A LETTER FROM ASHURBANIPAL TO
THE ELDERS OF ELAM (BM 132980)
Matthew W. Waters
University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire
BM 132980, a previously unpublished NeoAssyrian letter from the Nineveh corpus, oˆers
insight into Assyria’s relations with Elam in the
late 650s and early 640s. Ashurbanipal wrote this
letter sometime during the course of the Assyrian
campaigns against Huban-haltas III (i.e., between
648–645 BC?), and it alludes speci˜cally to a previous Assyrian campaign against Te’umman in
653. After the victory over Te’umman, and the
subsequent installation of Ashurbanipal’s client
kings (Huban-nikas II and Tammaritu I) in Elam,
Assyrian involvement in internal Elamite aˆairs
increased dramatically. The Elamites’ continued
assistance to the Babylonians further heightened
tension, a tension evident in BM 132980. Parts of
the following discussion echo the relevant sections of my A Survey of Neo-Elamite History, to
which the reader is referred for additional historical context.1
Although BM 132980 has an eponym date
(Nabû-nadin-ahi, 647?), the chronology of the
events to which it alludes is uncertain. Ashurbanipal’s annals indicate three campaigns against
Huban-haltas III, and it is unclear where the new
letter ˜ts into the sequence.2
Related to the study of these campaigns and of
this letter is the Assyrian hunt for the Chaldean
rebel Nabû-bel-sumati and his cohorts, who, at
various times over the preceding four or ˜ve
years, had received shelter and support from one
or another Elamite faction. The new text may be
linked with several letters from Bel-ibni, Ashurbanipal’s turtanu in the south, which describe
the progress of the hunt for Nabû-bel-sumati and
Ashurbanipal’s increasing impatience with its lack
of success (see below).
A private individual donated BM 132980 to the
British Museum in 1908, and it was incorporated
Several individuals deserve mention for their part in bringing this text to publication. I acknowledge and thank Alan
Millard for forwarding me his and K. Deller’s work on this
text. Special thanks to John Curtis and the British Museum
for allowing me to publish this text and for supplying bibliographical information, to Erle Leichty for securing several
collations, to Simo Parpola for sharing his work (on this letter
and others), and to the JCS referees for their careful reading
of the original draft of this article. BM 132980 is published
with the permission of the Trustees of the British Museum;
the photographs are Ç The British Museum.
1. State Archives of Assyria Studies (SAAS) XII (Helsinki:
Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2000), especially pp. 74–75.
My interpretation that BM 132980 dates before the second
campaign against Huban-haltas III is reconsidered herein; ultimately, the chronology is uncertain. This text was ˜rst cited
by Alan Millard, “Another Babylonian Chronicle Text,” Iraq
26 (1964) 19 n. 23. It will be included in Simo Parpola’s forthcoming SAA volume on Ashurbanipal’s letters.
2. Since Huban-haltas III ultimately delivered Nabû-belsumati to Ashurbanipal (see below), before Huban-haltas III
himself was brought to Nineveh, it is assumed that BM 132980
was written after the ˜rst or second campaign against Hubanhaltas III. For the dating of these campaigns, see G. Frame,
Babylonia 689–627 B.C.: A Political History (Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 1992), Appendix E and
Waters, SAAS XII, Appendix C. For the removal of Hubanhalta s III to Assyria, see Edition A x 6–16 in R. Borger,
Beiträge zum Inschriftenwerk Assurbanipals (Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz, 1996; hereafter BIWA), 70–71.
79
JCS 54 (2002)
80
MATTHEW W. WATERS
BM 132980
into the Kouyunjik collection in 1962, hence given
the accession number 1962–7–23,1.3 The tablet is
3. W. G. Lambert and A. R. Millard, Catalogue of the
Cuneiform Tablets in the Kouyunjik Collection of the British Museum, second supplement (London: British Museum,
1968), 85.
