UNIVERSITEIT LEIDEN
DISPLAY PRACTICES IN THE
NEO-ASSYRIAN PERIOD
ESARHADDON’S SUCCESSION OATH-TABLET IN CONTEXT
Cristina Barcina Pérez
S1171380
[email protected]
First Reader: Dr. Caroline Waerzeggers
Second Reader: Dr. Jan Gerrit Dercksen
Research Master in Assyriology
Classics and Ancient Civilizations
2016/2017
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
2
0. INTRODUCTION
4
0.1 STATE OF THE ART AND NEW DIRECTIONS
5
0.2 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
8
1. DISPLAY OF ADÊ BEFORE ESARHADDON : AN EXPRESSION OF SUBMISSION
14
1.0 ADÊ AS VASSAL TREATIES
16
1.1 SAA 2 1 AND THE SFIRE STELES: THE OBLIGATION TO DISPLAY THE TREATY
18
1.2 THE TEMPLE AS THE LOCATION FOR THE CELEBRATION AND DISPLAY OF ADÊ
27
2. DISPLAY OF EST: HOW AN ADÊ BECAME A TABLET OF DESTINIES
32
2.O ADÊ AS NON-VASSAL LOYALTY OATHS
32
2.1 THE CEREMONIES AT KALḪU IN NISANNU AND AYYĀRU
35
2.2 THE EST TABLET AS A SACRED OBJECT MEANT FOR DISPLAY
45
a) The three sealings of Aššur
45
b) Monumental size and display in the sancta sanctorum
47
c) Made to be fully read
48
CONCLUSIONS
52
APPENDIX: TABLE 1
54
BIBLIOGRAPHY
55
1
LIST OF MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS
MAP 1, p. 4: Locations where EST tablets have been found, adapted from a map of the provinces of
the Neo-Assyrian empire in the 7th century designed by K. Radner and drawn by C. Wolff
MAP 2, p. 19: Locations of Paqarhubūna and Sfire, adapted from THANENAP
FIGURE 1, p. 28: Detail from the Balawat Gates: standards are placed in front of the erected stele of
Shalmaneser III by Lake Van, extracted from Bleibtreu 1992, Taf. 55b (after Börker-Klähn 1982, 146)
FIGURE 2, p. 35: Plan of the Nabû Temple at Kalḫu, extracted from CTN 4 (after Mallowan 1957)
FIGURE 3, p. 38: Drawings of carving on ivory strip found at the Throne Room of the Nabû Temple at
Kalḫu, extracted from Mallowan and Davis 1970, No. 67, Plates XX-XXI
FIGURE 4, p. 44: Drawing of carving on ivory strip found at the Throne Room of the Nabû Temple at
Kalḫu, extracted from Mallowan and Davis 1970, No. 85, Plates XXV
FIGURE 5, p. 45: The three seal impressions on EST. From Wiseman 1958, Plate III
FIGURE 6, p. 49: Inner sanctum of Building XVI, showing artifact distribution, extracted from Harrison
& Osborne 2012, Figure 8 (created by J. Osborne)
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AHw: Akkadisches Handwörterbuch
CAD: Chicago Assyrian Dictionary
Chronicles: Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles
CHLI: Corpus of Hyeroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions
CT: Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum
CTU: Corpus dei testi urartei
CTN: Cuneiform Texts from Nimrud
DNWSI : Dictionary of the Northwest Semitic Inscriptions
EST: Esarhaddon Succession Treaty
KAI: Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften
NABU: Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brefs et Utilitaires
OIP: Oriental Institute Publications
PNA: The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian
RIMA: The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Assyrian Periods
RINAP: The Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period
SAA: State Archives of Assyria
SAAB: State Archives of Assyria Bulletin
SAAS: State Archives of Assyria Studies
2
SST: Sennacherib Succession Treaty
StAT: Studien zu den Assur-Texten
THANENAP: The Helsinki Atlas of the Near East in the Neo-Assyrian Period
3
0.
INTRODUCTION
In 2009, version of Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty (EST) was discovered in a small
temple at Tell Ta’yinat1 in South-West Turkey and forced a review of previous scholarship on
the nature and context of eight other tablets of this treaty which had been found in the
Throne Room of the Nabû Temple at Nimrud (Kalḫu) more than five decades earlier.2 Six of
these eight tablets preserved the name of those swearing loyalty to Ashurbanipal in Ayyāru
672 BC, all of them chieftains sharing roughly the same geographical provenience in the
Zagros, “the eastern periphery of Assyria”.3
1
In the altar room of Building XVI. The first excavations at the site were conducted by the University of
Chicago’s Syro-Hittite Expedition between 1935 and 1938, their final reports published in 1960 and 1971 (OIP
61). In 1999 the University of Toronto resumed field investigations within the framework of the Tayinat
Archaeological Project. After preliminary surveying seasons, excavations at Ta’yinat started in 2004. Building
XVI was unearthed during the 2008 and 2009 seasons. For a general overview, see Harrison 2009; on Building
XVI, Harrison and Osborne 2012. J. Lauinger from Johns Hopkins University is responsible for the edition and
publication of the epigraphic cuneiform material: Lauinger 2011, 2012, 2016.
