585 “SU” must be authentic. In addition, the divine determinative preceding the sign of 10 is omitted. As for the third name, only the personal name determinative and a horizontal line of “AŠ” are left. The name of Ashur-uballit I is written as “mAš-šur-TI.LA” in the SDAS.586 Ashur-nadin-ahhe II was the son of Ashur-rim-nisheshu and reigned for 10 years according to the KhKL.587 He was mentioned by Ashur-uballit I in a letter to the Egyptian pharaoh, Amenhotep IV, from which we know that Ashur-nadin-ahhe sent messengers to Egypt and received 20 talents of gold.588 Eriba-Adad I was the son of Ashur-rim-nisheshu according to the NaKL, but the son of Ashur-bel-nisheshu according to the KhKL and the SDAS.589 The 579  See Grayson, ABC, 158. 580  Gelb, JNES 13/4 (1954), 216, iii 7’. 581  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 109. 582  Grayson, RIMA 1, A.0.70.1. 583  Brinkman, Or 42 (1973), 312; Yamada, ZA 84 (1994), 31; EI 27 (2003), 268. 584  Gelb, JNES 13/4 (1954), 217, iii 3’. 585  Gelb, JNES 13/4 (1954), 217, iii 4’. 586  Gelb, JNES 13/4 (1954), 219, iii 5’. 587  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 109. 588  Moran, AL, EA 16. 589  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 109.

The Texts of the Synchronistic King List

113

latter must be authentic,590 because it can also be supported by the royal inscriptions of Eriba-Adad I.591 He succeeded his cousin, Ashur-nadin-ahhe II, and ruled for 27 years. Ashur-uballit I was the son of Eriba-Adad I and ruled for 36 years according to the KhKL.592 5.3.5 5’–6’: The signs following “ERIM” for the name of Enlil-nirari are lost. His name is written as “mdBE-ERIM.DÁḪ” in the KhKL and the SDAS,593 according to which he was the son of Ashur-uballit I and ruled for 10 years.594 The name of the ummânu below Enlil-nirari cannot be seen any more, although Weidner restored it as “[Kaš-ši-i]”.595 5.3.6 7’: The first two signs are clear. The last sign “DINGIR” following “DI” in the copy of Schroeder is not intact, with only the wedge heads being left. The name of Arik-den-ili is written as “mGÍD-DI-DINGIR” in the KhKL and the SDAS,596 according to which he was the son of Enlil-nirari I and ruled for 12 years.597 5.3.7 8’–9’: The two lines are kept blank, with only the initial personal name determinative remaining. 6

KAV 12

6.1 Transliteration 1. [mdNabû-N]ÍG.DU-PAB 2. 3.

Lacuna mdMA[Š-tukul-ti-aš-šur] mmu-tak-k[il-dNusku] maš-šur-SAG-[i-ši]

590  Brinkman, Or 42 (1973), 312; Yamada, ZA 84 (1994), 33, n. 76; EI 27 (2003), 268. 591  Grayson, RIMA 1, A.0.72.1. 592  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 109. 593  Gelb, JNES 13/4 (1954), 218, iii 15’; 219, iii 6’. 594  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 109. 595  Weidner, MVAG 20/4 (1917), 3. 596  Gelb, JNES 13/4 (1954), 218, iii 16’; 219, iii 7’. 597  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 110.

114

Chapter 2

4. [mdEnlil-nādin]-A

m

5. [mdMarduk-nādin-aḫḫēm]eš 6. […]

mtukul-ti-A-É-[šár-ra] [mdMAŠ-A-É-kur] Lacuna

6.2 Translation 1. [Nebucha]dnezzar (I) 2. 3.

Lacuna Ninur[ta-tukulti-Ashur] Mutakk[il-Nusku] Ashur-resha-[ishi (I)]

4. [Enlil-nadin]-apli 5. [Marduk-nadin-ahhe] 6. […]

Tiglath-pile[ser] (I) [Asharid-apil-Ekur] Lacuna

6.3 Commentary On this fragment the Babylonian kings are listed in the left sub-column and the Assyrian kings in the right, in contrast to the positioning in A.117. The kings on this fragment also appear in ii 12’–19’ of A.117, but the synchronistic pairs are quite different from those in the latter. Another peculiar point is that the 4th half-line on the right is kept blank, leaving the Babylonian king on the left isolated. 6.3.1 1’–3’: As Grayson perceived, the dividing line on top is not so evident.598 Only the last sign “PAB” in the first half-line on the right side can be identified. The sign “DU” preceding “PAB” is not clear. We cannot decide whether the two lines below this name are kept blank or inscribed with “MIN”. It seems that the first three lines are grouped together. The divine determinative and the personal name determinative in the first half-line on the right side are evident. But the upper part of the next sign “MAŠ” is lost. No traces of other signs can be seen. The signs “MU” and “TAK” in the next half-line are clear. But the sign “KIL” is faint. The following signs for “dNusku” are lost. The last signs for “i-ši” in the third half-line are lost. 598  Grayson, AOAT 1, 112.

The Texts of the Synchronistic King List

115

6.3.2 4’: Only the last sign “A” on the left and the personal name determinative in the right half-line can be identified. According to the interpretation of Brinkman, the blank space in the right half-line might refer to “an extension of the reign of Ashur-resha-ishi I”,599 or in other words, Enlil-nadin-apli might be tacitly recognized to be synchronistic with Ashur-resha-ishi I. 6.3.3 5’–6’: The last sign “MEŠ” in the first half-line on the left side is partly damaged. Nothing can be seen following the sign “É” in the first half-line on the right. Only some tiny traces are left in the next half-line and the traces on the copy of Schroeder are mostly lost now. 7

A.118

7.1 Transliteration

Column III Lacuna

1. m[Kaššû-nādin-aḫḫē] 2. m[É-ulmaš-šākin-šumi] 3. md[Ninurta-kudurrī-uṣur] 4. mš[i-rikti-dŠuqamuna] 5. m[dMār-bīti-A]-PAB 6. m[dNabû]-DU-A 7. m[dMAŠ-NÍG.DU]-PAB 8. mdA-É-[aḫḫē]-SUMna 9. mdUTU-SIG 5 10. mdPA-MU-ú-kin 11. mdPA-A-AŠ 12. mdMarduk (! PA)-za-kir-MU

mMU-PAP

13. mdMEZ-TI-su-DUG 4 14. [mdBaba-aḫa-iddina] Lacuna 599  Brinkman, PKB, 28.

116

Chapter 2 Column IV Lacuna

1. […] MAN KUR aš-šur u KÁ.DINGIRki 2. […] 3. […] 4. […] MAN KUR aš-šur u KÁ.DINGIRki 5. […] maš-šur-DÙ-A 6. […]m        ILIMMU 4 7. […] maš-šur-e-til-li-DINGIR.MEŠ

[md]PA-ba-ni mkal-bu mEN-ú-pa-ḫír mdPA-NUMUN-SI m15-MU-KAMeš m ILIMMU 4

8. […] bà9. [… m] dNÀ10. […            bal]11. […

rì tuk-lat-su tilki …]

Lacuna

7.2 Translation

Column III Lacuna

1. [Kashshu-nadin-ahhe] 2. [Eulmash-shakin-shumi] 3. [Ninurta-kudurri-usur (I)] 4. Sh[irikti-Shuqamuna] 5. [Mar-biti-apla]-usur 6. [Nabu]-mukin-apli 7. [Ninurta-kudurri]-usur (II) 8. Mar-biti-[ahhe]-iddina 9. Shamash-mudammiq 10. Nabu-shuma-ukin (I) 11. Nabu-apla-iddina 12. Marduk-zakir-shumi (I)

MU-PAP

13. Marduk-balassu-iqbi 14. [Baba-aha-iddina] Lacuna

The Texts of the Synchronistic King List

117

Column IV Lacuna 1. […] king of Assyria and Babylon 2. […] 3. […] 4. […] king of Assyria and Babylon 5. […] Ashurbanipal 6. […] ditto 7. […] Ashur-etil-ilani

Nabu-bani Kalbu Bel-upahhir Nabu-zeru-lishir Ishtar-shuma-eresh ditto

8. […] bà-rì 9. […] Nabu-tuk-lat-su 10. [… As]hur 11. […] Lacuna

7.3 Commentary Weidner proposed that this fragment was a duplicate of KAV 10 and 13,600 but this was rejected by Grayson, who argued that it would have been the reverse of a large tablet, where (Col. III–IV) the Babylonian kings, the Babylonian ummânū, the Assyrian kings and the Assyrian ummânū might have been listed respectively in four sub-columns from left to right.601 If so, two points might be worth noticing: 1) the Babylonian monarchs are listed on the left side, but the Assyrian kings on the right (like KAV 12) and 2) those ummânū are separated from the kings but not placed under their lords. The beginning lines on the right side of the fragment are almost entirely lost, but can be restored by virtue of A.117 and the BKLa. The Babylonian kings in Column III would be those from Kashshu-nadin-ahhe to Baba-aha-iddina reigning from the 11th to the 9th century BC. The first eight of them also appear in iii 8’–17’of the BKLa and iii 4’–11’ of A.117, while the next three of them in iii 13’–18’ of A.117. The Assyrian kings in Column IV on the left would have been Sennacherib, Esarhaddon, Ashurbanipal and Ashur-etil-ilani, while their Babylonian counterparts would have been Shamash-shuma-ukin, Kandalanu and an unknown king.

600  Weidner, MVAG 26/2 (1921), 23. 601  Grayson, AOAT 1, 114, 118.

118

Chapter 2

7.3.1 iii 1’: The lower part of the personal name determinative by the copy of Schroeder is not so evident on the excavation photo. 7.3.2 iii 2’: Only the personal name determinative and the head of the horizontal wedge of the sign “É” are left. 7.3.3 iii 3’: Only the personal name determinative and the head of the divine determinative can be seen. 7.3.4 iii 4’: The personal name determinative and the traces indicating the beginning part of the sign “ŠI” by the copy of Schroeder is not so evident on the excavation photo. iii 5’: 7.3.5 Only the personal name determinative and the traces for the last sign “PAB” can be discerned. 7.3.6 iii 6’: Only the personal name determinative and the last two signs “DU-A” can be seen. 7.3.7 iii 7’: The signs for the first element (mdMAŠ) of the name are very clear. The middle signs “NÍG.DU” are damaged. The last sign “PAB” can be determined with certainty. 7.3.8 iii 8’: The signs for this name are almost intact. Only the signs of “PAB-SUM” are partly damaged. 7.3.9 iii 9’: The beginning part (ŠI) of the last sign “SIG 5” is damaged slightly. The nine lines above are grouped together. 7.3.10 iii 10’–11’: The writings of the two names are complete. The first name appears in iii 16’ of A.117, where the last two signs “ú-kin” might have been lost. The second

The Texts of the Synchronistic King List

119

name appears in iii 18’ of A.117. We do not know the reason why the two lines are put into one unit, without being separated by a dividing line. 7.3.11 iii 12’: The original sign for the first element of this name is written erroneously as “PA”, which should have been a sign for “Marduk”. The name of Marduk-zakirshumi I must have appeared in iii 20’ of A.117. The corresponding name in the right half-line might refer to an ummânu, who had been identified by Grayson as “Mu-ḫa-a-a” in iii 21’ of A.117.602 7.3.12 iii 13’: The writing of this name is intact. The name of Marduk-balassu-iqbi might have appeared in iii 22’ of A.117. 7.3.13 iii 14’: This line is largely damaged. Only some tiny traces for the personal name determinative, the divine determinative and the sign “BA” can be seen. The name of Baba-aha-iddina must be the first one in the lacuna at the end of Column III of A.117, following the entry of Marduk-balassu-iqbi. The name is written as “mdBa-ba6-PAB-AŠ” in an inscription of Shamshi-Adad V603 as well as the Synchronistic History.604 One officer (whose name is written as “mdBaba6-ŠEŠ-SUM-na”) of Marduk-balassu-iqbi appearing in one economic text is probably identical with this king.605 If so, he would be the son of a certain Lidanu, but not come from the royal family of his predecessor.606 According to Brinkman, the length of his reign might have been only one year. Just as his predecessor Marduk-balassu-iqbi, he was also captured by Shamshi-Adad V.607 7.3.14 iv 1’–3’: The name of Sennacherib is lost, but his title, “King of Assyria and Babylon”, is left. The two half-lines below the name are kept blank. The corresponding halflines on the right are the names of three ummânū of Sennacherib: Nabu-bani, Kalbu and Bel-upahhir. The last two of them also appear in iv 11’ of A.117. The first of them only appears here and the ummânu under Sennacherib appearing in iv 2’ of A.117 is Nabu-apla-iddina. 602  Grayson, AOAT 1, 114. 603  Grayson, RIMA 3, A.0.103.2: iv 14’, 16’. 604  Grayson, ABC, 168. 605  Brinkman, PKB, 210–211. 606  Brinkman, PKB, 211. 607  Grayson, ABC, 168.

120

Chapter 2

7.3.15 iv 4’: The name of Esarhaddon is lost. Only his title, “King of Assyria and Babylon” is preserved. The one parallel with Esarhaddon on the right side is his ummânu: Nabu-zeru-lishir, who also appears in iv 13’ of A.117. 7.3.16 iv 5’–6’: The names of Ashurbanipal and his ummânu Ishtar-shuma-eresh, who also appears in iv 13’, 16’ of A.117, are both repeated (with the sign “ILIMMU 4”) in the next half-line. So the corresponding Babylonian kings on the left side must be Shamash-shuma-ukin and Kandalanu. 7.3.17 iv 7’: The Assyrian king in this line is the son and successor of Ashurbanipal, Ashur-etil-ilani. His regnal years cannot be determined exactly, although we know that the last year of his reign recorded in the economic document is the 4th year.608 No ummânu belonging to Ashur-etil-ilani is inscribed on the right side. The appearance of Ashur-etil-ilani and his unknown Babylonian counterpart in this line made this fragment an important source for recovering the chronology at the end of Assyrian Empire, which was a topic discussed heatedly among scholars for a long time. Borger proposed two candidates for the unknown Babylonian king: Kandalanu and Nabopolassar, but he was not sure who would have been the one listed here.609 According to Frame, what we can obtain from this fragment is only that Ashur-etil-ilani was the direct successor of Ashurbanipal and “someone else was on the throne of Babylonia” (since Ashur-etil-ilani was not given the title “King of Assyria and Babylon”).610 However, the probable Babylonian contemporary of Ashur-etil-ilani in this line was restored by Na‌ʾaman as Kandalanu (whose name is replaced by the sign “ILIMMU 4”).611 Na‌ʾaman argued further that it would have been the death of the two kings in the same year that lent an incentive to composing this king list (A.118),612 although this proposition was rejected by Zawadzki, who proposed that this king list was written not after the death of Ashur-etil-ilani, but during his reign.613 608  Brinkman and Kennedy, JCS 35 (1983), 53. 609  Borger, JCS 19/3 (1965), 62. 610  Frame, BPH, 210. 611  Na‌ʾaman, ZA 81 (1991), 248. 612  Na‌ʾaman, ZA 81 (1991), 249. 613  Zawadzki, ZA 85 (1995), 69–70.

The Texts of the Synchronistic King List

121

In fact, the theory of Na‌ʾaman was based upon two prerequisites: 1) the rejection of the assumed “co-regency” between Ashurbanipal and Ashur-etil-ilani614 and 2) the discarding of the Harran Inscription615 recording that Ashurbanipal ruled for 42 years.616 Thus, according to the chronological scheme of Na‌ʾaman:617 1) Ashur-etil-ilani should have succeeded Ashurbanipal directly and ruled for 4 years; 2) Ashurbanipal would have ruled for only 38 years, not 42 years,618 which could be confirmed by the last economic tablet dated to the 38th year of his reign;619 3) the last year of Kandalanu can be dated to 627 BC, i.e. the entire reign of Ashur-etil-ilani would have completely overlapped with the last four years of Kandalanu. Undoubtedly, the first prerequisite of the theory of Na‌ʾaman is reasonable. However, the second would be far from certain, because it is nearly impossible that the scribe of the Harran Inscription would not have known the real reign length of Ashurbanipal, especially when such a renowned emperor lived not

614  For one thing, the royal grant inscriptions of Ashur-etil-ilani record that he ascended the throne after his father died (Postgate, NARGD, No. 13–14; Kataja and Whiting, SAA 12, No. 35–36); for another thing, such sort of “co-regency” was never attested by any previous cases in Assyrian history. See Na‌ʾaman, ZA 81 (1991), 250. 615  “The Harran Inscriptions of Nabonidus”, according to Gadd, were inscribed on three steles (H1B bearing the inscription of Nabonidus’ mother Adda-guppi, H2A and H2B both bearing the inscription of Nabonidus) discovered by D. S. Rice at Harran in 1956. The socalled “Harran Inscription” in our discussion refers to that on H1B. See Gadd, AnSt 8 (1958), 35–92. For another stele bearing the similar inscription of Adda-guppi (H1A by Gadd) discovered by Pognon in 1906, see Landsberger, TTKY 7/5 (1947), 115–251. For further studies on those inscriptions, see Tadmor, AS 16, 351–363; Moran, Or 28 (1959), 130–140; Röllig, ZA 56 (1964), 218–260; Longman III, FAA, 97–103; Schaudig, AOAT 256, 486–513; Yun, AcOrH 70/3 (2017), 277–294. 616  According to Na‌ʾaman, the scribe of the Harran Inscription would have incorrectly added together the reigns of Shamash-shuma-ukin and Kandalanu to compute the regnal years of Ashurbanipal, which might have been due to the knowledge that Ashurbanipal was synchronistic with both Shamash-shuma-ukin and Kandalanu. See Na‌ʾaman, ZA 81 (1991), 250. Actually, the equation presented by Na‌ʾaman, which is: 42 = 21 + 21, should be 42 = 21 + 20 + 1, with one year being the accession year of Ashurbanipal, who came to the throne before his brother Shamash-shuma-ukin. See also Zawadzki, FAMBR, 57. 617  The reign lengths restored by Na‌ʾaman are: Ashurbanipal 669–631 BC; Ashur-etil-ilani 631–627 BC; Sin-shar-ishkun 627–612 BC; Sin-shum-lishir 626 BC (only as Babylonian king). See Na‌ʾaman, ZA 81 (1991), 249. For the similar suggestions see Beaulieu, BaM 28 (1997), 367–394; Reade, Or 67 (1998), 255–265; Oelsner, AOAT 267, 643–666; Liebig, ZA 90 (2000), 281–284; Da-Riva, AoF 28 (2001), 40–64; Fuchs, AOAT 369, 25–71. 618  Similarly, Borger once suggested that Ashurbanipal would have ruled for 40 years (669–629 BC), but the scribe of the Harran Inscription counted the beginning of Ashurbanipal’s reign from 671 BC. See Borger, JCS 19/3 (1965), 60. 619  Brinkman and Kennedy, JCS 35 (1983), 24.

122

Chapter 2

very long before the time of the scribe.620 Furthermore, the last year (638 BC) dated by the reign of Ashurbanipal in the economic document was not definitively the last year of his entire reign. Seemingly, the rejection of the Harran Inscription by Na‌ʾaman could be taken for granted considering the “unreliable” data provided by this inscription: 1) Ashur-etil-ilani ruled for (at least) 4 years in fact, but not 3 years as recorded in this inscription; 2) there is a two years’ discrepancy with regard to the lifespan of Adda-guppi, the mother of Nabonidus, between the number (104 years) from the inscription itself and that (102 years) provided by the modern chronology.621 Firstly, however, the only one year’s discrepancy on the reign length of Ashur-etil-ilani between 4 years and 3 years might have been caused by the political instability towards the end of his reign and the Babylonian tradition followed by the scribe of the Harran Inscription might have tended to attribute 3 years to his reign. Secondly, throughout the discussions of scholars on the two years’ discrepancy regarding the lifespan of Adda-guppi, the general solution is to presume various overlaps of two years among the different reigns listed in the Harran Inscription.622 More probably, because the calculation of the scribe of the Harran Inscription was made by connecting the Assyrian chronological line and the Babylonian one, such an overlap of two years – if it really existed – would have appeared at the connecting point of the two lines, that is, from the reign of Ashur-etil-ilani to the reign of Nabopolassar, or to be precise, the accession year of Nabopolassar would not have been the last of the three years of Ashur-etil-ilani, as thought by the scribe of the Harran Inscription, but the first.623 Accordingly, it is not advisable to discard totally the data of the Harran Inscription and deny the 42-year reign of Ashurbanipal. On the contrary, the 42-year reign of Ashurbanipal rendered by the Harran Inscription must be accepted, or in other words, Ashurbanipal and Kandalanu must have died in 620  von Soden, ZA 58 (1967), 248; Gerber, ZA 88 (1998), 75. 621  On the one hand, the Harran Inscription records that “from the 20th year of Aššurbanipal, king of Assyria, that I was born (in), until the 42nd year of Aššurbanipal, the 3rd year of Aššur-etillu-ili, his son, the 21st year of Nabopolassar, the 43rd year of Nebuchadrezzar, the 2nd year of Awēl-Marduk, the 4th year of Neriglissar, in 95 years of the god Sin” and “from the time of Aššurbanipal, king of Assyria, until the 9th year of Nabu-na‌ʾid, king of Babylon, the son, offspring of my womb, 104 years of happiness”. See Gadd, AnSt 8 (1958), 47, 49. On the other hand, we can determine directly by the modern chronology that there would have been 102 years from her birth in the 20th year of Ashurbanipal (649 BC) to her death in the 9th year of Nabonidus (547 BC). 622  Borger, WZKM 55 (1959), 62–76; van Dijk, UVB 18 (1962), 57; Oates, Iraq 27/2 (1965), 135–159; von Soden, ZA 58 (1967), 241–255; Reade, JCS 23/1 (1971), 1–9; Beaulieu, RN, 70; Zawadzki, FAMBR, 55; Gerber, ZA 88 (1998), 72–93. 623  Oates, Iraq 27/2 (1965), 142.

The Texts of the Synchronistic King List

123

the same year, i.e. 627 BC, which was also the accession year of Ashur-etil-ilani. As for the Babylonian throne at that time, i.e. between the death of Kandalanu (627 BC) and the accession of Nabopolassar (626 BC), three sources can provide the relevant information: 1) one economic document (BM 40039) dated with “22nd year after Kandalanu”;624 2) the Nabopolassar Chronicle stating that “for one year there was no king in the land (Babylonia), on the twentysixth day of the month Marchesvan, Nabopolassar ascended the throne in Babylon”;625 3) the UKL recording that Sin-shum-lishir and Sin-shar-ishkun ruled for one year between Kandalanu and Nabopolassar.626 It seems that BM 40039 and the Nabopolassar Chronicle are consistent with each other, but both of them contradict the UKL; that is, according to BM 40039 and the Nabopolassar Chronicle, the year between Kandalanu and Nabopolassar was a kingless year, but according to the UKL, that year was one year’s reign of Sin-shum-lishir and Sin-shar-ishkun. A reasonable explanation could be: the short reign (627–626 BC) of Sin-shum-lishir and Sin-shar-ishkun (possibly as the successors of Kandalanu installed by the Assyrian court) in the UKL was not acknowledged by BM 40039 or the Nabopolassar Chronicle, because that would have been a time of political turmoil, for which the Akitu Chronicle could provide the supporting evidence: “after Kandalanu, in the accession year of Nabopolassar, there were insurrections in Assyria and Akkad, there were hostilities (and) warfare continued”.627 From this point of view, the candidate for the Babylonian contemporary of Ashur-etil-ilani in this line is either Sin-shum-lishir or Sin-shar-ishkun. However, considering that 1) Sin-shum-lishir is listed before Sin-sharishkun in the UKL; 2) Sin-shum-lishir might have helped Ashur-etil-ilani to seize the throne of Assyria according to the statements of Ashur-etil-ilani;628 and 3) a treaty for guaranteeing the sovereignty of Ashur-etil-ilani imposed by Sin-shum-lishir was established,629 Sin-shum-lishir would have been more probable.

624  Brinkman and Kennedy, JCS 35 (1983), 49. 625  Grayson, ABC, 88. 626  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 97. 627  Grayson, ABC, 132. 628  Postgate, NARGD, No. 13–14; Kataja and Whiting, SAA 12, No. 35–36; Borger, JCS 19/3 (1965), 75; von Soden, ZA 58 (1967), 251–252. 629  See Grayson, JCS 39/2 (1987), 150–154. According to Grayson, the name of Sin-shum-lishir is badly damaged, and that of Ashur-etil-ilani, which can only be deduced by the following royal filiation “son of Ashurbanipal”, is lost.

124

Chapter 2

7.3.18 iv 8’–9’: Only the last two signs, “bà-rì”, are left in Line 8. The personal name (the traces preceding the sign “DINGIR” would probably refer to the personal name determinative) in the next line, “Nabu-tuk-lat-su”, might have also appeared at the end of A.117. 7.3.19 iv 10’: The last line must have indicated the location of the original tablet. Only the traces for the city Ashur (Bal-tilki) can be seen. 7.3.20 iv 11’: The last sign left on the fragment is “u” according to the copy of Schroeder, although it was read as “šu13” by Grayson.630 It has been suggested that the name of the ummânu, who held the office under the reign of Ashur-etil-ilani, and composed the list after the death of his lord, would have been listed in the part of the colophon.631

630  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 125. 631  Na‌ʾaman, ZA 81 (1991), 249.

Chapter 3

The Format of the Synchronistic King List The topic in this chapter is the format of the ScKL, that is, the general frame or structure designed by its author for arranging the entries in the list. It seems inadvisable to overlook the format and focus exclusively on the contents when we analyze a particular document, especially a king list, for it is the format that can reflect the specific way in which the compiler composed his text to express his ideas. As we have seen, the ScKL is a special king list in that it records the kings of both Assyria and Babylonia rather than the monarchs of a single land or dynasty. On the other hand, however, we cannot isolate the ScKL from other king lists in Mesopotamia, for the basic nature of the ScKL – i.e. a “King List” – determines that any analysis of the ScKL must be carried out against the background of the very editorial tradition of king lists in Mesopotamia. At the same time, the coexistence of different exemplars of the ScKL makes it necessary to resolve the discrepancies among their formats. Therefore, comparisons between the ScKL and the other king lists and those between the main exemplar (A.117) of the ScKL and the other fragments have to be made. Lastly, considering that the full panorama of the ScKL can only be obtained from A.117, the specific format of that exemplar – or more exactly speaking, the arrangement for those parallel pairs of kings due to which our list is called the “Synchronistic” King List – must be discussed in greater detail. 1

Comparisons between the Synchronistic King List and the Other King Lists

It can hardly be denied that the very format of a king list generally hinges on the pieces of information conveyed by the list itself. When we compare the ScKL with the other king lists, we can find that some “basic elements” contained in other lists are absent in the ScKL, e.g. the regnal years,1 the royal filiations2 1  The regnal years ascribed to some Middle Assyrian kings in KAV 9 might be an exception. But in view of the fact that the original format of this fragment is still unknown – although the propositions of Grayson would be quite illuminating (Grayson RLA 6 [1980–1983], 121–122; AOAT 1, 112–114) – the nature of such an “exception” can hardly be taken into consideration. 2  The filiations of Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal are mentioned in the last column of A.117, but that would most probably have been to manifest their royal parentages, which is a formal practice when mentioning the kings in the royal inscriptions.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004430921_004

126

Chapter 3

and the subscripts affixed to certain groups of kings. The royal names, the regnal years and the royal filiations are the three main aspects of information in the AKL, where the filiation of a certain king is generally recorded immediately following his royal name and then is the number of his regnal years. The regnal years are recorded after the royal names in the SKL, the LgKL and the BKLb, but listed preceding the royal names in the LsKL, the UIKL, the BKLa, the BKLc and the UKL. The royal filiations are provided only for a few rulers in the SKL and the BKLb, but not mentioned in the LsKL, the UIKL, the UKL, the BKLa or the BKLc.3 The special one among them is the LgKL: not only does this list include the royal names, the reign lengths and the filiations but it also records the activities and personal gods for most of the rulers of Lagash.4 The subscripts for summing up the number of kings and the total length of each dynasty appear formally in the BKLa and the BKLb, where they are usually added to the end of every single dynasty, stating that a number of kings ruled for a number of years. Entries similar to the subscripts in the BKLa and the BKLb can also be seen in the SKL, where the individual cities are mentioned in turn.5 Accordingly, in all the king lists other than the ScKL, the kings are merely listed consecutively, as if they came from one dynasty or several successive dynasties. That is, the register of the entries in those lists appears to be unidimensional, which can be perceived in two aspects: the chronological sequence and the continuity of kingship. The two aspects can probably be confirmed by the entries of the regnal years and the royal filiations. On the one hand, the number of the regnal years is not only a simple label for a certain reign, but a basis for computing the chronological length. On the other hand, the transmission of the kingship from a father to a son or from one dynasty or city to another one could imply that the kingship itself lasts forever without disruption, but rather along a single and direct line. Such a scheme is, of course, inconsistent with the historical facts, for those dynasties enumerated in the lists are not always strictly successive – for instance, the First Dynasty of Babylon and the First Sealand Dynasty partially overlapped, but they are listed consecutively in the BKLa and the BKLb. A similar trend can also be observed in the SKL, where many dynasties which are actually contemporaneous are listed as successive. As proposed by Jacobsen, it seems inconceivable that the authors would have 3  The exceptions can be seen in the entry of Marduk-apla-iddina I in the BKLa and the entry of Enlil-nadin-apli in the BKLc, where the signs “DUMU-šú” or “A-šú” following their royal names must indicate that they are the sons of their predecessors. See Grayson, RLA 6 (1980– 1983), 92, 97. See also Brinkman, MSKH, 247; PKB, 116, n. 658. 4  Sollberger, JCS 21 (1967), 280–286. 5  Jacobsen, AS 11, 70–127.

The Format of the Synchronistic King List

127

had no idea about those contemporary dynasties, but this particular arrangement might be a direct expression of the “vagary” of the authors that the kingship must be unique and can only be possessed by one dynasty or city or even one monarch at a time.6 Thus, to a large extent, this very uniqueness is further evidence for the unidimensional consciousness. Although every single king list might have its own textual structure, this common point – i.e. the unidimensional peculiarity in the compilation of the text – cannot be denied. It is from this perspective that the “King Lists” can be understood as another form of “Chronicles” or “Annals”. However, it is not the same case in the ScKL. First, the ScKL lists the kings from Assyria and Babylonia in two sub-columns respectively. The parallel pairs of kings in the two lands are arranged – on the surface at least – to be “synchronistic”. But meanwhile, the chronological sequence and the continuity of kingship pursued by the other king lists are never discarded, neither for the Assyrian side nor for the Babylonian side, because 1) the royal sequence in the ScKL is almost consistent with that in the AKL and the BKL (a–c); 2) the summary for the number of kings at the end of A.117 would imply that all the kings of both lands during the period covered by the list would have been included without any omission; 3) one of the most apparent signals might be the use of “MIN”, indicating that the reigns in two contiguous units are directly successive.7 Therefore, in contrast to the other king lists, the compilation of the ScKL might be called bidimensional: the synchronization in the horizontal direction and the continuity in the vertical. If the latter could be guaranteed by the use of “MIN”, the entry for the royal filiation was no longer necessary. Moreover, because of the horizontal dimension of synchronizations, there would have been no room for the authors of the ScKL to add the subscripts for a particular group of kings from the two lands, since the division of the various Babylonian dynasties founded by rulers of various origins (which can be seen in the subscripts of the BKLa) cannot be harmonized with the actual situation of Assyria.8 6  Jacobsen, AS 11, 161–164. 7  Poebel, JNES 2/1 (1943), 61. 8  The concept of “dynasty” can hardly be applied to the history of Assyria. Although “Old Assyrian Dynasty” (Larsen, OACC, 33) or “Adasi Dynasty” (Poebel, JNES 1/4 [1942], 467) was also posed by scholars, such a definition would seem more likely to refer to a certain royal family with a common ancestor but cannot be connected with the nation or land of Assyria. According to Parpola, Assyria, especially the Neo-Assyrian Empire, can be recognized as “a multi-ethnic state” (but not “a multi-racial state” as suggested by Postgate, ARAMP 1/1 [1989], 1–10). As contended by Parpola, “its ethnic diversity notwithstanding, it was a uniformly structured political entity with well-defined and well-guarded borders, and the Assyrian kings certainly regarded it as a unified whole, ‘the Land of Aššur’, whose territory

128

Chapter 3

Secondly, as we will see below (concerning the date of A.117 and A.118), the ScKL might have been compiled during the reign of the last entry listed in the document. This is in contrast to the cases of the other king lists, probably produced during the reign following the last entry, from which the date of the text can be decided with more certainty. In the temporal sense, the compilation of the other king lists would be “past”, but that of the ScKL would be “present”. If so, the information on the regnal years might have been deliberately omitted. This is why we are only informed of the sequence of the kings, but never of the accurate length of their reigns. To sum up, the comparisons of the format of the ScKL with that of the other king lists indicate that different lists are in fact conveying different pieces of information. If we can understand that as the motif or purpose of the document, which is decided by the specific motivation of the author, we have to admit that the purpose of the ScKL would be quite different from that of the other king lists. At least, one fact is clear: what we have obtained from the document is precisely what the author of the document aimed to let us know. Accordingly, we cannot judge the ScKL and the other king lists from the same point of view, for the motivation of the authors must have been different. 2

Comparisons between A.117 and the Other Exemplars of the Synchronistic King List

Compared with the main exemplar of the ScKL, A.117, the other exemplars are merely several small fragments, about the formats of which we do not have much to say. So the comparisons among their formats are of necessity quite limited. The most remarkable discrepancy would be the relative position of the Assyrian kings and the Babylonian kings in different exemplars. As we can see, the Assyrian kings are listed on the left side and their Babylonian counterparts on the right in A.117, KAV 10, KAV 13 and probably KAV 9, while it is precisely the opposite in KAV 12, A.118 and probably KAV 11: the Assyrian kings are on the right side and the Babylonian kings on the left.9 In any case, it seems difficult to explore the implications of different relative positions for the kings of the two lands. Is this something to do with the priority of the kings from one of they constantly strove to expand. To the outside world, it must have appeared as a uniform, monolithic whole, whose inhabitants were unhesitatingly identified as Assyrians regardless of their ethnic backgrounds.” See Parpola, JAAS 18/2 (2004), 5–6. 9  To be honest, the original format of KAV 9 and KAV 11 cannot be determined exactly.

The Format of the Synchronistic King List

129

the two states, in consideration of the fact that the text is written from left to right – that is, is it the case that the kings on the left side would enjoy greater priority than those on the right? One cannot exclude that the text of the ScKL was oriented towards not only the Assyrians but also the Babylonians. The example we could take is the group of inscriptions of Esarhaddon concerning his rebuilding activities at Babylon.10 In some of the inscriptions (Babylon A, C and E),11 the tone of Esarhaddon is relatively mild towards the destruction of Babylon by Sennacherib, and he seems to seek a way to excuse the violent practice of his father. In the other ones (Babylon B and G),12 however, Esarhaddon sharply criticized the evils of the people of Babylon (their taking the treasures of the gods to bribe the Elamites, for instance), implying that Babylon deserved the punishment inflicted by the gods. How can we explain such different attitudes of Esarhaddon towards the same thing? According to the interpretations of Porter, “it seems clear that this set of building inscriptions, in a departure from normal Mesopotamian practice, was prepared not only for the people of Babylon – the city that the inscriptions discuss – but also for an audience in Assyria.”13 The first group of inscriptions might be used only in Babylonia and Esarhaddon might have tried to console the emotions of Babylonians, lest their indignation be aroused. But the second group might be used only in Assyria and Esarhaddon might be endeavoring to appear as an authentic Assyrian king, who should be ruthless to Babylonia, their former enemy.14 This is a reasonable assumption: Esarhaddon altered the policy of Sennacherib to revive the land of Babylonia and he would go on to pursue some kind of balance between the Assyrians and the Babylonians. Moreover, further proof can be obtained from the provenances of those building inscriptions: according to Porter, most of them were from Babylonia, but the ones of the second group (the prism inscribed with the Babylon B text and some pieces of tablet with the Babylon G text) were found in Nineveh and written in Assyrian script. Accordingly, if we can apply this analytical model to the ScKL, we would propose that the list placing the Assyrian kings on the left side (where the entries were recorded first) might have been used in Assyria, for it could be to highlight the priority of the Assyrian monarchs; whereas those listing the Babylonian kings on the left, on the contrary, might have been used 10  Borger, AfO Beiheft 9, 10–29. However, the archaeological evidence for the rebuilding activities of Esarhaddon in Babylonia might have been covered by the later rebuilding of Nebuchadnezzar II. See Frame, BPH, 69. 11  Leichty, RINAP 4, No. 104 (Babylon A), No. 105 (Babylon C), No. 106 (Babylon E). 12  Leichty, RINAP 4, No. 108 (Babylon G), No. 116 (Babylon B). 13  Porter, IPP, 103. 14  Porter, IPP, 103–105.

130

Chapter 3

in Babylonia. However, one point should be made clear here: such a proposition cannot be supported by any tangible evidence, but can only be taken as a tentative explanation. The comparison of the formats between A.117 and other exemplars can also be made in the horizontal direction. One important feature of A.117 is that the kings are placed in independent units created by horizontal dividing lines. In each unit, the kings from two lands – recognized as contemporaries – are listed as parallel pairs, in pairings of “one to one”, “one to more” and “more to one”. However, such an arrangement is not found in all the exemplars: for example, the Assyrian kings in KAV 10 are grouped together, although their Babylonian counterparts are separated from one another by horizontal lines. Furthermore, even in the exemplars where the dividing lines are drawn, the rules for drawing those lines in various sources are still inconsistent. The Babylonian kings appearing in KAV 10 and iii 7’–18’ of A.117 can be taken as an example. We can see that a dividing line is drawn under each of them in KAV 10, but three of them, Ninurta-kudurri-usur II, Mar-biti-ahhe-iddina and Shamash-mudammiq, are placed into the same unit (with others listed in a single line) in A.117. The inconsistencies also exist in iii 1’–11’ of A.118, where the first nine Babylonian kings (identical with those in iii 4’–18’ of A.117) are listed together, but the next two are placed in one unit and the last three in a single unit respectively. Another example can be seen in the entries of the Babylonian rulers following Bel-ibni listed in the last column of A.117 and in KAV 9. They are not recorded separately in A.117, but each of them occupies a single line in KAV 9. What’s more absurd is that Ashurbanipal, the Assyrian king, who had never assumed the Babylonian kingship, is listed directly below Esarhaddon,15 which can also be seen in iv 7’ of A.118. Judging from the general format, KAV 12 is the most similar one to A.117, although the relative positions of kings from the two lands are inversed. Nevertheless, the most obvious discrepancies lie in the parallel pairs. According to our reconstructions on the second column of A.117, Nebuchadnezzar I should have been listed corresponding to Ashur-resha-ishi I, while Enlil-nadinapli to Tiglath-pileser I and Marduk-nadin-ahhe to Asharid-apil-Ekur, but in KAV 12, the situation is quite confused: 1) Nebuchadnezzar I is parallel with three Assyrian kings: Ninurta-tukulti-Ashur, Mutakkil-Nusku and Ashur-reshaishi I; 2) Enlil-nadin-apli corresponds to no one (a blank space); 3) Marduknadin-ahhe is listed together with two Assyrian kings: Tiglath-pileser I and Asharid-apil-Ekur. Although the blank space opposite Enlil-nadin-apli in KAV 12 15  One point worth noting is that all the royal names (excluding the numbers on the latter part) left on the fragment are restored by the beginning signs and the sequence of the kings in the AKL and the BKLa.