7.8 cm long and 4.4 cm wide. On the whole, it is
in very good condition except for a part of the
lower tablet being broken away. Thus, several
lines at the end of the obverse and the beginning
of the reverse are lost. There are sections where
individual signs, or parts of signs, are faded,
encrusted, or broken away, especially near the
breaks in the tablet. The script is Neo-Assyrian.
A LETTER FROM ASHURBANIPAL TO THE ELDERS OF ELAM (BM 132980)
BM 132980
Obverse
1) a-bat LUG[AL a-n]a ªLÚºAB.BA.ME† sá
KUR
NIM.MAKI
mu
2) DI ia-a-si ù a-na KURAN.†ÁRKI gab-bu
3) ina UGU ªsa aº-na la a-ma-ri tu-sam-hira-ni
4) ma-a ina UGU mì-i-ni ki-i an-ni-i
KUR
AN.†ÁRKI
5) te-ep-pa-ás-an-na-si la tu-da-ma-a
6) ina UGU mì-i-ni sá ki-i ha-an-ni-i ep-sá-aka-nu-ni
7) u ú-ma-a ta-as-sa-na-åa-la
81
8) ina UGU mdPA.EN.MU.ME† mdPA.†UII-sabat mki-rib-tú
9) ki-i ha-an-ni-i ep-sá-ku-nu
10) ki-i mum-man-i-gas il-lik-an-ni
11) GÌRII.ME†-ia is-bat-u-ni ù e-mu-qí-ia
12) is-si-sú ás-pur-u-ni il-li-ku-u-ni
13) ina †À mte-um-man im-mah-su-ú-ni
14) ÁII-in-ni-i ina †À É.KUR.ME† ina †À
URU.ME†
15) lu-u ina †À me-me-ni ni-it-tu-bil
16) hu-ub-tu-ú ni-ih-tab-ta Ì.ME† ina UGU
Ú†.ME
17) la ni-id-di-bu-ú-ku a-na EN.MUN
82
MATTHEW W. WATERS
18) la ni-tu-ú-ru-u ina sad-dag-dis ki-i
19) e-mu-qí-ia ás-pur-u-ni [É.KUR.ME]†?-ku-nu
20) ªniº-ih-tab-ta URU.ME†-k[u-nu . . .] [room
for 3–4 signs]
Remainder broken away
Reverse
Beginning broken away
1u) ma-ªaº [ina UGU mì-i-ni ki-i] ªan-ni-iº epsá-a-[ni]
2u) ina ª†Àº [as-sur DINGIR.ME†-iá at-t]a-ma
sum-ma la ina U[G]U
3u) md [PA.EN.MU.ME† u LÚE]N-hi-it-ti sá issi-sú
4u) ki-i ªhaº-[an-n]i-e! ep-sá-ka-nu-ni
5u) TA* SAG ana-ku a-na [m]ì-i-ni KUR-ku-nu
6u) lu-ba-åi É.KAR NA4 SIG5 su-u me-me-ni
7u) mu-uk la-as-ba-ta ina UGU KUR-ia lurad-di
8u) mu-uk AN†E.KUR.RA.ME†
AN†E.GÌR.NUN.NA.ME†
9u) TA* †Àbi la-ás-si-a ina UGU ki-sir-iá lurad-di
10u) mu-uk É KÙ.BABBAR É KÙ.GI su-u muuk ma-ad-da-tú
11u) ina UGUhi-sú-nu la-ás-kun ú-la-[a] ªmuº-uk
12u) si-ma-a-te sa LUGAL-u-te ina †Àbi i-ba-ás-si
13u) su-u me-me-ni ina †Àbi la-ás-sú ana-ku
KUR-ªkuº-nu a-na mì-ni
14u) lu-ba-åi ú-ma-a an-nu-ri
15u) as-sap-rak-ku-nu mdPA.EN.MU.ME† sá issi-sú
16u) se-bil-a-ni bi-is ana-ku DINGIR.ME†-kunu lu-se-bil-ak-ku-nu
17u) u su-lum-mu-u la-ás-kun ú-la-a tu-rak
18u) la ta-ás-me-a ina †À as-sur DINGIR.ME†iá at-ta-ma
19u) sum-ma ina GI†MI sá DINGIR.ME† ur-ki-u
a-na pa-ni-i
20u) [l ]a ú-sam-ma-ak-ak-ku-nu-ni
sage) which you proˆered secretly: “Why does
Assyria treat us like this?” (5) Do you really not
know why you have been treated like this? And
even now you continue to ask! (It is) on account
of Nabû-bel-sumati, Nabû-qate-sabat, and Kiribtu
that you have been treated like this. (10) When
Ummannigas came and seized my feet, so that I
sent my army with him and they went and
fought against Te’umman, did we lay our hands
upon the temples, upon the cities or, indeed,
upon anything? (16) Did we take plunder? Did
we not pour oil upon blood? Did we not become
friends? Last year when I sent my army we plundered your [temp]les, [. . . ed] y[our] cities . . .