2
Editio princeps by Wiseman 1958.
3
Parpola and Watanabe 1988 (SAA 2), XXX. For Radner, the protracted use of the term “city-lord” in Assyrian
sources “after the creation of provinces in the Zagros hints towards the existence of a parallel power structure
alongside the official Assyrian administration in the east, necessitating to bind them to the Assyrian king with
methods that are unnecessary for regular subjects”: 2003a, 60. See also Lanfranchi’s remarks on the title bēl āli
and its increasing replacement of šarru in the same volume, p. 95.
4
Since the Ta’yinat manuscript (T 1801) was the treaty of Esarhaddon with “the
governor of Kunalia4, [along] with the deputy, the majordomo, the scribes, the chariot
drivers, the third men, the village managers, the information officers, the prefects, the
cohort commanders, the charioteers, the cavalrymen, the exempt, the outriders, the
specialists, the sh*ield bearers (?)+, the craftsmen (…)”,5 it had become apparent that
Esarhaddon had not only imposed his succession treaty on at least six autonomous Eastern
city-lords, but also on Assyrian provinces outside the heartland.
0.1. State of the art and new directions
Previous scholarship had mainly focused on the nature of Esarhaddon’s Succession
Treaty. From the Assyrian point of view, this text was an adê,6 a West-Semitic term which
Assyriologists had easily equated with other designations for “treaty” coming from earlier
periods,7 and –based on the context of adê attestations in annalistic inscriptions– regarded
as de facto “vassal treaties”.8 However, the purpose of EST is to guarantee the loyalty of all
relevant collectives9 in the Assyrian empire to Esarhaddon’s chosen heir, who was not his
eldest son.10 The presence of the Eastern city-lords as oath-takers, nevertheless, suggested it
was a vassal treaty.
Hence, in the volume dedicated to diplomatic texts within the State Archives of
Assyria series, Parpola considered that EST was partly a vassal treaty and mostly a loyalty
oath.11 Slightly different was Liverani’s view, who posited that the city-lords were
bodyguards at the service of the crown prince, and concluded that EST was a loyalty oath
imposed on all vassals of the empire in order to confirm his designation.12 By contrast,
Watanabe, Parpola’s co-author of SAA 2, had previously rejected the “vassal treaty”
4
Kinalia, Kinalua, Kunalia and Kunulua are all attested in annalistic inscriptions; KUR/URU Kullani(a) or Kulnia
became the designation of the Assyrian province of Unqi. Cf. Parpola 1970, 206 and 213.
5
Lauinger 2012, 112. By contrast, SAA 2 6 reads: “with PN, city-ruler of GN, his sons, his grandsons, with all the
[gentilic+ (…)”.
6
For the etymology of adê (plurale tantum)/’dy, see Tadmor 1987, 455. OB adû will be discussed below, in 2.0.
7
Brinkman 1990, 91ff.
8
Radner 2006.
9
See the analysis of the human categories named in the EST in Fales 2012, 142f.
10
SAA 10 185, ll 7-12: “you have girded a son of yours with headband and entrusted to him the kingship of
Assyria; your eldest son you have set to the kingship in Babylon. You have placed the first on your right, the
second on your left side!” Šamaš-šumu-ukīn is not named “the crown prince designate of Babylon” until §7 of
EST.
11
SAA 2, XXXf.
12
Liverani 1995, 60.
5
approach, further positing that it was only due to accident that the EST tablets drawn for the
Median chieftains had come down to us.13
A further element was interwoven into this debate and should be briefly introduced
here: the presence of three seal impressions and a heading stating that they are “the Seal of
Aššur (...)” at the top of the obverse of all EST manuscripts.14 Drawing from the Tablet of
Destinies theme embedded in the Enūma Eliš and Anzû-bird narratives, and from the
imagery described on a draft for one of Sennacherib’s inscriptions,15 George concluded that
“there can be little doubt that the document ratified by Aššur’s sealing [i.e. EST] is, on the
mythological plane, the Tablet of Destinies”.16
Two decades later, in her contribution to a monograph dedicated to Deuteronomium
28, 20-44, Radner studied references to vassal treaties in Middle and Neo-Assyrian
sources,17 and then focused on Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty. After reviewing the
archaeological context of the Kalḫu versions18 as well as previous scholarship, she stated that
it was not a coincidence that these oath-tablets had been found in Kalḫu, since the
ceremonies of succession must have taken place in the Nabû temple.19 While agreeing with
Parpola’s assessment that the Eastern city-lords were newly-acquired vassals, she pointed
out, however, that the existence of another fragment of this text found in Assur20 implied
that other versions of this treaty could be found elsewhere in Assyria, too.21
The discovery of the Ta’yinat version has led to a suggestion of this oath-tablet as an
object of worship and periodical fealty. Lauinger defends this thesis, supported by ll 406-409
of EST: “you will guard like your god this sealed tablet of the great ruler on which is written
the adê of Assurbanipal, the great crown prince designate, the son of Esarhaddon, king of
Assyria, your lord, which is sealed with the seal of Aššur, king of the gods, and which is set
13
Watanabe 1987, 3f.
Watanabe 1985.