The Format of the Synchronistic King List

131

could be interpreted as “an extension of the reign of Ashur-resha-ishi I” according to Brinkman,16 other inconsistent parallels cannot yet be resolved. Another important point is the ummânū in different exemplars. Apart from A.117, the entries of ummânū are also found in KAV 11 and A.118. We do not know whether or not the unknown ummânu of Enlil-nirari appearing in KAV 11 is also listed under the entry of Enlil-nirari, which should have been recorded in the lacuna at the beginning of the second column in A.117. If so, the earliest Assyrian ummânu on the original tablet would not be the one under Tukulti-Ninurta I in that column of A.117. The two Babylonian ummânū listed under the reigns of Mar-biti-ahhe-iddina and Shamash-mudammiq in iii 12’ and 15’ of A.117 are not listed under the same reigns in ii 5’–6’ of KAV 10. The first ummânu of Sennacherib in iv 1’ of A.118 seems to be “Nabu-ba-ni”, distinct from the one in iv 2’ of A.117, whose name is “Nabu-apla-iddina”. Furthermore, the Assyrian ummânū in A.118 are not listed below the Assyrian royal names, but arranged in another single sub-column, independent from the group of Assyrian kings. Although the Babylonian ummânū cannot be seen on that fragment, their position on the original tablet would have been the same. Lastly, the titles for Assyrian kings and Babylonian kings are usually written out in the first line of each column of A.117, while the titles for the kings in the remaining lines are replaced with the sign “MIN”. However, we cannot see the same arrangement in the other exemplars: that is, the sign “MIN” referring to the title is not inscribed following the royal name, although it might be possible that the titles have already been recorded in the heading line of every column. In any case, we can only acquire quite limited knowledge about the true nature of those small fragments of the ScKL. For one thing, they are too fragmentary to render an overview. For another thing, as to the discrepancies concluded above, we cannot provide reasonable explanations. Although they are attributed to the group of the ScKL, our analysis of the format of the ScKL must be based primarily upon the chief exemplar, A.117. 3

The Arrangement of the Parallel Pairs of Kings in A.117

As we have demonstrated, the compilation of the ScKL (A.117) is bidimensional: it lists the kings of Assyria and Babylonia vertically and places contemporaries in independent units horizontally. To be precise, it is the horizontal dividing lines separating the parallel pairs from the others that define the nature of the 16  Brinkman, PKB, 28.

132

Chapter 3

ScKL. Otherwise, if the kings were not separated from each other horizontally, there would be no reason to regard such a list as “synchronistic”, for it would appear merely as a combined list of kings from two lands. Notwithstanding its designation as a “Synchronistic King List”, as noted by Brinkman,17 the ScKL cannot be adduced as a solid foundation for confirming the synchronism of the kings of Assyria and Babylonia, for – quite oddly – in A.117 the pairs who could not have been synchronistic are listed in parallel, whereas those who were in fact synchronistic are separated. For instance: 1) Shamshi-Adad II is listed parallel to eight Kassite kings, but their synchronization is impossible; 2) Shalmaneser III is obviously one of the contemporaries of Nabu-apla-iddina, but they are placed in different units. Thus the way in which the parallel pairs are arranged, that is, the way the scribes drew those horizontal dividing lines, must be the key for our understanding of the ScKL. If we set aside the methods of the scribes for the present and design a “genuine” synchronistic list ourselves, the most common situation we will encounter – in reality – must be the parallels of “one to more” and “more to one”: that is, one king of one land will be contemporary with two or more kings of the other land. Under those circumstances, at least some of the kings of one land will have to be repeated in more than one unit. For example: Table 11

A possible genuine synchronistic king list with repeated royal names

Assyrian kings

Babylonian kings

A1 A2

B1 B2 B3 B3

A3 A4 A5 … 

B4 … 

Note: A2 is contemporaneous with B2 and B3, while B3 is contemporaneous with A2, A3 and A4.

17  Brinkman, PKB, 29.

The Format of the Synchronistic King List

133

Unfortunately, we have never seen such a king appearing repeatedly in different units in A.117. So it is clear that the scribes must have avoided doing so. This should be the first rule followed by the scribe: one king can appear only once in one unit. This is precisely why we contend that the Babylonian king in ii 18’ of A.117 cannot be Marduk-shapik-zeri,18 for he would have been listed in the next unit. Apart from that, the second rule might be: never produce the type of “more to more” in a single unit. In other words, as we can see, an example of several kings from one land being listed parallel with several kings from the other land in one unit never appears in A.117. Perhaps this is to avoid any confusion in the case of a pair of kings exactly contemporary. And this is why we insist that the right half-line under Marduk-kabit-ahheshu in ii 13’ of A.117 should be an ummânu but not Itti-Marduk-balatu, for Marduk-kabit-ahheshu has already been listed parallel with two Assyrian kings in that unit. Bearing the two rules in mind, we can then investigate the way that the scribes arranged those contemporaneous pairs of kings in independent units. The most frequent cases we can observe in A.117 (especially the first and the third columns) are the contemporary pairs listed in the type of “one to one”, that is, one king is arranged to be parallel with another king in a single unit of a single line. However, as can be imagined, this could scarcely have reflected the complicated situation in reality, for a king from one land would invariably be contemporary with more than one king from the other land, as can be perceived from the table we have drawn above. For what reason would the scribe arrange those contemporaries in such an over-simplified way, if they had really intended to compile a “synchronistic” list? It must be no accident that those parallel kings of the “one to one” type mostly come from the “Dark Ages”. We know nearly nothing about the activities of the kings from those periods and that is why we cannot prove or disprove their synchronizations. So it may be probable that the scribe was equally unsure about the actual situations in the earlier times. Under these circumstances, the scribe might have had no alternative but to adopt this method in order to indicate that those parallel pairs were “more or less” contemporary. Considering that the scribe might have tended to base his work upon reliable sources, which can be reflected through the beginning entry of Erishum I and the entries of ummânū (as we will see in the next chapter), this kind of design could be an eclectic method. But then, another problem cannot be dismissed: the kings from the three partly overlapping Babylonian dynasties in the first column are listed (one after another) in parallel with the Assyrian kings, whose reigns are successive in the chronological 18  Poebel, AS 15, 14.

134

Chapter 3

sequence according to the AKL. If such blatant inaccuracy cannot be attributed arbitrarily to the ignorance of the scribe, the possible explanation might be that the scribes are attempting to comply with an old tradition: the single kingship should be passed from one dynasty to another in a direct line. Clearly, this is how the entry of Shamshi-Adad II (where he is listed as corresponding to eight Kassite kings) can be explained, for to list the kings of those overlapping dynasties in a direct line would make the number of the Babylonian kings much greater than that of their Assyrian counterparts. Nevertheless, the crux of the problem is why it is Shamshi-Adad II, but not his successor or predecessor, who was placed in parallel to so many Babylonian kings. Such an arrangement could never have been decided at random by the scribe. If we note that the entries before and after that of Shamshi-Adad II are all pairs of the “one to one” type, we can reasonably propose that the scribe might have been more convinced of the synchronization of Ishme-Dagan II and Burnaburiash I, listed in the next unit. In other words, the fact that the scribe crowded Shamshi-Adad II and the eight Kassite kings into one unit might have been to ensure that Ishme-Dagan II and Burnaburiash I, the two actual contemporary kings, would be listed together. Since there is no other source available, we cannot directly confirm the synchronization between the two kings. Moreover, we cannot compare the length of the time-span from the beginning of the list to this particular entry between the Assyrian side and the Babylonian side, as the regnal years of those early Kassite kings cannot be restored. Fortunately, however, we can compute the number of generations during that particular time-span for the Assyrian kings as well as the Babylonian kings with the help of the AKL and the BKLa. But before that, the overlapping of the three Babylonian dynasties should be clarified. There are three points we can nail down at first: 1) Iliman, the founder of the First Sealand Dynasty, campaigned against Samsu-iluna and Abishi, the two kings of the First Dynasty of Babylon;19 2) the walls of Der built by Damqi-ilishu, the third king of the First Sealand Dynasty, were torn down by Ammi-ditana, the successor of Abishi;20 and 3) Ea-gamil, the last king of the First Sealand Dynasty, fled to Elam, and then Sealand was conquered by the Kassite king Ulamburiash (the son of Burnaburiash I).21 Accordingly, the reign of Iliman cannot be later than that of Samsu-iluna; the reign of Damqiilishu cannot be later than that of Ammi-ditana; and the reign of Ea-gamil cannot be later than that of Ulamburiash. The general situation of the three overlapping dynasties can be illustrated as follows: 19  Grayson, ABC, 156. 20  Horgan, MCS 2/3 (1952), 52; Finkelstein, YOS 13, No. 359; Ungnad, RLA 2 (1938), 189. 21  Grayson, ABC, 156.

135

The Format of the Synchronistic King List Table 12

The overlapping Babylonian dynasties in column I of A.117

The First Dynasty of Babylon Sumu-la-El Sabium Apil-Sin Sin-muballit Hammurabi Samsu-iluna Abishi Ammi-ditana Ammi-saduqa Samsu-ditana

The First Sealand Dynasty

Iliman Itti-ili-nibi Damqi-ilishu Ishkibal Shushi Gulkishar GÍŠ-EN Peshgaldaramesh Adarakalamma Ekurduanna Melamkurkurra Ea-gamil

The Kassite Dynasty

Gandash Agum I Kashtiliashu I Abi-Rattash Kshtiliashu II Urzigurumash Harba-Shipak Tiptakzi Agum II Burnaburiash I …? Kashtiliashu III Ulamburiash …

From the table above, we can presume about 17 generations at most from Sumu-la-El to Burnaburiash I for the Babylonian side (8 generations from Sumula-El to Ammi-ditana for the kings of Babylon and 9 generations from Ishkibal to Ea-gamil for the kings of Sealand).22 As for the Assyrian side, we can get 26 kings from Erishum I to Ishme-Dangan II. But one important fact should be borne in mind: the total length of the six reigns from Ashur-apla-idi to Adasi (the six successors of Ashur-dugul) would have lasted for one year.23 So the six “generations” can be ignored and we thus obtain in the end 26–6 = 20 generations at most. By comparing the two numbers, the discrepancy of about three generations would make it probable that the length of the time-span 22  The possible reign(s) between Burnaburiash I and Ulamburiash can be overlooked, for the latter is the son of the former. For details see the commentaries on ii 19’–21’ of A.117. It should also be noted that Dalley dated the reigns of Peshgaldaramesh and Adarakalamma towards the end of the First Dynasty of Babylon (at the earliest) or before the Amarna Period (at the latest). See Dalley, CUSAS 9, 4. 23  See Baker, RA 104 (2010), 131–162.

136

Chapter 3

for the Assyrian side is equal to that for the Babylonian side.24 That is to say, if the initial kings of the list, Erishum I and Sumu-la-El, were “more or less” contemporary, the synchronization of Ishme-Dangan II and Burnaburiash I is not impossible. If this could be confirmed (although we cannot adduce more units in A.117 to support our judgment because of the lacunae25), we might conclude that this was one of the “standards” by which the scribes drew those dividing lines: namely, to list the parallel pairs whose synchronizations cannot be proven by available sources as “one to one” and to group the kings (usually listed in the type of “one to more” or “more to one”26) into one unit if the synchronization of the parallel kings in the next entry can be proven. The simple frame is as follows: Table 13

The synchronistic type of “One to One”

Assyrian kings

Babylonian kings

A1 A2 A3 A4

B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7

A5

That is, the synchronizations of the Assyrian kings (from A1 to A4) and the Babylonian kings (from B1 to B6) cannot be determined exactly, but the synchronization of A5 and B7 is certain. Thus, in order to guarantee that A5 and B7 are placed as a parallel pair, A4 and the three Babylonian kings (from B4 to B6) are grouped together into one unit, while the Assyrian kings (from A1 to A3) and the Babylonian kings (from B1 to B3) above them are listed parallel in the type of “one to one”. 24  It should be noted that some Assyrian kings reigned only for a few years according to the AKL, e.g. Ashur-dugul ruled for 5 years, Lullaja for 5 years and Sharma-Adad II for 2 years. 25  Another similar case would be the entry of Ashur-bel-kala, where the later Babylonian kings (the last ones of the Second Isin Dynasty) are certainly not contemporary with that Assyrian king. It cannot be excluded that the Second Isin Dynasty and the Second Sealand Dynasty also partly overlapped. 26  This is not to say that all the pairs of “one to more” or “more to one” would be nonsynchronistic.

The Format of the Synchronistic King List

137

We can see from the text of A.117 that the scribe always draws a horizontal dividing line under the name of an ummânu, separating this ummânu from the king(s) in the next unit. This would be the second “standard” for drawing the dividing lines. Admittedly, this design is very reasonable. If another king were to be listed directly under an ummânu in the same unit, then a certain problem would arise, i.e. this ummânu would be sandwiched between two kings who are contemporary with the king from the other land, which can be illustrated as follows: Table 14

An ummânu sandwiched by two successive kings

Assyrian kings

Babylonian kings

A1

B1 ummânu of B1 B2

MIN

Note: A1 is the common contemporary of B1 and B2.

As we will demonstrate in the next chapter, the space corresponding to the name of ummânu must be kept blank, but not inscribed with the sign “MIN”, because “MIN” can only be used to stand for kings or royal titles. If so, as we can observe from the table above, the two half-lines below A1 would be mingled, that is, the first one is kept blank, but the next one is marked with “MIN”. Clearly, this would isolate the name of A1 from the sign “MIN”, breaking the continuity of royal sequence indicated by “MIN”.27 So in order to avoid such kind of confusion, the scribe will have to place B2 into the next unit. Under this circumstance, however, the synchronization of A1 and B2 will not be indicated. The relevant solution to this inaccuracy will involve the third “standard” for drawing the dividing lines. As for that, we can find several examples in the third column of A.117. According to our commentaries on that column, from Adad-nirari II to Shamshi-Adad V, the synchronisms between Assyria and Babylonia can be restored as follows:

27  Poebel, JNES 2/1 (1943), 61.

138 Table 15

Chapter 3 The synchronistic Assyrian and Babylonian kings in the 9th Century BC

Assyrian kings

Babylonian kings

Adad-nirari II Adad-nirari II Tukulti-Ninurta II Ashurnasirpal II Ashurnasirpal II Shalmaneser III Shalmaneser III Shamshi-Adad V Shamshi-Adad V

Shamash-mudammiq Nabu-shuma-ukin I Nabu-shuma-ukin I Nabu-shuma-ukin I Nabu-apla-iddina Nabu-apla-iddina Marduk-zakir-shumi I Marduk-zakir-shumi I Marduk-balassu-iqbi

Note: The contemporaries in the shadow are not indicated by A.117.

By comparing the table above with A.117, we can find that the synchronizations of Adad-nirari II and Nabu-shuma-ukin I,28 Shalmaneser III and Nabuapla-iddina29 as well as Shamshi-Adad V and Marduk-zakir-shumi I,30 which can be confirmed by the substantial evidence, are not indicated in A.117. But an important clue which is not rendered by A.117 itself must be meaningful and noteworthy: Nabu-apla-iddina died in the 8th year of Shalmaneser III,31 that is, Shalmaneser III was in fact synchronistic with Nabu-apla-iddina for only 8 years, but with Marduk-zakir-shumi I for about 27 years. Following this clue, we can also get that: 1) the accession year of Shamshi-Adad V would be very close to the last year of Marduk-zakir-shumi I (i.e. the accession year of Marduk-balassu-iqbi);32 2) the accession year of Ashurnasirpal II would be very close to the last year of Nabu-shuma-ukin I (i.e. the accession year of Nabu-apla-iddina).33 Accordingly, neither the synchronization bween 28  Grayson, ABC, 166. 29  Grayson, ABC, 167. 30  Parpola and Watanabe, SAA 2, 4–5. 31  Grayson, RIMA 3, A.0.102.16: 44’–45’. 32  According to the AKL, Shalmaneser III, the predecessor of Shamshi-Adad V, ruled for 35 years. See Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 114. As suggested by Brinkman, Marduk-zakirshumi I, the successor of Nabu-apla-iddina, might have ruled for 27 years. See Brinkman, PKB, 193, n. 1181. 33  According to the AKL, Ashurnasirpal II, the predecessor of Shalmaneser III, ruled for 25 years. See Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 114. As suggested by Brinkman, Nabu-apla-iddina might have ruled for at least 33 years. See Brinkman, PKB, 182–183, n. 1121.

The Format of the Synchronistic King List

139

Shamshi-Adad V and Marduk-zakir-shumi I nor that between Ashurnasirpal II and Nabu-shuma-ukin I would have lasted for a long time. Perhaps this is precisely why those synchronisms are overlooked in A.117: the scribes might have only recorded the “main” contemporary pairs. In other words, the counterpart of a certain king must be the one with whom that king ruled simultaneously during most of his reign.34 Thus, a dividing line will be drawn under that very pair of kings. To sum up, the analysis of the arrangement of the contemporary pairs of kings is the key to understanding the format of the ScKL (A.117). At the same time, speaking for the scribe, the process of arranging those contemporaries consists simply in how he draws the dividing lines under some certain pairs. To a large extent, the “inaccuracies” of those contemporary kings are created by the methods applied by the scribe to draw the dividing lines. First of all, we have concluded two basic rules for the work of the scribe: 1) never list one king repeatedly in two or more units and 2) never produce the corresponding pairs in the type of “more to more” (i.e. several kings of one land are set opposite several kings of the other land) in one single unit. Subsequently, we have tentatively deduced three “standards” by which the scribe draws the dividing lines. The first is that the scribe would list the pairs of kings whose synchronizations cannot be confirmed by available sources in the type of “one to one” and cram all the kings from two lands (in the type of “one to more” or “more to one”) together into one unit immediately preceding a confirmed pair of contemporary kings to ensure that the confirmed pair of contemporaries would be parallel in the next unit. The second is to draw dividing lines under the names of ummânū so that no king would be listed directly under an ummânu in the same unit. The third is to draw dividing lines under those contemporary pairs of kings who are contemporary with each other during the greater part of their reigns.

34  This is precisely the theory of Weidner for interpreting the blank space corresponding to Enlil-nadin-apli in Line 4 of KAV 12. See Weidner, MVAG 20/4 (1917), 8–9.

Chapter 4

The Composition of the Synchronistic King List Several issues relating to the composition of the ScKL will be discussed in this chapter. These issues are concerned with the date of the ScKL (A.117 and A.118), the beginning entry in A.117, the number of the kings of both Assyria and Babylonia listed in A.117, the use of the ditto sign “MIN”, the meanings of ummânu and the implications of the Babylonian royal title “King of Akkad”. We will see later that the discussions about these issues are fundamental to our further analysis of the purpose of the ScKL. 1

The Date of the Synchronistic King List

The method we usually use to date a king list is to deduce the reign under which the list was composed, by the last entry listed in the document itself. For example, the NaKL (ending with Tiglath-pileser II) may date to the reign of Ashur-dan II,1 while the KhKL (ending with Ashur-nirari V) to the reign of Tiglath-pileser III and the SDAS (ending with Shalmaneser V) to the reign of Sargon II.2 The reason is that the number of the regnal years is added to almost every king, from which we know that the list must be composed after the reign of the last king, or to be precise, during the reign of a new king, whose reign is not yet listed in the document. However, this method cannot be applied directly to dating the ScKL, because the exemplars of the ScKL, except for A.117 and A.118, are all small fragments, or unknown parts of the original tablets, thus lacking the last entries of the original lists. Moreover, even in A.117 and A.118, the regnal years of kings are not recorded; that is to say, we cannot determine that the last reigns listed in the two exemplars had already ended when they were compiled. Nevertheless, the information from the last entries of A.117 and A.118 can offer the most valuable clue for our work and our dating of the ScKL will be limited to those two exemplars alone. Firstly, a strong signal can be perceived in the last entries of A.117 and A.118: the title of “King of Assyria and Babylon”, which is attributed to those Assyrian monarchs who ever conquered or ruled Babylonia (such as Sennacherib and 1  A dividing line is drawn under Tiglath-pileser II, with much space uninscribed on the tablet. See Poebel, JNES 1/3 (1942), 251. See also Hallo, EI 14 (1978), 3. 2  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 101; Hagens, Or 74 (2005), 26.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004430921_005

The Composition of the Synchronistic King List

141

Esarhaddon).3 Clearly, this reflects the great honor of the conquerors, since even Sennacherib, who had never assumed the Babylonian royal title in his own royal inscriptions, was also granted this title. Judging simply from this perspective, the two exemplars are surely Assyrian documents, that is, they are produced from the standpoint of Assyria or for the benefit of Assyria. In contrast, the Babylonians would have had no interest in or incentive for glorifying their suzerain or even enemy – such as Sennacherib, who cruelly destroyed Babylonia and left the land kingless for eight years – in an official king list. Additional evidence can be seen in the Assyrian royal genealogies, recorded not only for Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal, but also for Erishum I, the first Assyrian king in A.117. The Babylonian monarchs, however, are not granted any specific filiation.4 Most importantly, the provenance of the two exemplars indicates that A.117 might have come from a library of a temple at Ashur (for a tablet recording instructions for the personnel of Ashur temple was also found in the same trench5) and A.118 might have belonged to the private house of an exorcist family of Ashur during the reign of Ashurbanipal or even later.6 Given that the tablet of the KhKL was produced by a temple scribe at Arbela and the SDAS was owned by an exorcist at Ashur,7 it is probable that A.117 and A.118 might have similar origins to those of the KhKL and the SDAS; that is, both lists can be ascribed – in broader terms – to the sources of the AKL in general. 1.1 The Date of A.118 We will turn our attentions to A.118 first, for the solution to dating A.118 will be, to some extent, conducive to dating A.117. A.118 was adduced by Na‌ʾaman as an important source when he was discussing the chronological scheme for the last days of the Assyrian Empire.8 Na‌ʾaman argued that Ashur-etil-ilani (the last entry in A.118) would have died with Kandalanu (who might have been listed parallel with Ashur-etil-ilani, according to him) in the same year, and that the death of the two kings would have provided the incentive for the scribe to compose A.118. Later, this suggestion was echoed by Zawadzki,9 who accepted the chronological scheme 3  A.117, iv 10’, 12’; A.118, iv’ 1’, 4’. This title must also have been given to Tiglath-pileser III and Shalmanesr V, although both entries are lost at the end of Column III. 4  Although it is recorded that Nergal-ushezib is son of Gahul and Mushezib-Marduk is son of Dakkuru, such a description would indicate their tribal origins, but not their real filiation. 5  Pedersén, ALCA II, 83. 6  Pedersén, ALCA II, 58. 7  Gelb, JNES 13/4 (1954), 229–230. 8  Na‌ʾaman, ZA 81 (1991), 248–249. See the commentaries on iv 7’ of A.118. 9  Zawadzki, ZA 85 (1995), 69–70.

142

Chapter 4

provided by Na‌ʾaman, but disagreed with his proposition that A.118 was composed after the death of Ashur-etil-ilani. According to Zawadzki, this list was compiled while Ashur-etil-ilani was still alive (on the throne), because a “basic rule” in the ScKL can be observed that “a new entry was made shortly after a new king was instated” and the entry of Kandalanu in iv 6’ of A.118 was made to record the accession of Kandalanu while Ashurbanipal continued his rule. However, Zawadzki did not demonstrate how this “basic rule” was determined (e.g., we cannot see the reason why it is inappropriate to attribute the date of A.117, which ends with the entry of Ashurbanipal, to the period after the death of Ashurbanipal, as suggested by Na‌ʾaman10), although the “basic rule” itself is highly reasonable. In fact, as we have demonstrated in the commentaries on iv 7’ of A.118, the year of Sin-shum-lishir and Sin-shar-ishkun recorded in the UKL, was most likely the interim (627–626 BC) between the demise of Kandalanu and the accession of Nabopolassar. So if A.118 was composed after the reign of Ashur-etil-ilani (who ruled for at least four years11) ended, there would have been two Babylonian counterparts corresponding to him. But the fact is that there is only one Babylonian royal name, which we have restored as “Sinshum-lishir”, in that line. Therefore, it might be possible that A.118 was produced shortly after Sin-shum-lishir was installed on the Babylonian throne. Although one may assume that the successor of Ashur-etil-ilani, i.e. Sinshum-lishir12 or Sin-shar-ishkun, would have complied A.118 after the death of Ashur-etil-ilani yet not registered his own name in this list (for he was already the king of Assyria at that time), this assumption still seems to be untenable, because Assyria was then fighting against Babylonia (for Nabopolassar might have seized the Babylonian kingship in the first year of Ashur-etil-ilani according to our reconstructions13) and the Assyrian authority would have had no reason to produce such a king list containing those Babylonian monarchs. 10  Na‌ʾaman, ZA 81 (1991), 252. 11  Brinkman and Kennedy, JCS 35 (1983), 53. 12  It cannot be decided with certainty whether or not Sin-shum-lishir controlled Assyria or even the whole of Babylonia. Only the sources dated with his accession year have been found at Babylon, Nippur and Ruʾa. The evidence for the recognition of Sin-shum-lishir as “king of Assyria” (in his accession year) comes from BE 8/1 141 (in which the reading of the name “Sin-shum-lishir” was once disputed) and BM 82563. See Clay, BE 8/1, 12; Dubberstein, JNES 3/1 (1944), 41, n. 30; Poebel, JNES 2/1 (1943), 89–90, n. 33–34; Brinkman and Kennedy, JCS 35 (1983), 53–54; Na‌ʾaman, ZA 81 (1991), 247; Frame, BPH, 212–213; Da-Riva, AoF 28 (2001), 45. 13  A line in one contract tablet from Nippur (Krückmann, TMH 2/3, No. 35; San Nicolò, BR 8/7, No. 63) might provide a pair of synchronisms: the 3rd year of […] = the accession year

The Composition of the Synchronistic King List

143

1.2 The Date of A.117 Accordingly, if it is indeed plausible that A.118 was composed when Ashuretil-ilani (the last entry in that list) was still on the throne, then A.117 must have been compiled during the reign of Ashurbanipal. Otherwise, we cannot explain why the name of Ashur-etil-ilani appears in A.118, but not in A.117, if the latter was also composed during the reign of Ashur-etil-ilani, i.e., after the reign of Ashurbanipal ended. Apart from that, another supporting clue can be found in the statements of royal filiations of the Assyrian kings listed in the last column of A.117, that is: Esarhaddon, son of Sennacherib (iv 12’ of A.117), and Ashurbanipal, son of Esarhaddon (iv 18’ of A.117). However, the filiation of Sennacherib is not recorded, i.e. we cannot find a mention of “Sennacherib, son of Sargon II” or anything similar in those entries of that king.14 This fact can be taken as a subtle indication. As we can see in the Assyrian royal inscriptions, when tracing his own genealogies, a king would, under most circumstances, trace his filiations as far as his grandfather, e.g.: I am PN (Personal Name), son of PN 1, (who is) son of PN 2. In contrast, the unusual exceptions which mention three or even more generations are quite rare.15 Thus, the usual practice might represent the formal pattern of relating the king’s filiations, while those rare exceptions mentioning three or more generations might be specifically intended to emphasize the legitimacy of their kingship, declaring that they are authentic Assyrian kings from a long Assyrian royal genealogical line. If so, when we come back to the text of A.117, the royal filiations recorded in the last column can be concluded as (in the reverse order): Ashurbanipal, son of Esarhaddon, (who is) son of Sennacherib. That is to say, the context might be delivering some kind of latent information: it seems quite likely to be the voice of Ashurbanipal himself. In contrast, it would hardly have been likely for the successor of Ashurbanipal to mention his great-grandfather Sennacherib. of Sin-shar-ishkun. Oates restored that unknown king as Ashur-etil-ilani or Nabopolassar, but San Nicolò as Ashur-etil-ilani, and von Soden as Sin-shum-lishir. See Oates, CAH 3/2, 169; San Nicolò, BR 8/7, No. 63; von Soden, ZA 58 (1967), 246. However, Borger suggested a different reading for that line, i.e. it may be not the 3rd year of […], but the 23rd day [of the Month of …]. See Borger, JCS 19/3 (1965), 65–66; see also Oelsner, AOAT 267, 648. 14  According to Grayson, Sennacherib never mentioned his father, Sargon II, in his own royal inscriptions. But this unusual practice might be due to the possibility that the unexpected death of Sargon II could have become some kind of “ominous dread” for Sennacherib. See Grayson, CAH 3/2 (1991), 118. 15  Those exceptions can be seen in: RIMA, A.0.33.1, 14; A.0.34.3; A.0.72.1; A.0.73.1, 2, 4, 5; A.0.76.1; A.0.77.8; A.0.98.3–5; A.0.99.1; A.0.100.1; A.0.101.1, 17, 20; A.0.102.1; A.0.104.1.

144

Chapter 4

Lastly, there is still an important element which can help us to date A.117. It is the title of those Babylonian kings: “King of Akkad”, of which a full discussion will be made in the latter part of this chapter. This title is listed clearly in the last column for the counterparts of Sennacherib and in the colophon for all the Babylonian kings. The use of this title in such a king list is quite strange, for hardly any of the Babylonian kings after the fall of the Old Akkadian Kingdom assumed such a title and few of the Assyrian kings employed it for their Babylonian counterparts. Undoubtedly, the title for the kings in a king list is quite important and the selection of a certain title will be never an arbitrary decision. The implication behind the use of this title must be subtle. However, the same use can be seen in the royal inscriptions of Ashurbanipal, where he called Shamash-shuma-ukin, as well as all the Babylonian kings before his brother, “King of Akkad”.16 Furthermore, it must be noted that these inscriptions were produced after the revolt of Shamash-shuma-ukin, while in his earlier royal inscriptions produced before the revolt of Shamash-shuma-ukin Ashurbanipal called his brother simply “King of Babylon”,17 which is the most frequent and formal royal title assumed by the Babylonian kings since the dynasty of Hammurabi. It will be no coincidence that both the royal inscriptions of Ashurbanipal and A.117 proclaim with one accord the same political concept of “King of Akkad”. The only reasonable explanation would be that the two sources above must have been produced with the same motif in the same period, that is, the second half of the reign of Ashurbanipal, when he had already crushed the revolt of Shamash-shuma-ukin and put Kandalanu on the Babylonian throne. In sum, A.117 might date to the reign of Ashurbanipal and A.118 to the reign of Ashur-etil-ilani. This most probably explains why the regnal years of kings are not listed in the ScKL: the last reign, which is also the last entry in the document, had not ended when the text was composed. Looked at from this perspective, the editorial tradition of the ScKL may be different from that of the AKL, for the latter may be “past”, but the former may be “present”. 2

The Beginning Entry of A.117

The beginning entries in the exemplars of the ScKL, except for A.117, cannot be restored. The colophon of A.117 records that the list begins with Erishum I, who is the 33rd king of Assyria according to the AKL, and Sumu-la-El, who is 16  Novotny and Jeffers, RINAP 5/1, No. 11: vi 13’. 17  Frame, RIMB 2, B.6.32.19: 27’.

The Composition of the Synchronistic King List

145

the 2nd king of the First Babylonian Dynasty according to the BKLa as well as the BKLb. Nearly all the exemplars of the AKL (the KhKL and the SDAS) are earlier than A.117, but the BKLa is later than that. So the problem is: why does A.117 begin with Erishum I and Sumu-la-El? It seems highly probable that the sources of the AKL and those taken as references by the compilers of the BKLa might also have been available for the author of A.117. The investigation of the first entry of A.117 should be able to provide some useful clues for establishing the editorial tradition of the ScKL. 2.1 The Initial Assyrian King: Erishum I It may be no accident that all of the 32 Assyrian kings preceding Erishum I are separated into three groups in the AKL (the KhKL and the SDAS).18 In other words, Erishum I can be taken as the first king in the 4th group, in which all the remaining kings are listed in an almost direct genealogical line. For what reason would the first three groups be isolated from the remaining section headed by Erishum I? To a large extent, this question is closely connected with the question of why A.117 would begin with Erishum I. The three groups in the KhKL and the SDAS can be seen as follows:19 Table 16

The first three groups of kings in the Assyrian king list

KhKL

SDAS

Sequence

Kings

i1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6

i1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 4 5 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Tudija Adamu Jangi Suhlamua Harharu Mandaru Imsu Harsu Didanu Hanu Zuabu

18  The first group contains 17 kings, while the second group 10 kings (in reverse order) with the last one being repeated, and the third group 6 kings. Thus, the total number is: 17+10– 1+6 = 32. 19  Gelb, JNES 13/4 (1954), 222–224; Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 102–105.

146 Table 16

Chapter 4 The first three groups of kings in the assyrian king list (cont.)

KhKL

SDAS

Sequence

Kings

7 7 8 8 9 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 23 24 24 25 26

6 6 7 7 8 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 22 23 23 24 25

12 13 14 15 16 17

Nuabu Abazu Belu Azarah Ushpia Apiashal Total of 17 kings who dwelled in tents. Aminu son of Ilu-kabkabi Ilu-kabkabi son of Jazkur-ilu Jazkur-ilu son of Jakmeni Jakmeni son of Jakmesi Jakmesi son of Ilu-Mer Ilu-Mer son of Hajani Hajani son of Samanu Samanu son of Hale Hale son of Apiashal Apiashal son of Ushpia Total of 10 kings whose fathers (are known?) Sulili son of Aminu Kikkia Akia Puzur-Ashur I Shalim-ahum Ilu-shuma Total of 6 kings [who occur on (?)] bricks, whose eponyms have been destroyed (?)

26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 27 28 29 30 31 32

a For the probable reading of this name as “Lillamu” see Chen, NABU 2019/1, 19–20.

We can derive two hints from the first group: 1) those kings appear to take Semitic names, and 2) they are still tent-dwellers. These two hints would imply that they are probably the leaders of nomadic tribes who did not reside at Ashur at that time.20 As for the second group, three points are worth noticing: 20  Poebel, JNES 1/3 (1942), 252; Landsberger, JCS 8/3 (1954), 109, n. 206; Oates, SAHNI, 21–24; Hallo, EI 14, (1978), 5.

The Composition of the Synchronistic King List

147

1) their fathers are known; 2) they are listed in the reverse order; 3) the name of Apiashal, who is the last king in the first group, is repeated. The six kings in the third group might have appointed their eponyms, to whom we do not know exactly what happened because of the lacuna in the subscript. In fact, scholars do not agree on the origin of the kings in the first three groups. The debate centers on whether or not those kings belong to the ancestors or family members of Shamshi-Adad I. Probably in view of the fact that the name “Ilu-kabkabi” in the second group appears again in the entry of Shamshi-Adad I in the AKL,21 Landsberger identified the second “Ilu-kabkabi”, who was the father of Shamshi-Adad I, with the first one and proposed that the kings of the second group would be the “Ahnentafel” (“ancestor table”) of Shamshi-Adad I, who might have listed his own forefathers into the “Grundstock” (“groundwork”) of the AKL to legitimate the Assyrian kingship he usurped.22 This proposition was accepted by Finkelstein, who further argued that the kings in the first group in the AKL would also have been the ancient ancestors of Shamshi-Adad I. Finkelstein compared the names in the “Genealogy of Hammurabi Dynasty” (GHD) with those in the first group in the AKL and thought that most of the names in the two sources were identical:23 Table 17

Comparisons between the names in the genealogy of Hammurabi dynasty and those in the Assyrian king list by Finkelstein

GHD (Obv.)

AKL (SDAS, Col.i)

4’ Ḫeana 6’ Ditānu 7’ Zummabu 3’ Ya-am-qú-uz-zu-ḫa-lam-ma 1’ A-ra-am-ma-da-ra 2’ Tu-ub-ti-ya-mu-ta 5’ Nam-zu-ú 8’ Nam-ḫu-ú

5’ Ḫanū 4’ Didānu 5’ Zu’abu 2’ Ya-an-qì Saḫ(síḫ / suḫ4)-la-mu 3’ Ḫar-ḫa-ru Man-da-ru 1’ Ṭu-di-ya A-da-mu 4’ Em-ṣu ḪAR-ṣu 6’ Nu-a-bu

21  Gelb, JNES 13/4 (1954), 212, i 39’; 213, i 38’. 22  Landsberger, JCS 8/1 (1954), 33; JCS 8/3 (1954), 109. 23  Finkelstein, JCS 20 (1966), 95–118.

148

Chapter 4

The similarities of the first three pairs are “self-evident” according to Finkelstein. However, from the fourth to the sixth, the correspondences were built by cutting every single name in the GHD into two names. In addition, considering that “Em-ṣu” and “ḪAR-ṣu” are “crammed together” in a single line in the SDAS and the sign “IM” is quite similar to the sign “ḪAR”, Finkelstein proposed that only one of the two names may be the very original the scribe intended to write, which was probably the variant of “Nam-zu-ú” in the GHD. Lastly, the equation of “Nam-ḫu-ú” and “Nu-a-bu” was deduced through the following scenario: when the scribe of the AKL began to write the intended name such as “Nu-um-ḫu-ú”, his gaze fell on the wrong place (the previous “Zu-a-bu”) and he wrote it falsely as “Nu-a-bu”. Furthermore, when discovering that the number of the kings of the first two groups in the AKL (which is 17 + 9 = 26) is more or less equal to that of the kings before Hammurabi (which is 27) in the GHD, Finkelstein argued that the first twelve kings in the AKL and the GHD may be the common ancestors of Shamshi-Adad I and Hammurabi, with the rest merely going two separate ways. Finkelstein thus found it reasonable to conclude that “the prototype document imbedded in the first two sections of AKL had nothing whatever to do with a list of Assyrian kings”.24 The theories of Landsberger and Finkelstein were developed by Yamada, who interpreted the first three groups of Assyrian kings in the AKL as follows: 1) the 17 tent-dwellers in the first group might be the chieftains of the Amorite tribes from which Shamshi-Adad I originated; 2) the 9 kings in the second group would be the direct dynastic predecessors of Shamshi-Adad I; 3) the 6 kings in the third group are separated from the next 6 kings preceding Shamshi-Adad I, because the regnal years of the former were unknown but those of the latter were known.25 Similarly, on the basis of the theories of Landsbergre and Finkelstein, Freydank and Garelli attempted to interpret the separation of the first three groups of early kings from the perspective of their lifestyle, whether nomadic or settled either outside or within Ashur city (with the kings in the latter two groups genealogically recognized as the ancestors of Shamshi-Adad I and the native Assyrian kings respectively).26 However, the propositions above present certain difficulties. Firstly, as proven convincingly by Azize and Siddall, the “Ilu-kabkabi” listed in the second group of the AKL and recalled by Adad-nirari III in his royal inscriptions27

24  Finkelstein, JCS 20 (1966), 113. 25  Yamada, ZA 84 (1994), 16–17. 26  Freydank, AoF 3 (1975), 173–175; Garelli, MB, 91–95. 27  Grayson, RIMA 3, A.0.104.1: 23’–24’.

The Composition of the Synchronistic King List

149

cannot be identified as the father of Shamshi-Adad I,28 who must in fact have been a local ruler29 but was never recalled by Shamshi-Adad I as “king of Assyria” in his royal inscriptions.30 Moreover, the identification of the royal names in the GHD and the AKL suggested by Finkelstein was proven to be inaccurate, for a later study made by Charpin and Durand offered a different, but more plausible interpretation for those names in the GHD,31 according to which it is not necessary to understand those names in the GHD in the way proposed by Finkelstein. Even before the study of Charpin and Durand was published, Hallo had voiced his disagreement with the theory of Finkelstein. According to Hallo, the first 11 names (as analyzed by Finkelstein) in the GHD, corresponding to the first 12 kings (or 11 if “Emṣu” and “Ḫarṣu” are identical) in the AKL, may stand for “the putative ancestry of (all) the Amorite dynasties before Old Babylonian times”, although it can hardly be determined which of the two traditions might be authentic.32 From the perspective of Assyrian and Babylonian historiography, Hallo suggested that the purpose of the Assyrian scribe would have been similar with that of the Babylonian scribe, that is, “to provide the founder of Assur’s independence with a genealogy linking him to the Amorite tribes that swept all over Mesopotamia upon the fall of Ur” and so the first portion of the AKL as well as that of the GHD might be “largely artificial constructs”.33 Accordingly, there seems to be no fully accepted solid evidence for building a connection between the first three groups of kings in the AKL and the family of Shamshi-Adad I, if Shamshi-Adad I’s father cannot be identical with the namesake in the second group of the AKL and the similarities between the names in the first group of the AKL and those in the GHD are also not definitive. On the other hand, however, we can neither prove nor disprove with certainty that those kings in the first three groups of the AKL were really the ancient native kings of Assyria, although the 17 kings in the first group could be labeled as “the Genealogy of Ushpia”,34 whose name had been recalled by 28  Poebel, JNES 1/3 (1942), 274–275, 286–287; Azize, Abr-N 35 (1998), 13–15; Siddall, Or 76 (2007), 368–378. 29  Charpin, OBO 160/4, 148. 30  Grayson, RIMA 1, A.0.39.9–10. Actually, Shamshi-Adad I seldom mentioned his father in his royal inscriptions. 31  For example: Ya-am-qú-uz-zu-ha-lam-ma < Yamqut-šum-HA.LAM.MA = “La ruine s’abattit sur lui”; Tu-ub-ti + ya-mu-ta < Ṭubtî-Yamûta ≈ “Mon Bonheur est mort”; A-ra-am-ma-da-ra < Aram + maṭara ≈ “Pays d’Aram” + “pluvieux/humide”. See Charpin and Durand, RA 80 (1986), 160–161. 32  Hallo, EI 14 (1978), 5. 33  Hallo, EI 14 (1978), 5. 34  Hallo, EI 14 (1978), 2–3.