Reverse
. . . 1u) “[Why] have we been treated like this?”
[I swe]ar by [Assur and my gods] that it is because of [Nabû-bel-sumati and the of ]fenders
who are with him that you have been treated like
this. (5u) First of all, why would I myself persecute your country? If it were some sort of trading
post of precious stone(s), I would say “Let me
seize it and add it to my land” or “Let me take
horses and mules from its midst and add them to
my forces.” (10u) or I would say “It is a place of
silver and gold, let me impose tribute upon
them” or “There are things worthy of kingship in
its midst.” But there is nothing of the sort in it.
Why, then, would I myself persecute your country? Now then, I am writing to you: (15u) Send to
me Nabû-bel-sumati and those with him, and
then I myself will send to you your gods and
make peace. However, if you delay or do not comply, by Assur and my gods, I swear that under the
aegis of the gods I will make your future become
your past.
(21u) Month of †abatu (XI), eponym of Nabûnadin-ahi
Commentary
Translation
Obverse
Line 1
The “elders of Elam” is a unique address in the
Nineveh corpus.4 With so little known of Neo-
Obverse
Word of the King to the elders of Elam: I and
all of Assyria are well. With regard to that (mes-
4. See CAD † II, 394 for other references in correspondence to elders of a particular country or region (in the Nineveh corpus, speci˜cally, ABL 256:2, 517:8, and 576:2).
21u) ITIZÍZ lim-me mdPA.A†.PAB
A LETTER FROM ASHURBANIPAL TO THE ELDERS OF ELAM (BM 132980)
Elamite political structure throughout the period,
and no other reference to the “elders of Elam,” it
is di¯cult to determine who constituted this group
or what function it ful˜lled.
Lines 4–5
The Elamites question why Ashurbanipal has
treated them in such a manner. A similar question was posed in ABL 792:10–12; the Elamites
wondered what oˆense they have committed
with regard to “all this” that Ashurbanipal raised
against them (mÿnu hÿtu sa nihtakka muhhi
agâ gabbi ana panini t¿selâ). The connection between these two letters will be discussed below.
Line 8
Ashurbanipal’s obsession with Nabû-bel-sumati
is clear from Nabû-bel-sumati’s frequency in letters of this period and in the annals (e.g., Edition
A vii 16–505). Nabû-qate-sabat and Kiribtu do not
possess Nabû-bel-sumati’s infamy but, obviously,
were on Ashurbanipal’s most-wanted list.6
Lines 13–18
Ashurbanipal’s rhetoric here is contradicted by
the account in Edition B of his annals, wherein
he lists great plunder taken between Susa and
the Ulaya River (bÿrÿt URU†usan u ÍDUlaya). 7
This plunder is noted in context of the installation of Tammaritu I in Hidalu, but the references
to the aftermath of the Te’umman campaign make
it plain that the plunder was from the defeat of
Te’umman’s army.