15
George 1986. See below 2.2.a) for a discussion on the sealings and the mentioned inscription, recently
published as RINAP 3/2 158.
16
Ibid., 141.
17
Radner 2006, 351-367.
18
See below, 2.1.
19
Op.cit., 370. The importance of Nabû and the possibility of an akītu-festival celebrated in his temple on the
occasion of the succession ceremonies will be treated below, 2.1.
20
VAT 11534, preserving ll 229-236. Editio princeps: Weidner 1939/1940, 215, Tf. XIV. Radner presented a new
edition and translation of this fragment in 2006, 376-378. In 2009, Frahm published two hitherto unknown EST
fragments in the third installment of the WVDOG literary texts from Assur: VAT 12374 (EST 54-62) and 9424
(509-516), 135f (Nos. 70-71), copies in p. 255.
21
Op.cit., 371ff.
14
6
up before you”,22 and further argues for adê to be translated as “duty, destiny”.23 Fales is
more cautious, since there is no written record of acts of worship, and focuses instead on
the emergence in 7th century legal documents of two formulae based on the adê ša šarri,
“the loyalty oath of the king”.24 He considers EST to be the first example of an institutional
emblem “endowed with the autonomous power of meting out justice and guaranteeing the
correctness of legal proceedings”.25
But Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty as an oath-tablet with special features indicating
that it was clearly meant to be displayed26 also forces a reassessment of the reasons behind
the display of the Kalḫu tablets in particular. Mutatis mutandis, there is certainly a
parallelism between the two locations: while the Ta’yinat version was found in the altar of
Building XVI, toppled over,27 the Kalḫu tablet fragments were scattered over the floor of the
Throne Room of the Nabû Temple, not in the archival rooms of the temple (NT 12 and 13).28
However, while there is perfect agreement between the location and the people
entering the adê in the Ta’yinat version, that is not the case with the Kalḫu ones. SAA 10 5, 6,
and 7 are letters discussing arrangements for Assyrian scholars and citizens to participate in
adê ceremonies to be celebrated in Kalḫu in Nisannu. Yet, these citizens’ oaths were not
preserved in an oath-tablet meant to be displayed. Moreover, the deities invoked in the
standard curse section of all EST tablets, presumably representing the second party, are at
home in diverse locations of the Syro-Levantine area. Since the different Kalḫu manuscripts –
despite having linguistic and orthographic variants, errors and omissions– are “for all
practical purposes identical”,29 as is T 1801 from §2 onwards;30 the lack of some eastern
deities outside West-Semitic and Babylonian cultic spheres in the Kalḫu manuscripts is
conspicuous and should not be attributed to oversight or ignorance.
22
Lauinger 2011, 12. I am using his translation of EST 406-409, since these lines are better preserved in T1801:
2012, 98f, 112.
23
2013, 114f.
24
Fales 2012, 152.
25
Ibid., 153.
26
See 2.2.3
27
Lauinger 2011, 12; 2016, 230.
28
Leading Wiseman to suggest that, even if it was more likely that they were kept in one of the scribal
chambers, “when the time came for the enemies of Assyria to be avenged for their former servitude, it was the
king’s throne-room which was deliberately chosen”: 1958, Foreword, i. An excellent overview on the discovery,
archaeological context, and texts recovered mainly from NT 12 of the Nabû Temple is given in Wiseman and
Black 1996, 1-8.
29
SAA 2, XXIX.
30
Lauinger 2012.
7
All the evidence mentioned above points to a very specific target audience: Assyrian
royalty, Assyrian magnates (highest military echelons), and, by extension, anyone who posed
a threat.31 This point of view had already been suggested before T 1801 was unearthed.
Analyzing the reasons that Esarhaddon may have had to designate Šamaš-šumu-ukīn as heir
to the throne of Babylon, Porter stated: “(…) Esarhaddon and his advisers expected
opposition to the arrangements for the succession and were attempting to encourage
compliance with them by imposing formal oaths on a broad cross-section of people in
Assyria, as well as on influential people in Babylonia and other conquered territories.”32
The thesis defended here is that the eight tablets spread out in Nabû’s Throne-Room
were but cleverly-fashioned deceptive mirrors, physical reminders of the Assyrian
ceremonies that had taken place a month earlier, in Nisannu. In other words, the identity of
the oath-takers in the Kalḫu versions was not important: their status (or lack of it), was.
Esarhaddon wanted his subjects to see EST not as a vassal treaty but a Tablet of
Destinies. However, until 683 BC with Sennacherib’s Succession Treaty on behalf of
Esarhaddon (=SAA 2 3),33 adê in Assyrian sources were sworn by subjugated foes, with the
exception of oaths given in military contexts to a commander or to a royal contender to the
throne.34 Possible but unattested are loyalty oaths sworn by staff and specialists entering
palace service; the circumstances surrounding the conclusion of the so-called Accession
Treaty of Esarhaddon (=SAA 2 4), with only a few lines preserved, are unknown.