150

Chapter 4

Shalmaneser I and Esarhaddon.35 For these reasons, the analysis on the origin of the first three groups of kings preceding Erishum I would contribute little to the explanation as to why they are separated from all the other kings. It might be better to return to the text of the AKL to investigate the editorial patterns for the first three groups. As noted by Poebel, we can summarize three basic elements or parameters from the text of the AKL: the royal names, the filiations and the regnal years (depending on the Eponym List).36 Normally, in most cases, all three elements would be included for each entry in the AKL. But as we observe from the first three groups, the first group contains only the royal names of the kings without recording their genealogies or regnal years; the second group lists both the royal names of the kings and their fathers, but does not mention their regnal years; the third group records only the royal names of the kings, but – more importantly – mentions the eponyms for the first time in the text of the AKL. Poebel thought that the first mention of eponyms proved that the sources of eponym lists might have already existed during the period of the kings in the third group (but not before that time, although the “limmu institution” would have gone back to “a much earlier period”) but were not preserved when the AKL was composed.37 According to Veenhof, however, the last verb “ú-tu-ni” in the subscript of the third group probably means not the eponyms have been “destroyed”, but something like “the eponyms of these six kings were not available to the writer”.38 Veenhof thus concluded that the “limmu institution” had already been established during the reign of Erishum I,39 whose regnal years can be confirmed by the Kültepe Eponym List.40 Nevertheless, regardless of whether or not the “limmu institution” begins with the reign of Erishum I, the truth must be that the full eponym lists were more likely not to have been preserved or available before the time of Erishum I. Therefore, the separation of the first three groups of kings preceding Erishum I from all the other kings in the AKL might be due to the fact that the information on those early kings is incomplete: 1) for the first group, neither the filiations nor the regnal years are known; 2) for the second group, only the regnal years are unknown; 3) for the third group, neither the filiations nor the regnal years are known, but the sources of eponyms might have existed in the time of those kings (though they were not available to the scribe of 35  Grayson, RIMA 1, A.0.77.1: 113’; RINAP 4, No. 57: iii 17’. 36  Poebel, JNES 1/3 (1942), 280. 37  Poebel, JNES 1/3 (1942), 278–280. 38  Veenhof, OALYE, 21. 39  Veenhof, OALYE, 20–21; CA, 63. 40  Veenhof, OALYE, 6–11; NABU 2007/3, 60.

151

The Composition of the Synchronistic King List

the AKL). That is to say, it is after the first three groups, i.e. beginning with Erishum I, that all three elements (the royal names, the royal filiations and the reign lengths) indispensable to the entries in the AKL are fully documented. Especially in view of the fact that the “limmu institution” was always the official dating system of Assyria, continuing to function until the end of the NeoAssyrian Empire, it is probable that, from the time of Erishum I onwards, the relevant historical sources must have become more certain. In light of these assumptions, the fact that A.117 begins with Erishum I would imply that the compiler of the ScKL intended to base his work upon a solid foundation provided by reliable historical sources. 2.2 The Initial Babylonian King: Sumu-la-El The first Babylonian king in A.117 is Sumu-la-El, who is listed in the BKLb as the second king of the First Dynasty of Babylon, succeeding directly Sumu-abum. The Date List A (BM 92702) ending with the 16th year of Ammi-saduqa41 and the GHD ending with Ammi-ditana also list Sumu-la-El as the successor of Sumu-abum.42 In fact, however, Sumu-la-El might have been the contemporary of Sumu-abum, i.e. the reigns of the two kings may have partly overlapped. According to Goddeeris, the most convincing evidence for the contemporaneity of Sumu-abum and Sumu-la-El comes from the year-name list.43 The parallels between the year-names of Sumu-abum and those of Sumu-la-El can be seen as follows:44 Table 18

Comparisons between the Year-Names of Sumu-abum and those of Sumu-la-El

Years of Sumu-abum

Year-Names

Years of Sumu-la-El

Year-Names

1

The year: Sumu-abum, the king, built the great wall of Babylon The year following (the last year)a

5

The year: he built the great wall of Babylon

6

The year following (the last year)

2

41  Horsnell, YNFDB I, 234–246. 42  Finkelstein, JCS 20 (1966), 96–97. 43  Goddeeris, OLA 109, 319–320. 44  Horsnell, YNFDB II, 43–63.

152 Table 18

Chapter 4 Comparisons between the Year-Names of Sumu-abum (cont.)

Years of Sumu-abum

Year-Names

Years of Sumu-la-El

Year-Names

9

The year: he built the wall of Dilbat

Unidentified Year

10

The year: he made the sublime crown of Kish The year: Sumu-abum captured Kazallu and Kish; (and/or) The year: Kazallu was captured The year following (the last year)

19

The year: Sumu-la-El built the wall of Dilbat (?)b The year: he destroyed the high wall of Kish The year: he destroyed the wall of Kazallu and defeated its troops

13

14

20

21

The year following (the last year)

a The first two year-names of Sumu-abum are not preserved in the Date List A, but can be restored from some sources bearing an oath taken by Sumu-abum. See Horsnell, YNFDB I, 4; YNFDB II, 43–44; Goddeeris, OLA 109, 319. b Horsnell transliterated it as “mu bàd dal-batki su-mu-la-èl ba-dù x”, with the last trace “x” being undetermined. See Horsnell, YNFDB II, 62; see also Dekiere, MHET 2/1, No. 21.

Since in some legal documents dated with the year-names listed above an oath was taken by Sumu-abum but the date formulae did not mention his name, Goddeeris thus ascribed these year-names to Sumu-la-El.45 Goddeeris believed that the synchronization of Sumu-abum and Sumu-la-El might have been misunderstood by the later Old Babylonian scribes who composed those year-names.46 Further evidence can be seen in the royal letters from Tell ed-Dēr mentioning Sumu-abum, Sumu-la-El and some other local rulers.47 Thus, as contended by Goddeeris, Sumu-la-El and Sumu-abum might have been two synchronistic local rulers occupying Babylon and an unknown city respectively, although the relations between the two kings are unclear.48 45  Goddeeris, OLA 109, 322. 46  Goddeeris, OLA 109, 321. 47   Al-Aʾdami, Sumer 23 (1967), 151–165; Wu and Dalley, Iraq 52 (1990), 162; Goddeeris, OLA 109, 321. 48  According to Goddeeris, the “vassalage” of Sumu-abum under Sumu-la-El is uncertain. See Goddeeris, OLA 109, 322, 325.

The Composition of the Synchronistic King List

153

According to Wu and Dalley, on the other hand, Sumu-abum and Sumu-la-El might have ruled concurrently in Babylon: the former from the Yahrurum tribe must have been older, more eminent and more peripatetic than the latter from the Amnanum tribe.49 However, judging by the statements in the year-names of both rulers, Sumu-la-El appears to have been more renowned as a “warrior-king”, since only two year-names of Sumu-abum (3, 13) but seven or eight year-names of Sumu-la-El (3, 10? 13, 18, 19, 20, 25, 34) are concerned with military activities.50 To be honest, the military picture reflected by the early Old Babylonian yearnames can be mainly attributed to the campaigns of Sumu-la-El. As suggested by Goddeeris, it would be “only from the reign of Sabium on, after the exploits of Sumu-la-ēl” that the hegemony of the dynasty of Babylon over northern Babylonia was ensured.51 Furthermore, as observed by Goddeeris, another important point is that Hammurabi himself traced his predecessors back to Sumu-la-El, but not to Sumu-abum, in his Codex (iv 47’).52 Therefore, if the scribe of A.117 planned to record the kings of the Babylonian dynasties beginning with the First Dynasty of Babylon, Sumu-la-El, who might have been the actual founder of that dynasty, would naturally be the initial one. From this perspective, the city of Babylon as well as its hegemony over all of Babylonia, as established during the period of that dynasty, would have been one of the points the scribe intended to emphasize. Lastly, the synchronization between Hammurabi and Shamshi-Adad I, as well as Ishme-Dagan I, would have made it possible for Sumu-la-El to have been the contemporary of Erishum I, because between Shamshi-Adad I or Ishme-Dagan I and Erishum I there would have been five or six generations on the Assyrian side, and between Sumu-la-El and Hammurabi there would have been four generations on the Babylonian side. That is to say, if Erishum I heads all the Assyrian kings in the list, then the first Babylonian king would probably have been his actual contemporary, Sumu-la-El.

49  Wu and Dalley, Iraq 52 (1990), 162–163. 50  Horsnell, YNFDB II, 43–63. 51  Goddeeris, OLA 109, 316. See also Beaulieu, HB, 70–71. 52  Goddeeris, OLA 109, 321. Since Dadbanaja was listed immediately befrore Sumu-abum, Finkelstein thus surmised that Sumu-abum and Sumu-la-El might be the two sons of Dadbanaja, but Sumu-la-El would have been the direct ancestor of Hammurabi. See Finkelstein, JCS 20 (1966), 103. Similarly, Edzard proposed that Sumu-abum apparently left no son as heir and his origin was unknown. See Edzard, ZZB, 122.

154 3

Chapter 4

The Number of Kings Listed in A.117

To compute the number of kings as well as their regnal years seems to be a tradition for the king lists of Mesopotamia, as is found in the SKL, the BKLa and the BKLb. Such information is always included in the subscript for each dynasty, where we are told that “there were … kings ruling for … years in that dynasty”. A similar pattern can also be observed in the AKL (the KhKL and the SDAS), where the kings are counted in the subscripts for the first three groups. In addition, the colophon of A.117 also includes the total number of the Assyrian kings and of the Babylonian kings respectively: there are 82 Assyrian kings from Erishum I to Ashurbanipal and 98 Babylonian kings from Sumu-la-El to Kandalanu. The other exemplars of the ScKL, because of the lacunae, cannot be confirmed to contain such information. 3.1 The Number of the Assyrian Kings The number of the Assyrian kings, 82, is clearly inconsistent with the one we get from the AKL,53 by which from Erishum I to Ashurbanipal there are 81 kings. Interestingly, when A.117 was first published by Weidner, he tried to demonstrate the “correctness” of that number. Weidner’s demonstration is simple and plain: 1) in Col. I–IV (of the extant tablet) there are 18 + 14 + 13 + 3 = 48 Assyrian kings; 2) at the beginning of Col. I 11 kings are missing, while at the beginning of Col. II 14 kings and at the end of Col. III 9 kings; 3) so the total number of the Assyrian kings is 48 + 11 + 14 + 9 = 82.54 However, because of the lack of the main exemplars of the AKL (the NaKL, the KhKL and the SDAS) at that time, his calculations, based on a photograph of the tablet, were quite uncertain. In fact, the number of the Assyrian kings preserved on the extant tablet is not 18 + 14 + 13 + 3 = 48, but 18 + 12 + 14 + 3 = 47. Meanwhile, according to the AKL, the number of the kings missing in the lacunae is not 11 + 14 + 9 = 34 either, but 14 + 13 + 7 = 34. So the total number of the Assyrian kings listed in the original tablet of A.117, if we adduce the sources of the AKL as the basis, would be 47 + 34 = 81. The discrepancy between the two numbers (81 and 82) was also noted by Landsberger.55 But Landsberger proposed that the number in A.117 would have been reliable, that is, one unknown king might have been lost in the KhKL 53  Although the latest exemplar of the AKL (the SDAS) ends with Shalmaneser V, the royal sequence from Sargon II to Ashurbanipal can be decided certainly without any doubt. 54  Weidner, MVAG 26/2 (1921), 20. 55  Landsberger, JCS 8/1 (1954), 39, n. 49.

The Composition of the Synchronistic King List

155

because of “a scribal error”. Such an interpretation can hardly be accepted. Firstly, there is no evidence confirming that such an error indeed exists in the KhKL. Second, the number provided by the KhKL can also be obtained from another later exemplar, the SDAS. Lastly, even if the number in the KhKL is false, we cannot come to the conclusion that only one king was lost, for the alternative possibility is that there could actually have been “X” kings listed in the KhKL but lost in the lacunae of A.117 and “X + 1” kings listed in the lacunae of A.117, but lost in the KhKL. However, if we attempt to collect those “Assyrian kings” lost in the AKL in a limited scope, some possible candidates can be seen as follows: 1) Ititi: He is only attested in one inscription found in the temple of Ishtar at Ashur.56 He might have been the ruler of Ashur during the Old Akkadian Period. 2) Azuzu: His name only appears on a copper spear-head found in the temple of Ishtar at Ashur.57 To judge from the inscription, he might have been a vassal ruler of Ashur under Manishtushu (ca. 2269–2255 BC), the king of the Old Akkadian Kingdom. 3) Zarriqum: This name appears on a stone plaque dedicated to Amar-Sin (ca. 2046–2038 BC), the king of the Ur III Dynasty.58 According to Hallo, this name (written in various forms) as it appears in some economic texts from Drehem, Ashur, Susa, Djoha and Tello, must refer to the same person, and so Zarriqum must have been first an official of the Ur III Dynasty and then a governor of Ashur and Susa.59 4) Mutashkur: His name only appears on KAV 14 (VAT 9812),60 a small fragment of the AKL. As suggested by Landsberger, he must have been the son of Ishme-Dangan I, who made him marry the daughter of Zazija, the king of Turukku.61 According to the Mari Letters, Mutashkur might have been installed by the Elamites on the throne at Ekallatu after IshmeDagan I was driven out of that city.62 Veenhof proposed that Mutashkur might have taken the throne between the 31st and the 33rd year of Hammurabi.63 It was also suggested that the successor(s) of Mutashkur 56  Grayson, RIMA 1, A.0.1001. 57  Grayson, RIMA 1, A.0.1002. 58  Grayson, RIMA 1, A.0.1003. 59  Hallo, JNES 15/4 (1956), 220–225. See also Ristvet, CA, 49. 60  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 115. 61  Landsberger, JCS 8/1 (1954), 31. 62  Gasche et al., MHEM 4, 52. 63  Veenhof, MARI 4 (1985), 213.

156

Chapter 4

listed in KAV 14 might have ruled at Ekallatu as a second line of Assyrian rulers parallel with the line of Assyrian kings listed in the AKL (Ashurdugul and his successors) and that the Assyrian state would have been reunited later under Kidin-Ninua.64 However, since there is no evidence confirming that Mutashkur was recognized as king of Assyria, Sassmannshausen thought that KAV 14 could hardly be taken as evidence of “an alternative tradition of Assyrian royal succession”, but was only to indicate that Mutashkur was the royal heir of Ishme-Dagan I.65 5) Re-mu-[…]: His name only appears on KAV 14, with the last elements undecipherable.66 6) Asinu: He must also have been from the family of Shamshi-Adad I. He was mentioned by Puzur-Sin in his inscription.67 Thus, he might have been the one attacked and deposed by Puzur-Sin, if he had been on the throne at that time. Another possibility could be – according to Reade – that Asinu is a governor of the above “Re-mu-[…]” or even none other than “Re-mu-[…]” himself.68 7) Puzur-Sin: He can be confirmed by a well-known inscription (mentioned above) on a stone tablet found at Ashur.69 He claimed to be the “vice-regent of Ashur” and the son of Ashur-bel-shame. According to his inscription, he must have initiated a revolt and ended the rule of the family of Shamshi-Adad I, whom he deprecated as a foreigner not from Ashur. However, it cannot be determined whether or not he succeeded Asinu directly.70 Reade proposed that Puzur-Sin would be identical with Iptar-Sin listed in the AKL.71 8) Ber-nadin-ahhe: It is also suggested that, Ber-nadin-ahhe, an eponym and the son of Ashur-nirari II,72 attested by two legal texts (KAJ 174 and 8) and entitled “PA” (“aklu”),73 is probably an Assyrian king not listed in the AKL.74 Naturally, the first three of these, Ititi, Azuzu and Zarriqum, lived during the time of the Old Akkadian Kingdom and the Ur III Dynasty, and so do not 64  Gasche et al., MHEM 4, 52, n. 237. See also Yamada, CA, 111–113. 65  Sassmannshausen, BaM 37 (2006), 164–165. 66  For the surmise on the traces see Landsberger, JCS 8/1 (1954), 31, n. 2. 67  Grayson, RIMA 1, A.0.40.1001. 68  Reade, JNES 60 (2001), 6. 69  Grayson, RIMA 1, A.0.40.1001. 70  Grayson, ARRIM 3 (1985), 11. 71  Reade, JNES 60 (2001), 6–7. 72  Lewy, IGMV, 326; Fine, HUCA 24 (1952–1953), 190. 73  C AD 1/I, 278; Weidner, AfO 17 (1954–1956), 269. 74  Grayson, ARI 1, 37, n. 89a. See also Furlong, AANEC, 18, n. 17.

The Composition of the Synchronistic King List

157

belong to the period covered by A.117. But as to the question of whether or not one of the other candidates can be taken as the “one more king” in A.117, there is not enough evidence for a conclusive determination. As for the solution to this discrepancy, another two possibilities must be discussed here. One is that the scribe of A.117 might have made an error when computing the total number of those Assyrian kings. This is not improbable; especially considering that such an error exists, for instance, in the BKLb, where the number of the kings of the Second Sealand Dynasty, which should be 11, was recorded as 10 by the scribe. However, the case of the BKLb is special, for we can recognize the error made by the scribe clearly: 1) there are indeed 11 kings for that dynasty in the text of the BKLb;75 2) the number 11 can also be proven by the colophon following that dynasty in the BKLa.76 But the situation in A.117 is different, because more than one third of the original tablet is damaged and it is impossible for us to restore all the kings listed in the original document. Moreover, the number 82 provided by A.117 can be confirmed by none of the other sources. The second possibility may be that when the total number of Assyrian kings was calculated, Ilu-shuma, the father of Erishum I, was also included, for we are told that “from Erishum, son of Ilu-shuma, to Ashurbanipal, son of Esarhaddon, (there are) 82 kings of Assyria.” However, this interpretation is extremely tentative, because: 1) “from Erishum” would have corresponded to “from Sumu-la-El”, implying that the initial Assyrian king must be none other than Erishum I, and 2) “son of Ilu-shuma” might have been arranged to match “son of Esarhaddon”; that is, this expression seems to have been used more to provide a symmetrical structure. In any case, due to the lacunae of the tablet, we cannot determine with any certainty how the discrepancy of “one more king” comes into being. Since the kings listed in the extant tablet of A.117 are wholly consistent with those in the AKL (the KhKL and the SDAS), the inconsistent point(s) must lie in the part(s) of the lacunae. As contended by Yamada, the documents of the AKL must have been redacted continuously over many generations.77 It would thus be natural to observe that many different details exist among the various exemplars of the AKL,78 a significant case of which can be seen in the entry of Shalmaneser II, which was omitted by the NaKL.79 If so, it seems not improbable that the compilation of the ScKL (A.117) would have been another 75  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 100. 76  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 91. 77  Yamada, ZA 84 (1994), 35. 78  Brinkman, Or 42 (1973), 311–312. 79  Nassouhi, AfO 4 (1927), 5, Rev. ii 19’–21’.

158

Chapter 4

expanded redaction of the AKL, with not only an alteration in the number of Assyrian kings, but the incorporation of their Babylonian counterparts as well. 3.2 The Number of the Babylonian Kings The problem of the number of those Babylonian kings is more complicated. It is recorded that there are 98 Babylonian kings in A.117. The only source we can turn to is the BKLa, which is later than A.117 and contains more Babylonian kings than its predecessor. However, the number of the kings from Sumu-la-El to Kandalanu would have been much greater in the BKLa than that in A.117, since from Nabu-mukin-apli to Nabu-shuma-ukin II alone, the number rendered by the BKLa reaches 22.80 As suggested by Weidner,81 the entries of those Assyrian kings who ruled Babylonia directly (assuming the title “king of Assyria and Babylon”) – i.e. Tiglath-pileser III (Pulu), Shalmaneser V (Ululaju), Sargon II, Sennacherib (in two entries), Esarhaddon and probably one repeated entry of Merodachbaladan II in the last column of BKLa – should be ruled out, for the five Assyrian monarchs above were added to the number of Assyrian kings, and Merodach-baladan II, although he seized the Babylonian throne twice, cannot be counted again. Based upon this assumption, Weidner demonstrated – even though the number 98 is “less transparent” – his calculations as follows: 1) the seven entries for the five Assyrian kings and Merodach-baladan II should be subtracted from the 16 entries from Nabu-Mukin-zeri to Kandalanu in the last column of the BKLa, by which we get the number 16 – 7 = 9; 2) according to the BKLa, from the First Dynasty of Babylon to the Elamite Dynasty the number of kings would be 10 + 12 (i.e.11 +182) + 36 + 11 + 3 + 3 + 1 = 76; 3) there would have been 13 kings between Mar-biti-apla-usur (the single king of the so-called “Elamite Dynasty”) and Nabu-Mukin-zeri, who are: Nabu-mukinapli, Ninurta-kudurri-usur II, Mar-biti-ahhe-iddina, Shamash-mudammiq, Nabu-shuma-ukin I, Nabu-apla-iddina, Marduk-zakir-shumi I, Mardukbalassu-iqbi, Eriba-Marduk, Nabu-shuma-ishkun, Nabonassar, Nabu-nadin-zeri and Nabu-shuma-ukin II. Thus, the number of the Babylonian kings in A.117 would be 9 + 76 + 13 = 98. Weidner’s calculations are correct, but the only problem is that the missing Babylonian kings in the third column of A.117 restored by him are quite 80  Gadd, CT 36, Plate 25, iv 6’; Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 92–93. 81  Weidner, MVAG 26/2 (1921), 20–21. 82  Another king listed in A.117 (i 5’) but omitted in the BKLa, whose name is “…[r]i-en” according to Weidner, but “GÍŠ-EN” according to Grayson, should also be included.

The Composition of the Synchronistic King List

159

uncertain. In fact, as we have noted, because of the lacuna at the end of the third column of the BKLa, these missing Babylonian kings cannot be decided directly. Since the number of Babylonian kings from Sumu-la-El to Mar-biti-ahhe-iddina in accordance with the BKLa would be 10 + 12 + 36 + 11 + 3 + 3 + 1 + 3 = 79, the number of the missing Babylonian kings at the end of the third column in A.117 would be 98 – 79 – 583 – 784 = 7, which is equal to the number of the missing Assyrian kings in the same column we deduced above. Alternatively, if we count the Babylonian kings in the extant tablet of A.117, the number would be 23 + 20 + 15 + 7 = 65. To compare with the number of the Babylonian kings restored by scholars until now, the number of the missing Babylonian kings in the lacunae of the first two columns of A.117 would be 12 + 14 = 26. So the number of the missing Babylonian kings in the third column of A.117 would be also 98 – 65 – 26 = 7. Obviously, the number 7 is smaller than that of the possible lost Babylonian kings at the end of Column III we have concluded above (Table 10). To be honest, we shall never be too confident about the calculations above, for our computations are based upon the information of the BKLa, but we do not know to what extent A.117 would be consistent with the BKLa for the entries of those Babylonian kings. If another king of the First Sealand Dynasty was added by A.117, it could be hard to predict what would have happened to other dynasties. In any case, to judge by the number of the Babylonian kings rendered by the colophon in the last column of the BKLa (iv 6’) and that of the missing kings at the end of the third column in A.117, it is highly probable that the discrepancy in the number of Babylonian kings between BKLa and A.117 would mainly come from the missing section between the third and the fourth column in the BKLa and that at the end of the third column in A.117. Considering that the BKLa is later than the ScKL, it cannot be excluded that the two lists would have made use of a common source, although we cannot prove the existence of such a source. If so, the place where the discrepancies between the ScKL and the BKLa come about would also be the part where that common source ends, for they may both have continued to add their own entries respectively following the last entry from that source. To sum up, the details for the number of the Assyrian kings and the Babylonian kings contained in A.117 can be concluded as follows:

83  There would have been five Babylonian kings from Shamash-mudammiq (iii 13’ of A.117) to Marduk-balassu-iqbi (iii 22’ of A.117). 84  There would have been seven Babylonian kings in the last column of A.117.

160

Chapter 4

Table 19

Column

I II III IV

The number of the Assyrian kings and the Babylonian kings in A.117

The extant number

The missing number

The original number

Assyria

Babylonia

Assyria

Babylonia

Assyria

Babylonia

18 12 14 3

23 20 15 7

14 13 7 0

12 14 7 (?) 0

32 25 21 3

35 34 22 (?) 7

82

98

Total Number

4

The Use of “MIN”

In Akkadian as well as Sumerian, the sign “MIN” (two vertical wedges) has two basic meanings: 1) it stands for the numeral “2”, always indicating the dual objects or parts of human body; 2) it can be used as a determinative for DITTO (repetition), which can be translated into “the same” or something similar. The use of the sign in A.117 refers to the second function, denoting the repetition of the royal names and of the royal title, “King of Assyria” or “King of Akkad”. Another sign with the same function is “ILIMMU 4”,85 which is sometimes used as the numeral “9”, but in iv 6’ of A.118 denotes the repetition of the name of Ashurbanipal and of his ummânu Ishtar-shuma-erish. One point is worth noticing when “MIN” is inscribed to denote a royal title. In such a circumstance, “MIN” is written directly after the royal name in the same line. However, the repetition of the royal title would imply that the title of this king is not “the same” as that of his predecessor in the previous unit, but the same as that of the first king in each column. This can be proven by the entries of Ashurbanipal. In those two lines, the title of Ashurbanipal, which should be “King of Assyria”, and that of his two counterparts, Shamash-shuma-ukin and Kandalanu, which should be “King of Akkad”, are both marked with “MIN”. But clearly, neither of them can be taken to mean a repetition of the title of Esarhaddon listed in the previous line, which is “King of Assyria and Babylon”. On the contrary, such “repetition” can only refer back to the titles in the first line of that column. That is, the title of Ashurbanipal would be the same as that 85  Borger, AOAT 305, No. 577.

The Composition of the Synchronistic King List

161

of Sennacherib and the title of Shamash-shuma-ukin and Kandalanu would be identical with that of the Babylonian king corresponding to Sennacherib. If this is in fact the case, we can thus confirm with more certainty that the title of Sennacherib in iv 1’ of A.117 must have been “King of Assyria”, but not “King of Assyria and Babylon”, as has been suggested by some scholars. Apart from denoting the repetition of the royal title, of course, the sign “MIN” is also used in those units where one king is listed parallel with two or more kings of the other land. As proposed by Poebel in his study on the KhKL (where he took i 11’–18’ and ii 7’–9’ in A.117 as the examples), the special function of “MIN” affixed to a certain king might be to indicate that this king would have ruled continuously “without interruption by another reign right up to the reign of the king who is mentioned in the next compartment”, although the very king (replaced with “MIN”) is not actually contemporary with his counterpart, i.e. “no chronological equation whatever was intended”.86 That is, when we see in i 11’–18’of A.117 that Shamshi-Adad II was listed in parallel with eight Kassite kings, with seven signs of “MIN” inscribed below his name, we understand that Shamshi-Adad II and Ishme-Dagan II in the next unit (i 19’) are directly successive, or in other words, there is no any other reign between the two kings, even though Shamshi-Adad II cannot have been synchronistic with all eight of the Kassite kings. Considering that the royal sequence of kings must be the most important information in a king list, such an interpretation would be highly reasonable. Obviously, however, it is not certain that in every unit where “MIN” is inscribed the parallel pairs are not actually synchronistic, for – taking the entry of Adad-nirari II (iii 14’) for instance – although the sign “MIN” standing for Shamash-mudammiq is parallel with Adad-nirari II, the synchronization of the two kings can be well proven. Therefore, the sign “MIN” can be used to confirm the continuity of reigns, but cannot be taken as a criterion to confirm or negate the contemporary pairs. Lastly, we can observe that “MIN” is inscribed only in parallel with the names of the kings, but never with the names of the ummânū. In every unit where the name of an ummânu is listed (e.g. iii 2’, 12’, 15’, 21’ in A.117), the halfline corresponding to the ummânu is always kept blank. At the same time, if the name of the ummânu is quite long, that ummânu occupies the entire line (e.g. iii 17’, 19’, iv 13’ in A.117). It is certain that “MIN” can only be used to replace royal names; thus the ummânū, since they are not kings, would have had no reason to be given such a special mark. If so, this would further support the proposition of Poebel that “MIN” is used by the scribe to denote the continuity of the reigns. 86  Poebel, JNES 2/1 (1943), 61.

162

Chapter 4

However, another point we cannot explain is that “MIN” is not used in all the units where more than one king is listed in parallel with another king. For example, in ii 20’–24’ of A.117 – if the restorations of Weidner are to be accepted – the name of Ashur-bel-kala is rewritten three times, with the next two half-lines being inscribed with “MIN”.87 Similarly, in iv 14’–15’ of A.117 the name of Ashurbanipal is also rewritten without being replaced with “MIN”. In addition, in the entries for Sennacherib, the half-lines below his name (iv 3’–6’, 8’–9’ of A.117) are all kept blank, although his Babylonian counterparts are recorded on the right side.88 5

The Meanings of “Ummânu”

One of the basic meanings of ummânu rendered by CAD is “craftsman, expert or scholar”,89 which is close to one of the explanations in AHw, i.e. “Fachmann, Gelehrter”.90 In precise terms, this word in A.117 as well as in KAV 11, according to CAD, would refer to a “scholar as advisor to the king”. This word was translated as “Chef der Staatskanzlei” (“Head of the State Chancellery”) by Schroeder,91 who proposed that they must have been Assyrian or Babylonian officials with high political status, since they had the privilege of being listed together with the kings in a king list. Although the political function of the ummânū could not be denied, Weidner believed that their chief post should be “the head of the guild of scribes and the leader of the temple archive and schools” and their names were recorded in the list in order to date the tablet from early times with their “signature”.92 Perhaps the best supporting evidence is the fact that the ummânū appear more frequently in the last two columns than in the first two columns of A.117, which would indicate that the scribe of A.117 was able to obtain more available sources which could be taken as references for his compilation in the later times.

87  Weidner, AfO 3 (1926), 70. 88  This might be due to the fact that the name of the first ummânu of Sennacherib, Nabu-apla-iddina, had already been written in Line 2. Accordingly, Lines 3–6 cannot be inscribed with “MIN”, which would be misunderstood as pointing to that ummânu. To judge from another aspect, the Babylonian counterparts of Sennacherib are not simply listed in the unit, but recorded in the form of narratives such as those in certain chronicles. 89  C AD 20, 111–115. 90  A  Hw, 1415–1416. 91  Schroeder, OLZ 23 (1920), 204–207. 92  Weidner, MVAG 26/2 (1921), 10, n. 1.

The Composition of the Synchronistic King List

163

The theoretical model of Schroeder and Weidner was by and large followed by Parpola. In his study on the Assyrian scholars (during the reigns of Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal), Parpola divided those scholars – by their relationships with the king – into two groups: the “inner circle” and the “outer circle”. Naturally, two of them appearing in our list, Nabu-zeru-lishir and Ishtar-shuma-eresh, belong to the “inner circle”, which is “made up of highranking men”.93 Even so, only a few of them in the “inner circle”, such as the two ummânū mentioned above, could maintain a regular correspondence with the king. Parpola interpreted the meanings of ummânu (translated into “master” by him) as: 1) “scholar”, 2) “teacher”, 3) “counselor” and 4) “mastercraftsman”.94 Thus, the posts of the two ummânū in the ScKL were considered by Parpola to consist of two aspects: “Chief Scribe” and “Master”. To judge from the contents of their correspondence with the kings, three letters of Nabu-zeru-lishir are concerned with the ritual of the substitute king and several dozen letters of Ishtar-shuma-eresh with issues mainly of astrology and omens. Nabu-zeru-lishir might have been an exorcist and the special fields of Ishtar-shuma-eresh were most likely astrology, hemerology – determining lucky and unlucky days – and augury (of omens).95 The evidence for their role as “Chief Scribe” can be traced in some letters. In one letter,96 the name of Nabu-zeru-lishir heads a list of all the scribes. Ishtar-shuma-eresh must have been responsible for convening all the scribes around the entire country to enter into one treaty according to a letter to Esarhaddon.97 Moreover, as suggested by Parpola, Ishtar-shuma-eresh, the “Chief Scribe”, must also have been responsible for many of the letters and reports.98 The family ties of Nabu-zeru-lishir and Ishtar-shuma-eresh may reveal more facts. First of all, Nabu-zeru-lishir is the father of Ishtar-shuma-eresh, who succeeded him to hold the office of ummânu during the latter part of the reign of Esarhaddon and the first half of the reign of Ashurbanipal.99 In addition, some of the other members or relatives of their family were also advanced scholars with high rank in the Assyrian court at their time. Shumaju, another son 93  Parpola, LAS II, XV–XVII; SAA 10, XXV–XXVI. 94  Parpola, LAS IIA, 6–7. 95  Parpola, LAS IIA, 32–33, 41–42. The special field of Nabu-zeru-lishir cannot be decided exactly, for the topic of his correspondence with Esarhaddon – the substitute king ritual – is also involved in the letters of Ishtar-shuma-eresh. 96  Parpola, LAS I, No. 31 = ABL 332. 97  Parpola, LAS I, No. 1 = ABL 386. 98  Parpola, LAS II, XV. 99  Parpola, LAS IIA, 32, 42. According to Parpola, the letters of Ishtar-shuma-eresh can be dated to the time-span from 672 to 657 BC and he might have been acting in his position of “royal counselor” from 678 to 650 BC. See Parpola, LAS II, 3.

164

Chapter 4

of Nabu-zeru-lishir, was also an exorcist.100 Adad-shuma-usur, the brother of Nabu-zeru-lishir,101 was the personal exorcist of Esarhaddon.102 Urad-Gula, the son of Adad-shuma-usur, was the deputy chief physician under Sennacherib and the exorcist under Esarhaddon.103 More importantly, one of the common ancestors of Nabu-zeru-lishir and Adad-shuma-usur, Gabi-ilani-eresh, who is listed in iii 19’ of A.117,104 was precisely the ummânu under the reign of Ashurnasirpal II. Perhaps judging by the background of such a prestigious family (almost all belonging to the “inner circle” of the king), we may understand why Nabu-zeru-lishir and Ishtar-shuma-eresh could be qualified to be listed together with the kings in a king list. On the other hand, however, because the general process of nominating ummânū cannot be restored so far, we have no sufficient grounds to contend that the office of ummânu would have been hereditary; for example, the father of Nabu-zeru-lishir, Nabu-zuqup-kenu, did not hold this position, although the occupation of scholar was always maintained in their scribe family.105 It seems that, in the Assyrian court, the prominence of the ummânū – or the particular group they represented – cannot be denied. Although the proposition presented by some scholars106 that these privileged elites of Assyria would have exerted some powerful force on the king’s decisions with regard to political or even military affairs cannot be accepted unreservedly, it is also beyond doubt that their influence on the process of decision-making – due to their professional characteristics and their close relationships with the kings – should never be neglected.107 Perhaps because of the significance of the ummânū in the ScKL (especially Nabu-zeru-lishir and Ishtar-shuma-eresh during the reigns of Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal), Grayson surmised that 100  Parpola, LAS I, No. 174, 238. 101  Parpola, LAS II, XVII; SAA 10, No. 294 = ABL 1285. 102  Parpola, LAS IIA, 28; LAS II, XV. 103  Parpola, LAS IIA, 44; LAS II, XVI. 104  The lineage and family tree of Nabu-zeru-lishir as well as Adad-shuma-usur can be seen in Parpola, LAS II, XVII, XIX. 105  However, according to Parpola, the appointment of “ummânu” was decided by the king himself and “being the son of an office-holder certainly greatly helped in the appointment process”. See Parpola, LAS II, XVIII. 106  For example, Olmstead believed that when two scholars wrote to Esarhaddon reminding him to revere the prestige of Babylon, “Esarhaddon was prepared to listen to their overtures”. See Olmstead, HA, 347. von Soden also supposed that “the letters convince us further how great the personal influence of particular astrologers and priests was on the king, who clearly did not always follow a clear path”. See von Soden, HAO, 125. As also admitted by Landsberger, “it was long presumed (and still is for many authors) that the priests in Babylonia were highly powerful and thus able to radically influence events”. See Landsberger, BBEKA, 14. 107  Parpola, LAS II, XVIII–XIX.

The Composition of the Synchronistic King List

165

“the list was drawn up by this official or under his direct supervision”.108 Even so, since few clues relating to those ummânū can be obtained, we have to admit that we cannot say much as to the actual functions of their entries in the ScKL. However, as regards the format of the entries of ummânū, two “rules” can be concluded: Firstly, as we have noted above, the name of the ummânu will correspond to the blank space on the other side. But if the name of the ummânu is too long to be limited to the half-line, it would take up the whole line. Naturally, the Assyrian ummânu would be listed directly below the name of the Assyrian king, while the Babylonian ummânu below the name of the Babylonian king. Secondly, we can observe that a dividing line will be always drawn under the name of an ummânu. That is, there is no other king (from Assyria or Babylonia) listed under a certain ummânu in the same unit, no matter whether the name of the ummânu is affixed to one king or several kings. Furthermore, it might seem absurd that some kings (Sennacherib and Esar­ haddon) each have two ummânū, but others have only one. According to Schroeder, this could have been because the Assyrian kings who also ruled Babylonia might have named two ummânū, one from Assyria and the other from Babylonia.109 This proposition can only be based upon the entries of Sennacherib and Esarhaddon in the last column of A.117 – especially in view of the fact that Sennacherib has only one ummânu when he is listed merely as “King of Assyria” – but cannot be concluded as a “principle”, for we are not certain about those entries of ummânū possibly ascribed to Tiglath-pileser III and Shalmaneser V, since the entries for both of them have been lost at the end of the third column in A.117. If we compare the ummânū listed in A.117 with those in A.118, we may find that: 1) the names of the ummânū were written below the names of kings in A.117, but listed in another sub-column on the right of their Assyrian lords in A.118; 2) the first ummânu of Sennacherib (when he is only labeled as “King of Assyria”) is Nabu-apla-iddina, but the one in A.118 is Nabu-bani. Unfortunately, as for the discrepancies on the formats of the two exemplars or the distinction between the two ummânū of Sennacherib in different sources, we cannot offer any rational explanations.

108  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 117. 109  Schroeder, OLZ 23 (1920), 205, 207.

166 6

Chapter 4

The Implications of “King of Akkad”

We must pay close attention to the specific royal title listed in a king list, which is by no means employed casually or at random. The title of the Babylonian kings in the ScKL is only indicated in A.117. However, it must be noted that the title used for the Babylonian kings in A.117 is “King of Akkad”, not “King of Babylon”, as one might expect. Firstly, the Babylonian kings are called “Kings of (the land of) Akkad” (“LUGAL.MEŠ KUR Ak-ka-de-e”) in iv 19’ of A.117. Secondly, the Babylonian counterparts of Sennacherib are also called “King(s) of Akkad (“MAN KUR URIki” in iv 4’of A.117 or “LUGAL.MEŠni KUR URIki” in iv 9’ of A.117). It seems absurd to us that the scribe employed such a title for those Babylonian kings. This title, “King of Akkad” (“LUGAL a-kà-dèki”), was first assumed by Sargon of the Old Akkadian Kingdom in his royal inscriptions.110 However, this title was used only among the kings of Sargon’s dynasty, and was never assumed by the later kings of Babylonia. Nonetheless, Manishtushu (son of Sargon) of that dynasty was still referred to by Shamshi-Adad I as “King of Akkad” in one of his royal inscriptions,111 in which Shamshi-Adad I declared that he was the first king after the fall of Akkad to rebuild the temple Emenue built by Manishtushu. In other words, Shamshi-Adad I aimed to recall the glory of the Old Akkadian Kingdom by demonstrating that he was the political inheritor of Sargon, the direct evidence for which is that he himself also assumed the same title in another royal inscription.112 In fact, even during the period when the state of Ashur was dominated by the Old Akkadian Kingdom, Manishtushu himself was referred to by Azuzu, a vassal ruler at Ashur as the servant of that king, as “King of Kish” (“LUGAL KIŠ”),113 which was also the title used frequently by the kings of that dynasty. The kings of the Ur III Dynasty called themselves “King of Ur” (“lugal-uri5ki”) and “King of Sumer and Akkad” (“lugal-ki-en-gi-ki-uri”).114 Under the domination of the Ur III Dynasty, the ruler of Ashur, Zarriqum, referred to Amar-Sin of that dynasty as “King of Ur”.115 From the First Dynasty of Babylon (especially from the time of Hammurabi) on, the most popular titles assumed by the Babylonian kings were “King of

110  Frayne, RIME 2, E2.1.1.2: 2’–3’. 111  Grayson, RIMA 1, A.0.39.2: i 12’. 112  Grayson, RIMA 1, A.0.39.6: 7’. 113  Grayson, RIMA 1, A.0.1002: 2’–3’. 114  This title was first used by Ur-Nammu. See Frayne, RIME 3/2, E3/2.1.1.13: 5’–6’. For the analysis of this title see Hallo, EMRT, 77–88. 115  Grayson, RIMA 1, A.0.1003: 6’–7’.