Line 19
The tablet has only a fraction of the last sign in
the sequence restored as [É.KUR.ME]†?. ME† is
suggested on parallel with the É.KUR.ME† of line
14. Note the parallel syntax of the subsequent
URU.ME† in lines 14 and 20.
5. Borger, BIWA, 59–60.
6. See The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire
(PNA) 2/I, ed. H. Baker (Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus
Project, 2000), 619 for Kiribtu and PNA 2/II, 859–60 for Nabûqate-sabat and 810–14 for Nabû-bel-sumati; for Nabû-belsumati, note also F. Malbran-Labat, “Nabû-bel-sumate, Prince
du Pays-de-la-Mer,” JA 263 (1975) 7–37 and Frame, Babylonia, especially 175–85 and 204–9.
7. Borger, BIWA, 104–5 vi 10–15.
83
Reverse
Line 1u
The restoration is based on Obverse, line 6,
and the ma indicates that this is part of a quote
(from the Elamites, on parallel with Obverse,
lines 4–5).
Line 2u
The restoration is based on Reverse, line 18’.
Line 4u
The reading ha-[an-n]i-e! is based on the parallel phrasing in Obverse, line 6. There are traces
of the ni sign and enough room for a preceding an.
There is an extra vertical in the e, but it is partially obscured.
Line 6u–13u
Ashurbanipal’s disparagement of Elam as a
country having nothing of value or interest is
striking, re˘ective of his frustration and anger.
This degree of sarcasm is not present in Ashurbanipal’s other extant letters. The inde˜nite pronoun memeni in line 6u (and negated in line 13u)
intensi˜es the disdain.8 The derisive statements
imply a condition contrary-to-fact, from Ashurbanipal’s perspective at least.
Line 15u
The translation of assaprakunu re˘ects the
epistolary perfect.9
Lines 16u–17u
Ashurbanipal’s promise of a return of their (i.e.,
the Elamites’) gods probably refers to those taken
in the previous campaign, either the ˜rst or the
second one against Huban-haltas III. Elamite gods
were taken during the ˜rst campaign against
Huban-haltas III (Edition A v 59 and F iv 13) as
well as during the second one (Edition A v 121–
122 and F iv 63–64; A vi 30–47 and F v 21–33).
However, it is possible that the promised gods had
been accumulated from earlier campaigns against
Elam.10
8. For translation of memeni with a substantive, see CAD
M/II, 18.
9. See J. Huehnergard, A Grammar of Akkadian (Atlanta:
Scholars Press, 1997), 158.
10. Borger, BIWA, 49 and 52–54. Note, for example, similar
claims in the inscriptions of Sennacherib (D. D. Luckenbill,
84
MATTHEW W. WATERS
Lines 19u–20u
The threat in these lines is clear, but the exact
translation is elusive. The sentence reads literally: “I will remove(?) the future to the past.” The
verb samaku (D-stem) describes Ashurbanipal’s
threatened action, which refers back to the previous campaign(s?), whereby he swears that the
result will be similar. Suggested meanings for the
D-stem of samaku vary: “to chase away, remove(?)” (CAD S, 110, with a translation of this
passage: “[you are] under the protection of the
gods, no one will rebuˆ you [pl.] later”); “to treat
harshly” (SAA III 16 r. 12); and “to damage(?)”
(SAA XIII 44 r. 4).11 Ashurbanipal conveyed the
same sentiment for the same purpose (i.e., the seizure and extradition of Nabû-bel-sumati), though
worded diˆerently, in ABL 1286 (ll. 9–10): ¿mka
urkû alla mahrÿ ibeååis “your future [literally,
‘future day’] will be worse than your past.” ABL
462: r. 6–10 expresses Ashurbanipal’s threat in a
less oblique way, with his threat of annihilation
(agammaru) unless Nabû-bel-sumati and the
messengers of †amas-sum-ukin, described as agâ
huzzum¿tu (translated colloquially as “those
fools(?)”) in r. 9), are delivered to him.12
The Annals of Sennacherib, Oriental Institute Publications 2
[Chicago: University of Chicago, 1924], 40 iv 76–80) and Esarhaddon (R. Borger, Die Inschriften Asarhadddons Königs von
Assyrien, AfO Beiheft 9 [Graz: Biblio-Verlag, 1956], 25 Episode 36).