This is an indication that most adê before the Sargonids were indeed de facto vassal
treaties. It also implies that display practices according to the type of text followed a
tradition, particularly in a cultic context, as must have been the case with annalistic
inscriptions and letters to deities (Aššur).35
0.2 Historical background
Esarhaddon had inherited a large empire. Among his challenges upon accession,
31
SAA 4 139 is an oracle query asking whether a number of palace staff and Assyrian residents –starting with
the eunuchs and bearded officials, and ending with the foreigners and their entourage– will instigate an
uprising and rebellion against Esarhaddon. Note that SAA 142 shows some differences in the foreigners listed in
the equivalent paragraph, and enquires about a rebellion against Ashurbanipal, son of Esarhaddon.
32
Porter 1993, 134.
33
VAT 11449. To be added to two other fragments of this text, also coming from Assur: VAT 10470 and VAT
12007: Frahm 2009, 130-133 (Nos. 67-68), copies in p. 253. Frahm considers these texts “long versions” or
Langfassung, and regards VAT 11449 (No. 69) as a Kurzfassung oder Auszug.
34
See below, 2.0.
35
As Oppenheim argued in his analysis of Sargon’s Letter to the Gods: 1960, 133-147.
8
further expansion was not a big priority, but rather its preservation, maintaining the illusion
of expansion (e.g. his expeditions to Patušarri, in Media, or the land of Bāzu, probably in
north-east Arabia),36 and making sure there was a steady supply of tribute and booty for the
upkeep of his army and his building activities in several cities of Assyria and Babylonia.
Apart from these challenges, he had ascended the throne after his father’s murder
and his brothers’ attempt at usurpation,37 and –considering his brothers had eluded
capture–,38 he must have taken measures to control the threat the exiles posed. His ruthless
behavior against soldiers that were suspect of treason once he came to power (ii 8-11),
shows that this was no small matter to him.39 This is confirmed by the inscription known as
Nineveh A (=RINAP 4 1), whose colophons bear dates belonging to years 673 and 672 B.C.,
and which –as Tadmor realized– starts with an autobiographical introduction preceding
events narrated in his earlier annals and thus represents a part of his succession
arrangements.40 Even if it may also have served the purpose of justifying the failure of his
first Egyptian campaign,41 its main objective was reaffirming his own right to rule, and
thereby his future heir’s.
From this inscription, we may gather that, by 673/672 BC, Esarhaddon’s brothers
were still free, and no other inscription written at this time –whether Kalḫu A or the Tarbiṣu
inscriptions–,42 mention his Šubrian campaign –explicitly said to be in retaliation for the
Hurrian king’s refusal to have Assyrian fugitives extradited–43 which had taken place just a
few months earlier.44
In addition, from a letter in the royal archives (SAA 18 100) we learn that one of
36
Both imbued with a spirit of adventure characteristic of the exploration of “exotic” lands, despite their
economic motivation. On the location of Patušarri, see Radner 2003a, 59; on the location of the land of Bāzu,
see Eph’al 1982, 130ff.
37
RINAP 4 1, i 1-ii 11; SAA 9 1.8 mentions two brothers.
38
RINAP 4 1 i 80-84a.
lú
39
Radner noticed that the attestations of a certain gatekeeper ( Ì.DU8) only occur in Esarhaddon’s reign, and
start in 679 BC, which she deduced is due to his promotion taking place upon his accession. This coincides with
the disappearance of two previously attested chief gatekeepers. Cf. Radner 2010, 269-280, esp. 272f.
40
Tadmor 1983. For the different dates, see the commentary to RINAP 4 1.
41
Knapp 2016.
42
RINAP 4 1, 77 and 93.
43
RINAP 4 33, ii 1-8 (first preserved lines); Leichty 1991.
44
st
On the 21 of Ulūlu (VI), according to RINAP 4 33 ii 1-9, the Uppumeans try to have the ramp that is about to
bring Assyrian soldiers over their walls burnt, to no avail. The Babylonian chronicles register –as expected,
given what must have been a protracted campaign– later dates, although they differ: Chronicles, no. 1, iv 19th
21: Ṭebētu (X), booty entering Uruk a month earlier, though; no. 14, 24-25: the 18 of Addaru (XII).
9
Esarhaddon’s brothers in particular, Arda-Mullissi,45 had followers swear a loyalty-oath, an
adê, to him.46 This is important because it underlines Esarhaddon’s need to legitimize
Sennacherib’s Succession Treaty on his behalf, which is mentioned three times in the
introduction to Nineveh A. It is possible to argue that some of Esarhaddon’s actions were
motivated, at least partly, by a wish to capture his brother.
Arda-Mullissi is also mentioned in one of Bēl-ušēzib’s astrological reports on the
(first) Mannean campaign (around 676/675 BC).47 SAA 10 113 mentions a meeting between
the chief eunuch and Aramaeans:
5’-18’ [...] Arda-Mullissi *......+ “This is what I have heard about (this).” The [...] heard these words of
Mardiya, and the sheikh [NN], the sheikh Yadi' and all the sheikhs of Yakimanu testified confirming him before
48
the chief eunuch in Mannea. Now they are saying: "The slayer of our lord shall not become our superior”. Let
the lord of kings ask the chief eunuch, and let the king hear the whole story.
This otherwise unattested Mardiya had relevant information on Arda-Mullissi, but his
statement needed to be supported by the Yakimanu;49 the chief eunuch interrogates them
to confirm the first’s testimony.