The Composition of the Synchronistic King List

167

Babylon” (“LUGAL KÁ.DINGIR.RAki”)116 and “King of Sumer and Akkad”. Occasionally, the title “Viceroy of Babylon” (“GÌR.NÍTA.TIN.TIRki” or “GÌR. NÍTA.KÁ.DINGIR.RAki”) was assumed by some Babylonian kings.117 Those titles were adopted by the Assyrian kings who conquered or ruled Babylonia, e.g. Tukulti-Ninurta I,118 Tiglath-pileser III,119 Sargon II120 and Esarhaddon.121 Furthermore, those titles were also taken by Shamash-shuma-ukin,122 after he inherited the domain of Babylonia from his father Esarhaddon. In fact, in the Middle and Neo-Assyrian Periods, the Assyrian kings usually called their Babylonian counterparts “King of Karduniash”, with “Karduniash”, which originates from the Kassite language, standing for the whole of Babylonia. As early as in the Middle Assyrian Period, Tukulti-Ninurta I had already assumed the title “King of Karduniash” after he annexed Babylonia.123 Although the Chaldean chieftains who seized the Babylonian kingship (e.g. Merodach-baladan II) were sometimes called “King of Chaldea” or “King of Sealand” (with the geographical name denoting their origin)124 by the Assyrian kings in the Sargonid Period, when the Chaldeans were vying with the Assyrians for control over Babylonia, the title “King of Karduniash” was still a formal title for Babylonian rulers in Assyrian sources. After assuming the dual crown of Assyria and Babylonia, this title was also used by Esarhaddon on several occasions.125 In the time of Ashurbanipal, when the ScKL (A.117) was composed, the titles for the Babylonian kings (especially Shamash-shuma-ukin) remained unchanged. The titles of Shamash-shuma-ukin are almost the ones used by his father Esarhaddon: “King of Babylon”, “Viceroy of Babylon” and “King of Sumer 116  This title was first attested in Hammurabi’s royal inscriptions. See Frayne, RIME 4, E4.3.6.2: 28’. 117  This title can be attested in a royal inscription of Itti-Marduk-balatu. See Frame, RIMB 2, B.2.2.1: 7’. Moreover, Merodach-baladan II once called himself “Viceroy of Sumer and Akkad”. See Seux, ÉRAS, 278. “Viceroy” (šakkanakku) refers to “governor” of a city in the literal sense. When used as the royal title, it would be to highlight the role of the king as the servant of gods, that is, it would imply that the authority of the king is given by the gods. For more discussions on this term see Hallo, EMRT, 100–107. 118  Grayson, RIMA 1, A.0.78.5: 4’–5’. 119  Tadmor and Yamada, RINAP 1, No. 39: 1’; No. 40: 2’. 120  Fuchs, ISK, 280–287, 369–372. 121  Leichty, RINAP 4, No. 1: i 2’; No. 2: i 4’. According to Porter, Esarhaddon seemed more likely to avoid using “King of Babylon” and preferred to use “King of Sumer and Akkad” and “Viceroy of Babylon”. The only exception is found in a temple inscription (Uruk D). For details see Porter, IPP, 81, n. 191. 122  Frame, RIMB 2, B.6.33.1: 2’, 5’; B.6.33.5: 14’. 123  Grayson, RIMA 1, A.0.78.5: 4’. 124  Tadmor and Yamada, RINAP 1, No. 47: 26’; Fuchs, ISK, 135, 326. 125  Leichty, RINAP 4, No. 25, 28, 68: 2’–3’, 69: 3’–4’, 98: Obv. 14’–15’.

168

Chapter 4

and Akkad”.126 Meanwhile, the position of Shamash-shuma-ukin reflected by his titles was also admitted by Ashurbanipal himself, since he stated in his royal inscriptions that he had appointed Shamash-shuma-ukin, his favorite brother, “to the kingship of Babylon” (a-na LUGAL-ú-tu KÁ.DINGIR.RA.KI / TIN.TIR.KI).127 He also stated that “with regard to Šamaš-šuma-ukīn, king of Babylon, my favourite brother, may his days be long (and) may he be fully [satisfied with (his) good fortune]!”.128 However, two cases of “Akkad” being connected with the Babylonian kingship appear in the royal inscriptions of Ashurbanipal composed after the revolt of Shamash-shuma-uikin. In one inscription, “Akkad” was combined together with several other geographical terms: “Shamash-shuma-ukin, the faithless brother, whom I treated well and [set up as king] of Akkad, Chaldea, Aramu and Karduniash”.129 In another one, Ashurbanipal mentioned those “red ṣariru-gold, shiny ešmarû-metal, precious stones, valuable jewelry, (and) royal appurtenance(s) that the former kings of the land Akkad and Šamaš-šuma-ukīn had squandered on the land Elam to help them”.130 Furthermore, another example is found in one letter of Nabu-zeru-lishir to Esarhaddon, where this ummânu stated that “the substitute king of the land of Akkad (“LUGAL pu-u-ḫi ša KUR URIki”) took the signs on himself”.131 It may seem unlikely that there would exist certain connections between the substitute king ritual and the title “King of Akkad”. However, it would have been no accident that “King of Akkad” was used by Ashurbanipal to refer to his brother as well as to all the former Babylonian kings in the royal inscriptions compiled after the revolt of Shamash-shuma-ukin, while A.117 also listed all those Babylonian kings as “Kings of Akkad” in the same fashion. The remarkable consistency provides an important supporting clue for our theory dating A.117 to the time of Ashurbanipal, when the revolt of Shamash-shuma-ukin had already been crushed. Although the city of Agade still existed during the time of Esarhaddon,132 “Akkad” (more precisely “KUR URIki” or “KUR Ak-ka-de-e”), might of course have been used, like “Karduniash”, as a special term – i.e. “the land of Akkad” – to denote Babylonia. For example, in the royal inscriptions of Ashurbanipal, 126  Frame, RIMB 2, B.6.33.1: 2’, 5’; B.6.33.5: 14’. 127  Frame, RIMB 2, B.6.32.1: 13’–14’; B.6.32.2: 52’–56’. 128  Frame, RIMB 2, B.6.32.19: 27’. 129  Luckenbill, ARAB 2, No. 926; see also Borger, BIWA, 85. 130  Novotny and Jeffers, RINAP 5/1, No. 11: vi 11’–15’. 131  Parpola, LAS I, No. 30 = ABL 223. 132  See Frame, BPH, 73–74. The city was mentioned in a letter to Esarhaddon. See Parpola, LAS II, 263–264. For the probable location (which is still uncertain) see Wall-Romana, JNES 49 (1990), 205–245.

The Composition of the Synchronistic King List

169

where “the people of the land Akkad” were mentioned,133 “Akkad” would have mainly referred to “Babylonia”.134 In other words, “King of Akkad” can be understood as “King of Babylonia”. However, the problem is: why would the scribe of A.117, or to be more precise, Ashurbanipal himself, label those Babylonian kings as “King of Akkad”, but not use the other usual titles, if “King of Akkad” was not formally assumed by the Babylonian kings themselves after the fall of the Old Akkadian Kingdom nor frequently used by the Assyrian kings (preceding Ashurbanipal) in reference to their Babylonian counterparts?135 To resolve this problem, first of all, it would be necessary for us to review the general use of titles for the Assyrian kings. In accordance with the Assyrian tradition, the long series of titles for the Assyrian kings in the Assyrian royal inscriptions are actually composed of three parts: the royal name, the title and the epithet. The royal name, i.e. the personal name of the king, is usually the initial part. Then, the title indicates the geographic extent covered by the authority of the king, i.e. the territory of the king’s sovereignty, and the epithet could be taken as a rhetorical expression, used to eulogize the king. We can adduce a typical series of titles for Ashurbanipal to provide an example: “I, Ashurbanipal, great king, mighty king, king of the world, king of Assyria, king of the four quarters (of the world)”.136 Following the royal name “Ashurbanipal”, “king of Assyria” would be his formal title, indicating that he is the authentic monarch of the territory of Assyria. The other titles, “great king”, “mighty king”, “king of the world” and “king of the four quarters (of the world)” can be grouped into his epithets, for those are simply praises to Ashurbanipal without actually saying that to what extent he is “great” (“mighty”) or actually controls the whole world. In this case, it would be not proper to employ such epithets for the kings in a king list, since they are not formal definitions of his actual authority. That is why we find the Assyrian kings in A.117 are only labeled as “King of Assyria” without any further description. Accordingly, when 133  Novotny and Jeffers, RINAP 5/1, No. 11: iv 97’. However, it may be worth noticing that “the people of Akkad” would have consisted mainly of the native Babylonians, for along with “the people of Akkad”, the people of “Chaldea, Aramu and the Sealand” were also mentioned. 134  As suggested reasonably by Frame, in Assyrian sources “Akkad” refers sometimes to the city by the name, sometimes to the land of Babylonia and sometimes to the northern part of Babylonia; “people of Akkad” would have emphasized the native Babylonian people residing in the ancient Babylonian cities, a term employed to distinguish the settled population from the tribal groups. See Frame, BPH, 33. 135  One exception may be seen from the inscription on the “broken obelisk” probably made in the reign of Ashur-bel-kala. See Grayson, RIMA 2, A.0.89.7: i 17’. 136  Frame, RIMB 2, B.6.32.1: 3’.

170

Chapter 4

coming back to the titles of the Babylonian kings in A.117, it is no wonder that the expressions such as “King of Sumer and Akkad” or “Viceroy of Babylon” are not employed, for those titles would have belonged to the category of epithet, although they could be found in royal inscriptions. On the other hand, “King of Karduniash” was not employed until the period of the Kassite Dynasty. Because A.117 also contains the kings of the dynasties preceding the Kassite Dynasty, it might have been inappropriate for the scribe to give the title “King of Karduniash” to the kings of the First Dynasty of Babylon or the First Sealand Dynasty. As for the title “King of Babylon”, since it was already included in the title of the Assyrian kings with a dual crown, i.e. “King of Assyria and Babylon” (“MAN KUR Aš-šur u KÁ.DINGIR.RAki”), it would not have been ascribed to those Babylonian kings again. In other words, the purpose of employing “King of Akkad”, but not “King of Babylon”, might have been to distinguish the title of those Babylonian kings from that of the Assyrian kings who also ruled Babylonia simultaneously. To judge from this point, in A.117, the title “King of Babylon”, with the same rank as “King of Assyria”, could only be enjoyed by those Assyrian kings with dual kingship. In order to protect the exclusive privilege of those dual-crown kings of Assyria, all the Babylonian kings had to be deprived of the title “King of Babylon”, although this title had been used by the Babylonian kings of various dynasties for a long period of over a thousand years. We will see in the next chapter that the title “King of Akkad” is closely related to the purpose of the ScKL.

Chapter 5

The Purpose of the Synchronistic King List Generally speaking, a document produced by a scribe must have been to preserve or convey specific information intended for others to know. This is particularly apparent in the sources of king lists, for those sources, as official documents (if we may use this term), contain information on monarchs or dynasties, which can be taken as the basic skeleton for reconstructing the chronology or even the political history of a period. As we have said, the studies on the ScKL cannot be dissociated from the general textual background of the king lists in Mesopotamia. Thus it is necessary to review the studies on the purposes of the other king lists in addition to the ScKL before we attempt to develop a new theory on this topic. 1

Studies on the Purposes of Some Other King Lists

It is not necessary for us to enumerate the purposes of all the king lists in Mesopotamia. We will adduce the SKL, the LgKL and the AKL as typical examples, from which we may obtain some inspiration for deducing the purpose of the ScKL. In his study on the SKL, Jacobsen dated this document to the period of Utu-hegal, the ruler of Uruk in the 22nd century BC. One reason for this is that the SKL and the Utu-hegal Inscription1 reflected one common “ideology”. According to Jacobsen, the theory applied by the scribe of the SKL to the composition of his text can be perceived from two points: 1) the king, kingdom and kingship of Babylonia should be considered as a single entity, although “the capital could change from one city to another”; 2) “the ruler of a city or province could become king only by defeating the existing capital and carrying the ‘kingship’ to his own residence”.2 A similar theme can also be perceived in the Utu-hegal Inscription, where Utu-hegal states that under the command of Enlil he defeated the Gutians who “carried off the kingship of the land of Sumer to the mountain land” and then “brought back the kingship of the land of Sumer”. Jacobsen suggested that: “This new-won freedom must have powerfully stimulated Sumerian national feeling and must have awakened 1  See Frayne, RIME 2, E2.13.6.4. 2  Jacobsen, AS 11, 139–140.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004430921_006

172

Chapter 5

interest in Sumer’s glorious past, in the history of that ‘kingship’ which had now come back again. It would thus naturally inspire the production of such a work as the King List, which is an effort to trace and present just that history.”3 Michalowski further suggested, based upon the proposition of Finkelstein that the composition of the SKL was an expression of the idea of the centralization of power held by one dynasty in one city developed into the ideolody of legitimate kingship under the Isin Dynasty,4 that the central issue of the SKL was to provide an alternative claim of royal legitimation (to the genealogical claim by Amorite origins) through linking the Isin Dynasty with the Ur III Dnasty for the Isin rulers.5 As for the purpose of the LgKL, Sollberger’s theory is valuable. Because many entries for the kings of Lagash cannot be proven and must have been invented, Sollberger thought that this list might be not “a piece of serious historical scholarship”, but “a politico-satirical work” produced by a scribe from Lagash during the Old Babylonian Period.6 In view of the fact that the city of Lagash was ignored from so many Babylonian cities by the author of the SKL, Sollberger proposed that: “Our Lagaš scribe may have wanted to show his colleague(s) that, albeit left out of the King List, Lagaš could trace the line of her rulers as far back as the Flood; while the other cities’ pre-eminence was ephemeral, kingship constantly passing from one to the other, in Lagaš rulership, which, incidentally, had a longer history than kingship, was permanent and uninterrupted – even though it was invested in different families it remained always in Lagaš.”7 That is, the LgKL, as a “politico-satirical” work, could be taken as an answer to the author of the SKL. A comparatively systematic summary on the purpose of the AKL can be found in the study of Yamada on the editorial history of the AKL.8 Believing that the AKL was redacted and enlarged constantly during the long history of Assyria, Yamada summarized three aspects of solutions to the purpose of the AKL, which might have been connected closely with the development of that very king list. The first is that the AKL might have aimed to maintain the records of Assyrian royal history and could have been intended as a reliable historical source, to be consulted as needed. This “genuine historical interest” in royal chronology must have existed in nearly all the king lists, including the AKL. The second is “practical political interest”. Yamada proposed that the 3  Jacobsen, AS 11, 140. 4  Finkelstein, PCWH, 59–63. 5  Michalowski, JAOS 101/3 (1983), 240–242. 6  Sollberger, JCS 21 (1967), 279–280. 7  Sollberger, JCS 21 (1967), 279. 8  Yamada, ZA 84 (1994), 36–37.

The Purpose of the Synchronistic King List

173

redaction of the AKL (e.g. in the periods of Shamshi-Adad I and Bel-bani) would have been to legitimate the Assyrian kingship grasped by a newcomer, for the redaction could be used to build a genealogical connection with the previous royal line. Such political interest, as a hidden intention, would have existed throughout the long history of the updating of the AKL. The third is that the AKL might have been used as an “amulet” for blessing the royal family of Assyria. In fact, such a use can be seen as some kind of “ancestor cult”. In view of the present format of the AKL (the NaKL, the KhKL and the SDAS), however, Yamada suggested that “this was a secondary development introduced after its canonization, when the main part of the AKL was enlarged and came to possess considerable length”.9 From the studies above, we may derive certain methods or principles useful for working out the purpose of the ScKL. First, it is highly probable that the most important clue is contained in the list itself. For example, the LgKL lists the rulers of Lagash, a city which is not mentioned in the SKL. Sollberger thus conjectured that the LgKL might have been intended to record the history of the rulership of Lagash as an “answer” to the ignorance of the SKL. Second, the purpose of a particular king list could have been connected with the specific historical background against which the list itself was produced, to serve the needs during that time. This is what we have found in the SKL, whose “ideology” was, according to Jacobsen, concordant with the theme of the Utu-hegal Inscription, which was to declare that the circulating single kingship, held by a single king at a time, had now returned, or as suggested by Finkelstein and Michalowski, to legitimize the kingship of the rulers of the Isin Dynasty. Moreover, the practical political function of the king lists, which can be recognized as historical sources relating to kings or dynasties, should never be overlooked. This is precisely what Yamada proposed as the purpose of the AKL: the legitimation of the Assyrian kingship. Last but not least, the purpose of a document and the motive of the author should actually point to the same thing. No doubt, the purposes deduced by scholars from the SKL, the LgKL and the AKL can be regarded as – in their own ways – what the authors of those king lists wanted to tell us. Accordingly, when investigating the purpose of the ScKL, we shall judge not only from the point of view of a simple reader, but from the perspective of the author, trying to figure out what kind of information he might have been intending to convey. 9  Yamada, ZA 84 (1994), 37.

174 2

Chapter 5

Previous Propositions on the Purpose of the Synchronistic King List

Notwithstanding the lack of substantial evidence, the propositions of scholars on the purpose of the ScKL are also of value. In his study on the KhKL, Poebel believed that with the help of the information provided by the KhKL, the “real character” of the ScKL could be determined. Because of the inaccuracies of the “contemporary” pairs listed in the ScKL, Poebel proposed that the purpose of the ScKL, which was redacted on the basis of an original text to be an index for the Synchronistic History, was not “to indicate correspondences of the reigns of Assyrian kings with the reigns of Babylonian kings”, but “to serve – for the benefit of historians – as a kind of register to the existing synchronistic histories, each equation between a certain king of Assyria and a certain king of Babylonia representing, as it were, the caption of the corresponding synchronistic history chapter that dealt with the historical relations between the two kings in question”.10 Grayson also touched slightly on the issue of the purpose of the ScKL, although he admitted at first that “there are few clues to the origin and purpose of this list”.11 Grayson himself did not provide a specific suggestion, but he then raised a very illuminating possibility: “was it one of the author’s concerns to illustrate from the history of Assyria and Babylonia that the two monarchies should be kept separate?”12 As we have mentioned, in the study on the chronology at the end of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, Na‌ʾaman adduced A.118 as an important source to support his chronological scheme. Believing that Ashur-etil-ilani and Kandalanu died in the same year, Na‌ʾaman proposed that it might be the simultaneous death of the two kings that provided the “the immediate incentive” for the scribes to compose such a king list.13 Na‌ʾaman speculated further that the author of A.118 might be the ummânu of Ashur-etil-ilani. However, this speculation was rejected by Zawadzki, who argued that this list was not written after the death of Ashur-etil-ilani, but during his reign.14 Zawadzki based his argument upon “a basic pattern” he observed from the compilation of ScKL: “a new entry was made shortly after a new king was instated”. Putting aside the theory of Zawadzki, however, we would still find the proposition of Na‌ʾaman 10  Poebel, JNES 2/1 (1943), 60–61. 11  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 117. 12  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 117. 13  Na‌ʾaman, ZA 81 (1991), 249. 14  Zawadzki, ZA 85 (1995), 69–70. But the hypothesis of Na‌ʾaman that Ashur-etil-ilani and Kandalanu died in the same year was accepted by Zawadzki.

The Purpose of the Synchronistic King List

175

untenable, because “the immediate incentive” for composing A.118 cannot be applied to A.117, in which Ashurbanipal and Kandalanu are listed as the last corresponding pair – even though, according to Na‌ʾaman, the latter must have died later than the former. That is, “the immediate incentive” concluded by Na‌ʾaman is not common to both lists, and there would have been double standards for the purpose of the two exemplars from the same group of the ScKL. From the perspective of historiography and chronology, Hallo thought that the composition of the ScKL might be “a reconciliation of the chronographic and ideological traditions”, with an aim to “co-ordinate the histories, respectively the royal successions, of Babylonia and Assyria”.15 It should be no surprise that the references we can cite are quite sparse, since the studies on the ScKL are few in number. Even more challenging is the fact that the references above provide no satisfactory solution to the problem. Obviously, we shall find a new way to push our investigation forward. However, as we will soon see, our new attempt is inspired – to a large extent – by the cue provided by Grayson: the separation of the kingship over Assyria and Babylonia. 3

A Tentative Solution to the Purpose of the Synchronistic King List: the Babylonian Policy of Ashurbanipal

As noted above, we can derive three parameters from our review of the studies of the purposes of certain other king lists: 1) the most important clues would be always contained within the list itself; 2) the specific historical background at the time when the list was composed must be significant; 3) the practical political interests hidden behind the compilation of the list may constitute the core elements of its purpose. With regard to the first point, with reference to Grayson’s suggestion mentioned above, the most significant clue would be the separation of kingship over Assyria and Babylonia. Secondly, the date of A.117 as well as the last entry of Ashurbanipal and Kandalanu in that list would imply that this text was composed after the civil war between Ashurbanipal and Shamash-shuma-ukin had ended. This would have been the specific historical background for the compilation of that list. Lastly, the practical political interests – if we seek to extract some kind of interests from the list – will naturally be connected with the Babylonian policy at the time when Ashurbanipal defeated Shamash-shuma-ukin and then installed Kandalanu on the throne of 15  Hallo, BCSMS 6 (1983), 12–13; see also Pruzsinszky, MCh, 188.

176

Chapter 5

Babylonia. We will unfold our arguments below in accordance with this analytical framework. Early in the Kassite Period and from then on, the dominant policy implemented by Assyria towards Babylonia was to secure a stable southern border.16 This can be seen from the records of the Synchronistic History and Chronicle P, according to which the military conflicts and the bilateral treaties between the two lands are mostly concerned with border disputes. The interferences in Babylonian affairs by the Assyrian kings (e.g. Ashur-uballit I,17 Ashur-bel-kala18 and Shalmaneser III19) and the expeditions launched against Babylonia by some of them (e.g. Tiglath-pileser I20 and Shamshi-Adad V21) were comparatively limited in contrast with later times. Nevertheless, this traditional practice was broken first by Tukulti-Ninurta I and then by Tiglath-pileser III, since both of them conquered all of Babylonia and assumed the Babylonian kingship. The difference is that Tukulti-Ninurta I, who was not listed in the BKLa, simply annexed Babylonia with violence (primarily in the territorial sense), but Tiglath-pileser III tried to act as a legitimate Babylonian king (e.g. by offering sacrifices to the main temples in Babylonia and revering the local gods there22). In fact, Tiglath-pileser III was accepted not only by the BKLa, but by the Babylonians themselves23 as the authentic Babylonian king. The conciliatory Babylonian policies of Tiglath-pileser III and his dual-crown reign over both Assyria and Babylonia were continued by his successors (Shalmaneser V and Sargon II), although the control of the Assyrian king over Babylonia was disrupted for a time by Chaldeans (Merodach-baladan II) during the reign of Sargon II.24 From then on, however, Chaldeans became the principal foe

16  Grayson, CAH 3/2, 80. 17  Grayson, ABC, 165. 18  Grayson, ABC, 165. 19  Grayson, ABC, 167. 20  Grayson, ABC, 163. 21  Grayson, ABC, 168. See also Glassner, MC, 163–165. 22  Tadmor and Yamada, RINAP 1, No. 39: 14’–16’. Tiglath-pileser III also participated in the sacred rites of Babylonia, especially the New Year Festival, which is one of the most important religious duties of Babylonian kings. See Brinkman, CAH 3/2, 25. 23  It should be noted that the “Babylonians” are not strictly a nation. According to Brinkman, the Babylonians at that time were composed of two groups – classified on the basis of the social organization, but not by residence – i.e. the “native stock” (including the descendants of Sumerians and Akkadians and the assimilated immigrants such as Amorites and Kassites) and the “tribesmen” (including Arameans and Chaldeans who were still unassimilated then). See Brinkman, CAH 3/2, 7; Frame, BPH, 32–33. 24  Grayson, CAH 3/2, 98.

The Purpose of the Synchronistic King List

177

of Assyria in competition for dominion over Babylonia.25 To judge from the frustrations of Sennacherib’s Babylonian policy,26 it is reasonable to say that it was the Chaldeans who made the strategy of Assyria towards Babylonia ineffective. The turmoil created by the failures of various means of controlling Babylonia and the misery of losing his eldest son (Ashur-nadin-shumi) compelled Sennacherib to destroy Babylonia thoroughly and leave that land kingless for eight years.27 Another turning point came with the accession of Esarhaddon, who abandoned his father’s method and adopted again the conciliatory policies towards Babylonia – on a larger scale and in greater depth compared with those in the earlier reigns. Under the reign of Esarhaddon, Assyria and Babylonia were ruled by a single king with a double crown in a true sense.28 Accordingly, in the Sargonid Period (from the time of Tiglath-pileser III up to the reign of Esarhaddon), the aim of Assyria’s policy on Babylonia was to bring its southern neighbor under the direct control of Assyrian kings.29 Although things did not run smoothly because of the harassment and disruption of the Chaldeans, the general trend was never altered. However, what is striking is that it was Esarhaddon himself who pushed this very policy to the fullest and then adjusted this established political pattern when leaving a will towards the end of his reign: he divided his empire into two parts, leaving Assyria to Ashurbanipal and Babylonia to Shamash-shuma-ukin. Furthermore, 25  Even at the time of Tiglath-pileser III, the Chaldean tribal leader, Nabu-mukin-zeri, had usurped the Babylonian kingship, which would have become the immediate trigger for Tiglath-pileser III’s conquering Babylonia. However, according to Frame, we cannot say that Chaldeans always opposed Assyria, for “some are known to have served in the Assyrian army and to have opposed fellow Babylonians in rebellion against Assyria”. See Frame, BPH, 38. 26  See the commentaries on iv 10’–11’ of A. 117 above. 27  Brinkman, JCS 25/2 (1973), 89–95. Frame believed that the decision of Sennacherib to destroy Babylon might have been taken “in the heat of the moment” and was “the result of anger”. See Frame, BPH, 69. 28  According to Porter, with Esarhaddon ascending the throne, the military campaigns of Assyria against Babylonia came to an end. The Babylonian policy of Esarhaddon was to pacify the Babylonians without recourse to military force. By strengthening the conciliatory gestures towards Babylonia made by his predecessors and implementing “an extensive and systematic program of public appearances, public statements, and public patronage”, Esarhaddon won the acceptance of Babylonians for the rule of Assyria. The measures taken by Esarhaddon were summarized by Porter into three points: 1) to carry out building activities, especially for the ancient temples in Babylonia; 2) to present himself as a traditional Babylonian king through the building programs regardless of his position as an Assyrian king; 3) to return the captured statues of Babylonian gods to their restored temples. See Porter, IPP, 148–153. 29  Frame, BPH, 250.

178

Chapter 5

this political testament was strongly guaranteed through the treaties concluded with all the officials, nobles and vassals throughout the empire, who were ordered to swear oaths by the gods to support this project and to keep loyal to the two successors.30 The details on the division of the jurisdiction throughout the empire are unclear from the treaty, but to judge from the correspondence related with the two heirs, “it appears that Shamash-shuma-ukin’s responsibility was Babylonia, while Ashurbanipal had authority over the rest of the empire”.31 Although Shamash-shuma-ukin was regarded as the “equal brother” (aḫu talīmešu) of Ashurbanipal and was given the “kingship over the whole of Sumer, Akkad and Karduniash”32 in the treaty, he might still have been subordinate to Ashurbanipal, considering that 1) most of the articles in the succession treaty of Esarhaddon aimed to ensure and maintain the accession and royal power of Ashurbanipal33 and 2) it was Ashurbanipal, but not Shamash-shuma-ukin, who resided in the “House of Succession” (bīt redûti)34 at Tarbiṣu, where Sennacherib had resided when he was still the crown prince and where Esarhaddon had been born and raised.35 Naturally, the fact that Esarhaddon made this arrangement before his death with such careful planning must have reflected his anxiety as to potential internal disorder that could have resulted from any disputes over succession among royal heirs36 – especially in view of his poor physical health37 – which is exactly what he had experienced personally after his father Sennacherib was assassinated by his brothers. But on the other hand, as suggested by Grayson, it might be conceivable that “the Babylonian question had become so important that it was a major factor in the succession to the throne”.38

30  Parpola and Watanabe, SAA 2, 28–58. For the earlier study see Wiseman, Iraq 20/1 (1958), 1–99; for another exemplar of Esarhaddon’s succession treaty published recently see Lauinger, JCS 64 (2012), 87–123; for other treaties concerning the succession of Ashurbanipal and Shamash-shuma-ukin, see Grayson, JCS 39/2 (1987), 133–138. A text of loyal oaths dated to the reign of Sennacherib (Grayson, JCS 39/2 [1987], 132–133) might be the earliest Assyrian source of the succession treaty. See Frame, BPH, 62, n. 46–47. 31  Grayson, CAH 3/2, 140. 32  Parpola and Watanabe, SAA 2, 32. 33  Porter, IPP, 136. 34  In contrast, Shamash-shuma-ukin was called “prince of the House-of-Succession of Babylon”. See Frame, BPH, 95. 35  For more details on the “House of Succession” see Porter, IPP, 19, n. 32. 36  Grayson, JCS 39/2 (1987), 132. 37  For the illness (which is possibly lupus according to the descriptions on the symptoms) of Esarhaddon, see Parpola, LAS II, 229–238; Leichty, CANE 2, 956. 38  Grayson, CAH 3/2, 139.

The Purpose of the Synchronistic King List

179

It may be quite difficult to speculate on the real reason that Esarhaddon would split the sovereignty over Assyria and Babylonia – which had already been perfectly unified under his rule – into two parts and pass them to two successors respectively, although some assumptions have been proposed by scholars. Perhaps the simplest explanation for Ashurbanipal’s being nominated as the chief successor is that, as surmised by Parpola,39 he had greater personal abilities and could better fit the role of Assyrian king than his brothers. However, it seems truly difficult to conjecture as to Esarhaddon’s motive in a deeper sense.40 Another possibility, according to the hypothesis of Porter, is that the appointment of Shamash-shuma-ukin might have been a measure taken by Esarhaddon to placate him – the elder son41 – as well as his supporters at the court, for his failure to be chosen as the legitimate crown prince;42 and it would be very reasonable when considering that Esarhaddon, as the youngest son of Sennacherib, was opposed by his elder brothers when he was installed as the crown prince.43 An old theory supported by some scholars concerning Esarhaddon’s conciliatory Babylonian policy surmised that there would have been two political parties at the Assyrian court at that time: the pro-Babylonian faction, who advocated friendly relations with Babylonia, and the anti-Babylonian faction, who continued to be hostile to Babylonia.44 If so, the arrangement of Esarhaddon for the succession of the throne might have been a compromise to the possible struggle between the two groups. However, such speculation might be “an over-simplification”45 and cannot be proven by any solid evidence, although the specific political situation in Assyria or Babylonia underlying the arrangement of Esarhaddon should not be neglected. Furthermore, Frame thought that the division of the realm would 39  Parpola, LAS II, 116. 40  According to the suggestion of von Soden, Esarhaddon might have been forced to nominate Ashurbanipal as the crown prince, since Ashurbanipal might have held a tough Babylonian policy opposed to that of his father and thus have won the political support of the Assyrian court. See von Soden, HAO, 124. For the rejections of this suggestion see Porter, IPP, 133, n. 280. 41  One letter from Adad-shuma-usur to Esarhaddon states that: “you have girded a son of yours with headband and entrusted him the kingship of Assyria; your eldest son you have put (up) to the kingship in Babylon”. See Parpola, LAS I, No. 129. However, it is uncertain that Shamash-shuma-ukin was the eldest son of Esarhaddon, since there is evidence that the original candidate for the crown prince would be another son of Esarhaddon, Sin-nadin-apli, who must have died in early years. See Frame, BPH, 94, n. 151; Porter, IPP, 133, n. 278; Fincke, AfO 50 (2003–2004), 119. 42  Landsberger and Bauer, ZA 37 (1927), 65–73; Borger, BiOr 29 (1972), 33–37. 43  Porter, IPP, 133–134. 44  Grayson, CAH 3/2, 132–133. For more bibliographies see Frame, BPH, 70, n. 32. 45  Grayson, CAH 3/2, 133. See also Frame, BPH, 70–71.

180

Chapter 5

have been “an attempt to win Babylonian support (and submission) during the remainder of Esarhaddon’s reign and thereafter by promising the Babylonians their own king”.46 In any case, the true reason for the specific arrangement of Esarhaddon remains unclear. Nonetheless, the core of the problem – for our topic here – would be this: what was the reaction of Ashurbanipal to this arrangement? The fact is that the last will of Esarhaddon was carried out faithfully. Shamashshuma-ukin ascended the Babylonian throne and took control over Babylonia smoothly after the demise of Esarhaddon. But to consider matters from the perspective of Ashurbanipal, it is hard to believe that he was pleased to share the sovereignty with his brother and give up half of the empire to him. As a young and new king succeeding his father, he was clearly unable to discard the policy his father had promulgated before the entire world. But as an ambitious monarch unable to tolerate any restrictions on his absolute power, he would naturally do something. In fact, Ashurbanipal employed a series of skillful tricks to limit the authority of Shamash-shuma-ukin and to expand his own influence on Babylonian affairs in almost every aspect. The details can be enumerated as follows: 1) In the year when Esarhaddon passed away, Ashurbanipal ascended the Assyrian throne immediately. But the accession of Shamash-shuma-ukin to the Babylonian throne took place only in the following year.47 That is, Shamash-shuma-ukin became king one year later than Ashurbanipal. Furthermore, the one year of interregnum in Babylonia was dated with the accession year of Ashurbanipal and was only changed into the year of Esarhaddon or Shamash-shuma-ukin in later chronological documents.48 It is difficult to say that this was not done on purpose, for Ashurbanipal could thus imply that he was the chief successor of his father, ascending the throne naturally before Shamash-shuma-ukin.49 Further evidence can be seen from the subtle formulation in a royal inscription of Ashurbanipal, where he states that it is he (without mentioning his

46  Frame, BPH, 95. 47   Shamash-shuma-ukin would have ascended the Babylonian throne in the second month of the first year of Ashurbanipal, that is, five or six months after Ashurbanipal became king of Assyria. See Grayson, ABC, 127; Glassner, MC, 211; Dubberstein, JNES 3/1 (1944), 38. 48  Brinkman and Kennedy, JCS 35 (1983), 21. 49  Frame proposed that the delay of Shamash-shuma-ukin’s ascent to the throne might have been due to the return of the Marduk statue to Babylon, for which an auspicious day had to be chosen. See Frame, BPH, 105.

The Purpose of the Synchronistic King List

181

father Esarhaddon) who installed his brother Shamash-shuma-ukin on the throne of Babylonia.50 2) Although Shamash-shuma-ukin was entitled to control all the land of Babylonia,51 the governors of some Babylonian cities, especially Ur and Uruk, clearly had more frequent contact with Ashurbanipal than with Shamash-shuma-ukin.52 Even odder is the fact that although economic documents from Ur were dated to the regnal year of Shamash-shuma-ukin during that time, the governor of that city, Sin-balassu-iqbi, dedicated his monumental building to Ashurbanipal, the Assyrian monarch, but not to Shamash-shuma-ukin, his official overlord.53 It seems probable that Ashurbanipal had gained control over certain important sites by imposing his own trusted subordinates, which would have been an effective measure to counteract the authority of Shamash-shuma-ukin and to spread his own power. Only a few of the local governors subject to Shamash-shuma-ukin, e.g. Sin-shar-usur (the brother and successor of Sin-balassu-iqbi54) at Ur and Shula at Dilbat, were possibly appointed by Shamash-shuma-ukin himself during the civil war.55 3) It appears that the defense of Babylonia was also under the charge of the Assyrian authority. Although Ashurbanipal stated in his royal inscriptions that he had given to his brother more troops and chariots than their father Esarhaddon had assigned to him,56 those forces could hardly be recognized as an army and must have been “insufficient to deal with significant troubles”.57 The supporting evidence can be derived from the invasion of the Elamite king Urtak into Babylonia in 664 BC, when Shamash-shuma-ukin was unable to strike back against the Elamites by himself, but had to await the military assistance of Ashurbanipal. Even in that circumstance, Ashurbanipal was slow to dispatch the Assyrian troops, for he did not take any action until he had ascertained that the Elamites had already flooded into northern Babylonia.58 Another example (which can be seen in ABL 269) is that Ashurbanipal was able 50  Frame, RIMB 2, B.6.32.1: 13’–14’. 51  In terms of the succession treaty of Esarhaddon, Shamash-shuma-ukin would have held kingship over “the whole of Sumer, Akkad and Karduniash”. See Parpola and Watanabe, SAA 2, 32. 52  Brinkman, CAH 3/2, 50. 53  Walker, CBI, No. 81–86. See also Brinkman, Or 34 (1965), 248–253; Or 38 (1969), 336–342. 54  Brinkman, PE, 117. 55  Brinkman, CAH 3/2, 50. 56  Novotny and Jeffers, RINAP 5/1, No. 11: iii 70’–77’. 57  Brinkman, PE, 86. 58  Brinkman, CAH 3/2, 49.

182

Chapter 5

to command the governor of Uruk to assemble troops even from throughout the land of Babylonia to campaign against the Gambulu (an Aramean tribe).59 4) It seems that Ashurbanipal was also in charge of the foreign policy of Babylonia at that time. According to the correspondence between Ashurbanipal and the local officials in Babylonia, internal and foreign matters were often reported to Ashurbanipal directly.60 That we know nearly nothing about the foreign policy of Babylonia during the reign of Shamash-shuma-ukin might be, as Brinkman presumed, due to the fact that “Assyria managed foreign relations on behalf of both lands”.61 5) Early in the period of Esarhaddon, the statue of Marduk, which had been removed by Sennacherib, was promised to be returned to Babylon,62 although this was not fulfilled until Ashurbanipal came to the throne.63 Finally, it was Shamash-shuma-ukin who conveyed the statue to Babylon personally (probably when ascending the Babylonian throne).64 However, the other cult objects attached to the statue and necessary for the cult rites were returned to Babylon almost thirteen years later (about 655–653 BC).65 One could imagine that the delay would have caused dissatisfaction among the Babylonians, for as Grayson has reasonably conjectured, “the resumption of the policy in 655, three years before the revolt broke out, was an eleventh-hour attempt by Assyria to quell disaffection”.66 To judge from this point, it cannot be excluded that Ashurbanipal might have created such a lapse intentionally, in order to show that he was the one who was actually in charge. 6) In Babylonian cities, such as Sippar, Babylon, Borsippa and Uruk, Ashurbanipal rebuilt and restored the temples for the gods there in his 59  Frame, BPH, 113. 60  Brinkman, CAH 3/2, 50. 61  Brinkman, CAH 3/2, 51. 62  It is highly probable that the original statue of Marduk had already been destroyed when Babylon was captured by Sennacherib and the statue returned to Babylon later was actually a new one made in Assyria. See Frame, BPH, 57. 63  Frame, RIMB 2, B.6.32.12: 8’–9’. The repatriation of this statue had been undertaken during the reign of Esarhaddon, but because the convoys escorting the statue back to Babylon were halted by an inauspicious event (which might have been in 669 BC according to Parpola, LAS II, 32), the statue had to return to Assyria (Parpola, LAS I, No. 29 = ABL 32) and Esarhaddon had to await another propitious opportunity to send it back. See Porter, IPP, 147–148. 64  Frame, RIMB 2, B.6.33.3: 5’–8’. 65  Millard, Iraq 26 (1964), 19–23. See also Grayson, ABC, 129. 66  Grayson, CAH 3/2, 149.