11. A. Livingstone, Court Poetry and Literary Miscellania,
SAA III (Helsinki: Helsinki University, 1989) and S. Cole and
P. Machinist, Letters from Priests to the Kings Esarhaddon
and Assurbanipal, SAA XIII (Helsinki: Helsinki University,
1998). Note also R. Borger, “Gott Marduk und Gott-König
†ulgi als Propheten: Zwei prophetische Texte,” BiOr 28/1–2
(1971) 12 iii 24u (ú-sa-ma-ak) and S. Parpola and K. Watanabe,
Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths, SAA II (Helsinki:
Helsinki University, 1988), 10 r. 5 (samiktu; “misdeed?”; see
glossary, p. 101).
12. For ABL 1286 and 462, see J. M. C. T. de Vaan, “Ich bin
eine Schwertklinge des Königs”: Die Sprache des Bel-ibni,
AOAT 242 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1995),
307–10 and 261–65, respectively. For huzzum¿tu, see CAD {,
266; de Vaan translates the term as “Wahnsinnigen.” The threat
in ABL 462 was directed to Umhulumaå and other Elamites,
whose names are not given or are broken away (Rev. 3–4).
Line 21u
BM 132980 is dated to the eleventh month of
the eponym of Nabû-nadin-ahi, which most commentators assign to 647. Thus, the eleventh month
would date early in the year 646 of the Gregorian
calendar. It is di¯cult to determine where BM
132980 ˜ts into the sequence of Assyrian involvement in Elam and the campaigns against Hubanhaltas III in the early 640s. The dating of these
campaigns is tied in part to the problem of the
order of the post-canonical eponyms.13
The supplied eponym date, demarcated from
the main text by a scored line, makes BM 132980
unusual, though not unique. Such texts appear
to be o¯cial copies of correspondence dated for
some administrative purpose.14 Many, if not all,
dated letters are recorded in Neo-Assyrian script,
even in some examples where the original letter
itself was written in Neo-Babylonian.
It is unclear whether BM 132980 was written
after the ˜rst or second campaign against Hubanhaltas III. Assigning the eponym Nabû-nadin-ahi
to 647 does not settle the matter, since possible
dates for the ˜rst two campaigns range between
648 and 646. K 2654 r. 16 indicates that the ˜rst
two campaigns occurred in consecutive years
([DI†et MU.A]N.NA . . . sanÿtu MU.AN.NA). K 2631
+ r. 9 refers to a third campaign against Huban[haltas] (-al-da-si being the probable restoration
here). It relates Ashurbanipal’s devastation of
Elam “in the ˜rst year” (istêt sattu), then “again,
13. The sequence of post-canonical eponyms (especially
those of the early 640s) is still open to debate; see R. Whiting,
“The Post-Canonical and Extra-Canonical Eponyms,” in A. Millard, The Eponyms of the Assyrian Empire 910–612 BC,
SAAS II (Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project,
1994), 72–78 and J. Reade, “Assyrian Eponyms, Kings and Pretenders, 648–605 BC,” OrNS 67 (1998) 256–57.
14. ABL 839 is an example of a Neo-Babylonian letter (or,
more accurately, an excerpt from one) copied out in NeoAssyrian script, with the main text (also demarcated from the
preceding by a scored line on the tablet) in Neo-Assyrian dialect; the end of the letter is broken, but it too probably was
dated. ABL 879, discussed below, also contains an eponym date
after a scored line. A detailed study of this phenomenon is a
desideratum.