The annalistic accounts offer no clear reason for this early campaign in Mannea. The
relevant passage in Nineveh A, coming as it does after accounts on the wicked mountain
dwellers of other lands, simply reads:
iii 59-60a I scattered the Mannayan people, undisciplined Gutians, and its army
Bēl-ušēzib, writing from Nineveh, offers Esarhaddon his astronomical omens and
common sense advice, and hence provide some information: SAA 10 111 and 112. The
pervading impression one gets when reading these two letters is that Esarhaddon is
reluctant to launch a full-fledged attack against Mannea. Fales and Lanfranchi interpreted
45
Parpola 1980, 171-182, after Kgs. 2 19: 37 and Isaiah 37: 38. Grayson and Novotny, RINAP 3/2, 27f. For a
probable confirmation of Esarhaddon being the eldest brother by the same mother, see Frahm’s comments to
VAT 10470, r4’ in 2009, 132.
46
SAA 18 100, 4-r.5 When they heard about the [tre]aty of rebellion which [...], one o[f them] ap[pealed] to the
king before .... Nabû-šuma-iškun and Ṣi[llaya] came and ques[tioned him]: "[What] is your appeal to the king
ab[out]?" He (answered): "It is about Arda-[Mullissi]." Th[ey covered] his face with his cloak and made him
stand before Arda-Mul[lissi himself], saying: "Look! [Your appeal] is being granted, say it with your own
mouth!" He said: "Your son Arda-[Mullissi] will kill you." Also of interest are lines r. 11-12: [He sho]uld question
the men of the house of Ard[a-Mullissi].
47
SAA 10 110-113; cf. Nissinen, SAAS 7, 5.3.
48
Bēl dame ša bēlinu ina muḫḫinu ūl irabbi
49
Lipioski (2000, 484) explains the presence of the Yakimanu in Mannea by the epigraphic evidence in the area:
th
the 8 -century Bukan stele, found in the vicinity of Lake Urmia, and bronze vessels inscribed in Aramaic
belonging to the same period. On the first, see Fales 2003.
10
this reluctance as a sign of Esarhaddon’s lack of military expertise and basic indecision.50
Indeed, at the beginning of his reign, at least, Esarhaddon seems to have been keen on using
diplomatic means, as frequently shown in his queries.51 Therefore, it is not unreasonable to
assume that Esarhaddon may have concluded an adê with Mannea earlier in his reign,
perhaps concerning their mutual cooperation against the Cimmerians and the Scythians,
Urartean expansion, and the exchange of political refugees. If Esarhaddon received reports
on the possible presence of Arda-Mullissi in the area, he must have felt justified in initiating
hostilities against Mannea and seeking the Cimmerians’ non-intervention before he did (SAA
10 111), but would logically feel conflicted about breaking the treaty if he had no irrefutable
proof. As Lanfranchi and Fales point out, his complaint that Cimmerians cannot be trusted
since “they are barbarians who recognize no oath sworn by god and no treaty” (māmiti ša īlī
ū adê ūl idū)52 seems to be an excuse not to move on from the countryside and attack the
Mannean cities.
As commented above, the campaign against Šubria, a mountainous land in the
Taurus, at the end of 673 B.C. was initiated to capture Assyrian fugitives. Earlier, he may have
been concerned with Urarṭu seizing this buffer-state for himself (SAA 4 18), but he had
concluded an adê with Ursa prior to this campaign, as we learn from his Letter to the Gods
(RINAP 4 33, iii 32’). Na’aman remarked on the apparently unnecessary separation in the
text between Assyrian and Urartean prisoners (iii 23-34), which he saw as an action that
would bring forth the same behavior: “Esarhaddon must have already tried to receive the
fugitives by diplomatic measures, the same way that he negotiated with Ik-Teššub, king of
Šubria. Like the latter, Ursa must have refused to deliver them and Urarṭu was too strong to
attack (…). However, he must have failed in this, as there is no text referring to the
extradition of the Urartean fugitives to Assyria”.53 Radner offers a different interpretation:
that the offer of Urartean fugitives would appease Urarṭu and ensure its non-intervention.54
Be it as it may, Esarhaddon must have felt secure enough in the knowledge that Arda50
1981, 30.
For instance, on the conclusion of adê: SAA 4 12 (Mugallu the Melidean); 20 (Bartatua, king of Scythians,
including marriage alliance), 24 (Hubuškia); 56, 57, 58 (Kaštaritu of Karkašši, Median city-lord), 74 (Urtaka, king
of Elam). See also SAA 4 30, 6: among the possible actions to retake Dur-Illil from the Manneans, “friendliness
and peaceful negotiations” are included. A treaty with Elam was actually concluded: cf. SAA 18 7.
52
Probably Esarhaddon’s own statement, according to Fales and Lanfranchi: op.cit., 27.
53
NABU 2006/ 5, 4f.
54
Cf. Radner 2012a, 263. For more information on this campaign and on the possible existence of a sanctuary
dedicated to the Storm-God, and granting asylum to refugees at Uppummu, see Dezsö 2006.