The Purpose of the Synchronistic King List

183

own name.67 This can be taken as blatant arrogation, for the religious building activities belonged to the scope of the basic duties fulfilled by the legitimate Babylonian monarch, the position of which was then held officially by Shamash-shuma-ukin. Moreover, the renovation of the temple of Marduk, Esagila, started earlier by Esarhaddon, was also attributed to Ashurbanipal.68 Further evidence can be seen in the “basket-bearing ceremony”, which was a very old royal ritual in Babylonia, practiced by the early kings of Babylonia, such as Ur-Nanshe,69 Gudea,70 Ur-Nammu (ca. 2112–2095 BC), Shulgi (ca. 2094–2047 BC) and Rim-Sin (ca. 1822–1763 BC) of Larsa.71 Esarhaddon revived this ancient ritual72 to present himself as “an essentially Babylonian king”, which was an important step in consolidating his rule over Babylonia.73 This ritual, naturally, continued to be practiced by Shamash-shuma-ukin during the reconstruction of the Nabu temple after he succeeded the Babylonian throne after his father.74 However, this very practice was also performed by Ashurbanipal,75 who was not the formal Babylonian ruler and would have had no such privilege to do so. Accordingly, the interference of Ashurbanipal in the domain of religious affairs was also a sign of his attempt to contend for influence over Babylonia with Shamash-shuma-ukin. From all the cases we have collected above, we can see that Shamash-shumaukin, although he was the official Babylonian monarch, was overshadowed greatly by Ashurbanipal. It seems more likely that he was not the actual Babylonian ruler with full power, but a figurehead subject to his younger brother and Assyrian overlord, Ashurbanipal. Although Shamash-shuma-ukin never showed his disaffection in his letters to Ashurbanipal,76 he might have had no choice but to endure the humiliation silently. However, it is also conceivable that he must have been quite reluctant to act as such a humble subordinate and leave the kingdom he inherited from his father to be supervised and dominated by Ashurbanipal, a fact which was decisively 67  Frame, RIMB 2, B.6.32. 68  Frame, RIMB 2, B.6.32.4: 8’–9’. 69  See Kramer, Sum, the third plate following page 64, “Ur-Nanshe, King of Lagash”. See also Sollberger and Kupper, IRSA, 46. 70  Edzard, RIME 3/1, E3/1.1.7.Cyl A: xviii, 10’–11’. 71  Ellis, FDAM, 67, Fig. 22–25. 72  Porter, IPP, 82–95. 73  Porter, IPP, 83–84. 74  Frame, RIMB 2, B.6.33.2; Porter, IPP, 89. 75  Frame, RIMB 2, B.6.32.14; Porter, IPP, 88. 76  Brinkman, PE, 85, n. 411.

184

Chapter 5

demonstrated by the great revolt he launched against his brother. Obviously, Ashurbanipal’s Babylonian policy was clearly a typical “double game”: publicly acknowledging Shamash-shuma-ukin’s position as Babylonian monarch – note that all the Babylonian royal titles used by Esarhaddon were assumed by Shamash-shuma-ukin and the local dating formulae of Babylonia were also recorded in his royal name – but in reality keeping firm control of Babylonia. Naturally, it is not important whether or not Ashurbanipal’s usurpation of his brother’s power was supported by the tacit consent or even the secret encouragement of Esarhaddon,77 who designed this dichotomous political frame personally, since this kind of “double game” was already a fait accompli. The root of this “double game” might have been the fact that – if we may put it this way – Ashurbanipal’s ambition of dominating everything was restricted by the separation of Assyria and Babylonia decided by Esarhaddon. That is, Ashurbanipal dared not blatantly nullify this fixed policy which had provided the foundation not only for his brother’s Babylonian throne but also (mainly) for his own Assyrian throne,78 yet nor would he sit back and watch the land of Babylonia fall into the hand of his brother. This political dilemma would run through the entire reign of Ashurbanipal, since even after he crushed the revolt of Shamash-shuma-ukin he did not assume the Babylonian kingship himself, but still appointed Kandalanu as the successor of Shamash-shuma-ukin.79 Nevertheless, we will find that his “double game” continued and deepened even more extensively during the reign of Kandalanu: 1) We know nothing about Kandalanu except for his name, which appears mainly in certain king lists (the ScKL, the BKLa and the UKL), chronicle (the Akitu Chronicle80) and economic texts.81 Furthermore, this name, as a royal name, is quite comical, for according to Oates, “the name Kandalanu itself is puzzling – it derives from some sort of kitchen utensil – perhaps more appropriate to a child than a ruling monarch”.82 The clues for his probable relationship to the royal family of Ashurbanipal83 come 77  Frame thought that to make the realm of Shamash-shuma-ukin subordinate to Assyria might have been precisely what Esarhaddon intended. See Frame, BPH, 114. 78   As suggested by Frame, if Ashurbanipal did not admit the Babylonian kingship of Shamash-shuma-ukin, his own Assyrian throne would have been threatened, since Shamash-shuma-ukin was his elder brother and enjoyed the priority to succeed Esarhaddon. See Frame, BPH, 105. 79  Frame believed that to abolish the position of king of Babylon would add to the grievances of the Babylonians. See Frame, BPH, 195. 80  Grayson, ABC, 132; Glassner, MC, 215. 81  Brinkman and Kennedy, JCS 35 (1983), 39–52. 82  Oates, CAH 3/2, 171. 83  See also the commentaries on iv 14’–16’ of A.117 above.

The Purpose of the Synchronistic King List

2)

3)

185

from a letter (CT 53, 966) mentioning him together with the sister of Ashurbanipal84 and the later traditions of Berossos recording that he succeed his brother Shamash-shuma-ukin.85 It seems that the extreme lack of traces for his historical activities as well as his origin would be the strongest evidence for his acting as a pure puppet under Ashurbanipal. Even merely as a name, Kandalanu is still not mentioned by Ashurbanipal in his royal inscriptions (issued most probably when he nominated Kandalanu as the new ruler of Babylonia), where he only stated that he threw the yoke of Assyria on Babylonia and appointed his own officials there.86 It seems reasonable to presume that Kandalanu would never have been overlooked by Ashurbanipal if he had indeed been an important figure. It seems unlikely that Kandalanu would have held reign over the entire land of Babylonia and more probable that the official authority of Kandalanu over Babylonia might have been quite limited. According to Brinkman, the land of Babylonia would have been handed to Kandalanu gradually and not all at once, for the economic documents from some cities (except Nippur), such as Borsippa, Uruk and Dilbat, were still being dated under Ashurbanipal even in the first two years of Kandalanu’s regin.87 It seems that those places were under the direct control of Ashurbanipal in the period of the interregnum. At the same time, there is no source belonging to the accession year of Kandalanu (648 BC) among all the extant economic documents dated to his reign.88 Most importantly, among all the cities in Babylonia, Nippur is the only one where all the known economic texts are dated with the regnal years of Ashurbanipal.89 The governors of Nippur would have been directly responsible to the Assyrian government,90 or in other words, that city must have been held by Ashurbanipal during the latter part of his reign or even by the later Assyrian kings in post-Ashurbanipal times (for about ten years).91 Perhaps the location of Nippur (in the middle of Babylonia) would have made it a significant military fort, from which the Assyrian armies could campaign

84  Frame, BPH, 195. 85  Brinkman, PE, 105, n. 525. 86  Novotny and Jeffers, RINAP 5/1, No. 11: iv 92’–109’. 87  Brinkman, PE, 106; Brinkman and Kennedy, JCS 35 (1983), 22–23. 88  Brinkman and Kennedy, JCS 35 (1983), 39. 89  Brinkman, CAH 3/2, 61; Brinkman and Kennedy, JCS 35 (1983), 21–24. 90  Grayson, CAH 3/2, 167. 91  Dubberstein, JNES 3/1 (1944), 40; Brinkman, PE, 106; Cole, SAAS 4, 78–80.

186

Chapter 5

both to the north and to the south.92 If so, controlling Nippur would have been one of the preventative measures taken by Ashurbanipal against another potential revolt like that of Shamash-shuma-ukin. 4) When installing Kandalanu on the Babylonian throne, Ashurbanipal appointed new officials and governors in Babylonia and imposed taxes, tributes and offerings on Babylonians at the same time. One of the wellknown governors was Shamash-danninanni, who was called “governor of Akkad” and “governor of Babylon” and would have held some authority over northern Babylonia. Furthermore, Shamash-danninanni and many other Babylonian officials were Assyrian eponyms. Thus, by appointing officials loyal to Assyria in Babylonia, Ashurbanipal could ensure a closer control over that land.93 5) Just as he had done during the reign of Shamash-shuma-ukin, Ashur­ banipal continued to carry out building activities throughout Babylonia in his own name without mentioning Kandalanu. Through repairing the structures damaged during the civil war, he might have intended to win the favor of Babylonians and consolidate the basis for his control over Babylonia.94 Accordingly, in contrast with Shamash-shuma-ukin, Kandalanu would have had much less power over Babylonian affairs.95 If Shamash-shuma-ukin was just a “half” figurehead, Kandalanu would have been a “full” one. Accord­ ingly, Ashurbanipal’s control over Babylonia would have been much firmer and mightier during the tenure of Kandalanu than in the period of Shamashshuma-ukin. The “double game” of Ashurbanipal, the basic mode of his Babylonian policy, might have reached its peak at that time. Thus, the separation of the Assyrian throne and the Babylonian throne, which was the kernel of Esarhaddon’s dichotomous political scheme, must have existed in name only. In fact, in the inscriptions of Sin-shar-ishkun, one of the titles dedicated to Ashurbanipal is “King of Sumer and Akkad”, which would imply that the position of Ashurbanipal as an “uncrowned” Babylonian monarch was publicly admitted by his son.96 However, from Ashurbanipal’s position, it would still have been necessary for him to justify his “double game”, that is, to illustrate that the “separation” 92  Brinkman, CAH 3/2, 61; Cole, SAAS 4, 79; Beaulieu, HB, 217. 93  Frame, BPH, 196. 94  Frame, BPH, 195–198. 95  Frame, BPH, 194. 96  Luckenbill, ARAB 2, No. 1153 (= KAH 2, No. 129), No. 1165 (= KAH 2, No. 134). For other occasions that Ashurbanipal was called “King of Sumer and Akkad” (especially in the inscriptions from Nippur), see Frame, BPH, 113.

The Purpose of the Synchronistic King List

187

had never been discarded. His motives are not so difficult to determine. For one thing, the established policy of Esarhaddon on the “separation” was the bottom line adhered to by Ashurbanipal. His adherence to this doctrine per se can, as we have noted, be demonstrated directly by the fact that he chose to install Kandalanu as the next Babylonian ruler after the revolt of Shamashshuma-ukin, rather than take over Babylonian sovereignty personally, assuming the double crown of Assyria and Babylonia like his father, even though the latter may be a better choice, since for nearly thirty years under the reigns of Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal (before the revolt of Shamash-shuma-ukin), the hostility against Assyria within Babylonia never developed into a real insurrection.97 In fact, the political framework of “separation” might have continued to function even in the post-Ashurbanipal times, which can be proven by the entry of another two successors (Sin-shum-lishir and Sin-shar-ishkun from the Assyrian court) of Kandalanu listed in the UKL. On the other hand, Ashurbanipal’s public proclamation of the validity of the “separation” policy might have been an attempt to console the political feelings of the Babylonians; unabashedly transforming the Babylonian king into an actual subordinate of the Assyrian monarch would have been debasing for them.98 It is difficult to state that the successful launching of Shamash-shuma-ukin’s revolt would have had nothing to do with such feelings. If so, when Kandalanu was imposed on the Babylonian throne, but was even further deprived of authority, it became even more urgent for Ashurbanipal to justify what he did: the policy of “separation” remained unchanged. Bearing this in mind, it is now possible for us to link what we have concluded from the Babylonian policy of Ashurbanipal with the purpose of the ScKL. Clearly, the pattern of “separation” reflected by the format of the ScKL is consistent with the policy of “separation” maintained publicly by Ashurbanipal. We believe that this would not have been a coincidence, for as we have demonstrated, A.117 might have been composed during the reign of Ashurbanipal, when he had already installed Kandalanu on the throne of Babylonia. At that time, in order to cover up his de facto control over Babylonia, Ashurbanipal 97  Porter, IPP, 153. 98  According to Brinkman, Babylonia was an exception to the Assyrian policy on conquered territories, i.e., incorporating them as provinces into the Assyrian realm or turning them into vassal kingdoms. Brinkman proposed that, since the Assyrians respected the ancient culture of Babylonia, “Assyria tended to preserve it as a separate kingdom by installing a vassal monarch or by having the Assyrian king reign directly also as king of Babylonia”. See Brinkman, JCS 25/2 (1973), 90. Frame also thought that the nominal Babylonian kings appointed by an Assyrian overlord without real independence of action “would have been galling to the Babylonians”. See Frame, BPH, 258.

188

Chapter 5

must have been trying to find a way to justify his Babylonian policy based upon his “double game” to the public: he had not broken the fixed political framework of “separation” of the two lands, that is, Assyria and Babylonia were still ruled by two independent monarchs respectively. In this context, what could be more persuasive than an official king list which covers a long period of more than one thousand years? So the purpose of the ScKL might have been simply to serve the very political interests of Ashurbanipal in that specific period, that is, to adduce the precedents of the separated kings of the two lands (with the exceptions of the Assyrian monarchs bearing the double crown) in that long history to support the superficial certainty of the “separation” of the thrones between Ashurbanipal and Shamash-shuma-ukin as well as Kandalanu. Thus, we shall try to look at the Babylonian royal title “King of Akkad” from another perspective. We have supposed that “King of Babylon” is included in the title of the Assyrian kings with dual-kingship and “King of Akkad” might have thus been employed to replace “King of Babylon”. However, to judge from within the political psychology of Ashurbanipal at that very time (when Kandalanu had just been installed on the Babylonian throne), “King of Babylon”, as a Babylonian royal title with a long historical tradition, would have granted the kings bearing this title the supreme legitimacy for ruling Babylonia. If Ashurbanipal had only aimed to admit the formal independence of Kandalanu, while maintaining substantial control over Babylonia, he would not have allowed Kandalanu to assume such a title, lest his puppet gain great acceptance from the Babylonians. That is also why Ashurbanipal called Shamash-shuma-ukin “King of Babylon” before the revolt, but only “King of Akkad” after the revolt. Accordingly, in the ScKL, this title cannot be assumed even by Ashurbanipal himself, nor can it be given to the actual Babylonian kings. In contrast, “King of Akkad” is the better choice, for this neutral title contains no such significant political implications. Furthermore, the possibility of such considerations underlying the compilation of this king list can also be supported by the entry of the ummânu of Ashurbanipal, Ishtar-shuma-eresh. As suggested by Parpola, he would have served as the ummânu (succeeding his father Nabu-zeru-lishir, who is the ummânu of Esarhaddon, as in iv 13’ of A.117) during the latter part of the reign of Esarhaddon and then continued to hold this office under Ashurbanipal.99 Considering that the policy of “separation” was presented towards the end of Esarhaddon’s reign and maintained by Ashurbanipal, the fact that Ishtar-shuma-eresh acted on this post successively during the two reigns might have provided a guarantee of the faithful and persistent implementation of 99  Parpola, LAS IIA, 32–33.

The Purpose of the Synchronistic King List

189

this policy. At least, the propositions concerning the ummânu should be never neglected: 1) he might not only have acted as the chief scribe at the court, but also have played (probably as the counselor of the king100) an important political role;101 2) the text of ScKL (A.117) might have been “drawn up by this official or under his direct supervision”.102 If so, the last entries in A.117, i.e. the corresponding pair of Ashurbanipal and Shamash-shuma-ukin and that of Ashurbanipal and Kandalanu, would have been the original source of the initial inspiration for composing the list. In order to obtain the supporting grounds from the past, the scribe would have applied the mode of synchronization between Ashurbanipal and those two Babylonian kings directly to all the other kings from the two lands and listed them in parallel pairs indicating that they are synchronistic, although the scribe cannot make certain of all the real synchronisms. This would have been a typical practice of rewriting the history of the past with a view to contemporary politics. The only goal is to make the past serve the present. 100  Parpola, LAS IIA, 6–7. 101  Schroeder, OLZ 23 (1920), 205–206; Weidner, MVAG 26/2 (1921), 10, n. 1. 102  Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 117. However, according to the duration of the career of Ishtar-shuma-eresh (678–650 BC) suggested by Parpola (LAS II, 3), the text of A.117 would not have been composed by him directly or under his leadership.

Chapter 6

Conclusion Admittedly, the sources of the ScKL are quite sparse. What is even worse is that among all the exemplars, only A.117 is relatively intact and other exemplars are rather fragmentary. Under these circumstances, our main knowledge about the ScKL is obtained mostly from A.117. Unfortunately, even in A.117, more than one third of the original tablet is lost and the first two columns on the obverse are badly damaged. However, we shall not be too pessimistic about our reconstructions. The conditions of the reverse of A.117 are much better than those of the obverse and the two copies provided by Schroeder (for the reverse) and Weidner were made by two different photos.1 The collations on part of the tablet of A.117 made by Kraus and Brinkman and those on all the fragments by Grayson are very helpful. At the same time, the present author has made use of the excavation photos of A.117–118 and collated the other fragments. Furthermore, by virtue of the AKL and the BKL, we can restore most of the lost entries in A.117. In addition to the reconstructions of the texts, we can also supply the missing information about the kings listed in the ScKL (especially their regnal years and royal filiations) and check the synchronizations of those parallel pairs of kings by their historical activities. The most important revision on the reconstructions of the text the present author has made – different from that of Poebel and Grayson2 – concentrates on the second column of A.117, where the positions of the kings from the Second Isin Dynasty were shifted downward by one line. The pivotal issue is the format of the ScKL. First of all, because the ScKL is one of the king lists in Mesopotamia, we cannot separate the ScKL from all the other king lists and treat it in isolation. By comparing the format of the ScKL with those of the other king lists, we find that the other king lists all present a “unidimensional” character (since their entries are recorded in accordance with the chronological sequence alone), while the ScKL a “bidimensional” character. In other words, the entries of the ScKL are arranged not only by chronological sequence in the vertical direction, but simultaneously in corresponding “synchronistic” pairs in the horizontal direction. 1  The copy of Weidner in AfO 3 (1926), 70–71 was made by the new photo taken when A.117 was discovered in the Archaeological Museum of Istanbul in 1925, while the copy of Schroeder in KAV was made by the old excavation photo of the tablet. 2  Poebel, AS 15, 14; Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 118–119.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004430921_007

Conclusion

191

As we have demonstrated, such a “bidimensional” frame is guaranteed by placing those synchronistic pairs of kings into independent units, which are listed in chronological sequence. We then concluded two rules by which the scribe arranged those synchronistic pairs: 1) never list several kings of one land parallel with several kings of the other land in a single unit; that is, there is no type of “more to more” correspondence for the synchronistic pairs; 2) never list one king in two or more different units; that is, a certain king can only be limited to one unit. We can see that, by these two rules, we are able to revise the sequence for the Babylonian kings in the second column of A.117 restored by Poebel and Grayson. Following the two rules, we have investigated the way in which the scribe placed the entries into individual units. As a “synchronistic” king list, the ScKL should have listed the actual synchronisms, with most of them based upon the reliable historical sources. However, it seems odd that, as noted by many scholars,3 there exist many “non-synchronisms” in the ScKL, which can be classified into two types: those kings who were in fact contemporary are separated and those who cannot have been contemporary in reality are grouped together. Moreover, to judge from the format of a “real” synchronistic king list, that is, if we can imagine such a king list recording all the contemporary kings in the strictest sense, many of the names of Assyrian or Babylonian kings would have been repeated in successive lines, for each of them might probably have been contemporary with several kings of the other land. However, in the ScKL (A.117), we cannot find such a phenomenon. On the contrary, almost a quarter of the text lists synchronisms equated with each other in a “one to one” correspondence.4 We cannot lay all the blames on the ancient scribes. It might be presumptuous to suggest that the scribe of A.117 may not have known the three overlapping dynasties in the first column,5 or that a later redactor might have changed the format of the original text.6 If modern scholars know that those dynasties partly overlapped, there is no ground for us to assume that the scribe of A.117 would not have held that knowledge. Even though the format of the text could have been changed in later times, this could hardly explain why so many untrue contemporary pairs occurred. More importantly, one point should never be neglected: the synchronisms in the last column of A.117 are extremely exact. The principle we must adhere to is that we should not adapt the document to our judgment, but our judgment to the 3  Weidner, MVAG 26/2 (1921), 22; Brinkman, PKB, 28; Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 117. 4  See i 1’–10’, 19’–21’, ii 1’ and 7’, iii 1’–8’, 16’–21 of A.117. 5  Weidner, MVAG 26/2 (1921), 23. 6  Poebel, JNES 2/1 (1943), 61–62, n. 236.

192

Chapter 6

document. Accordingly, the better way must be to interpret the format of the ScKL from another perspective, or in other words, from the perspective of the scribe who designed this format to compile his document. We have observed that the arrangement of synchronisms and nonsynchronisms would actually have been created by the dividing lines, since two horizontal lines will make an independent unit. Thus, the synchronisms will be placed together in the same unit, while the non-synchronisms in different ones. We have generalized three “standards” by which the scribe drew those dividing lines. We find that the first standard followed by the scribe would have been to draw the horizontal lines according to the historical sources he could obtain. As we have noted, quite a few kings are parallel with others in the type of “one to one”, forming a single pair of contemporaries in a single line. However, it may be no accident that those kings are mostly from the “Dark Ages”, about which modern scholars could acquire little information. We cannot deny the possibility that the scribe, confronted with a similar lack of information, would have tended to draw a line under every single pair of kings, implying that those pairs are more or less contemporary. But if a particular pair could be proven to be indeed contemporary by the available sources, then all the kings above this pair and below the last pair will be crammed into one unit (with one king being parallel with several kings from the other land) and the “MIN” signs will be inscribed below that single king. The second standard would have been for the scribe to draw a dividing line under the name of an ummânu. Apart from a few lines in A.117, we can also find such dividing lines in 5’ of KAV 11 and possibly iii 12’ of A.118. That is to say, an ummânu is separated from the king in the next unit. In line with this observation, the ummânu belonging to a particular king would never be combined with other kings following the previous one, i.e., an ummânu would never be sandwiched between two successive kings in a given unit. Finally, the third standard developed by the scribe can be seen with regard to certain non-synchronisms which can be proven to have been real synchronisms but which have been separated from one another by the scribe. Most of the relevant cases appear in the third column of A.117. To some extent, this phenomenon is caused by the dividing lines under those ummânū. In fact, such an arrangement might have come from a different consideration of the scribe, that is, a certain synchronistic pair of kings listed by the scribe must have been the “main” contemporaries, or both of them would have been on the throne at the same time during the greater part of their reigns. Thus, the other kings who might also have been synchronistic with one of them will

Conclusion

193

be excluded, for they were only contemporary with their counterparts for a shorter time. Naturally, it is only possible for us to date A.117 and A.118. As for the other exemplars, because of the lack of the last entries or the colophons, their date cannot be determined. In accordance with our restoration on the name of the last Babylonian king in A.118, we can date that fragment to the reign of Ashuretil-ilani. By the comparison between the last entry in A.118 and that in A.117 as well as the hints obtained from the Assyrian royal filiations and the Babylonian royal title in the last column of A.117, we may date A.117 to the reign of Ashurbanipal, or to be more precise, to the time when Ashurbanipal had already installed Kandalanu on the Babylonian throne. Thus, we may surmise that A.118 would have been an enlarged edition of A.117, for the entry of Ashur-etil-ilani, the successor of Ashurbanipal, was added. In light of this observation, another difference between the ScKL and the other king lists can be tentatively concluded: the other king lists may be considered “past”, for the reign of the last entry in the list had already ended when the text was composed, but the ScKL would be “present”, for the king listed in the last entry must be still on the throne. We have also tried to explain why A.117 would begin with Erishum I and Sumu-la-El. We find that – inspired by the separation of the first three groups before Erishum I in the AKL, possibly indicating that the information on the regnal years and the royal filiations in those groups is not complete – the scribe would have listed Erishum I, the first one whose eponyms are known, as the initial Assyrian king in order to base his work on the reliable historical sources. As for Sumu-la-El, it has been demonstrated that he might be the de facto founder of the First Dynasty of Babylon and it is most probably under his reign that the city of Babylon began to rise in Mesopotamia, although he is taken as the second king of that dynasty by the BKLb. Thus, the scribe of the ScKL would have listed him as the first Babylonian king when recording the history of royal families of various dynasties of “Babylon”. Or indeed, Erishum I and Sumu-la-El may well have been actual contemporaries. We also find that the number of the Assyrian kings and that of the Babylonian kings listed in A.117 are inconsistent with the numbers obtained from the AKL and the BKLa. Although the reasons for those inconsistencies cannot be rendered with certainty for the present, it is probable that the selection of Assyrian kings in the ScKL differs from that in the AKL (the conclusion that one more king omitted in the AKL would have been included in the ScKL cannot be immediately drawn) and that some Babylonian kings from the 9th to the 8th century BC contained in the BKLa are not listed in the ScKL. We thus

194

Chapter 6

suppose that the ScKL might be another enlarged edition of the AKL, while both the ScKL and the BKLa would have used the same source as their common reference, only adding different entries respectively on the basis of this common source (if it really exists). As is reflected through the entries in A.117, “MIN” would have been used to indicate the repetition of the royal name and the royal title. When standing for the royal name, as proposed by Poebel, “MIN” would imply that the king whose name is repeated and the one in the next unit are directly successive.7 That is, this sign is inscribed to avoid a misunderstanding leading to the interruption of successive reigns. Moreover, we find that when referring to the royal title following the royal name, “MIN” would recall the title inscribed in the first line of each column. The role of the ummânu listed below a king should never be underestimated. The duties of this official can be observed to consist of two aspects: the head of the scribes and the counselor of the king. If the explanations of Weidner and Grayson8 can be accepted, the scribe may have wanted to provide evidence that his record was based on reliable sources which can be dated back to a particular ummânu, who would possibly have been the original compiler of the source. An important clue may be that those officials are listed frequently in the latter two columns of A.117, but only mentioned sporadically in the former two columns. That is, for the times closer to the scribe, he would have been able to obtain more sources as useful references to compile his text. As for the entries of those ummânū, two points are worth noticing. One is that the half-line corresponding to an ummânu would be kept blank but not inscribed with the sign “MIN”, although some ummânū with a long name would occupy a whole single line. The other is that a horizontal dividing line was always drawn under an ummânu. The title of the Babylonian kings in A.117, “King of Akkad”, is by no means insignificant. Considering that the most usual Babylonian royal titles, “King of Babylon” and “King of Karduniash”, are discarded by the scribe, but the title he employs, “King of Akkad”, had scarcely ever been used by the Babylonian monarchs of various dynasties after the Old Akkadian Kingdom, such a rare use must be regarded as extremely strange. We find that “King of Babylon” had already been included in the title for the Assyrian kings who ruled both Assyria and Babylonia and that “King of Karduniash” could not be used to refer to the kings before the Kassite Dynasty. Thus in order to protect the privilege of those double-crowned kings who already enjoyed the title “King of Babylon”, 7  Poebel, JNES 2/1 (1943), 61. 8  Weidner, MVAG 26/2 (1921), 10; Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 117.

Conclusion

195

the scribe employed a substitute term (in the geographical sense) – “King of Akkad” – for the traditional Babylonian royal titles. A further possibility is that the choice of “King of Akkad” instead of “King of Babylon” might have had something to do with the actual Babylonian policy of Ashurbanipal: those Babylonian kings (including Shamash-shuma-ukin and Kandalanu) were deliberately deprived of this title, inasmuch as this title would have been the sign of an authentic Babylonian king, a title Ashurbanipal himself would have desired but could not have assumed publicly. Thus, “King of Akkad”, which is used in the same way as “the Land of Akkad”, would have been a “neutral” expression to refer to the rulers of Babylonia without too heavily implying the orthodoxy of the authentic Babylonian monarchs, thereby allowing Ashurbanipal – having subtly weakened the legitimate title of his concurrent Babylonian counterparts – to further consolidate his control over Babylonia. The investigation into the purpose of the ScKL, which can mainly be deduced from the text of A.117, remains of necessity somewhat tentative. First of all, the studies on the purposes of other king lists (the SKL, the LgKL and the AKL) are beneficial for our research. We can glean three important instructions from those studies, namely to seek the answer from: 1) the most indicative clues contained within the list itself; 2) the specific historical background under which the list was composed; 3) the special political interests behind the compilation of the list. Because the ScKL lists the kings of Assyria and Babylonia in two separate sub-columns, the “separation” of the thrones in the two lands could be taken as a favorable breakthrough point. Since we have dated A.117 to the reign of Ashurbanipal, the “separation” of the Assyrian kingship and the Babylonian kingship at that time would be in step with the “separation” of the kings from both lands in A.117. Thus, we may seek to place the compilation of the ScKL against the background of Ashurbanipal’s Babylonian policy. Through a retrospection on the history of the corresponding reigns of Ashurbanipal and Shamash-shuma-ukin as well as Kandalanu, we conclude that the Babylonian policy of Ashurbanipal was actually a “double game”: to uphold the official authority of Shamash-shuma-ukin and Kandalanu in public, but to place Babylonian affairs under his own control in actual fact. However, as we have demonstrated, in order to avoid either blatantly discarding the “separation” policy dictated by Esarhaddon or provoking the possible dissatisfaction of the Babylonians, Ashurbanipal would still have needed to take certain measures to justify his actions and prove before the public that the original policy of “separation” remained unchanged. Under these circumstances, the ScKL, by listing the separate kings of Assyria and Babylonia in one document, could be taken as the most effective propaganda to fulfill this special political interest, since the “separation” of the Assyrian kings and the

196

Chapter 6

Babylonian kings in a long history of more than one thousand years – from the beginning of the First Dynasty of Babylon to the reigns of Shamash-shumaukin and Kandalanu – would have been the most powerful attestation of the “fact” that the thrones of the two lands are always separated. Thus, the last entries in A.117, the corresponding reigns of Ashurbanipal and Shamash-shumaukin as well as Kandalanu, might have served as the original model for recording all the previous kings from both lands during that long history into one synchronistic king list.

Appendix I

A List of Assyrian Kings No.

Name

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

Tudija Adamu Jangi Suhlamu (Lillamua) Harharu Mandaru Imsu Harsu Didanu Hanu Zuabu Nuabu Abazu Belu Azarah Ushpia Apiashal Hale Samanu Hajani Ilu-Mer Jakmesi Jakmeni Jazkur-ilu Ilu-kabkabi Aminu Sulili Kikkia Akia Puzur-Ashur I Shalim-ahum Ilu-shuma

Filiation

Son of Ushpia Son of Apiashal Son of Hale Son of Samanu Son of Hajani Son of Ilu-Mer Son of Jakmesi Son of Jakmeni Son of Jazkur-ilu Son of Ilu-kabkabi Son of Aminu

Son of Puzur-Ashur I Son of Shalim-ahum

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004430921_008

Date (BC) or Regnal years

198

Appendix I

No.

Name

Filiation

Date (BC) or Regnal years

33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68

Erishum I Ikunum Sargon I Puzur-Ashur II Naram-Sin Erishum II Shamshi-Adad I Ishme-Dagan I Ashur-dugul Ashur-apla-idi Nasir-Sin Sin-namir Ibqi-Ishtar Adad-salulu Adasi Bel-bani Libaja Sharma-Adad I Iptar-Sin Bazaja Lullaja Kidin-Ninua Sharma-Adad II Erishum III Shamshi-Adad II Ishme-Dagan II Shamshi-Adad III Ashur-nirari I Puzur-Ashur III Enlil-nasir I Nur-ili Ashur-shaduni Ashur-rabi I Ashur-nadin-ahhe I Enlil-nasir II Ashur-nirari II

Son of Ilu-shuma Son of Erishum I Son of Ikunum Son of Sargon I Son of Puzur-Ashur II Son of Naram-Sin Son of Ilu-kabkabic Son of Shamshi-Adad I Son of Nobody Son of Nobody Son of Nobody Son of Nobody Son of Nobody Son of Nobody Son of Nobody Son of Adasi Son of Bel-bani Son of Libaja Son of Sharma-Adad I Son of Bel-bani Son of Nobody Son of Bazaja Son of Kidin-Ninua Son of Kidin-Ninua Son of Erishum III Son of Shamshi-Adad II Son of Ishme-Daganf Son of Ishme-Dagan II Son of Ashur-nirari I Son of Puzur-Ashur III Son of Enlil-nasir I Son of Nur-ili Son of Enlil-nasir I Son of Ashur-rabi I Son of Ashur-rabi I Son of Ashur-rabi I

1974–1935 1934–1921 1920–1881 1880–1873 1872–1829/19 1828/18–1809b 1808–1776 40 yearsd 6 years No more than 1 year?e

10 years 17 years 12 years 12 years 28 years 6 years 14 years 3 years 13 years 6 years 16 years 16 years 26 years 14 years 13 years 12 years 1 month […] […]g 1430–1425 1424–1418

199

A List of Assyrian Kings No.

Name

Filiation

Date (BC) or Regnal years

69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104

Ashur-bel-nisheshu Ashur-rim-nisheshu Ashur-nadin-ahhe II Eriba-Adad I Ashur-uballit I Enlil-nirari Arik-den-ili Adad-nirari I Shalmaneser I Tukulti-Ninurta I Ashur-nadin-apli Ashur-nirari III Enlil-kudurri-usur Ninurta-apil-Ekur Ashur-dan I Ninurta-tukulti-Ashur Mutakkil-Nusku Ashur-resha-ishi I Tiglath-pileser I Asharid-apil-Ekur Ashur-bel-kala Eriba-Adad II Shamshi-Adad IV Ashurnasirpal I Shalmaneser II Ashur-nirari IV Ashur-rabi II Ashur-resha-ishi II Tiglath-pileser II Ashur-dan II Adad-nirari II Tukulti-Ninurta II Ashurnasirpal II Shalmaneser III Shamshi-Adad V Adad-nirari III

Son of Ashur-nirari II Son of Ashur-nirari II Son of Ashur-rim-nisheshu Son of Ashur-bel-nisheshu Son of Eriba-Adad I Son of Ashur-uballit I Son of Enlil-nirari Son of Arik-den-ilih Son of Adad-nirari I Son of Shalmaneser I Son of Tukulti-Ninurta I Son of Ashur-nadin-apli Son of Tukulti-Ninurta I Son of Ili-padai Son of Ninurta-apil-Ekur Son of Ashur-dan I Son of Ashur-dan I Son of Mutakkil-Nusku Son of Ashur-resha-ishi I Son of Tiglath-pileser I Son of Tiglath-pileser I Son of Ashur-bel-kala Son of Tiglath-pileser I Son of Shamshi-Adad IV Son of Ashurnasirpal I Son of Shalmaneser II Son of Ashurnasirpal I Son of Ashur-rabi II Son of Ashur-resha-ishi II Son of Tiglath-pileser II Son of Ashur-dan II Son of Adad-nirari II Son of Tukulti-Ninurta II Son of Ashurnasirpal II Son of Shalmaneser III Son of Shamshi-Adad V

1417–1409 1408–1401 1400–1391 1390–1364 1363–1328 1327–1318 1317–1306 1305–1274 1273–1244 1243–1207 1206–1203 1202–1197 1196–1192 1191–1179 1178–1133 1132 1132–1115 1114–1076 1075–1074 1073–1056 1055–1054 1053–1050 1049–1031 1030–1019 1018–1013 1012–972 971–967 966–935 934–912 911–891 890–884 883–859 858–824 823–811 810–783

200

Appendix I

No.

Name

Filiation

Date (BC) or Regnal years

105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117

Shalmaneser IV Ashur-dan III Ashur-nirari V Tiglath-pileser III Shalmaneser V Sargon II Sennacherib Esarhaddon Ashurbanipal Ashur-etil-ilani Sin-shum-lishir Sin-shar-ishkun Ashur-uballit II

Son of Adad-nirari III Son of Adad-nirari III Son of Adad-nirari III Son of Adad-nirari IIIj Son of Tiglath-pileser III Son of Tiglath-pileser III?k Son of Sargon II Son of Sennacherib Son of Esarhaddon Son of Ashurbanipal

782–773 772–755 754–745 744–727 726–722 721–705 704–681 680–669 668–627 626–623?

Son of Ashurbanipal

611–609

This list is produced mainly by the sources of the AKL. See Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 101–115. For the date and the regnal years of the kings see Brinkman, AM, 344–346; Veenhof, OBO 160/5, 29; CA, 58. See also Frahm, CA, 613–616. a Chen, NABU 2019/1, 19–20. b According to Veenhof, the total reign length of Naram-Sin and Erishum II would have been 64 years. See Veenhof, OALYE, 45, n. 77; OBO 160/5, 29. c The father of Shamshi-Adad I was not the Assyrian king (the 25th in this list) with the same name. See Poebel, JNES 1/3 (1942), 274–275, 286–287; Azize, Abr-N 35 (1998), 13–15; Siddall, Or 76 (2007), 368–378. d The number of the regnal years of Ishme-Dagan I in the SDAS was read by Gelb as 50. See Gelb, JNES 13/4 (1954), 213, ii 7’. e The total reign length of the six kings marked with “ṭuppišu” would be no more than one year. See Baker, RA 104 (2010), 158–159. f This Ishme-Dagan is the brother of Sharma-Adad II but not Ishme-Dagan II. See Yamada, ZA 84 (1994), 28, n. 51; Azize, Abr-N 35 (1998), 6. g As for the two consecutive kings, Ashur-rabi I and Ashur-nadin-ahhe I, Poebel believed that neither of them had an official year of his own. See Poebel, JNES 1/3 (1942), 296. However, the number of the combined regal years of the two kings was restored by some scholars as 14 + 15. See Gasche et al., MHEM 4, 54. h Adad-nirari I is the brother of Arik-den-ili according to the KhKL and the SDAS (Gelb, JNES 13/4 [1954], 218, iii 17’; 219, iii 8’), but the son of Arik-den-ili according to the NaKL (Nassouhi, AfO 4 [1927], 7, iii 23’) and his own royal inscriptions (Grayson, RIMA 1, A.0.76.1: 18’). The former must be erroneous. See Poebel, JNES 1/4 (1942), 484; Yamada, EI 27 (2003), 269. i Ili-pada, the king of Hanigalbat and vizier under Ashur-nirari III, was the descendant of Adad-nirari I. j Tiglath-pileser III was the son of Ashur-nirari V according to the SDAS (Gelb, JNES 13/4 [1954], 223, iv 24’), but the son of Adad-nirari III according to his own inscription (Tadmor

A List of Assyrian Kings

201

and Yamada, RINAP 1, No. 58: 2’). The former is probably incorrect. See Yamada, ZA 84 (1994), 34, n. 78; EI 27 (2003), n. 16. k Vera Chamaza, SAAB 6 (1992), 21–33; Thomas, AOAT 232 (1993), 465–470; Fuchs, RLA 12 (2009), 53; Frahm, CA, 180. However, it was also suggested that Sargon II might have been a usurper, for: 1) Sargon II never mentioned the name of his father in his royal inscriptions, with the only exception that he once claimed to be the son of Tiglath-pileser III; 2) in the “Ashur Charter” (Saggs, Iraq 37/1 [1975], 11–20), Sargon II reprimanded his direct predecessor, Shalmaneser V, for levying corvée on the citizens of Ashur and declared that this was why Shalmaneser V had been discarded and he was installed as the legitimate king by the gods. See Grayson, CAH 3/2, 87. See also Beaulieu, HB, 201.

Appendix II

A List of Babylonian Kings Dynasty

Amorite

Sealand I

Kassite

Name

Sumu-abum Sumu-la-El Sabium Apil-Sin Sin-muballit Hammurabi Samsu-iluna Abishi Ammi-ditana Ammi-saduqa Samsu-ditana Iliman Itti-ili-nibi Damqi-ilishu Ishkibal Shushi Gulkishar GÍŠ-EN? Peshgaldaramesh Adarakalamma Ekurduanna Melamkurkurra Ea-gamil Gandash Agum I Kashtiliashu I Abi-Rattash Kashtiliashu II Urzigurumash

Filiation

Son of Sumu-la-El Son of Sabium Son of Apil-Sin Son of Sin-muballit Son of Hammurabi Son of Samsu-iluna Son of Abishi Son of Ammi-ditana Son of Ammi-saduqa

Son of Gulkishar Son of Peshgaldaramesh

Son of Gandash Son of Agum I Son of Kashtiliashu I

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004430921_009

Date (BC) or Regnal years 1894–1881 1880–1845 1844–1831 1830–1813 1812–1793 1792–1750 1749–1712 1711–1684 1683–1647 1646–1626 1625–1595 60 years 56 years? 26 years? 15 years 24 years 55 years 12 years 50 years 28 years 26 years 7 years 9 years 26 years 22 years 22 years 8 years?