A LETTER FROM ASHURBANIPAL TO THE ELDERS OF ELAM (BM 132980)
a second [time]” (sanÿtu), and “a third [time]”
(salsatu).15
The obverse of BM 132980 breaks oˆ after
the reference to saddagdis (“last year”) in line 18
and the plundered temples(?) in lines 19–20. The
annals indicate that the Assyrians plundered gods
and cities in both the ˜rst two campaigns (see
above), so this in itself does not ˜rmly place BM
132980 in the sequence. Interpreting Ashurbanipal’s threat (rev. 17u–20u) as a prelude to the second campaign and the sack of Susa is attractive,
but one may understand BM 132980 as having
been written after the sack of Susa.16 Such an
interpretation is supported, though not con˜rmed,
by the evidence for a third campaign against
Huban-haltas III.
Three letters written by Bel-ibni (ABL 792,
1286, and 281) complement BM 132980.17 To
judge from these letters, it is not an exaggeration
to claim that Ashurbanipal’s ruinous campaigns
against Elam in the early 640s were, ˜rst and
foremost, designed to punish the Elamites for
their failure (and/or unwillingness) to deliver the
rebel Nabû-bel-sumati. Huban-haltas III ˘ed after
each of the ˜rst two campaigns, only to return in
both instances after unspeci˜ed periods of time.
While Huban-haltas III was in ˘ight after each
of the ˜rst two campaigns, it may have been the
elders of Elam who were in a position of political
authority—whether real or symbolic. Such a body,
under normal political circumstances, was presumably advisory (whatever administrative functions it may have held) to the king. In the political
chaos of Elam in the early 640s, it is impossible
to determine whether they served as the de facto
authority, with Huban-haltas on the run, or as an
15. Borger, BIWA, 84 for both texts. A similar reference in
K 1364: r. 8–9 (T. Bauer, Das Inschriftenwerk Assurbanipals
[Leipzig: J. C. Hinrich, 1933], 51–52) may also refer to a third
(salsianu) campaign.
16. So, for example, Alan Millard, “Ashurbanipal’s Ultimatum to Elam,” a paper read at the XXXVIe Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale (Ghent, 1989).
17. For ABL 792, 1286, and 281 see de Vaan, Bel-ibni,
284–87, 307–10, and 243–48 respectively. For ABL 281, see
also M. W. Stolper, “sarnuppu,” ZA 68 (1978) 261–69. The
chronological sequence of these letters is uncertain; cf. de
Vaan, Bel-ibni, 63–64.
85
alternative governing body, one potentially in
opposition to Huban-haltas.
BM 132980 is Ashurbanipal’s response to a secret message relayed in ABL 792 from the Elamite
Ummansibar, who perhaps was one of the elders
addressed in BM 132980 or their spokesman.18
This secret message was delivered by Belupahhir, son of Marduk-zer-ibni, to Bel-ibni for
Ashurbanipal. Bel-ibni received this message on
the sixth of †abatu (XI) with the request to send
it directly and quickly to the palace. The salient
point of the Elamites’ message was that “Elam”
(worded thus in the letter, l. 13) wished to give
over Nabû-bel-sumati but only under duress (ina
bulti, literally, “in embarrassment”19). The obverse of the letter breaks oˆ shortly thereafter, so
additional details are lacking. Notably, Bel-ibni
attributed the willingness to hand over Nabû-belsumati simply to “Elam,” not to a particular individual. This corresponds to the reference to the
unnamed elders of Elam of BM 132980. Even if
this suggested association is accurate, however, it
oˆers no additional insight into these elders’
identities. The Elamites’ rhetorical ignorance as
to why Ashurbanipal had acted thus against them
(see above, commentary to line 4) is contrasted
by their expressed willingness to deliver Nabûbel-sumati to Assyria. Ashurbanipal’s impatience
and rising wrath, encapsulated in BM 132980, reveal the Elamites’ precarious position on account
of their continued sheltering of the rebel.