51
11
Mullissi’s threat had been neutralized for the moment.55
Completion of the succession arrangements must have brought Esarhaddon a certain
peace of mind. Despite the death of his wife Ešarra-ḫammat, a decline of his own health –
coinciding with the refurbishment of Fort Shalmaneser, where he had fitting living quarters
built–56
and the delegation of some military affairs to Ashurbanipal, the truth is that after
the succession arrangements were completed, Esarhaddon was capable of defeating the
Cimmerians in Ellipi, undertaking a now successful campaign to Egypt, and nipping
opposition to his rule in the bud.57
There is an interesting literary work coming from the last years of his reign (ca. 670
BC) that can help illuminate Esarhaddon’s perception of EST in his mind: the collection of
oracles by Ištar of Arbela’s prophet La-dagil-ili.58 It is said to have been presented before Bēl
Tarbaṣi, one of the guardians of the gates of the Ešarra.59 Pongratz-Leisten has convincingly
shown that this specific collection has two different textualizations: two oracles from the
mouth of Aššur “foreseeing” successful events which have already taken place –an example
of vaticinio ex eventu-, and another from the mouth of Ištar –describing the ceremony of the
adê of Aššur and beseeching the assembly of the gods not to forget the covenant which she
has arranged on Esarhaddon’s behalf.60
This adê between god and king, with Ištar as the mediator, appears to be an
idealization of his own adê on behalf of Ashurbanipal, and represents the supreme sacred
nature that he wanted his subjects to perceive concerning it. It is clear that Esarhaddon had
not expected his brother to gather so much support for his cause, and the fact that he had,
irritated and bothered him. EST had to be, therefore, larger in scope, as may be inferred
from the many and often repetitive provisions, some of them clearly concerning previous
events (see Table 1 in Appendix).
55
Note, however, that in 16 358, Esarhaddon’s orders are quoted concerning guard duty at border garrisons,
and specifically the obligation to send anyone who flees Urarṭu, Mannea, Media or Hubuškia to the Crown
Prince.
56
SAA 10 43; Parpola 1983, 231; Radner 2003b, 168ff. Cf. SAA 4 148 “Can Esarhaddon Leave Calah safely?”,
belonging, perhaps, to the conspiracy period.
57
Chronicles, 1, iv 29; 14, 27’. Cf. SAAS 7, 5.3.
58
SAA 9 3.
59
Menzel 1981, T 149: i 45.
60
Self-published: 20ff.
12
Moreover, as §35 shows, it also had to be somewhat “holier” than SST had been. It
had to impress upon his subjects, particularly those at home, that their proffered oaths were
absolutely unbreakable. He achieved that through a monumental oath-tablet that would act
as a reminder of that oath’s sacred nature every time they went into the temple, where it
was on display.
But before he could turn EST into a “Tablet of Destinies”, concerning the oath-tablets
at home, Esarhaddon needed to keep the pretense that only vassals swore oaths and had
them displayed. There is enough evidence to argue for the existence of a tradition imposing
on certain powerful vassals the obligation to display their loyalty oaths in a prominent and
sacred location. As will be shown below, this tradition developed gradually from the ninth
century until Tiglath-pileser III’s reign, adapting to the needs of the ever-growing empire,
only to resurface with Esarhaddon, who made it merge with other display practices.
This thesis is divided in two sections. Part 1 explores the display of vassal treaties,
analyzing the two examples of known treaties in the Neo-Assyrian period sharing the
monumentality, or rather, the “presentation” of EST. Part 2 treats the implementation of the
succession ceremonies and the innovative features that turned EST into a “Tablet of
Destinies”.
13
1.
DISPLAY OF ADÊ BEFORE ESARHADDON : AN EXPRESSION OF SUBMISSION
1.0 Adê as vassal treaties
Even though the totality of adê in our possession is scarce,61 there is enough
evidence for us to argue that treaties in Middle and Neo-Assyrian times must have been
nearly always unilateral, that is, they were meant to be ratified by an oath made by only one
of the parties to the other (i.e. Assyria).62
First, there is no evidence suggesting that Assyria ever swore an oath concerning the
protection of a vassal, as some instances coming from the Old Babylonian and Hittite periods
do.63 The “benevolent” action on the part of the Assyrian king in all pertinent preserved
clauses of adê is simply one of non-destruction. For instance:
EST § 25, 287’-295’: (…) you shall speak to your sons and grandsons (…), and give them orders as
follows: “Guard this treaty. Do not sin against your treaty and annihilate yourselves, do not turn your land over
to destruction and your people to deportation.”
SF 1 B, 23b-26a: But if you obey and car]ry out this treaty and say, “*I+ am an ally,” *I shall not be able
to raise a hand] against you; nor will my son be able to raise a hand against [your] son, or my offspring against
[your] off[spring]
Second, adê are consistently presented as a sign of subjugation in annalistic
accounts,64 and even if these are biased and at the service of imperial discourse, hence
devoid of or disguising any hint of actual failure or weakness, their propagandistic nature
itself suggests that few treaties where Assyria may have been in a situation of parity or
inferiority would have been preserved.65
This stands in stark contrast to eighth-century Babylonia, in light of the letters
composing the šandabakku archive from Nippur,66 where expressions like aḫḫūtu ū ṭābūtu,
61
Parpola and Watanabe published fourteen texts in SAA 2, but No. 14 seems to be a draft for an inscription.