203

A List of Babylonian Kings Dynasty

Name

Harba-Shipak Tiptakzi Agum II Burnaburiash I […]a Kashtiliashu III Ulamburiash Agum III Karaindash Kadashman-Harbe I Kurigalzu I Kadashman-Enlil I Burnaburiash II Karahardash Nazibugash Kurigalzu II Nazimaruttash Kadashman-Turgu Kadashman-Enlil II Kudur-Enlil Shagarakti-Shuriash Kashtiliashu IV Enlil-nadin-shumi Kadashman-Harbe II Adad-shuma-iddina Adad-shuma-usur Meli-Shipak Merodach-Baladan I Zababa-shuma-iddina Enlil-nadin-ahhe

Filiation

Date (BC) or Regnal years

Son of Urzigurumash

Son of Burnaburiash I? Son of Burnaburiash I? Son of Kashitiliash IIIb

Son of Kadashman-Harbe I Son of Kadashman-Enlil I? Son of Burnaburiash II? Son of Nobody Son of Burnaburiash II Son of Kurigalzu II Son of Nazimaruttash Son of Kadashman-Turgu Son of Kadashman-Enlil II Son of Kudur-Enlil Son of Shagarakti-Shuriash

Son of Kashtiliashu IV? Son of Adad-shuma-usur Son of Meli-Shipak

1374?–1360 1359–1333 1333 1333 1332–1308 1307–1282 1281–1264 1263–1255 1254–1246 1245–1233 1232–1225 1224 1223 1222–1217 1216–1187 1186–1172 1171–1159 1158 1157–1155

204 Dynasty

Isin II

Sealand II

Bazid

Elamite

Uncertain

Appendix II Name

Filiation

Marduk-kabit-ahheshu Itti-Marduk-balatu Ninurta-nadin-shumi Nebuchadnezzar I Enlil-nadin-apli Marduk-nadin-ahhe Marduk-shapik-zeri Adad-apla-iddinac Marduk-ahhe-eriba Marduk-zer-[…] Nabu-shumu-libur Simbar-Shipak Ea-mukin-zeri Kashshu-nadin-ahhe Eulmash-shakin-shumi Ninurta-kudurri-usur I Shirikti-shuqamuna

1157–1140 Son of Marduk-kabit-ahheshu 1139–1132 1131–1126 Son of Ninurta-nadin-shumi 1125–1104 Son of Nebuchadnezzar I 1103–1100 Son of Ninurta-nadin-shumi 1099–1082 1081–1069 1068–1047 1046 1045–1034 1033–1026 Son of Eriba-Sin 1025–1008 1008 Son of Sappaja 1007–1005 1004–988 987–985 Brother of 985 Ninurta-kudurri-usur I 984–979 978–943 Son of Nabu-mukin-apli 943 Son of Nabu-mukin-apli

Mar-biti-apla-usur Nabu-mukin-apli Ninurta-kudurri-usur II Mar-biti-ahhe-iddina Shamash-mudammiq Nabu-shuma-ukin I Nabu-apla-iddina Marduk-zakir-shumi I Marduk-balassu-iqbi Baba-aha-iddina Unknown Interregnum Ninurta-apla-[…] Marduk-bel-zeri Marduk-apla-usur

Son of Nabu-shuma-ukin I Son of Nabu-apla-iddina Son of Marduk-zakir-shumi I Son of Lidanu

Date (BC) or Regnal years

33 years? 27 years?

205

A List of Babylonian Kings Dynasty

Ee

Shapig Assyrian

Chaldean

Name

Filiation

Eriba-Marduk

Son of Marduk-shakinshumi

Nabu-shuma-ishkun Nabonassar Nabu-nadin-zeri Nabu-shuma-ukin IIf Nabu-mukin-zerih Tiglath-pileser III / Pulu Shalmaneser V / Ululaju Merodach-baladan IIi Sargon II Sennacherib Marduk-zakir-shumi II Merodach-baladan II Bel-ibni Ashur-nadin-shumi Nergal-ushezib Mushezib-Marduk Sennacherib Esarhaddon Ashurbanipal Shamash-shuma-ukin Kandalanu Sin-shum-lishir Sin-shar-ishkun Nabopolassar Nebuchadnezzar II Amel-Marduk Neriglissar Labashi-Marduk Nabonidus

Son of Nabonassar

Son of Adad-nirari III Son of Tiglath-pileser III Son of Tiglath-pileser III Son of Sargon II

Son of Sennacherib

Son of Sargon II Son of Sennachrib Son of Esarhaddon Son of Esarhaddon

Son of Ashurbanipal Son of Nabopolassar Son of Nebuchadnezzar II Son-in-law of Nebuchadnezzar II Son of Neriglissar Son of Nabu-balassu-iqbij

Date (BC) or Regnal years

760?–748 747–734 733–732 732 731–729 728–727 726–722 721–710 709–705 704–703 703 703 702–700 699–694 693 692–689 688–681 680–669 668 667–648 647–627 626 625–605 604–562 561–560 559–556 556 555–539

206

Appendix II

This list is produced mainly by the BKL (a–c), the UKL and the studies of Brinkman in MSKH and PKB. For the sources of the BKL (a–c) see Grayson, RLA 6 (1980–1983), 90–100. For the date and the regnal years of the kings see Brinkman, AM, 337–340; KBUK 1, 36. a This unknown king seems to appear only in the ScKL (i 20’ of A.117). b Although no royal title is added before the name of this Kashtiliashu in the Chronicle of Early Kings (Grayson, ABC, 156), he may be none other than Kashtiliashu III. See Brinkman, MSKH, 175. c For the filiation of Adad-apla-iddina see Brinkman, PKB, 135–138. d For more details on the Bazi Dynasty see Brinkman, PKB, 157–160. e For more details on the E Dynasty see Brinkman, PKB, 166–167. f Nabu-shuma-ukin II might have been a provincial official without royal blood under Nabu-nadin-zeri. See Brinkman, PKB, 235. g For more details on the Shapi Dynasty see Brinkman, PKB, 166, 236. h Nabu-mukin-zeri might have been from a Chaldean tribe named Amukanu. See Brinkman, PKB, 235. i Merodach-baladan II traced his origins back to Eriba-Marduk in his royal inscriptions. See Frame, RIMB 2, B.6.21.1. j Nabonidus was not from the royal family of Nabopolassar and ascended the throne by overthrowing Labashi-Marduk. See Beaulieu, RN, 67–86; Dandamayev, RLA 9 (1998–2001), 7–8.

Appendix III

The Selected Synchronistic Kings of Assyria and Babylonia in the Lacunae of A.117 1

Shamshi-Adad I / Ishme-Dagan I vs. Hammurabi

The synchronization of Hammurabi and the ruling family of Shamshi-Adad I’s kingdom can be proven by the correspondence between them, including the letters of Yasmah-Addu, the ruler of Mari and younger son of Shamshi-Adad I, to Hammurabi as well as an official named Hulalum in Babylon1 and those of Ishme-Dagan I to Hammurabi.2 Landsberger proposed that Shamshi-Adad I might still have been alive during the first ten years of Hammurabi’s reign and that the first year of IshmeDagan I would have been the 11th year of Hammurabi’s reign.3 However, it was also suggested that Shamshi-Adad I would have died in the 12th / 13th4 or 17th / 18th5 year of Hammurabi’s reign and Ishme-Dagan I in the 28th or 31st year.6 If so, the reign length of Ishme-Dagan I recorded in the AKL might be unreliable and he would have ruled as the successor of Shamshi-Adad I only for about 11 years.7

1  van Koppen, MARI 8 (1997), 418–421; Durand, DÉPM, No. 916. 2  Charpin, ARM 26/2 (1988), No. 384. 3  Landsberger, JCS 8/1 (1954), 39, n. 44. 4  Whiting, OBOSA 6, 210, n. 205. 5  Veenhof, AP, 35; van de Mieroop, KHB, 9; Eder, AoF 31 (2004), 213; Gasche et al., MHEM 4, 52; Gasche et al., Akkadica 108 (1998), 1–2; Charpin and Durand, MARI 4 (1985), 293–343. Since the Assyrian calendar year begins in spring, while the Babylonian calendar year begins in autumn, the year of Shamshi-Adad I’s death was later restored by Charpin and Ziegler to be the 18th year of Hammurabi’s reign. See Charpin and Ziegler, FM 5, 160–161; see also Pruzsinszky, MCh, 163. 6  According to the Mari Letters, Ishme-Dagan I might have had to withdraw from Ekallatu and take sanctuary at Babylon in the 28th year of Hammurabi. See Gasche et al., MHEM 4, 52. Since Ishme-Dagan I disappeared from the sources after the 30th year of Hammurabi, Veenhof suggested that his last year would have been the 31st year of Hammurabi’s reign. See Veenhof, MARI 4 (1985), 213. 7  Gasche et al., MHEM 4, 52–53. Landsberger proposed that Ishme-Dagan I might have ruled the first half of his reign as the ruler at Ekallatu (before the death of Shamshi-Adad I) and then the second half of his reign as king of Assyria at Ashur (after the death of Shamshi-Adad I). See Landsberger, JCS 8/1 (1954), 36–37. For the invalidity of the reign length of Ishme-Dagan I in the AKL see also Veenhof, MARI 4 (1985), 212; CA, 68.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004430921_010

208 2

Appendix III

Ashur-uballit I vs. the Kassite Kings from Burnaburiash II to Kurigalzu II

Ashur-uballit I must have been contemporary with several Babylonian kings. His first Babylonian counterpart must have been Burnaburiash II, because both of them were in correspondence with the Egyptian pharaoh Amenhotep IV.8 Moreover, Ashuruballit I married his daughter Muballitat-Sherua to a Kassite king. Muballitat-Sherua gave birth to a son, who later became the Babylonian king but was soon overthrown by a native Kassite. Ashur-uballit I marched to Babylonia and expelled the usurper and then installed a new Babylonian king. This event, which must have happened towards the end of the Amarna Period,9 was recorded by the Synchronistic History and Chronicle P,10 but the narratives of the two sources are inconsistent: 1) The son of Muballitat-Sherua is first called Karahardash but then Karaindash in the Synchronistic History, but KadashmanHarbe, son of Karaindash, son of Muballitat-Sherua, according to Chronicle P; 2) The usurper is called Nazibugash in the Synchronistic History, but Shuzigash in Chronicle P; 3) The new Babylonian king installed by Ashur-uballit I is Kurigalzu, the younger, son of Burnaburiash, according to the Synchronistic History, but Kurigalzu, son of Kadashman-Harbe, according to Chronicle P. However, neither of both sources records explicitly who the husband of Muballitat-Sherua was. The difference between the names of the usurper might be due to diverse phonetic readings. According to Peise and Röllig, the authentic name should be Nazibugash.11 The two sources both record that the Babylonian king installed by Ashur-uballit I is called Kurigalzu, who must be Kurigalzu II.12 According to Brinkman, there could only have been two Kassite kings named Kurigalzu.13 Kurigalzu in the Synchronistic History is clearly called “the younger, son of Burnaburiash”, which would imply that there had been a previous king with the same name. Moreover, Burnaburiash II also mentioned one of his ancestors named Kurigalzu,14 who must be Kurigalzu I. Of the two “Kurigalzu”: one was the son of Kadashman-Harbe, and the other was the son of Burnaburiash;15 one ruled before Burnaburiash II and the other ruled after 8  Moran, AL, EA 7–11, 15–16. For the time of Burnaburiash II’s reign see Boese, UF 14 (1982), 15–26. 9  Brinkman, MSKH, 421. 10  Grayson, ABC, 159–160, 171–172. 11  Peise, OLZ 11 (1908), 8; Röllig, HSAO, 175, n. 3. 12  Grayson, ABC, 212. 13  Brinkman, Or 38 (1969), 320–327; RLA 6 (1980–1983), 369–370. For the earlier proposition of “Kurigalzu III”, see Peise, OLZ 11 (1908), 9; Ungnad, AfK 1 (1923), 21. 14  Moran, AL, EA 11; Maidman, Kaskal 8 (2011), 112–113; Mladjov, NABU 2016/3, 109–110. 15  Brinkman, MSKH, 205.

The Selected Synchronistic Kings of Assyria and Babylonia

209

Burnaburiash II. Thus based upon the Synchronistic History, Kurigalzu II must be the son of Burnaburiash II; while in accordance with Chronicle P, Kurigalzu II is the son of a Kadashman-Harbe. Furthermore, the identifications for the son and the husband of Muballitat-Sherua remain irreconcilable between the two sources. By the Synchronistic History, the son of Muballitat-Sherua is Karahardash or Karaindash, but his father (i.e. the husband of Muballitat-Sherua) is never mentioned. As for the discrepancy between Karahardash and Karaindash, Röllig argued that the authentic name should be Karakindash (i.e. “Ka-ra-ḪAR-da-áš” should be read as “Ka-ra-kínda-áš”), and Karaindash must be a scribal error.16 On the other hand, the records in Chronicle P are ambiguous, depending on how we interpret the phrase “[mKa-dášman-Ḫa]rbe mār mKara-in-da-áš māru šá SALMu-bal-liṭ-at-dṢēru-u-a”;17 that is, it could be “Kadashman-Harbe, son of Karaindash, (who was) son of Muballitat-Sherua”,18 or “Kadashman-Harbe, son of Karaindash (and) son of Muballitat-Sherua”.19 Because of the lacuna in the BKLa and the ScKL (A.117), it cannot be determined directly which of the two sources is right or which is wrong. Some scholars give preference to the Synchronistic History. Jaritz supposed that the scribe of Chronicle P might have mistaken Kurigalzu II as Kurigalzu I.20 Chronicle P was rejected by Röllig, who adduced certain other pieces of information from that document to prove it untrustworthy.21 Equally, Brinkman thought that it was unreasonable to insert a Kadashman-Harbe or a Karaindash between Burnaburiash II and Kurigalzu II and the “non-existent extra rulers” would have misled us on the modern reconstructions.22 If the evidence from the Synchronistic History can be accepted, the Kassite royal sequence for this period will be: Karahardash (probably the son of Burnaburiash II23) – Nazibugash – Kurigalzu II (the son of Burnaburiash II). On the contrary, many scholars believe that Chronicle P is more reliable:24 1) Chronicle P is right that Kurigalzu II was the son of Kadashman-Harbe, who was the son of Muballitat-Sherua,25 while the scribe of the Synchronistic History might have

16  Röllig, HSAO, 176–177; von Soden, PW, 61; Paulus, IRW 1, 70, n. 58; Miller, KBUK 1, 104, n. 24. 17  Grayson, ABC, 171. 18  Röllig, HSAO, 175. 19  Peise, OLZ 11 (1908), 8; Brinkman, MSKH, 419; Glassner, MC, 279. 20  Jaritz, MIO 6 (1958), 215. 21  Röllig, HSAO, 173–184. 22  Brinkman, MSKH, 418–423; van Seters, SH, 86–87; Maidman, Kaskal 8 (2011), 111. 23  Röllig, HSAO, 178; Melville, ACANE, 225. 24  According to Grayson, the Synchronistic History is replete with all kinds of errors and its author showed a more favourable light on Assyria, while Chronicle P contained no significant errors and its author was far more objective. See Grayson, ABC, 58, n. 69. 25  Luckenbill, AJSL 23/4 (1907), 281; Radau, BE 17/1, 63–67; Furlong, AANEC, 55; Sassmannshausen, MDAR, 61, n. 3; see also Bloch, JAC 25 (2010), 71, n. 42.

210

Appendix III

been mistaken in calling Kurgalzu II the son of Burnaburiash II,26 or Kurigalzu II is merely a descendant of Burnaburiash II in the Synchronistic History;27 2) the Karahardash in the Synchronistic History must be identical with Kadashman-Harbe, the son of Muballitat-Sherua;28 3) the father of Kadashman-Harbe and the husband of Muballitat-Sherua would be Karaindash29 (more precisely Karaindash II,30 since one Karaindash was mentioned by Burnaburiash II in a letter to Amenhotep IV31). Thus, simply from the evidence of Chronicle P, the Kassite royal sequence for this period would be: Karaindash II (the son of Burnaburiash II) – Kadashman-Harbe II – Nazibugash/Shuzigash – Kurigalzu II (the son of Kadashman-Harbe II). In addition, there are also some scholars who attempt to resolve these discrepancies in a third way, by combining information contained in both sources, the Synchronistic History and Chronicle P. Winckler,32 Rowton33 and Gadd34 maintained a Kassite royal sequence of “Karahardash (the son of Burnaburiash II) – KadashmanHarbe II – Nazibugash/Shuzigash – Kurigalzu II (the son of Kadashman-Harbe II)”, that is, the “Karahardash” from the Synchronistic History and the “Kurigalzu II, the son of Kadashman-Harbe II” by Chronicle P are both accepted. On the other hand, following the theory of Weissbach,35 Mladjov argued that: 1) Kurigalzu II is not the son but the uncle of Kadashman-Harbe II in Chronicle P; 2) the father of KadashmanHarbe II (or the husband of Muballitat-Sherua) is Karaindash II (also mentioned in the Synchronistic History) but not Karahardash, who is poorly attested by the historical sources (only KAV 97 and the Synchronistic History36). Thus according to Mladjov, the Kassite royal sequence for this period will be: Karaindash II (the son of Burnaburiash II) – Kadashman-Harbe II – Nazibugash/Shuzigash – Kurigalzu II (the son of Burnaburiash II).37 As can be seen from the different solutions above, the essence of the discrepancy between the Synchronistic History and Chronicle P is: whether or not there should be a “Kadashman-Harbe” between Burnaburiash II and Kurigalzu II. Notwithstanding the disagreement on the filiations or identifications of individual kings, all the solutions deviating from the Synchronistic History have one common point: they all maintain a 26  Luckenbill, AJSL 23/4 (1907), 281. 27  Radau, BE 17/1, 64–65; Furlong, AANEC, 55. 28  Winckler, AOF II, 117; Radau, BE 17/1, 63–64; Grayson, ABC, 211; Furlong, AANEC, 46, n. 4. 29  Radau, BE 17/1, 64. 30  Weissbach, WVDOG 4, 4; Mladjov, NABU 2016/1, 19–20. 31  Moran, AL, EA 10. 32  Winckler, AOF II, 116–117. 33  Rowton, CAH 1/1, 205. 34  Gadd, CAH 2/2, 29. 35  Weissbach, WVDOG 4, 5. 36  Brinkman, MSKH, 166–168. 37  Mladjov, NABU 2016/1, 18–21; NABU 2016/3, 106–111.

The Selected Synchronistic Kings of Assyria and Babylonia

211

position for “Kadashman-Harbe” between Burnaburiash II and Kurigalzu II. However, it is the royal sequence (but not the filiations) that should decide our historical reconstructions. In fact, as pointed out by Brinkman, to insert a Kadashman-Harbe between Burnaburiash II and Kurigalzu II is illogical. Simply using common sense, however, if Kurigalzu II is indeed the son of Kadashman-Harbe II, then it seems very difficult for us to believe that (as recorded in Chronicle P): Ashur-uballit I, who ruled for 36 years, put his great-grandson Kurigalzu II (presuming that Kadashman-Harbe is his grandson, but not his greatgrandson), who must have been a very small child at that time,38 on the Babylonian throne, and this child campaigned against Enlil-nirari,39 the direct successor of Ashuruballit I, several years later (note that Enlil-nirari ruled for only 10 years). Moreover, Chronicle P also records that Kadashman-Harbe, the son of Muballitat-Sherua and grandson of Ashur-uballit I, “ordered the overthrow of the Suteans from east to west and annihilated their extensive forces”, “reinforced the fortresses in Mount ḪI.ḪI”, “dug a well, and comfortably settled people in them (the fortresses) to strengthen the guard”.40 So it also seems difficult to explain how such a powerful and famous king would be overthrown by Nazibugash, a usurper not from the royal family. It is more interesting to note that the records on the activities of KadashmanHarbe in Chronicle P, especially his battle against the Suteans can also be found in a recently published kudurru (YBC 2242),41 where it is recorded that KadashmanHarbe “ousted the widespread Suteans from the land of Sunrise to the land of Sunset”.42 This kudurru is dated by Brinkman to the reign of Marduk-shapik-zeri in the early eleventh century BC, but it cannot be determined whether the text on the kudurru is an original composition or a copy based upon an earlier source from the reign of that Kadashman-Harbe.43 Chronicle P is a Late Babylonian document, but, equally, it is unclear whether it is an original work or merely a later copy, although the lacuna below the last entry (Adad-shuma-iddina)44 implies that the date of the original text cannot be much later than the end of the Kassite Dynasty.45 Anyway, the striking similarity of the records of Kadashman-Harbe’s expulsion of the Suteans in both Chronicle P and that kudurru leads us to suspect that the scribe of Chronicle P might have extracted some paragraphs from other sources. Further evidence is the record of Kurigalzu’s war

38  Radau, BE 17/1, 64; Gadd, CAH 2/2, 29. 39  Grayson, ABC, 159–160. 40  Grayson, ABC, 171–172. 41  Paulus, AOAT 51, 296–304; Brinkman, KBUK 1, 24. 42  Paulus, AOAT 51, 297, 301. 43  Brinkman, NABU 2015/1, 19–20; JNES 78 (2019), 144. 44  Grayson, ABC, 177. 45  Grayson, ABC, 56.

212

Appendix III

against Elam in Chronicle P.46 This specific theme appears also in several inscriptions of a certain Kurigalzu47 and it is disputed as to which Kurigalzu (I or II) conquered Elam.48 However, as pointed out by Grayson, this episode in Chronicle P sounds more like an epic than a chronicle and the scribe of Chronicle P might have copied this part from a Babylonian historical epic.49 Accordingly, if the scribe of Chronicle P had indeed transplanted some paragraphs from other sources into his own work, then it is not impossible that he mistakenly recognized Kurigalzu I (the son of Kadashman-Harbe I) as Kurigalzu II (the son of Burnaburiash II)50 and then mistook Kadashman-Harbe I as the father of Kurigalzu II, considering that the filiation of “Kurigalzu, the son of KadashmanHarbe” can be well attested by various sources.51 Returning to the text of Chronicle P, “[mKa-dáš-man-Ḫar]be mār mKara-in-da-áš māru šá SALMu-bal-liṭ-at-dṢēru-u-a” might have meant not “Kadashman-Harbe, son of Karaindash and Muballitat-sherua” as we presumed, but simply “Kadashman-Harbe, son of Karaindash, (who was) son of Muballitat-sherua”, because the scribe might have been well aware that the son of Muballitat-Sherua was called “Karaindash”, which must have been once miswritten by the Synchronistic History as “Karahardash” (= “Karakindash”) due to the sound similarity between “in” and “kín”. Considering that “Karahardash” is poorly attested but “Karaindash” well attested, the son of Muballitat-Sherua should be more probably called “Karaindash (II)”. To sum up, according to the Synchronistic History, the scenario can be restored as: Ashur-uballit I married his daughter Muballitat-Sherua to Burnaburiash II. Their son Karaindash (II), the so-called “Karahardash”, succeeded Burnaburiash II but was then killed by the usurper Nazibugash. Ashur-uballit I avenged his grandson Karaindash (II) and installed Kurigalzu II, another son of Burnaburiash II, as the new Babylonian king. If so, Ashur-uballit I would have been synchronistic with Burnaburiash II, Karaindash (II), Nazibugash and Kurigalzu II.

3

Enlil-nirari / Adad-nirari I vs. Kurigalzu II / Nazimaruttash / Kadashman-Turgu

The synchronization between Enlil-nirari and Kurigalzu II can be proven by the Synchronistic History, where it is related that they once fought against each other at 46  Grayson, ABC, 173–175. 47  Paulus, MDP 58, 442–443. 48  Paulus, MDP 58, 441. 49  Grayson, ABC, 57; Waerzeggers, JNES 71 (2012), 288, n. 15. 50  Paulus, MDP 58, 442; Beaulieu, HB, 142–143. 51  Brinkman, MSKH, 146, 205.

The Selected Synchronistic Kings of Assyria and Babylonia

213

Sugagi on the Tigris and Kurigalzu II was defeated by Enlil-nirari.52 This conflict is probably the one recorded in an Assyrian Chronicle Fragment, which did not indicate (because of the lacuna) the precise location of the battle but mentioned a place called “Kilizi”.53 Furthermore, Adad-nirari I also alleged in one of his inscriptions that his grandfather Enlil-nirari once defeated the Kassites.54 Nevertheless, Grayson thought it reasonable to retain the possibility that this conflict depicted in the Synchronistic History might actually have referred to the one between Adad-nirari I and Kurigalzu II (also at Sugagi on the Tigris) recorded in Chronicle P,55 by which the victor is not the Assyrian king but Kurigalzu II.56 According to the Synchronistic History, Adadnirari I campaigned against Nazimaruttash and conquered him and then fixed a boundary-line with him.57 In addition, Adad-nirari I must have also concluded a treaty (VAT 15420) with Kadashman-Turgu, the son of successor of Nazimaruttash.58

4

Adad-nirari III vs. Unknown Babylonian King(s)

According to the Synchronistic History, Adad-nirari III fixed the boundary-line with an unknown Babylonian king (whose name is unfortunately lost) “by mutual consent”.59 This must have been the result of a successful campaign against Babylonia, for Adadnirari III “brought [back] the abducted peoples [and] laid upon them an income, a regular contribution [and] barley rations”,60 which could possibly be referred to by the statement of Adad-nirari III in his royal inscription: “All the kings of Chaldaea became my vassals (and) I imposed upon them in perpetuity tax (and) tribute. At Babylon, Borsippa (and) Cuthah they delivered up the remnant offerings of the gods, Bēl, Nabû and Nergal”.61

52  Grayson, ABC, 159–160. 53  Grayson, ARI 1, 52 (No. 344); ABC, 185, 215. 54  Grayson, RIMA 1, A.0.76.1: 25’–26’. 55  Grayson, ABC, 175, 204; AS 16, 337–339. 56  For the error of Chronicle P see Röllig, HSAO, 177–181; Mladjov, NABU 2016/3, 107; Roaf, KBUK 1, 179; Jacob, CA, 118–119. 57  Grayson, ABC, 160–161. 58  Weidner, AfO Beiheft 12, No. 39E; Grayson, ARI 1, 78 (No. 515); Brinkman, MSKH, 163; Llop, PIHANS 125, 246–247. 59  Grayson, ABC, 169. 60  Grayson, ABC, 169. 61  Grayson, RIMA 3, A.0.104.8: 22’–24’.

214 5

Appendix III

Shalmaneser IV / Ashur-dan III / Ashur-nirari V vs. unknown Babylonian king(s) / Nabonassar

Adad-nirari III was succeeded by his four sons one after another: Shalmaneser IV, Ashur-dan III, Ashur-nirari V and Tiglath-pileser III. The relations between Assyria and Babylonia during these reigns are not very clear, but some clues imply that a few conflicts between Assyria and Babylonia might have broken out at that time. For example, according to Grayson, the campaign of Shalmaneser IV against Ituʾa and those of Ashur-dan III against Gananati, Marad and Ituʾa, recorded by the Eponym Chronicle,62 might have been the expeditions to Babylonia.63 Since the first year of Tiglath-pileser III is the third year of Nabonassar,64 who must have initiated a new dynasty in Babylonia, but whose relationship to his predecessor, Nabu-shuma-ishkun, is unknown, the last two years of Ashur-nirari V would have been the first two years of Nabonassar. However, the Babylonian counterparts of Shalmaneser IV and Ashurdan III are unknown, for the evidence can only be found in Assyrian sources and it remains uncertain whether or not the reigns of Nabu-shuma-ishkun and Nabonassar are directly consecutive.

6

Tiglath-pileser III vs. Nabonassar / Nabu-nadin-zeri / Nabu-shuma-ukin II / Nabu-mukin-zeri

Tiglath-pileser III was the son of Adad-nirari III according to his own statements,65 but the SDAS records that his father was Ashur-nirari V.66 Grayson proposed that the latter must be false, for the scribe of Tiglath-pileser III would have not made such a mistake.67 It is highly probable that he was a usurper and ascended the throne by force,68 since: 1) there is no royal inscription of Tiglath-pileser III mentioning his father except for his own claim; 2) the Eponym Chronicle records that he came to the throne immediately after a revolt at Kalhu.69 Tiglath-pileser III is contemporary with four Babylonian kings. However, the expeditions of Tiglath-pileser III to Babylonia during his early reign seem not to have been against Nabonassar, his first contemporary, but against the Arameans and the 62  Glassner, MC, 171. 63  Grayson, CAH 3/1, 277. 64  Grayson, ABC, 70. 65  Tadmor and Yamada, RINAP 1, No. 58. 66  Gelb, JNES 13/4 (1954), 223, iv 24’. 67  Grayson, CAH 3/2, 73–74. 68  Zawadzki, SAAB 8/1 (1994), 53–54. 69  Glassner, MC, 173.

The Selected Synchronistic Kings of Assyria and Babylonia

215

Chaldeans, who threatened the rule of Nabonassar, the legitimate Babylonian monarch at that time, for Tiglath-pileser III did not take over Babylonia directly. That Tiglath-pileser III could fight to secure the rule of Nabonassar can be explained by the possibility that he did this in accordance with some kind of treaty signed with the Babylonian king, as in the case of Shalmaneser III and Marduk-zakir-shumi I,70 or the possibility that he tried to legitimize his kingship of Assyria, which he had usurped by illicit means, through such a righteous act.71 Nevertheless, Nabonassar might have been the vassal of Tiglath-pileser III, if Tiglath-pileser III had assumed the title “King of Sumer and Akkad” even when Nabonassar was still on the throne.72 In any case, with the support or even protection of Assyrian power, Nabonassar was able to keep his kingship and pass it to his own son, Nabu-nadin-zeri, although the latter ruled for only 2 years and was deposed by a provincial governor, Nabu-shuma-ukin II, who was overthrown shortly afterwards by Nabu-mukin-zeri, a Chaldean tribal chief from southern Babylonia. Tiglath-pileser III, who was occupied by the campaign at Damascus at that time, could not deal with those troubles in Babylonia until the next year, when he marched to Babylonia to drive out Nabu-mukin-zeri. This expedition might have lasted for 3 years, which may be also the length of that usurper’s reign.73 Finally, Tiglath-pileser III ascended the Babylonian throne personally. However, the BKLa and other later sources, refer to Tiglath-pileser III by the name “Pulu”, the origin of which must remain unknown, but can hardly be explained as an official name exclusively used in Babylonia.74 According to Grayson, it might be “a hypocorism derived from the second element of his name”, but not his Babylonian alias, as was previously proposed by scholars.75

7

Sargon II vs. Merodach-baladan II

The Babylonian counterpart of Sargon II was Merodach-baladan II, who was the leader of a Chaldean tribe (Bit-Yakin)76 from Sealand and might have long prepared to seize the throne of Babylonia even from the time of Tiglath-pileser III. The control of Assyria over Babylonia was lost when Sargon II ascended the throne, 70  Grayson, CAH 3/2, 81–82. 71  Brinkman, PKB, 228, n. 1440. 72  For the title see Tadmor and Yamada, RINAP 1, No. 39: 1’. For more details see Brinkman, PKB, 231–234. 73  For the economic text dated to his fourth year see Brinkman, PKB, 239, n. 1530. 74  Brinkman, PKB, 61–62. 75  Grayson, CAH 3/2, 73. 76  For the identification of Bit-Yakin with the Sealand in the Assyrian sources see Frame, BPH, 42–43.

216

Appendix III

for Merodach-baladan II, taking advantage of Assyria’s political chaos at the end of Shalmaneser V’s reign, grasped the Babylonian kingship with the assistance of Elam. There is no doubt that the immediate counterattack of Sargon II failed77 and that Merodach-baladan II could thus continue to exercise the Babylonian kingship for twelve years. About a decade later, Sargon II began to concentrate on retrieving Babylonia. Finally, he defeated Merodach-baladan II, and took over Babylonia once again, assuming the title “King of Babylon”.

77  For the three different sources concerning this campaign see Grayson, CAH 3/2, 98.

Bibliography Al-Aʾdami, K. A. “Old Babylonian Letters from ed-Der”, in Sumer, Vol. 23 (1967), pp. 151–165. Amandry, P. “Situles à reliefs desprices de Babylone”, in Antike Kunst, Vol. 9/2 (1966), pp. 57–71. Astour, M. C. “The Name of the Ninth Kassite Ruler”, in Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 106, No. 2 (1986), pp. 327–331. Astour, M. C. “The Hurrian king at the siege of Emar”, in M. W. Chavalas (ed.), Emar: The History, Religion, and Culture of a Syrian Town in the Late Bronze Age, Bethesda: CDL Press, 1996. Azize, J. “Who was Responsible for the Assyrian King List?”, in Abr-Nahrain, Vol. 35 (1998), pp. 1–25. Baker, H. D. “The Meaning of Ṭuppi”, in Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archéologie Orientale, Vol. 104 (2010), pp. 131–162. Beaulieu, P.-A. The Reign of Nabonidus, King of Babylon: 556–539 BC, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989. Beaulieu, P.-A. “The Fourth Year of Hostilities in the Land”, in Baghdader Mitteilungen, Band 28 (1997), pp. 367–394. Beaulieu, P.-A. A History of Babylon, 2200 BC–AD 75, Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2018. Bloch, Y. “The Order of Eponyms in the Reign of Tukultī-Ninurta I”, in Orientalia, Vol. 79 (2010), pp. 1–35. Bloch, Y. “Solving the Problems of Assyrian King List: Toward a Precise Reconstruction of Middle Assyrian Chronology (Part I–II)”, in Journal of Ancient Civilizations, Vol. 25 (2010), pp. 21–53, pp. 55–87. Boese, J. “Burnaburiaš I, Melišipak und die Mittelbabylonische Chronologie”, in Ugarit-Forschungen, Vol. 14 (1982), pp. 15–26. Boese, J. “‘Ḫarbašipak’, ‘Tiptakzi’ und die Chronologie der älteren Kassitenzeit”, in Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie, Vol. 98 (2008), pp. 201–210. Boese, J., G. Wilhelm. “Aššur-dān I., Ninurta-apil-Ekur und die Mittelassyrische Chronologie”, in Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, Vol. 71 (1979), pp. 19–38. Borger, R. “Mesopotamien in den Jahren 629–621 v. Chr.”, in Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, Vol. 55 (1959), pp. 62–76. Borger, R. “Marduk-zākir-šumi I. und der Kodex Ḫammurapi”, in Orientalia, Vol. 34 (1965), pp. 168–169.

218

Bibliography

Borger, R. “Der Aufstieg des neubabylonischen Reiches”, in Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Vol. 19, No. 3 (1965), pp. 59–78. Borger, R. Die Inschriften Asarhaddons Königs von Assyrien (Archiv für Orientforschung, Beiheft 9), Osnabrück: Biblio-Verlag, 1967. Borger, R. “Gott Marduk und Gott-König Šulgi als Propheten Zwei prophetische Texte”, in Bibliotheca Orientalis, Jahrgang 28 (1971), pp. 3–25. Borger, R. “B. Landsberger, Brief eines Bischofs von Esagila an König Asarhaddon”, in Bibliotheca Orientalis, Jahrgang 29 (1972), pp. 33–37. Borger, R. Beiträge zum Inschriftenwerk Assurbanipals: die Prismenklassen A, B, C = K, D, E, F, G, H, J und T sowie andere Inschriften (Mit einem Beitrag von Andreas Fuchs), Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1996. Borger, R. Mesopotamisches Zeichenlexikon (Alter Orient und Altes Testament, Band 305), Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2010. Brinkman, J. A. “A Preliminary Catalogue of Written Sources for A Political History of Babylonia: 1160–722 B.C.”, in Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Vol. 16, No. 4 (1962), pp. 83–109. Brinkman, J. A. “Ur: 721–605 B.C.”, in Orientalia, Vol. 34 (1965), pp. 241–258. Brinkman, J. A. A Political History of Post-Kassite Babylonia: 1158–722 B.C. (Analecta Orientalia 43) Roma: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1968. Brinkman, J. A. “Ur: ‘The Kassite Period and the Period of the Assyrian Kings’”, in Orientalia, Vol. 38 (1969), pp. 310–348. Brinkman, J. A. “Documents Relating to the Reign of Aššur-nādin-šumi”, in Orientalia, Vol. 41 (1972), pp. 245–248. Brinkman, J. A. “Comments on the Nassouhi Kinglist and the Assyrian Kinglist Tradition”, in Orientalia, Vol. 42 (1973), pp. 306–319. Brinkman, J. A. “Sennacherib’s Babylonian Problem: An Interpretation”, in Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Vol. 25, No. 2 (1973), pp. 89–95. Brinkman, J. A. Materials and Studies for Kassite History (Vol. I): A Catalogue of Cuneiform Sources Pertaining to Specific Monarchs of the Kassite Dynasty, Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1976. Brinkman, J. A. “Appendix: Mesopotamian Chronology of Historical Period”, in A. L. Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of A Dead Civilization (Revised Edition Completed by Erica Reiner), Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1977, pp. 335–348. Brinkman, J. A. “IB.TAR-Sîn”, in D. O. Edzard (ed.), Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie, Band 5, Berlin / New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1976– 1980, pp. 23–24. Birnkman, J. A. “Kurigalzu”, in D. O. Edzard (ed.), Reallexikon der Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archäologie, Band 6, Berlin / New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1980–1983, pp. 369–370.

Bibliography

219

Brinkman, J. A. “Babylonia: c. 1000–748 B.C.”, in J. Boardman, I. E. S. Edwards, N. G. G. Hammond and E. Sollberger (eds.), The Cambridge Ancient History (Second Edition), Vol. 3, Part 1, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982, pp. 283–313. Brinkman, J. A. Prelude to Empire: Babylonian Society and Politics, 747–626 B.C., (Occasional Publications of the Babylonian Fund 7), Philadelphia: The University Museum, 1984. Brinkman, J. A. “Babylonia in the Shadow of Assyria (747–626 B.C.)”, in J. Boardman, I. E. S. Edwards, N. G. G. Hammond and the Late E. Sollberger (eds.), with the assistance of C. B. F. Walker, The Cambridge Ancient History (Second Edition), Vol. 3, Part 2, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991, pp. 1–70. Brinkman, J. A. “Chapter 5: Catalogue of Tablets”, in R. L. Zettler (ed.), Nippur III: Kassite Buildings in Area WC-1 (Oriental Institute Publications, Vol. 111). Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1993, pp. 93–111. Brinkman, J. A. “Bēl-Bāni”, in K. Radner (ed.), The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, Vol. 1, Part II: B–G, Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 1999, pp. 288–289. Brinkman, J. A. “Ninurta-kudurrī-uṣur”, in D. O. Edzard (ed.), Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie, Band 9, Berlin / New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1998–2001, p. 525. Brinkman, J. A. “Dating YBC 2242, the Kadašman-Ḫarbe I stone”, in Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires, 2015/1, pp. 19–20. Brinkman, J. A. “Babylonia under the Kassites: Some Aspects for Consideration”, in A. Bartelmus, K. Sternitzke (eds.), Karduniaš. Babylonia Under the Kassites. The Proceedings of the Symposium Held in Munich 30 June to 2 July 2011, Vol. 1, Boston / Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2017, pp. 1–44. Brinkman, J. A. “Review of Die babylonischen Kudurru-Inschriften von der kassitischen bis zur frühneubabylonischen Zeit: Untersucht unter besonderer Berücksichtigung gesellschafts- und rechtshistorischer Fragestellungen. By Susanne Paulus. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 51. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2014. Pp. xiii + 955, 96 pls. €198.00 (cloth).”, in Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 78 (2019), pp. 141–144. Brinkman, J. A., M. E. Brinkman. “A Tenth-Century Kudurru Fragment”, in Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie, Band 62 (1972), pp. 91–98. Brinkman, J. A., D. A. Kennedy. “Documentary Evidence for the Economic Base of Early Neo-Babylonian Society: A Survey of Dated Babylonian Economic Texts, 721–626 B.C.”, in Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Vol. 35 (1983), pp. 1–90. Cancik-Kirschbaum, E. Die mittelassyrischen Briefe aus Tall Šēḫ Ḥamad (Berichte der Ausgrabung Tall Šēḫ Ḥamad/Dūr-Katlimmu 4), Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag, 1996. Cancik-Kirschbaum, E. “Nebenlinien des assyrischen Königshauses in der 2. Hälfte des 2. Jts. v. Chr.”, in Altorientalische Forschungen, Band 26/2 (1999), pp. 210–222.