The letter ABL 1286 contains a request to send
a royal messenger with the messenger from Elam
(probably a reference to the Bel-upahhir of ABL
792), notably, to both Huban-haltas III and to
Elam (ana pan Ummanaldasu sarri u ana pan
mat Elamti; lines 12–13). That Huban-haltas
and Elam (presumably the elders of Elam of
BM 132980) are distinguished indicates that
Ashurbanipal was not certain who, ultimately,
18. Based on Ashurbanipal’s threat against Umhulumaå in
ABL 462 (see above note 12) and the latter’s patronage of
Nabû-bel-sumati, as indicated by ABL 281: r. 13–17, it is likely
that Umhulumaå was also one of these “elders of Elam” to
whom BM 132980 was directed.
19. For this expression, see CAD B, 352 and de Vaan, Belibni, 285.
86
MATTHEW W. WATERS
might deliver Nabû-bel-sumati. ABL 1286 also
alludes to Nabû-bel-sumati’s cohorts, the “oˆenders” (LÚEN.ME† hÿtu, l. 15; correspondingly
mentioned in BM 132980 Rev. 3), who are not
identi˜ed but among whom must certainly have
been Nabû-qate-sabat and Kiribtu.
ABL 1286:14–16 and r. 6–8 indicate that Nabûbel-sumati had been captured but had not yet
been transferred to the Assyrian authorities. The
source of the message, through Bel-ibni as the
medium, assured Ashurbanipal that Nabû-belsumati would not again escape. Ashurbanipal’s
dual communiqué (relaying the same message)
reveals that he held all its recipients responsible
for Nabû-bel-sumati’s extradition to Assyria. This
approach may re˘ect an Assyrian assessment that
Huban-haltas III and the elders of Elam were
not working in unison on this matter, regardless
of their previous relationship. That they were at
odds is not necessarily given, but in light of the
centrifugal forces in Elamite politics, exacerbated
by Assyrian intrusion since the Te’umman campaign (653), it is certainly possible.
In ABL 281, Bel-ibni notes two groups of Elamites in ˘ight southward from Assyrian forces. The
˜rst includes Huban-haltas and his extended family (lines 5–10), and the second includes Ummansibar (lines 10–17) and his bel tabtati. The ˘ight
of these individuals resulted from another Assyrian attack, perhaps that one threatened in BM
132980. The identi˜cation of Ummansibar and
his bel tabtati with the “elders of Elam” (or, at
least, part of that group) is tempting. Bel-ibni fur-
ther records (lines 23–31) that Huban-haltas had
reprimanded his bel tabtati for their failure to
extradite Nabû-bel-sumati so as to forestall the
Assyrian attack. This nod to Huban-haltas III’s
sympathetic view of Ashurbanipal’s demands
serves as a prelude for Bel-ibni’s carefully
worded suggestion that Ashurbanipal allow Belibni to proceed with another demand for Nabûbel-sumati’s extradition. Later in the letter (rev.
25–27), Bel-ibni reveals that Huban-haltas had
opportunities to release Nabû-bel-sumati but had
not done so.
It is unclear if ABL 1286 precedes 281, or vice
versa. Some chapters in the saga of Nabû-belsumati’s capture, and the associated political and
military maneuvering, are missing; however, it is
clear that Ashurbanipal was ultimately successful
in securing his quarry. ABL 879 (from Hubanhaltas III to Ashurbanipal, dated IV/26/Nabûsar-ahhesu—646 or 645) records the transfer of
Nabû-bel-sumati to Assyria, and Edition A of the
annals notes Nabû-bel-sumati’s suicide and the
subsequent abuse of his corpse by Ashurbanipal.20
Huban-haltas III addressed Ashurbanipal as
“my brother” in ABL 879, indicative of a treaty
relationship between the two. Such good graces
may be attributed to Huban-haltas III’s eventual
ability and willingness to deliver Nabû-bel-sumati
to Assyria.
20. Borger, BIWA, 59–60 A vii 16–50.