In Tadmor’s words (1982, 142): “the Assyrian sovereign does not “bind” himself –as the Hittite sovereign
often did– but demands unconditional commitment on the part of his vassal and, later, of his subject in Assyria
proper”.
63
For an Old Babylonian example, see Eidem and Laessoɇ 2001, No. 1 (SH.809), ll. 18-30. See Lafont’s further
references and comments in Lafont 2001, 287, n. 293. For the Hittite evidence, see Altman 2003.
64
Tadmor regarded adê and urdūtu (“servitude”, manifested as corvée and tribute) as two separate
“dependencies” (1982, 149-151). Radner, instead, thinks oath and servitude should be seen as connected, one
guarantying the other (2006, 353ff).
65
SAA 2 1 is an exception, see immediately below. The fact that no oath-tablet recording the adê of
Esarhaddon with the kings of Urarṭu and Elam has been unearthed may not be accidental.
66
Cole 1996 (OIP 114). Nos. 6, 7, 20 and 23 mention adê. For a summary on the nature of tribal relations as
reflected in this archive, see Cole’s remarks on SAAS 4, 18ff.
62
14
“brotherhood and friendly relations”,67 and the kinship metaphor of lord and vassal as father
and son68 speak of a certain continuity with second millennium diplomacy, at least in terms
of terminology.
This aspect of submission and unilaterality of adê as portrayed in the annals is further
confirmed by the correspondence. In a letter by the governor of Aššur to Sargon II, we learn
of an adê formalized in the Ešarra:
m
69
SAA 1 76, 6’-r 8’: As to the treaty tablet of Gurdî about which the king, my lord, wrote to me, the
st
adjutant of the Palace Superintendent came and picked it up on the 1 of Abu (V). [As soon as] the emissaries
[had ar]rived, they brought the tre[aty tablet to the Inner Cit]y; [the body]guard and the messenger of the
Palace Superintendent went with them and introduced it into the courtyard of the temple. The messenger of
the Palace Superintendent who brought it said: "I am under orders to return the tablet", so he got it back (after
the ceremonies). The city overseer, the temple steward and Kenî the temple scribe entrusted me [...].
We cannot confirm if the governor was entrusted with the writing of a duplicate for
the foreign emissaries to take with them. What is clear is that Sargon did not attend the
ceremony, and the palace officials were only interested in safeguarding the tablet, which
once read during the ceremony, was to return to the palace, possibly to be suitably archived.
In fact, Sargon’s governors were frequently responsible for the negotiation and imposition of
adê in newly conquered territories.70
The situation seems to have been far more nuanced regarding Babylonia as
illuminated by the correspondence of Tiglath-pileser III (744-727 BC) and Sargon II (722-704
BC), mostly due to its cultural preeminence and the restlessness of certain tribes under
Assyria’s yoke.71 Thus, in one instance we see that a treaty draft needed to be approved by
both parties.72
It is therefore not surprising that at least one occasion, perhaps two, Assyria may
have been at a disadvantage regarding Babylonia. The first led to the conclusion of SAA 2 1,
and will be treated immediately below. The second may have been a treaty concluded
67
OIP 114 No. 2, ll 9-11.
No. 23, 6’.
69
The identification of Anatolian Gurdî is problematic. Cf. Gurdî in Aro, PNA 1/2, 1-3, p. 341 and Kurtî in Fuchs,
PNA 2/1, p. 642.
70
SAA 1 14, SAA 5 78, SAA 15 90, SAA 15 98.
71
See Luukko’s introduction to SAA 19 (Tiglath-pileser III), XXVIIIff, XXXIXff and Fuchs & Parpola’s introduction
to SAA 15 (Sargon), XVIIIf.
72
SAA 19 133. Despite the lack of context, lines 2-22 of the reverse seem to relate that the son of Yākin
(Merodach-baladan) had had a treaty written and dispatched to the Palace; the Palace then sent it back –
apparently rejecting it–, and now Merodach-baladan either tries again to have this treaty confirmed by the king
of Assyria, or he has written a new one and tells the sender of the letter to ensure it reaches the hands of the
king.
68
15
between Sargon and Merodach-Baladan, chief of the most important Chaldean tribe, at the
beginning of Sargon’s reign, referred to in his inscriptions,73 “concluded after a civil war in
Assyria and the battle of Der, when Sargon was still politically and militarily weak”,74 treaty
that would have been broken by Sargon himself (ša adê šarri ilānī ū lā [iṣṣurū]), thus
explaining his fate according to K4730+, the so-called “Sin of Sargon” composition, which
Tadmor, Landsberger, and Parpola convincingly proved it had been written during
Esarhaddon’s reign.75
Before moving to the next point, a remark concerning orality should be made. Even if
most adê must have been written down on a clay tablet and archived, the fundamental
binding element remained the oath (mamītu).76 This probably means that there may have
been a few situations when the oral ceremony and the loyalty oath, in the presence of one
or several divine emblems,77 sufficed.