220

Bibliography

Charpin, D. “Archives Épistolaires de Mari I/2, Première Partie”, in D. Charpin, F. Joannès, S. Lackenbacher, and B. Lafont, Archives Épistolaires de Mari I/2 (Archives Royales de Mari 26/2), Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1988, pp. 7–232. Charpin, D. “Histoire politique du Proche-Orient Amorrite (2002–1595)”, in D. Charpin, D. O. Edzard, and M. Stol, Mesopotamien: Die altbabylonische Zeit (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 160/4), Fribourg: Academic Press, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Rupreche, 2004, pp. 25–480. Charpin, D., J.-M. Durand. “La Prise du Pouvoir par Zimri-Lim”, in Mari Annales de Recherches Interdisciplinaires, Vol. 4 (1985), pp. 293–343. Charpin, D., J.-M. Durand, “‘Fils de Sim’al’: les origines tribales des rois de Mari”, in Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archéologie Orientale, Vol. 80 (1986), pp. 141–183. Charpin, D., D. Ziegler. Mari et le Proche-Orient à l’époque amorrite, Essai d’histoire politique (Florilegium marianum 5 = Mémoires de N.A.B.U. 6), Paris: SEPOA, 2003. Chen, F. “Who Returned the Marduk Statue? A Textual Research on the Records of Chronicle P” (in Chinese), in Academia Bimestrie, 2014/2, pp. 189–194. Chen, F. “mMU.PAP and [m … …]-ḫa-a-a”, in Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires, 2015/1, pp. 24–25. Chen, F. “A Revised Reconstruction of Col. II of the Synchronistic King List (A.117 / Ass.14616 c)”, in Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires, 2016/1, pp. 42–44. Chen, F. “The Reading of the Name of an Early Assyrian King”, in Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires, 2019/1, pp. 19–20. Cifola, B. Analysis of Variants in the Assyrian Royal Titulary from the Origins to Tiglath-pileser III, Napoli: Istituto universitario orientale, 1995. Clay, A. T. Legal and Commercial Transactions: Dated in the Assyrian, Neo-Babylonian and Persian Periods (The Babylonian expedition of the University of Pennsylvania. Series A: Cuneiform texts, Vol. 8, Part 1), Philadelphia: Department of Archaeology, University of Pennsylvania, 1908. Clay, A. T. Miscellaneous Inscriptions in the Yale Babylonian Collection (Yale Oriental Series, Babylonian Texts, Vol. 1), New Haven: Yale University Press, 1915. Clay, A. T. “A New King of Babylonia”, in Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 41 (1921), p. 313. Clayden, T. “Kurigalzu I and the Restoration of Babylonia”, in Iraq, Vol. 58 (1996), pp. 109–121. Cole, S. M. Nippur in Late Assyrian Times, c. 755–612 BC (State Archives of Assyria Studies, Vol. 4), Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 1996. Da-Riva, R. “Sippar in the Reign of Sîn-šum-līšir (626 BC)”, in Altorientalische Forschungen, Band 28 (2001), pp. 40–64. Dalley, S. “Statues of Marduk and the date of Enūma eliš”, in Altorientalische Forschungen, Band 24/1 (1997), pp. 163–171.

Bibliography

221

Dalley, S. Babylonian Tablets from the First Sealand Dynasty in the Schøyen Collection (Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology, Vol. 9), Maryland: Capital Decisions Ltd, 2009. Dandamayev, M. A. “Nabonid (Nabû-nā’id). A.”, in D. O. Edzard (ed.), Reallexikon der Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archäologie, Band 9, Berlin / New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1998–2001, pp. 6–11. Dekiere, L. Old Babylonian Real Estate Documents, Part 1: Pre-Hammurabi Documents (Mesopotamian History and Environment, Series III: Texts, Vol. II), Ghent: University of Ghent, 1994. Donbaz, V. “Assur Collection Housed in İstanbul General Outlines”, in S. Alp, A. Süel (eds.), III. Uluslararası Hititoloji Kongresi bildirileri: Çorum, 16–22 Eylül, 1996 / Acts of the IIIrd International Congress of Hittitology: Çorum, September 16–22, 1996, Ankara: Uyum Ajans, 1998, pp. 177–188. Dossin, G. “Bronzes inscrits du Luristan de la collection Foroughi”, in Iranica Antiqua, Vol. 2 (1962), pp. 149–164. Dubberstein, W. H. “Assyrian-Babylonian Chronology (669–612 B.C.)”, in Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 3, No. 1 (1944), pp. 38–42. Durand, J.-M. “La Situation Historique des Šakkanakku: Nouvelle Approche”, in Mari Annales de Recherches Interdisciplinaires, Vol. 4 (1985), pp. 147–172. Durand, J.-M. Les Documents épistolaires du Palais de Mari (Tome III), Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 2000. Durand, J.-M., L. Marti. “Chroniques du Moyen-Euphrate, 5: Une Attaque de Qaṭna par le Suhûm et la question du ‘pays de Mari’”, in Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archéologie Orientale, Vol. 99 (2005), pp. 129–132. Ebeling, E. Keilschrifttexte aus Assur religiösen Inhalts (Erster Band), Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1919. Ebeling, E. “Babylonisch-assyrische Texte”, in H. Gressman (ed.), Altorientalische Texte zum Alten Testament, Berlin / Leipzig: Walter de Gruyter, 1926, pp. 108–439. Ebeling, E. Keilschrifttexte aus Assur juristischen Inhalts (Neudruck der Ausgabe 1927), Osnabrück: Otto Zeller, 1968. Eder, C. “Assyrische Distanzangaben und die absolute Chronologie Vorderasiens”, in Altorientalische Forschungen, Band 31 (2004), pp. 191–236. Edzard, D. O. Die “Zweite Zwischenzeit” Babyloniens, Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1957. Edzard, D. O. “Königlisten und Chroniken: A. Sumerisch”, in D. O. Edzard (ed.), Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie, Band 6, Berlin / New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1980–1983, pp. 77–86. Edzard, D. O. Gudea and His Dynasty, Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Early Periods, Vol. 3/1, Toronto, Buffalo and London: University of Toronto Press, 1997.

222

Bibliography

Ellis, R. Foundation Deposits in Ancient Mesopotamia, New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1968. Falkner, M. “Die Eponymen der spätassyrischen Zeit,” in Archiv für Orientforschung, Band 17 (1954–1956), pp. 100–120. Feigin, S. I., B. Landsberge, “The Date List of the Babylonian King Samsu-Ditana”, in Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 14, No. 3 (1955), pp. 137–160. Fincke, J. C. “The Babylonian Texts of Nineveh. Report on the British Museum’s Ashurbanipal Library Project”, in Archiv für Orientforschung, Band 50 (2003–2004), pp. 111–149. Fine, H. A. “Studies in Middle-Assyrian Chronology and Religion: Part I”, in Hebrew Union College Annual, Vol. 24 (1952–1953), pp. 187–273. Finkelstein, J. J. “The Genealogy of the Hammurapi Dynasty”, in Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Vol. 20 (1966), pp. 95–118. Finkelstein, J. J. Late Old Babylonian Documents and Letters (Yale Oriental Series, Babylonian Texts, Vol. 13), New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1972. Finkelstein, J. J. “Early Mesopotamia, 2500–1000 B.C.,” in H. D. Lasswell, D. Lerner and H. Spier (eds), Propaganda and Communication in World History. Volume 1: The Symbolic Instrument in Early Times, Honolulu: The University Press of Hawaii, 1979, pp. 50–110. Foster, B. R. Before the Muses: an Anthology of Akkadian Literature (Third Edition), Bethesda: CDL Press, 2005. Frahm, E. “Assur 2001: Die Schriftfunde”, in Mitteilungen der Deutschen OrientGesellschaft zu Berlin, Nr. 134 (2002), pp. 47–86. Frahm, E. “The Neo-Assyrian Period (ca. 1000–609 BCE)”, in E. Frahm (ed.), A Companion to Assyria, Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2017, pp. 161–208. Frahm, E. “List of Assyrian Kings”, in E. Frahm (ed.), A Companion to Assyria, Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2017, pp. 613–616. Frame, G. Babylonia 689–627 B.C.: A Political History, Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 1992. Frame, G. Rulers of Babylonia from the Second Dynasty of Isin to the End of Assyrian Domination (1157–612 BC), The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Babylonian Periods, Vol. 2, Toronto, Buffalo and London: University of Toronto Press, 1995. Frayne, D. Old Babylonian Period (2003–1595 BC), The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopota­ mia, Early Periods, Vol. 4, Toronto, Buffalo and London: University of Toronto Press, 1990. Frayne, D. Sargonic and Gutian Periods (2334–2113 BC), The Royal Inscriptions of Meso­ potamia, Early Periods, Vol. 2, Toronto, Buffalo and London: University of Toronto Press, 1993. Frayne, D. Ur III Period (2112–2004 BC), The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Early Periods, Vol. 3/2, Toronto, Buffalo and London: University of Toronto Press, 1997.

Bibliography

223

Freydank, H. “Zur assyrischen Königliste”, in Altorientalische Forschungen, Band 3 (1975), pp. 173–175. Freydank, H. Beiträge zur mittelassyrischen Chronologie und Geschichte, Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1991. Freydank, H. “Zum mittelassyrischen Königsbrief Kbo XXVIII 61–64”, in Altorientalische Forschungen, Band 18 (1991), pp. 23–31. Freydank, H. Mittelassyrische Rechtsurkunden und Verwaltungstexte IV: Tafeln aus Kar-Tukulti-Ninurta. Mit einem Beitrag zu den Siegelabrollungen von Claudia Fischer (Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 99), Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 2001. Fuchs, A. Die Inschriften Sargons II. aus Khorsabad, Göttingen: Cuvillier Verlag, 1993. Fuchs, A. “Sargon II”, in M. P. Streck (ed.), Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie, Band 12, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2009, pp. 51–61. Fuchs, A. “Die unglaubliche Geburt des neubabylonischen Reiches oder: Die Vernichtung einer Weltmacht durch den Sohn eines Niemand”, in M. Krebernik, H. Neumann (eds.), Babylonien und seine Nachbarn in neu- und spätbabylonischer Zeit, Wissenschaftliches Kolloquium aus Anlass des 75. Geburtstags von Joachim Oelsner, Jena, 2. Und 3. März 2007 (Alter Orient und Altes Testament, Band 369), Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2014, pp. 25–71. Furlong, P. J. Aspects of Ancient Near Eastern Chronology (c.1600–700 BC), New Jersey: Gorgias Press, 2010. Gadd, C. J. Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum, Part 36, London: British Museum, 1921. Gadd, C. J. “The Harran Inscriptions of Nabonidus”, in Anatolian Studies, Vol. 8 (1958), pp. 35–92. Gadd, C. J. “Assyria and Babylon: c. 1370–1300 B.C.”, in I. E. S. Edwards, the Late C. J. Gadd, N. G. L. Hammond and E. Sollberger (eds.), The Cambridge Ancient History (Third Edition), Vol. 2, Part 2, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975, pp. 21–48. Garelli, P. “Réflexions sur les Listes Royales Assyriennes”, in J.-M. Durand, J.-R. Kupper (eds.), Miscellanea Babylonica, Mellanges Offerts à Maurice Birot, Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1985, pp. 91–95. Gasche et al. (H. Gasche, J. A. Armstrong, S. W. Cole, and V. G. Gurzadyan) Dating the Fall of Babylon: A Reappraisal of Second-Millennium Chronology (A Joint Ghent-Chicago-Harvard Project, Mesopotamian History and Environment, Series II: Memoirs, Vol. 4), Ghent and Chicago: the University of Ghent and the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1998. Gasche et al. “A Correction to Dating the Fall of Babylon. A Reappraisal of Second-Millennium Chronology (Mesopotamian History and Environment, Series II: Memoirs, IV), Ghent and Chicago, 1998”, in Akkadica, Vol. 108 (1998), pp. 1–4.

224

Bibliography

Gelb, I. J. “Two Assyrian King Lists”, in Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 13, No. 4 (1954), pp. 209–230. Gelb, I. J., B. Kienast, Die altakkadischen Königinschriften des dritten Jahrtausends v. Chr. (Freiburger Altorientalische Studien 7), Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1990. George, A. R. “The Bricks of E-sagil”, in Iraq, Vol. 57 (1995), pp. 173–197. Gerber, M. “Die Inschrift H(arran) 1.A/B und die neubabylonische Chronologie”, in Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie, Band 88 (1998), pp. 72–93. Glassner, J.-J. Mesopotamian Chronicles, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004. Goddeeris, A. Economy and Society in Northern Babylonia in the Early Old Babylonian Period, ca. 2000–1800 BC (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 109), Leuven / Paris / Sterling / Virginia: Peeters Publishers and Department of Oriental Studies, 2002. Goetze, A. “Sin-iddinam of Larsa: New Tablets from his Reign”, in Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Vol. 4, No. 2 (1950), pp. 83–118. Goetze, A. “On the Chronology of the Second Millennium B. C. (Concluded)”, in Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Vol. 11, No. 3 (1957), pp. 63–73. Goetze, A. “The Kassites and near Eastern Chronology”, in Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Vol. 18, No. 4 (1964), pp. 97–101. Grayson, A. K. “Problematical Battles in Mesopotamian History”, in H. G. Güterbock, T. Jacobsen (eds.), Studies in honor of Benno Landsberger on his Seventy-Fifth Birthday: April 21, 1965 (Assyriological Studies, No. 16), Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1965, pp. 337–342. Grayson, A. K. “Assyrian and Babylonian King Lists: Collations and Comments”, in M. Dietrich, W. Röllig (eds.), Lišān Mitḫurti – Festschrift Wolfram Freiherr von Soden (Alter Orient und Altes Testament, Band 1), Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag des Erziehungsvereins, 1969, pp. 105–118. Grayson, A. K. Assyrian Royal Inscriptions, Vol. 1: from the beginning to Ashur-resha-ishi I, Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1972. Grayson, A. K. Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles (Texts from Cuneiform Sources 5), New York and Glückstadt: J. J. Augustin Publisher, 1975 (Reprinted by Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake, Indiana, 2000). Grayson, A. K. Assyrian Royal Inscriptions, Vol. 2: from Tiglath-pileser I to Ashur-nasirapli II, Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1976. Grayson, A. K. “The Chronology of the Reign of Ashurbanipal”, in Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie, Band 70 (1980), pp. 227–245. Grayson, A. K. “Histories and Historians of the Ancient Near East: Assyria and Babylonia”, in Orientalia, Vol. 49 (1980), pp. 140–194. Grayson, A. K. “Assyria: Ashur-dan II to Ashur-nirari V (934–745 B.C.)”, in J. Boardman, I. E. S. Edwards, N. G. G. Hammond and E. Sollberger (eds.), The Cambridge Ancient History (Second Edition), Vol. 3, Part 1, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982, pp. 238–281.

Bibliography

225

Grayson, A. K. “Königlisten und Chroniken: B. Akkadisch”, in D. O. Edzard (ed.), Real­ lexikon der Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archäologie, Band 6, Berlin / New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1980–1983, pp. 86–135. Grayson, A. K. “Rivalry over Rulership at Aššur. The Puzur-Sîn Inscription”, in Annual Review of the Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia Project, Vol. 3 (1985), pp. 9–14. Grayson, A. K. Assyrian Rulers of the Third and Second Millennia BC (To 1115 BC), The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Assyrian Periods, Vol. 1, Toronto, Buffalo and London: University of Toronto Press, 1987. Grayson, A. K. “Akkadian Treaties of the Seventh Century B.C.”, in Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Vol. 39, No. 2 (1987), pp. 127–160. Grayson, A. K. “Assyria: Tiglath-pileser III to Sargon II (744–705 B.C.)”, in J. Boardman, I. E. S. Edwards, N. G. G. Hammond and the Late E. Sollberger (eds.), with the assistance of C. B. F. Walker, The Cambridge Ancient History (Second Edition), Vol. 3, Part 2, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991, pp. 71–102. Grayson, A. K. “Assyria: Sennacherib and Esarhaddon (704–669 B.C.)”, in J. Boardman, I. E. S. Edwards, N. G. G. Hammond and the Late E. Sollberger (eds.), with the assistance of C. B. F. Walker, The Cambridge Ancient History (Second Edition), Vol. 3, Part 2, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991, pp. 103–141. Grayson, A. K. “Assyria 668–635 B.C.: the Reign of Ashurbanipal”, in J. Boardman, I. E. S. Edwards, N. G. G. Hammond and the Late E. Sollberger (eds.), with the assistance of C. B. F. Walker, The Cambridge Ancient History (Second Edition), Vol. 3, Part 2, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991, pp. 142–161. Grayson, A. K. Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC I (1114–859 BC), The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Assyrian Periods, Vol. 2, Toronto, Buffalo and London: University of Toronto Press, 1991. Grayson, A. K. Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC II (858–745 BC), The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Assyrian Periods, Vol. 3, Toronto, Buffalo and London: University of Toronto Press, 1996. Grayson, A. K., W. G. Lambert. “Akkadian Prophecies”, in Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Vol. 18, No. 1 (1964), pp. 7–30. Grayson, A. K., J. Novotny, The Royal Inscriptions of Sennacherib, King of Assyria (704– 681 BC), The Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period, Vol. 3, Part 1, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2012. Grayson, A. K., J. Novotny, The Royal Inscriptions of Sennacherib, King of Assyria (704– 681 BC), The Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period, Vol. 3, Part 2, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2014. Gurney, O. R. The Middle Babylonian Legal and Economic Texts from Ur, London: The British School of Archaeology in Iraq, 1983. Hagens, G., “The Assyrian King List and Chronology: A Critique”, in Orientalia, Vol. 74 (2005), pp. 23–41.

226

Bibliography

Hallo, W. W. “Zāriqum”, in Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 15, No. 4 (1956), pp. 220–225. Hallo, W. W. Early Mesopotamian Royal Titles: A Philological and Historical Analysis (American Oriental Series 43), New Haven: American Oriental Society, 1957. Hallo, W. W. “Assyrian Historiography Revisited”, in Eretz-Israel, Vol. 14 (1978), pp. 1–7. Hallo, W. W. “Dating the Mesopotamian Past: the Concept of Eras from Sargon to Nabonassar”, in Bulletin of the Canadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies, Vol. 6 (1983), pp. 7–18. Harper, R. F. Assyrian and Babylonian Letters Belonging to the Kouyunjik Collections of the British Museum, Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1892–1914. Heeßel, N. P. “Zur Lesung der Königsnamens ŠÚ-URU.NINA”, in Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires, 2002/3, pp. 60–61. Hilprecht, H. V. Old Babylonian Inscriptions Chiefly From Nippur, Part 1, Plates 1–35 and I–XV (The Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania, Series A: Cuneiform Texts, Vol. 1, Part 1, Plates 1–50; Reprint from the Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, N. S., Vol. XVIII, No. 3), Philadelphia: D. Anson Partridge, 1893. Horgan, B. E. “Dated Texts and Date-Formulae of the Reign of Ammiditana”, in Manchester Cuneiform Studies, Vol. 2, No. 3 (1952), pp. 44–53. Horsnell, M. J. A. The Year-Names of the First Dynasty of Babylon, (Vol. 1: The Chrono­ logical Matters, the Year-Names System and the Date-Lists; Vol. 2: The Year-Names Reconstructed and Critically Annotated in the light of Their Examples), Hamilton: McMaster University Press, 1999. Hunger, H. Babylonische und Assyrische Kolophone (Alter Orient und Altes Testament, Band 2), Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag des Erziehungsvereins, 1968. Jacob, S. “The Middle Assyrian Period (14th to 11th Century BCE)”, in E. Frahm (ed.), A Companion to Assyria, Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2017, pp. 117–142. Jacobsen, T. The Sumerian King List (Assyriological Studies, No. 11), Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1939. Janssen, T. “Tuppišu in der AKL – Berechnung, Konzept, Bedeutung”, in Akkadica, Vol. 128 (2007), pp. 99–108. Janssen, T. “Vermischtes zu den assyrischen Distanzangaben”, in Akkadica, Vol. 130 (2009), pp. 75–86. Janssen, T. “Untersuchungen zur kassitischen und assyrischen Herrscherchronologie vom 17. bis ins 15. Jahrhundert v. Chr.”, in Akkadica, Vol. 132 (2011), pp. 37–57. Jaritz, K. “Quellen zur Geschichte der Kaššû-Dynastie”, in Mitteilungen des Instituts für Orientforschung, Nr. 6 (1958), pp. 187–265. Kataja, L., R. Whiting, Grants, Decrees and Gifts of the Neo-Assyrian Period (State Archives of Assyria, Vol. 12), Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1995.

Bibliography

227

Katz, D. “Reconstructing Babylon: Recycling Mythological Traditions toward a New Theology”, in E. Cancik-Kirschbaum, M. van Ess and J. Marzahn (eds.), Babylon: Wissenskultur in Orient und Okzident (Berlin Studies of the Ancient World / Berliner Studien der Alten Welt, Band 1), Berlin / Boston: Walter de Gruyter, 2011, pp. 123–134. King, L. W. Chronicles Concerning Early Babylonian Kings, including Records of the Early History of the Kassites and the Country of the Sea, Vol. 1, Introductory Chapters, London: Luzac and Co., 1907. King, L. W. Babylonian Boundary-Stones and Memorial-Tablets in the British Museum, London: British Museum, 1912. Königliche Museen zu Berlin, Vorderasiatische Abteilung, Vorderasiatische Schrift­ denkmäler der Königlichen Museen zu Berlin (Heft 1), Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1907. Kramer, S. N. The Sumerians: Their History, Culture and Character, Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1963. Kraus, F. R. Nippur und Isin nach altbabylonischen Rechtsurkunden (Journal of Cunei­ form Studies, Vol. 3), 1951. Krückmann, O. Neubabylonische Rechts- und Verwaltungstexte, Autographiert und mit Inventarverzeichnis und Namenlisten versehen (Texte und Materialien der Frau Professor Hilprecht Collection of Babylonian Antiquities im Eigentum der Universität Jena, Vol. 2/3), Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs., 1933. Lambert, W. G. “Ancestors, Authors and Canonicity”, in Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Vol. 11 (1957), pp. 1–14. Lambert, W. G. “Ancestors, Authors and Canonicity (JCS XI, 1–14), Additions and Corrections”, in Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Vol. 11 (1957), p. 112. Lambert, W. G. “Idigina / Idiglat”, in D. O. Edzard (ed.), Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie, Band 5, Berlin / New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1976–1980, pp. 31–32. Landsberger, B. “Die Basaltstele Nabonids von Eski-Harran”, in Halil Edhem Hâtira Kitabi / In Memoriam Halil Edhem (Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınlarından VII. SERI, No. 5), Vol. 1, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1947, pp.115–151. Landsberger, B. “Assyrische Königliste und ‘Dunkles Zeitalter’”, in Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Vol. 8, No. 1 (1954), pp. 31–45. Landsberger, B. “Assyrische Königliste und ‘Dunkles Zeitalter’ (continued)”, in Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Vol. 8, No. 2 (1954), pp. 47–73. Landsberger, B. “Assyrische Königliste und ‘Dunkles Zeitalter’ (continued)”, in Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Vol. 8, No. 3 (1954), pp. 106–133. Landsberger, B. Brief des Bischofs von Esagila an König Asarhaddon, Amsterdam: N. V. Noord-Hollandsche Uitgevers Maatschappij, 1965. Landsberger, B., Th. Bauer, “Zu neuveröffentlichen Geschichtsquellen der Zeit von Asarhaddon bis Nabonid”, in Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Verwandte Gebiete, Band 37 (1927), pp. 61–98.

228

Bibliography

Larsen, M. T. “Unusual Eponymy-datings from Mari and Assyria”, in Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archéologie Orientale, Vol. 68 (1974), pp. 15–24. Larsen, M. T. The Old Assyrian City-State and Its Colonies (Mesopotamia, Copenhagen Studies in Assyriology, Vol. 4), Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1976. Lauinger, J. “Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty at Tell Tayinat: Text and Commentary”, in Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Vol. 64 (2012), pp. 87–123. Leichty, E. “An Inscription of Aššur-Etel-Ilani”, in Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 103, No. 1 (1983), pp. 217–220. Leichty, E. “Esarhaddon, King of Assyria”, in J. Sasson (ed.), Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, Vol. 2, New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1995, pp. 949–958. Leichty, E. The Royal Inscriptions of Esarhaddon, King of Assyria (681–669 BC), The Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period, Vol. 4 (with a contribution by Grant Frame, and the editorial assistance of Jamie Novotny, Matthew T. Rutz, and Amy E. Barron), Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011. Lewy, J. “The Middle Assyrian Votive Bead Found at Tanis”, in S. Löwinger, J. Somogyi (eds.), Ignace Goldziher Memorial Volume (Part I), Budapest: Globus, 1948, pp. 314–327. Liebig, M. “Aššur-etel-ilāni, Sin-šum-līšir, Sin-šar-iškun und die Babylonische Chronik”, in Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie, Band 90 (2000), pp. 282–284. Livingstone, A. “A neglected Kudurru or boundary stone of Marduk-Nādin-Aḫḫē”, in Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archéologie Orientale, Vol. 100 (2006), pp. 75–81. Llop, J. “Die persönlichen Gründe Tiglat-Pilesers I., Babylonien anzugreifen”, in Orientalia, Vol. 72 (2003), pp. 204–210. Llop, J. “Barley from Ālu-ša-Sîn-rabi: Chronological Reflections on an Expedition in the Time of Tukultī-Ninurta I (1233–1197 BC)”, in J. Vidal (ed.), Studies on War in the Ancient Near East: Collected Essays on Military History (Alter Orient und Altes Testament, Band 372), Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2010, pp. 105–116. Llop, J. “Foreign Kings in the Middle Assyrian Archival Documentation”, in B. S. Düring (ed.), Understanding Hegemonic Practices of the Early Assyrian Empire, Essays Dedicated to Frans Wiggermann (Publications de l’Institut historique-archéologique néerlandais de Stamboul 125), Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 2015, pp. 243–273. Llop, J., A. R. George, “Die babylonisch-assyrischen Beziehungen und die innere Lage Assyriens in der Zeit der Auseinandersetzung zwischen Ninurta-tukulti-Aššur und Mutakkil-Nusku nach neuen keilschriftlichen Quellen”, in Archiv für Orientforschung, Band 48–49 (2001–2002), pp. 1–23. Longman III, T. Fictional Akkadian Autobiography: A Generic and Comparative Study, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1991.

Bibliography

229

Luckenbill, D. D. “A Study of the Temple Documents from the Cassite Period”, in American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, Vol. 23, No. 4 (1907), pp. 280–322. Luckenbill, D. D. Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia, Vol. 2: Historical Records of Assyria, from Sargon to the End, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1927. Maidman, M. P. “Nuzi, the Club of the Great Powers, and the Chronology of the Fourteenth Century”, in Kaskal, Vol. 8 (2011), pp. 77–139. Matouš, L. “Zur Chronologie der Geschichte von Larsa bis zum Einfall der Elamiter”, in Archiv Orientální, Vol. 20 (1952), pp. 288–313. Melville, S. C. “Chapter Sixteen: Royal Women and the Exercise of Power in the Near East”, in D. C. Snell (ed.), A Companion to the Ancient Near East, Malden, Oxford and Victoria: Blackwell Publishing, 2005, pp. 219–228. Michalowski, P. “History as Charter Some Observations on the Sumerian King List”, in Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 103, No. 1 (1983), pp. 237–248. Millard, A. R. “Another Babylonian Chronicle Text”, in Iraq, Vol. 26, No. 1 (1964), pp. 14–35. Millard, A. R. “Fragments of Historical Texts from Nineveh: Middle Assyrian and Later Kings”, in Iraq, Vol. 32, No. 2 (1970), pp. 167–176. Millard, A. R. “The Use of the Early Alphabets”, in Cl. Baurain, C. Bonnet and L. Krings (eds.), Phoinikeia Grammata: lire et écrire en Méditerranée (Actes du colloque de Liège, 15–18 novembre 1989), Namur: Société des études classiques, 1991, pp. 101–114. Millard, A. R. The Eponyms of the Assyrian Empire: 910–612 BC (State Archives of Assyria Studies, Vol. 2), Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 1994. Miller, J. L. “Political Interactions between Kassite Babylonia and Assyria, Egypt and Ḫatti during the Amarna Age”, in A. Bartelmus, K. Sternitzke (eds.), Karduniaš. Babylonia Under the Kassites. The Proceedings of the Symposium Held in Munich 30 June to 2 July 2011, Vol. 1, Boston / Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2017, pp. 93–111. Mladjov, I. “The Immediate Successors of Burna-Buriaš”, in Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires, 2016/1, pp. 18–21. Mladjov, I. “More on the Immediate Successors of Burna-Buriaš”, in Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires, 2016/3, pp. 106–111. Moran, W. L. “Notes on the New Nabonidus Inscriptions”, in Orientalia, Vol. 28 (1959), pp. 130–140. Moran, W. L. The Amarna Letters, Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992. Munn-Rankin, J. “Assyrian Military Power 1300–1200 B.C.”, in I. E. S. Edwards, the Late C. J. Gadd, N. G. L. Hammond and E. Sollberger (eds.), The Cambridge Ancient History (Third Edition), Vol. 2, Part 2, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975, pp. 274–306.

230

Bibliography

Na‌ʾaman, N. “Statements of Time-Spans by Babylonian and Assyrian Kings and Mesopotamian Chronology”, in Iraq, Vol. 46, No. 2 (1984), pp. 115–123. Na‌ʾaman, N. “Chronology and History in the Late Assyrian Empire (631–619 B.C.)”, in Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie, Band 81 (1991), pp. 243–267. Nassouhi, E. “Grande liste des rois d’Assyrie”, in Archiv für Orientforschung, Band 4 (1927), pp. 1–11. Neate, G. “A Fragment from Kish with the Name of Aššur-nādin-šumi”, in Iraq, Vol. 33, (1971), pp. 54–56. Neujahr, M. “Royal Ideology and Utopian Futures in the Akkadian ex eventu Prophecies”, in E. Ben Zvi (ed.), Utopia and Dystopia in Prophetic Literature, Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006, pp. 41–54. Nissinen, M. Prophets and Prophecy in the Ancient Near East, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003. Novotny, J., J. Jeffers, The Royal Inscriptions of Ashurbanipal (668–631 BC), Aššur-etelilāni (630–627 BC), and Sin-šarra-iškun (626–612 BC), Kings of Assyria, Part 1 (The Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period, Vol. 5/1), University Park, Pennsylvania: Eisenbrauns, 2018. Oates, D. Studies in the Ancient History of Northern Iraq, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968 (Reprinted with a new Preface of J. Oates by the British School of Archaeology in Iraq in 2005). Oates, J. “Assyrian Chronology, 631–612 B.C.”, in Iraq, Vol. 27, No. 2 (1965), pp. 135–159. Oates, J. “The Fall of Assyria (635–609 B.C.)”, in J. Boardman, I. E. S. Edwards, N. G. G. Hammond and the Late E. Sollberger (eds.), with the assistance of C. B. F. Walker, The Cambridge Ancient History (Second Edition), Vol. 3, Part 2, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991, pp. 162–193. Oelsner, J. “Von Assurbanipal zu Nabopolassar – das Zeugnis der Urkunden”, in B. Böck, E. Cancik-Kirschbaum and T. Richter (eds.), Munuscula Mesopotamica, Festschrift für Johannes Renger (Alter Orient und Altes Testament, Band 267), Münster: UgaritVerlag, 1999, pp. 643–666. Olmstead, A. T. History of Assyria, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1923. Oppenheim, A. L. “Babylonian and Assyrian Historical Texts”, in J. B. Pritchard (ed.), Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1955, pp. 265–317. Oshima, T. “Another Attempt at Two Kassite Royal Inscriptions: The Agum-Kakrime Inscription and the Inscription of Kurigalzu the Son of Kadashmanharbe”, in Babel und Bibel, Vol. 6 (2012), pp. 225–268. Parpola, S. Letters from Assyrian Scholars to the Kings Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal, Part I: Texts (Alter Orient und Altes Testament, Band 5/1), Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag des Erziehungsvereins, 1970.

Bibliography

231

Parpola, S. Letters from Assyrian Scholars to the Kings Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal, Part IIA: Introduction and Appendixes, Kevelaer-Neukirchen/Vluyn, 1971. Parpola, S. Letters from Assyrian Scholars to the Kings Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal, Part II: Commentary and Appendices (Alter Orient und Altes Testament, Band 5/2), Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag des Erziehungsvereins, 1983. Parpola, S. Letters from Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars (State Archives of Assyria, Vol. 10), Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1993. Parpola, S. “National and Ethnic Identity in the Neo-Assyrian Empire and Assyrian Identity in Post-Empire Times”, in Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies, Vol. 18, No. 2 (2004), pp. 5–22. Parpola, S., K. Watanabe. Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths (State Archives of Assyria, Vol. 2), Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1988. Paulus, S. “Beziehungen zweier Großmächte – Elam und Babylonien in der 2.Hälfte des 2. Jt. v. Chr. Ein Beitrag zur internen Chronologie”, in K. De Graef, J. Tavernier (eds.), Susa and Elam, Archaeological, Philological, Historical and Geographical Perspectives, Proceedings of the International Congress Held at Ghent University, December 14–17, 2009 (Mémoires de la Délégation en Perse, Vol. 58), Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2013, pp. 429–449. Paulus, S. Die babylonischen Kudurru-Inschriften von der kassitischen bis zur frühneubabylonischen Zeit: Untersucht unter besonderer Berücksichtigung gesellschaftsund rechtshistorischer Fragestellungen (Alter Orient und Altes Testament, Band 51), Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2014. Paulus, S. “Babylonien in der 2. Hälfte des 2. Jts. v. Chr. – (K)ein Imperium? Ein Überblick über Geschichte und Struktur des mittelbabylonischen Reiches (ca. 1500–1000 B.C.)”, in M. Gehler, R. Rollinger (eds.), Imperien und Reiche in der Weltgeschichte, Epochenübergreifende und globalhistorische Vergleiche, Teil 1: Imperien des Altertums, Mittelalterliche und frühneuzeitliche Imperien, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2014, pp. 65–100. Paulus, S. “Fraud, Forgery, and Fiction: Is There Still Hope for Agum-Kakrime?”, in Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Vol. 70 (2018), pp. 115–166. Pedersén, O. Archives and Libraries in the City of Assur: A Survey of the Material from the German Excavations, Part I, Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1985. Pedersén, O. Archives and Libraries in the City of Assur: A Survey of the Material from the German Excavations, Part II, Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1986. Pedersén, O. “A Problematic King in the Assyrian King List”, in B. Böck, E. Cancik-Kirschbaum and T. Richter (eds.), Munuscula Mesopotamica: Festschrift für Johannes Renger (Alter Orient und Altes Testament, Band 267), Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1999, pp. 369–373.

232

Bibliography

Peise, P. E. “Chronik P und synchron. Geschichte”, in Orientalische Litteratur-Zeitung, Jahrgang 11/1 (1908), pp. 7–10. Poebel, A. “The Assyrian King List from Khorsabad”, in Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 1, No. 3 (1942), pp. 247–306. Poebel, A. “The Assyrian King List from Khorsabad (continued)”, in Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 1, No. 4 (1942), pp. 460–492. Poebel, A. “The Assyrian King List from Khorsabad (concluded)”, in Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 2, No. 1 (1943), pp. 56–90. Poebel, A. Miscellaneous Studies (Assyriological Studies, No. 14), Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1947. Poebel, A. The Second Dynasty of Isin According to A New King List Tablet (Assyriological Studies, No. 15), Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1955. Porter, B. N. Images, Power and Politics – Figurative Aspects of Esarhaddon’s Babylonian Policy, Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1993. Postgate, J. N. Neo-Assyrian Royal Grants and Decrees (Studia Pohl: Dissertationes Scientificae de Rebus Orientis Antiqui, Vol. 1), Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1969. Postgate, J. N. “Ancient Assyria – A Multi-Racial State”, in ARAM Periodical, Vol. 1, No. 1 (1989), pp. 1–10. Pruzsinszky, R. Mesopotamian Chronology of the 2nd Millennium B.C., an Introduction to the Textual Evidence and Related Chronological Issues (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie, Band 56), Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2009. Radau, H. Letters to Cassite Kings from the Temple Archives of Nippur (The Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania, Series A: Cuneiform Texts, Vol. 17, Part 1), Philadelphia: Department of Archaeology, University of Pennsylvania, 1908. Radner, K. “Der Gott Salmānu (‘Šulmānu’) und seine Beziehung zur Stadt Dūr-Katlimmu”, in Die Welt des Orients, Band 29 (1998), pp. 33–51. Reade, J. “The Accession of Sinsharishkun”, in Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Vol. 23, No. 1 (1970), pp. 1–9. Reade, J. “Assyrian eponyms, kings and pretenders, 648–605 BC”, in Orientalia, Vol. 67 (1998), pp. 255–265. Reade, J. “Assyrian King-Lists, the Royal Tombs of Ur, and Indus Origins”, in Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 60, No. 1 (2001), pp. 1–29. Ristvet, L. “‘Assyira’ in the Thrid Millennium BCE”, in E. Frahm (ed.), A Companion to Assyria, Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2017, pp. 36–56. Roaf, M. “Kassite and Elamite Kings”, in A. Bartelmus, K. Sternitzke (eds.), Karduniaš. Babylonia Under the Kassites. The Proceedings of the Symposium Held in Munich 30 June to 2 July 2011, Vol. 1, Boston / Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2017, pp. 166–195. Röllig, W. “Erwägungen zu neuen Stelen König Nabonids”, in Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie, Band 56 (1964), pp. 218–260.

Bibliography

233

Röllig, W. “Die Glaubwürdigkeit der Chronik P”, in D. O. Edzard (ed.), Heidelberger Studien zum Alten Orient: Adam Falkenstein zum 17 September 1966, Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1967, pp. 173–184. Röllig, W. “Zur Typologie und Entstehung der Babylonischen und Assyrischen Königlisten”, in M. Dietrich, W. Röllig (eds.), Lišān Mitḫurti – Festschrift Wolfram Freiherr von Soden (Alter Orient und Altes Testament, Band 1), Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag des Erziehungsvereins, 1969, pp. 265–277. Rost, P. Untersuchungen zur altorientalischen Geschichte (Mitteilungen der Vorderasi­ atischen Gesellschaft, Jahrgang 2/2), Berlin: Wolf Peiser Verlag, 1897. Rowton, M. B. “Ṭuppū in the Assyrian King-Lists”, in Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 18. No. 3 (1959), pp. 213–221. Rowton, M. B. “Comparative Chronology at the Time of Dynasty XIX”, in Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 19, No. 1 (1960), pp. 15–22. Rowton, M. B. “The Date of the Sumerian King List”, in Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 19, No. 2 (1960), pp. 156–162. Rowton, M. B. “The Material from Western Asia and the Chronology of the Nineteenth Dynasty”, in Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 25, No. 4 (1966), pp. 240–258. Rowton, M. B. “Chronology: II. Ancient Western Asia”, in I. E. S. Edwards, the Late C. J. Gadd and N. G. L. Hammond (eds.), The Cambridge Ancient History (Third Edition), Vol. 1, Part 1, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970, pp. 193–238. Sachs, A. J., D. J. Wiseman, “A Babylonian King List of the Hellenistic Period”, in Iraq, Vol. 16 (1954), pp. 202–212. Saggs, H. W. F. “Historical Texts and Fragments of Sargon II of Assyria. 1. The ‘Aššur Charter’”, in Iraq, Vol. 37, No. 1 (1975), pp. 11–20. Sallaberger, W., I. Schrakamp, “Part I: Philological Data for a Historical Chronology of Mesopotamia in the 3rd Millennium”, in W. Sallaberger, I. Schrakamp (eds.), History & Philology (Associated Regional Chronologies for the Ancient Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean 3), Turnhout: Brepols, 2015, pp. 1–136. San Nicolò, M. Babylonische Rechtsurkunden des ausgehenden 8. und des 7. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. (Abhandlungen der Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse, Heft 34), München: Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (in Kommission bei der C. H. Beck’schen Verlags­ buchhandlung München), 1951. Saporetti, C. Gli eponimi medio-assiri, Malibu: Undena Publications, 1979. Sass, B. “Inscribed Babylonian Arrowheads of the Turn of the Second Millennium and Their Phoenician Counterpartrs”, in Ugarit-Forschungen, Band 21 (1989), pp. 349–356. Sassmannshausen, L. “Babylonian Chronology of the 2nd Half of the 2nd Millennium B.C.”, in H. Hunger, R. Pruzsinszky (eds.), Mesopotamian Dark

234

Bibliography

Age Revisited (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie, Band 32), Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2004, pp. 61–70. Sassmannshausen, L. “Zur mesopotamischen Chronologie des 2. Jahrtausends“, in Baghdader Mitteilungen, Band 37 (2006), pp. 157–177. Sayce, A. H. “Assyriological Notes, No. 2”, in Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology, Vol. 19 (1897), pp. 68–76. Sayce, A. H. “Marduk-bel-zeri King of Babylon”, in Babylonica: Études de Philologie Assyro-Babylonienne, Vol. 7 (1913–1923), p. 242. Schaudig, H. Die Inschriften Nabonidus von Babylon und Kyros’ des Grosen samt den in ihrem Umfeld entstandenen Tendenzschriften, Textausgabe und Grammatik (Alter Orient und Altes Testament, Band 256), Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2001. Scheil, V. “Dynasties Élamites d’Awan et de Simaš”, in Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archéologie Orientale, Vol. 28 (1931), pp. 1–8. Schroeder, O. Keilschrifttexte aus Assur Verschiedenen Inhalts (Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichung der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 35), Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1920. Schroeder, O. “Ummânu = Chef der Staatskanzlei ?”, in Orientalistische Literaturzeitung, Jahrgang 23 (1920), pp. 204–207. Schroeder, O. Keilschrifttexte aus Assur Historischen Inhalts (Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 37), Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1922. Seux, M. J. Épithètes royales akkadiennes et sumériennes, Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1967. Siddall, L. R. “The Genealogy of Adad-nirari III, the Identity of the Ila-kabkabis of the Assyrian King List and the Status of the ‘Legitimisation’ Hypothesis”, in Orientalia, Vol. 76/4 (2007), pp. 368–378. Singer, I. “KBo 28. 61–64 and the Struggle over the Throne of Babylon at the Turn of the 13th Century BCE”, in G. Wilhelm (ed.), Ḫattuša-Boǧazköy, das Hethiterreich im Spannungsfeld des Alten Orients (Colloquien der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft, Band 6), Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 2008, pp. 223–245. Smith, S. Early History of Assyria: To 1000 B.C., London: Chatto and Windus, 1928. Sollberger, E. “The Cuneiform Collection in Geneva”, in Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Vol. 5, No. 1 (1951), pp. 18–20. Sollberger, E. “New Lists of the Kings of Ur and Isin”, in Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Vol. 8 (1954), pp. 135–136. Sollberger, E. “The Rulers of Lagaš”, in Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Vol. 21 (1967), pp. 279–291. Sollberger, E., J.-R. Kupper, Inscriptions royales sumeriennes et akkadiennes, Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1971. Stol, M. Studies in Old Babylonian History (Publications de l’Institut historique et archéologique néerlandais de Stamboul 40), Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 1976.

Bibliography

235

Streck, M. P. “Puzur-Ashur”, in M. P. Streck (ed.), Reallexikon der Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archäologie, Band 11, Berlin / New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2006–2008, pp. 128–129. Tadmor, H. “Historical Implications of the Correct Rendering of Akkadian dâku”, in Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 17, No. 2 (1958), pp. 129–141. Tadmor, H. “The Inscriptions of Nabunaid: Historical Arrangement”, in H. G. Güterbock, T. Jacobsen (eds.), Studies in Honor of Benno Landsberger on his Seventy-Fifth Birthday, April 21, 1965 (Assyriological Studies, No. 16), Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1965, pp. 351–363. Tadmor, H., S. Yamada, The Royal Inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III (744–727 BC) and Shalmaneser V (726–722 BC), Kings of Assyria, The Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period, Vol. 1, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011. Thomas, F. “Sargon II., der Sohn Tiglat-pilesers III”, in M. Dietrich, O. Loretz (eds.), Mesopotamica-Ugaritica-Biblica. Festschrift für Kurt Bergerhof (Alter Orient und Altes Testament, Band 232), Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag des Erziehungsvereins, 1993, pp. 465–470. Thureau-Dangin, F. “Un Acte de Donation de Marduk-zâkir-Šumi”, in Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archéologie Orientale, Vol. 16, No. 3 (1919), pp. 117–156. Ungnad, A. “Die synchronistischen Königslisten aus Assur”, in Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, Band 72 (1918), pp. 313–316. Ungnad, A. “Schenkungsurkunde des Kurigalzu mâr Kadašman-Ḫarbe”, in Archiv für Keilschriftforschung, Band 1 (1923), pp. 19–23. Ungnad, A. “Zu den Babylonischen Königen des 8. Jahrhunderts”, in Archiv für Keilschriftforschung, Band 2 (1924–1925), pp. 25–27. Ungnad, A. “Datenlisten”, in E. Ebeling, B. Meissner (eds.), Reallexikon der Assyriologie, Band 2, Berlin / Leipzig: Walter de Gruyter, 1938, pp. 131–195. van de Mieroop, M. King Hammurabi of Babylon: A Biography, Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2005. van Dijk, J. “Die Inschriftenfunde”, in H. J. Lenzen (ed.), XVIII. vorläufiger Bericht über die von dem Deutschen Archäologischen Institut und der Deutschen OrientGesellschaft aus Mitteln der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft unternommenen Ausgrabungen in Uruk-Warka, Winter 1959/60, Berlin: Verlag Gebr. Mann, 1962, pp. 39–62. van Dijk, J. “Die Tontafelfunde der Kampagne 1959/60”, in Archiv für Orientforschung, Band 20 (1963), pp. 217–218. van Dijk, J. “Die dynastischen Heiraten zwischen Kassiten und Elamern: eine verhängnisvolle Politik“, in Orientalia, Vol. 55 (1986), pp. 159–170. van Koppen, F. “L’expédition à Tilmun et la Révolte des Bédouins”, in Mari Annales de Recherches Interdisciplinaires, Vol. 8 (1997), pp. 418–429.

236

Bibliography

van Koppen, F. “The Agum-kakrime Inscription”, in M. W. Chavalas (ed.), The Ancient Near East: Historical Sources in Translation, Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2006, pp. 135–139. van Koppen, F. “The Early Kassite Period”, in A. Bartelmus, K. Sternitzke (eds.), Karduniaš. Babylonia Under the Kassites. The Proceedings of the Symposium Held in Munich 30 June to 2 July 2011, Vol. 1, Boston / Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2017, pp. 45–92. van Seters, J. In Search of History: Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical History, New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1983. Veenhof, K. R. “Eponyms of the ‘Later Old Assyrian Period’ and Mari Chronology”, in Mari Annales de Recherches Interdisciplinaires, Vol. 4 (1985), pp. 191–218. Veenhof, K. R. The Old Assyrian List of Year Eponyms from Karum Kanish and its Chronological Implications, Ankara: Turkish Historical Society, 2003. Veenhof, K. R. “The Old Assyrian List of Year Eponyms: Corrections, Additions and Chronology”, in Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires, 2007/3, pp. 58–62. Veenhof, K. R. “The Old Assyrian Period”, in M. Wäfler (ed.), Mesopotamia: The Old Assyrian Period, Annäherungen 5 (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 160/5), Fribourg: Academic Press, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008, pp. 13–264. Veenhof, K. R. “Old Assyrian Chronology and Ancient Kanesh”, in F. Kulakoglu, S. Kangal (eds.), Anatolia’s Prologue, Kultepe Karum Kanesh – Assyrians in Istanbul, Istanbul: Kayseri Metropolitan Municipality, 2011, pp. 30–39. Veenhof, K. R. “The Old Assyrian Period (20th–18th Century BCE)”, in E. Frahm (ed.), A Companion to Assyria, Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2017, pp. 57–79. Vera Chamaza, G. M. “Sargon II’s Ascent to the Throne: the Political Situation”, in State Archives of Assyria Bulletin, Vol. 6 (1992), pp. 21–33. von Soden, W. Herrscher im Alten Orient (Verständliche Wissenschaft 54), Berlin, Göttingen, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 1954. von Soden, W. “Der Nahe Osten im Altertum”, in G. Mann, A. Heuß (eds.), Propyläen-Weltgeschichte, Eine Universalgeschichte, Band II, Hochkulturen des mittleren und östlichen Asiens, Frankfurt a.M. / Berlin: Verlag Ullstein GmbH, 1962, pp. 39–133. von Soden, W. “Aššuretellilāni, Sînšarriškun, Sînšum(u)līšer und die Ereignisse im Assyrerreich nach 635 v. Chr.”, in Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie, Band 58 (1967), pp. 241–255. Waerzeggers, C. “The Babylonian Chronicles: Classification and Provenance”, in Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 71 (2012), pp. 285–298. Walker, C. B. F. Cuneiform Brick Inscriptions in the British Museum; The Ashmolean Museum, Oxford; The City of Birmingham Museums and Art Gallery; The City of Bristol Museum and Art Gallery. London: British Museum Publications Ltd., 1981. Walker, C. B. F. “Babylonian Chronicle 25: A Chronicle of the Kassite and Isin II Dynasties”, in G. van Driel, Th. J. H. Krispijn, M. Stol and K. R. Veenhof (eds.), Zikir Šumim:

Bibliography

237

Assyriological Studies Presented to F. R. Kraus on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday, Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1982, pp. 398–417. Wall-Romana, C. “A Real Location of Agade”, in Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 49, No. 3 (1990), pp. 205–245. Weidner, E. F. “Neue Königslisten aus Assur”, in Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft zu Berlin, Nr. 58 (1917), pp. 1–21. Weidner, E. F. Studien zur assyrisch-babylonischen Chronologie und Geschichte auf Grund neuer Funde (Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft, Jahrgang 20/4), Leipzig: J. C. Hinrinchs, 1917. Weidner, E. F. Die Könige von Assyrien – Neue chronologische Dokumente aus Assur (Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatisch-Aegyptischen Gesellschaft, Jahrgang 26/2), Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1921. Weidner, E. F. “Die grosse Königliste aus Assur”, in Archiv für Orientforschung, Band 3 (1926), pp. 66–77. Weidner, E. F. “Die Feldzüge Šamši-Adads V. gegen Babylonien”, in Archiv für Orient­ forschung, Band 9 (1933–1934), pp. 89–104. Weidner, E. F. “Bermerkungen zur Königliste aus Chorsābād”, in Archiv für Orientforschung, Band 15 (1945–1951), pp. 85–102. Weidner, E. F. “Hof- und Harems-Erlasse assyrischer Könige aus dem 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr.”, in Archiv für Orientforschung, Band 17 (1954–1956), pp. 257–293. Weidner, E. F. “Arno Poebel, The Second Dynasty of Isin according to a New King-List Tablet”, in Archiv für Orientforschung, Band 17 (1954–1956), pp. 383–385. Weidner, E. F. Die Inschriften Tukulti-Ninurtas I. und seiner Nachfolger (Archiv für Orientforschung, Beiheft 12), Graz: Weidner, 1959. Weidner, E. F. “Die älteren Kassiten-Könige”, in Archiv für Orientforschung, Band 19 (1959–1960), p. 138. Weissbach, F. H. Babylonische Miscellen (Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 4), Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1903. Weszeli, M. “A New Boundary Stone of the Reign of Nabû-mukīn-apli (978–943 BC)”, in Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archéologie Orientale, Vol. 104 (2010), pp. 99–130. Whiting, R. M. “Tell Leilan / Šubat-Enlil, Chronological Problems and Perspectives”, in S. Eichler, M. Wäfler and D. Warburton (eds.), Tall al-Hamīdīya 2, Symposion Recent Excavations in the Upper Khabur Region: Berne, December 9–11, 1986; Vorbericht 1985– 1987 (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis Series Archaeologica 6), Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990, pp. 167–218. Whiting, R. M. “The Post-Canonical and Extra-Canonical Eponyms,” in A. Millard, The Eponyms of the Assyrian Empire: 910–612 BC (State Archives of Assyria Studies, Vol. 2), Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 1994, pp. 72–78. Winckler, H. Altorientalische Forschungen, Vol. II, Leipzig: Verlag von Eduard Pfeiffer, 1894.

238

Bibliography

Wiseman, D. J. “The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon”, in Iraq, Vol. 20, Part 1 (1958), pp. 1–99. Wu, Y., S. Dalley, “The Origins of the Manana Dynasty at Kish, and the Assyrian King List”, in Iraq, Vol. 52 (1990), pp. 159–165. Yamada, S. “The Editorial History of the Assyrian King List”, in Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie, Band 84 (1994), pp. 11–35. Yamada, S. “The Assyrian King List and the Murderer of Tukulti-Ninurta I”, in Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires, 1998/1, pp. 26–27. Yamada, S. “Tukulti-Ninurta I’s Rule over Babylonia and Its Aftermath. A Historical Reconstruction”, in Orient 38 (2003), pp. 153–177. Yamada, S. “Notes on the Genealogical Data of the Assyrian King List”, in Eretz-Israel, Vol. 27 (2003), pp. 265–275. Yamada, S. “The Transition Period (17th to 15th Century BCE)”, in E. Frahm (ed.), A Companion to Assyria, Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2017, pp. 108–116. Younger Jr., K. L. “The Late Bronze Age / Iron Age Transition and the Origins of the Arameans”, in K. L. Younger Jr. (ed.), Ugarit at Seventy-Five, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2007. Yun, S. “Mother of Her Son: The Literary Scheme of the Adad-guppi Stele”, in Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, Vol. 70/3 (2017), pp. 277–294. Zaccagnini, C. “Notes on the Pazarcik Stela”, in State Archives of Assyria Bulletin, Vol. 7/1 (1993), pp. 53–72. Zawadzki, S. The Fall of Assyria and Median-Babylonian Relations in Light of the Nabopolassar Chronicle, Poznan: Adam Mickiewicz University Press, Delft: Eburon, 1988. Zawadzki, S. “The Revolt of 746 B.C. and the Coming of Tiglath-pileser III to the Throne”, in State Archives of Assyria Bulletin, Vol. 8/1 (1994), pp. 53–54. Zawadzki, S. “A Contribution to the Chronology of the Last Days of the Assyrian Empire”, in Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie, Band 85 (1995), pp. 67–73.

Plates

Figure 1

VAT 11931 © Staatliche Museen zu Berlin – Vorderasiatisches Museum Foto: Olaf M. Tesmer

240

Figure 2

Plates

VAT 11261 © Staatliche Museen zu Berlin – Vorderasiatisches Museum Foto: Olaf M. Tesmer

241

Plates

Figure 3

VAT 11345 © Staatliche Museen zu Berlin – Vorderasiatisches Museum Foto: Olaf M. Tesmer

242

Figure 4

Plates

VAT 11262 © Staatliche Museen zu Berlin – Vorderasiatisches Museum Foto: Olaf M. Tesmer

243

Plates

Figure 5

VAT 11338 © Staatliche Museen zu Berlin – Vorderasiatisches Museum Foto: Olaf M. Tesmer

Index of Personal Names Abazu 146, 197 Abi-Rattash (Abi-Rattaš) 35, 43, 47, 48, 48n113, 135, 202 Abishi 21, 39, 47, 134, 135, 202 Adad-apla-iddina 22, 36, 59, 78, 79, 80, 81, 204, 206 Adad-nirari (Adad-nārārī) I 55, 62n226, 66, 107, 109, 199, 200, 201, 212, 213, 213n55 Adad-nirari II 37, 88, 89, 137, 138, 161, 199 Adad-nirari III 92, 93, 148, 200, 201, 205, 213, 214 Adad-salulu (Adad-ṣalūlu) 39, 198 Adad-shuma-iddina (Adad-šuma-iddina)  60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 203, 211 Adad-shuma-usur (Adad-šuma-uṣur; the Kassite king) 21, 21n141, 36, 56, 57, 59, 60, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 66n254, 67, 70, 72, 73, 203 Adad-shuma-usur (the exorcist of Esarhaddon) 164, 164n104, 179n41 Adamu (Adāmu) 145, 197 Adarakalamma (Ayadaragalama) 35, 44, 135, 135n22, 202 Adasi (Adāsi) 8, 35, 38, 39, 40, 40n17, 44, 45, 127n8, 135, 198 Adda-guppi (Adad-guppi) 121n615, 122 Agum I 22, 35, 40, 41, 47, 48, 48n110, 50, 135, 202 Agum II  19, 22, 35, 42, 42n33, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 135, 203 Agum III 52, 53, 54, 55, 203 Akia 146, 197 Alexander the Great 2n8 Amar-Sin (Amar-Sîn) 155, 166 Amel-Marduk (Amēl-Marduk) 205 Amenhotep IV 112, 208, 210 Aminu (Amīnu) 146, 197 Ammi-ditana 39, 40, 42n33, 134, 135, 151, 202 Ammi-saduqa 39, 135, 151, 202 Apiashal (Apiašal) 146, 147, 197 Apil-Sin (Apil-Sîn) 38, 135, 202 Arik-den-ili (Arik-dēn-ili) 9, 55, 107, 109, 110, 111, 113, 199, 200 Asinu (Asīnû) 156

Asharid-apil-Ekur (Ašarēd-apil-Ekur) 9, 36, 75, 77, 100, 114, 130, 199 Ashur-apla-idi (Aššur-aplu-idi) 39, 135, 198 Ashurbanipal (Aššur-bāni-apli) 6, 7, 8, 10, 26, 27, 29, 38, 40, 40n17, 93, 97, 97n, 98, 98n525, 107, 117, 120, 121, 121n, 122, 122n621, 123n629, 125n2, 130, 141, 142, 143, 144, 154, 154n53, 157, 160, 162, 163, 164, 167, 168, 169, 175, 177, 178, 178n30, 179, 179n40, 180, 180n47, 181, 182, 183, 184, 184n78, 185, 186, 186n96, 187, 188, 189, 193, 195, 196, 200, 205 Ashur-bel-kala (Aššur-bēl-kala) 22, 36, 77, 77n355, 80, 81, 100, 108n556, 136n25, 162, 169n135, 176, 199 Ashur-bel-nisheshu (Aššur-bēl-nišēšu) 55, 110, 111, 112, 199 Ashur-bel-shame (Aššur-bēl-šame) 156 Ashur-dan (Aššur-dān) I 36, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 100, 199 Ashur-dan II  37, 83n418, 84, 88, 140, 199 Ashur-dan III 93, 200, 214 Ashur-da’in-apla (Aššur-da’’in-aplu) 91n499 Ashur-dugul (Aššur-dugul) 39, 39n6, 40, 44, 44n68, 135, 136n24, 156, 198 Ashur-etil-ilani (Aššur-etel-ilāni) 10, 27, 27n178, 29, 97n523, 117, 120, 121, 121n, 122, 123, 123n629, 124, 141, 142, 143, 143n13, 144, 174, 174n14, 193, 200 Ashur-nadin-ahhe (Aššur-nādin-aḫḫē) I 55, 111, 198, 200 Ashur-nadin-ahhe II 55, 110, 112, 113, 199 Ashur-nadin-apli (Aššur-nādin-apli) 36, 56n183, 57, 58, 59, 59n206, 65, 70, 199 Ashur-nadin-shumi (Aššur-nādin-šumi) 8, 37, 94, 96, 107, 108, 177, 205 Ashur-nasir-apli (Aššur-nāṣir-apli)  56n183, 57, 57n198, 58, 59, 59n206, 65 Ashurnasirpal (Aššur-nāṣir-apli) I 36, 82, 83, 85, 199 Ashurnasirpal II 37, 57n198, 58, 84, 85, 89, 90, 138, 138n33, 139, 164, 199 Ashur-nirari (Aššur-nārāri) I 35, 52, 53, 198 Ashur-nirari II 55, 110, 111, 112, 156, 199

245

Index of Personal Names Ashur-nirari III 36, 57, 58, 59n206, 65, 66n253, 199, 201 Ashur-nirari IV 37, 83, 83n418, 84, 85, 199 Ashur-nirari V 5, 93, 140, 200, 201, 214 Ashur-rabi (Aššur-rabi) I 54, 55, 111, 198, 199, 200 Ashur-rabi II 37, 83n418, 85, 86, 199 Ashur-resha-ishi (Aššur-rēša-iši) I 20, 36, 68, 71, 73, 74, 74n326, 100, 114, 115, 130, 131, 199 Ashur-resha-ishi II 37, 83n418, 86, 87, 199 Ashur-rim-nisheshu (Aššur-rêm-nišēšu) 55, 110, 111, 112, 199 Ashur-shaduni (Aššur-šadûni) 35, 53, 54, 55, 198 Ashur-uballit (Aššur-uballiṭ) I 55, 106, 107, 109, 110, 112, 113, 176, 199, 208, 211, 212 Ashur-uballit II 200 Azarah (Azaraḫ) 146, 197 Baba-aha-iddina (Bābu-aḫa-iddina) 9, 92, 92n504, 93, 116, 117, 119, 204 Bazaja 35, 41, 43, 45, 198 Bel-bani (Bēl-bāni) 35, 40, 40n17, 41, 41n, 42n41, 43, 173, 198 Bel-erish (Bēl-ēreš) 86 Bel-ibni (Bēl-ibni) 95, 96, 107, 130, 205 Belu (Bēlū) 146, 197 Bel-upahhir (Bēl-upaḫḫir) 37, 95, 117, 119 Ber-nadin-ahhe (Ber-nādin-aḫḫē) 156 Burnaburiash (Burna-Buriaš) I 23, 35, 51, 52, 53, 54, 134, 135, 135n22, 136, 203 Burnaburiash II 55, 203, 208, 208n8, 209, 210, 211, 212 Dadbanaja 153n52 Dagan-bel-nasir (Dagān-bēl-naṣir) 90 Damqi-ilishu (Damqî-ilīšu) 3, 8, 35, 38, 39, 40, 42n33, 81, 134, 135, 202 Demetrius II 2n8 Didanu (Didānu)  145, 147, 197 Dunna-Sah (Dunna-Ṣaḫ) 67 Ea-gamil 21, 35, 42n33, 46, 46n81, 47, 53, 134, 135, 202 Ea-mukin-zeri (Ea-mukīn-zēri) 36, 81, 82, 204 Ekurduanna 35, 44, 45, 135, 202

Enlil-kudurri-usur (Enlil-kudurrī-uṣur) 21, 21n141, 36, 59n206, 65, 66, 66n254, 73, 199 Enlil-nadin-ahhe (Enlil-nādin-aḫḫē) 36, 69, 70, 203 Enlil-nadin-apli (Enlil-nādin-apli) 20, 36, 42, 74, 76, 77, 114, 115, 126n3, 130, 139n34, 204 Enlil-nadin-shumi (Enlil-nādin-šumi) 59, 59n208, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 203 Enlil-nasir (Enlil-nāṣir) I 35, 53, 54, 198 Enlil-nasir II  9, 55, 110, 111, 198 Enlil-nirari (Enlil-nārārī) 55, 56n184, 106, 107, 109, 110, 113, 131, 199, 211, 212, 213 Eriba-Adad (Erība-Adad) I 8, 12, 55, 107, 108, 109, 110, 112, 113, 199 Eriba-Adad II 36, 77, 80, 81, 100, 199 Eriba-Marduk (Erība-Marduk) 92n504, 93, 104, 105, 106, 158, 205, 206 Eriba-Sin (Erība-Sîn) 81, 204 Erishum (Erišum) I 8, 26, 28, 38, 98, 133, 135, 136, 141, 144, 145, 150, 151, 153, 154, 157, 193, 198 Erishum II 39, 198, 200 Erishum III 35, 46, 50, 198 Esarhaddon (Aššur-aḫa-iddina) 8, 10n56, 25, 26, 29, 37, 38, 40, 40n17, 79, 93, 96, 97, 98, 107, 117, 120, 125n2, 129, 129n10, 130, 141, 143, 150, 157, 158, 160, 163, 163n95, 164, 164n106, 165, 167, 167n121, 168, 168n132, 177, 177n28, 178, 178n30, 178n37, 179, 179n, 180, 181, 181n51, 182, 182n63, 183, 184, 184n, 186, 187, 188, 195, 200, 205 Eulmash-shakin-shumi(Eulmaš-šākin-šumi)  82, 83n413, 84, 116, 204 Gabbi-ilani-eresh (Gabbu-ilāni-ēreš) 37, 89 Gandash (Gandaš) 21, 35, 41, 46, 46n81, 47, 47n91, 48n110, 135, 202 GÍŠ-EN 35, 42, 135, 158n82, 202 Gudea 3, 183 Gulkishar (Gul-kišar) 35, 41, 42, 42n33, 43, 44, 135, 202 Hajani (Ḫaiānu) 146, 197 Hale (Ḫalē) 146, 197

246 Hammurabi (Ḫammu-rāpi) 3, 39, 47, 47n91, 135, 144, 147, 148, 153, 153n52, 155, 166, 167n116, 202, 207, 207n Hanu (Ḫanū) 145, 147, 197 Harba-Shipak (Harba-Šipak) 35, 47, 49, 135, 203 Harharu (Ḫarḫaru) 145, 197 Harsu (Ḫarṣu) 145, 149, 197 Hulalum (Ḫulālu) 207 Ibqi-Ishtar (Ibqi-Ištar) 39, 198 Ikunum (Ikūnum) 38, 198 Iliman 21, 39, 134, 135, 202 Ili-pada (Ilī-padâ) 65, 66, 66n253, 199, 201 Ilu-kabkabi (king of Assyria) 146, 147, 148, 197, 198 Ilu-kabkabi (father of Shamshi-Adad I) 147, 198 Ilu-Mer 146, 197 Ilu-shuma (Ilu-šumma) 38, 146, 157, 197, 198 Imsu (Emṣu) 145, 149, 197 Ina-Ashur-shumi-asbat (Ina-Aššuršumi-aṣbat) 64n237 Iptar-Sin (Iptar-Sîn) 35, 42, 42n41, 156, 198 Ishkibal (Iškibal) 35, 40, 135, 202 Ishme-Dagan (Išme-Dagān) 51, 198, 200 Ishme-Dagan I 39, 41, 47n91, 153, 155, 156, 198, 200, 207, 207n Ishme-Dagan II 22, 35, 51, 52, 134, 161, 198, 200 Ishtar-shuma-eresh (Ištar-šuma-ēreš) 26, 37, 38, 97, 98, 117, 120, 163, 163n, 164, 188, 189n102 Ititi 155, 156 Itti-ili-nibi 39, 135, 202 Itti-Marduk-balatu (Itti-Marduk-balāṭu) 13, 13n87, 36, 70n295, 71, 73, 74, 76, 76n344, 133, 167n117, 204 Jangi 145, 197 Jazkur-ilu (Yazkur-ēl) 146, 197 Jakmeni 146, 197 Jakmesi 146, 197 Kadashman-Harbe (Kadašman-Ḫarbe) I  55, 203, 208, 209, 211, 212 Kadashman-Harbe II 59, 60, 60n221, 61, 62, 64, 203, 210, 211

Index of Personal Names Kadashman-Harbe III 59n208 Kadashman-Enlil (Kadašman-Enlil) I 55, 203 Kadashman-Enlil II 55, 203 Kadashman-Turgu (Kadašman-Turgu) 55, 203, 212, 213 Kalbu 37, 95, 117, 119 Kandalanu (Kandalānu) 2n7, 4, 8, 27, 29, 38, 97, 97n524, 98, 98n, 117, 120, 121, 121n616, 122, 123, 141, 142, 144, 154, 158, 160, 161, 174, 174n14, 175, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 193, 195, 196, 205 Karahardash (Karaḫardaš) 55, 203, 208, 209, 210 Karaindash (Karaindaš) 55, 112, 203, 208, 209, 210, 212 Karakindash (Karakindaš) 209, 212 Kashtiliashu (Kaštiliašu) I 35, 47, 48, 135, 202 Kashtiliashu II 23, 35, 47, 48, 48n113, 202 Kashtiliashu III 35, 51, 52, 53, 135, 203, 206 Kashtiliashu IV 55, 56, 57, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 64n237, 67, 69, 203 Kashshu-nadin-ahhe (Kaššû-nādin-aḫḫē)  9, 36, 82, 116, 117, 204 Kidin-Hutran (Kidin-Ḫutran) 62, 63 Kidin-Ninua (Kidin-Nīnua) 19, 35, 44, 44n68, 45, 46, 156, 198 Kikkia 146, 197 Kudur-Enlil 55, 56, 203 Kurigalzu I 52, 55, 203, 208, 209, 212 Kurigalzu II 55, 203, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 213n55 Kurigalzu III 208n13 Labashi-Marduk (Labaši-Marduk) 205, 206 Lahhaja (Laḫḫaja) 103 Libaja 35, 41, 41n, 198 Lidanu 119, 204 Lillamu (Lillāmu) 146, 197 Luhhaja (Luḫḫaja) 37, 103 Lullaja 19, 35, 39n6, 40n9, 43, 44, 44n68, 45, 136n24, 198 Mandaru 145, 197 Manishtushu (Maništušu) 155, 166

Index of Personal Names Mar-biti-ahhe-iddina (Mār-bīti-aḫa-iddina)  37, 86, 87, 88, 100, 116, 130, 131, 158, 159, 204 Mar-biti-apla-usur (Mār-bīti-apla-uṣur) 37, 85, 86, 86n452, 100, 116, 158, 204  Marduk-ahhe-eriba (Marduk-aḫḫē-erība)  22, 78, 79, 204 Marduk-apla-usur (Marduk-apla-uṣur) 18, 92n504, 93, 104, 105, 204 Marduk-balassu-iqbi (Marduk-balāssu-iqbi)  91, 92, 92n504, 104, 116, 119, 138, 158, 159n83, 204 Marduk-bel-usate (Marduk-bēl-usāti) 90, 103 Marduk-bel-zeri (Marduk-bēl-zēri) 18, 92n504, 93, 104, 105, 204 Marduk-kabit-ahheshu (Marduk-kabitaḫḫēšu) 13, 13n86, 36, 69, 70, 70n295, 73, 76, 133, 204 Marduk-nadin-ahhe (Marduk-nādin-aḫḫē)  9, 13, 20, 36, 66n255, 74, 75, 75n, 76, 77, 78n360, 79, 83, 83n413, 114, 130, 204 Marduk-shakin-shumi(Marduk-šākin-šumi)  105, 205 Marduk-shapik-zeri (Marduk-šāpik-zēri) 4, 13, 13n88, 22, 36, 70n294, 75, 76, 77, 78, 78n, 79, 80, 133, 204, 211 Marduk-zakir-shumi (Marduk-zākir-šumi) I  8, 90, 91, 91n, 92n504, 100, 103, 104, 116, 119, 138, 138n32, 139, 158, 204, 215 Marduk-zakir-shumi II 92, 95, 96, 205 Marduk-zer-[…] 78, 79, 204 Melamkurkurra 35, 45, 135, 202 Meli-Shipak (Meli-Šipak) 21, 36, 52, 66, 66n255, 67, 69, 70, 73, 203 Merodach-Baladan (Marduk-apla-iddina) I  21, 36, 66, 67, 70, 203 Merodach-baladan II 93, 95, 96, 106, 158, 167, 167n117, 176, 205, 206, 215, 216 Muballitat-Sherua (Muballiṭat-Šērū’a) 208, 209, 210, 211, 212 MU-PAP 103, 115, 116, Mursili I (Muršiliš I) 42n33, 49, 50 Mushezib-Marduk (Mušēzib-Marduk) 15, 37, 95, 95n518, 96, 107, 108, 141n4, 205 Mutakkil-Nusku 20, 36, 70, 71, 71n301, 73, 100, 114, 130, 199 Mutashkur (Mut-Aškur) 155, 156

247 Nabonassar (Nabû-nāṣir) 93, 105, 158, 205, 214, 215 Nabonidus (Nabû-nā’id) 74n324, 121n615, 122, 122n621, 205, 206 Nabopolassar (Nabû-apla-uṣur) 120, 122, 122n621, 123, 142, 143n13, 205, 206 Nabu-apla-iddina (Nabû-apla-iddina; the Babylonian king) 37, 89, 89n483, 90, 91, 100, 116, 132, 138, 138n, 158, 204 Nabu-apla-iddina (the ummânu of Sennacherib) 37, 94, 119, 131, 162n88, 165 Nabu-balassu-iqbi (Nabû-balāssu-iqbi) 205 Nabu-bani (Nabû-bāni) 117, 119, 165 Nabu-mukin-apli (Nabû-mukīn-apli) 37, 85, 86, 87, 88, 100, 116, 158, 204 Nabu-mukin-zeri (Nabû-mukīn-zēri) 93, 158, 177n25, 205, 206, 214, 215 Nabu-nadin-zeri (Nabû-nādin-zēri) 93, 158, 205, 206, 214, 215 Nabu-shuma-ishkun (Nabû-šumu-iškun) 8, 89, 89n476, 93, 104, 106, 158, 205, 214 Nabu-shuma-ukin (Nabû-šuma-ukīn) I 37, 89, 100, 116, 138, 139, 158, 204 Nabu-shuma-ukin II 93, 158, 205, 206, 214, 215 Nabu-shumu-libur (Nabû-šumu-libūr) 77, 78, 80, 204 Nabu-tuk-lat-su 38, 99, 117, 124 Nabu-zeru-lishir (Nabû-zēru-līšir) 26, 37, 97, 117, 120, 163, 163n95, 164, 164n104, 168, 188 Nabu-zuqup-kenu (Nabû-zuqup-kēnu) 164 Naram-Sin (Narām-Sîn) 39, 198, 200 Nasir-Sin (Nāṣir-Sîn) 39, 198 Nazibugash (Nazi-Bugaš) 55, 203, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212 Nazimaruttash (Nazi-Maruttaš) 55, 203, 212, 213 Nebuchadnezzar (Nabû-kudurrī-uṣur) I 9, 20, 36, 42, 71, 72, 73, 74, 74n, 76, 79, 114, 130, 204 Nebuchadnezzar II 129n10, 205 Nergal-ushezib (Nergal-ušēzib) 15, 37, 95, 96, 107, 108, 141n4, 205 Neriglissar (Nergal-šar-uṣur) 122n621, 205 Ninurta-apil-Ekur 8, 21, 36, 59, 59n206, 65, 66, 66n255, 67, 68, 69, 72, 73, 100, 108n556, 199

248 Ninurta-apla-[…] 8, 18, 92n504, 93, 104, 105, 204 Ninurta-apla-ibni 105 Ninurta-apla-iddina 105 Ninurta-kudurri-usur (Ninurta-kudurrīuṣur) I 37, 84, 85, 116, 204 Ninurta-kudurri-usur II 37, 86, 87, 88, 100, 116, 130, 158, 204 Ninurta-nadin-shumi(Ninurta-nādin-šumi)  20, 36, 71, 73, 74, 76, 77, 204 Ninurta-tukulti-Ashur(Ninurta-tukultī-Aššur)  9, 20, 36, 70, 71, 71n301, 72, 73, 100, 114, 130, 199 Nuabu 146, 197 Nur-ili 35, 53, 54, 198 Peshgaldaramesh (Pešgaldarameš) 35, 43, 135, 135n22, 202 Pulu (Pūlu) 158, 205, 215 Puzur-Ashur (Puzur-Aššur) I 146, 197 Puzur-Ashur II 38, 198 Puzur-Ashur III 23, 35, 51, 53, 54, 198 Puzur-Sin (Puzur-Sîn) 41, 42, 156 Qalia 37, 88 Re-mu-[…] 156 Rim-Sin (Rim-Sîn) 183 Sabium 38, 135, 153, 202 Samanu 146, 197 Samoges 98n524 Samsu-ditana 39, 135, 202, Samsu-iluna 3, 21, 39, 47n91, 134, 135, 202, Sappaja 82, 204 Sardanapallos 98n524 Sargon (Šarru-kēn; king of the Old Akkadian Kingdom) 166 Sargon I 38, 198 Sargon II 5, 61n226, 92, 93, 94n507, 95, 96, 140, 143, 143n14, 154n53, 158, 167, 176, 200, 201, 205, 215, 216 Seleucus II 2n7 Sennacherib (Sîn-aḫḫē-erība) 8, 10n56, 25, 37, 75n332, 92, 93, 94, 94n507, 95, 96, 96n521, 107, 117, 119, 129, 131, 140, 141, 143, 143n14, 144, 158, 161, 162, 162n88, 164, 165, 166, 177, 177n27, 178, 178n30, 179, 182, 182n62, 200, 205

Index of Personal Names Shagarakti-Shuriash (Šagarakti-Šuriaš) 55, 56, 56n190, 203 Shalim-ahum (Šalim-aḫum) 146, 197 Shalmaneser (Salmānu-ašarēd) I 55, 56, 62n226, 68, 107, 109, 150, 199 Shalmaneser II 36, 83, 83n418, 84, 157, 199 Shalmaneser III 37, 85, 90, 91, 91n499, 103, 132, 138, 138n, 176, 199, 200, 215 Shalmaneser IV 93, 200, 214 Shalmaneser V 5, 93, 140, 154n53, 158, 165, 176, 200, 201, 205, 216 Shamash-danninanni (Šamaš-danninanni)  186 Shamash-mudammiq (Šamaš-mudammiq)  37, 88, 100, 116, 130, 131, 138, 158, 159n83, 161, 204 Shamash-shuma-ukin (Šamaš-šuma-ukīn)  29, 38, 40, 40n17, 85, 97, 98, 98n, 117, 120, 121n616, 144, 160, 161, 167, 168, 175, 177, 178, 178n, 179, 179n41, 180, 180n, 181, 181n51, 182, 183, 184, 184n, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 195, 196, 205 Shamshi-Adad (Šamšī-Adad) I 39, 42, 44n68, 50, 147, 148, 149, 149n30, 153, 156, 166, 173, 198, 200, 207, 207n Shamshi-Adad II 22, 35, 47, 50, 51, 132, 134, 161, 198 Shamshi-Adad III 35, 51, 198 Shamshi-Adad IV 8, 36, 81, 82, 100, 199 Shamshi-Adad V 37, 91, 91n, 92, 92n, 119, 137, 138, 138n32, 139, 176, 200 Sharma-Adad (Šarma-Adad) I 35, 41, 42, 198 Sharma-Adad II 35, 45, 136n24, 198, 200 Shattuara (Šattuara) I 62n226 Shattuara II 62n226 Sheru’a-eterat (Šērū’a-ēṭerat) 97n524 Shirikti-Shuqamuna (Širikti-Šuqamuna) 8, 37, 85, 100, 116, 204 Shula (Šulâ) 181 Shulgi (Šulgi) 183 Shumaju (Šumāia) 163 Shumu-libshi (Šumu-libši) 103 Shushi (Šušši) 35, 41, 135, 202 Shuzigash (Šuzigaš) 208, 210 Shuzubu (Šuzubu) 15 Simbar-Shipak (Simbar-Šipak) 77, 80, 81, 81n391, 204 Sin-balassu-iqbi (Sîn-balāssu-iqbi) 181

Index of Personal Names Sin-muballit (Sîn-muballiṭ) 38, 135, 202 Sin-nadin-apli (Sîn-nādin-apli) 179n41 Sin-namir (Sîn-nammir) 39, 198, Sin-shar-ishkun (Sîn-šar-iškun) 121n617, 123, 142, 143n13, 186, 187, 200, 205 Sin-shar-usur (Sîn-šar-uṣur) 181 Sin-shum-lishir (Sîn-šumu-līšir) 121n617, 123, 123n629, 142, 142n12, 143n13, 187, 200, 205 Suhlamu (Suḫlamu) 145, 197 Sulili 146, 197 Sumu-abum 26, 151, 152, 152n48, 153, 153n52, 202 Sumu-la-El (Sumu-la-ēl) 8, 26, 28, 38, 98, 135, 136, 144, 145, 151, 152, 152n48, 153, 153n52, 154, 157, 158, 159, 193, 202 Suppiluliuma (Šuppiluliumaš) II 56n190 Tiglath-pileser (Tukultī-apil-Ešarra) I 13, 20, 36, 66n255, 68, 74, 75, 75n, 77, 81, 100, 114, 130, 176, 199 Tiglath-pileser II 5, 25, 37, 83n418, 86, 87, 88, 93, 140, 140n1, 199 Tiglath-pileser III 5, 61n226, 93, 140, 141n3, 158, 165, 167, 176, 176n22, 177, 177n25, 200, 201, 205, 214, 215 Tiptakzi 35, 47, 49, 135, 203 Tudija (Ṭudiya) 145, 197

249 Tukulti-Ninurta (Tukultī-Ninurta) I 8, 12, 25n166, 36, 54, 55, 56, 56n183, 56n190, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 64n, 65, 68, 69, 71, 107, 108, 110, 131, 167, 176, 199 Tukulti-Ninurta II 37, 57n198, 58, 89, 138, 199 Uasashatta (Uasašatta) 62n226 Ulamburiash (Ulamburiaš) 23, 35, 42n33, 46, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 134, 135, 135n22, 203 Ululaju (Ulūlāiu) 158, 205 Urad-Gula (Urdu-Gula) 164 Ur-Nammu 166n114, 183 Ur-Nanshe (Ur-Nanše) 183, 183n69 Urtak 181 Urzigurumash (Urzigurumaš) 35, 47, 48, 49, 135, 202, 203 Ushpia (Ušpija) 146, 149, 197 Utu-hegal (Utu-ḫegal) 171, 173 Yasmah-Addu (Yasmaḫ-Addu/Adad) 207 Zababa-shuma-iddina(Zabāba-šuma-iddina)  36, 69, 203 Zarriqum 155, 156, 166 Zazija 155 Zuabu (Zu’abu) 145, 147, 197