1.1 SAA 2 1 and the Sfire Steles: the obligation to display the treaty
As will be explained here, the existence of SAA 2 1 (Rm 2 427) and the three Sfire
steles demonstrates that, at the beginning of imperial expansion in the ninth and beginning
of the eighth centuries, adê may have often been inscribed on stone and displayed in the
temple where the oath was sworn.
The first is the treaty between Marduk-zākir-šumi I (855-19 BC) and Šamšī-Adad V
(823-11 BC). It was inscribed on a small black stone, and it was probably agreed soon after
the Assyrian king’s accession, at a time when he was not in a position of superiority.78 There
are several reasons to justify this within the text, as Brinkman noted: “a) Akkad is mentioned
before Assyria in the enumeration of countries (6’); b) Marduk-zākir-šumi has the title ‘king’
after his name, while the Assyrian, Šamšī-Adad, has no title in the preserved portion (10’, 8’);
c) the main Babylonian gods, Marduk and Nabû, are the first deities invoked in the curse
73
Lie 1929, 42, ll 263ff.
Parpola 1989, 49.
75
SAAB 3 (1989), 3-51.
76
Radner 2006, 353. See, for instance, RINAP 1 20, 18’, accusing Samsi, queen of the Arabs, of transgressing her
oath by Šamaš. In Sargon II’s annals adê is frequently in hendiadys with mamītu.
77
See below, 1.2.
78
In SAA 2, XXVIf, Parpola states that “by providing military assistance to Shalmaneser’s (legitimate) heir, to
which he was evidently obligated by oath, Marduk-zakir-šumi was thus simply returning a favour rendered to
him earlier” so that “there is no reason to take the treaty to indicate Babylonian supremacy over Assyria”, but a
year later (SAAB 3, 49) he posited: “Occasionally, however, the Assyrian king too, out of sheer political
necessity, was forced to conclude a treaty which he too had to confirm by oath”.
74
16
formulae; and d) most of the rest of the curses are very similar to –and could have been
taken verbatim from– the epilogue of the Babylonian laws of Hammurabi written some 940
years earlier”.79
Extra-textual evidence can also be adduced: it was written in the Neo-Babylonian
dialect and inscribed in early Neo-Babylonian lapidary script. Weidner posited that Rm 2 427
was the Babylonian copy of the treaty, taken eventually as booty and brought to Nineveh,
but, though in a fragmentary condition, it does not seem to have been smashed to
smithereens, as was the case with the Kalḫu EST versions.80 It could also be argued that an
object that shows one’s weakness at a given time does not make it “suitable” booty
material. Thus, it is plausible that this treaty was inscribed on a stone in Babylonia, and
taken by emissaries to Assur, where it was sworn in the presence of, among other deities,
Marduk and Nabû.
The second evidence are the Aramaic treaties81 inscribed on three steles presumably
found at Sfire, a village 22 km south of Aleppo.82
At the end of SF 1, the following passage introduces a colophon of sorts:
SF 1 C 1-4 Thus have we spoken [and thus have we writ]ten. What I, *Mati’+el, have written (is to
83
serve) as a reminder for my son [and] my [grand]son who will come a[fter] me.
In other words, both sides verbally “agree” to the stipulations detailed previously and
both sides keep a record of it, but it is the responsibility of the king of Arpad, that is, the
second and inferior party, to have steles inscribed and placed at a public location, probably a
temple (see below).
SAA 2 1, the Sfire Steles, and the impressively-sized clay tablets containing the
different versions of EST share, therefore, the same status as any dedicatory inscription, and
as such, they include clauses against anyone who may erase or remove them:
84
SF II C 1-11 [and whoever will] give orders to efface [th]ese inscriptions from the bethels , where they
are *wr+itten, and *will+ say, “I shall destroy the inscript*ions+ and with impunity shall I destroy KTK and its king,”
79
Brinkman 1990, 96f, apud Borger 1965, 168f.
See Plate I in SAA 2 and Brinkman’s copy of the three fragments, ibid., 112.
81
Called ‘dy (‫)ע ד י‬.
82
See Fales 2009-2011, 342-45. The identification of Sfire with a location in ancient times is problematic.
Although ar-Rifa’at is generally thought to be ancient Arpad, the British archaeological mission in the 50s and
60s did not find any item or inscription that could sustain this identification, which has been thus contested by
Warmenbol 1985, 179f. Radner posits that the city of Arpad should be located east of the river Quwaiq, given
the later division into two provinces, so Sfire is more likely a candidate for Arpad: 2006-2008, 58.
83
Fitzmyer 1995, 53. The precedent paragraphs are stipulations written in the second and third person to
describe Mati’ēl’s obligations.
84
Lemaire and Durand prefer “temples”: 1984, 142.
80
17
should that (man) be frightened from effacing the inscript[ion]s from the bethels and say to someone who
85
does not understand, “I will pay you a salary” and (then) order (him), “Efface these inscriptions from the
86
bethels,” may *he+ and his son die in oppressive torment.
The historical context of the Sfire treaties87 is a bit more complicated to reconstruct
than SAA 2 1, particularly considering their co-existence with SAA 2 2, a treaty in Akkadian
concluded between Aššur-nērārī V and the king of Arpad. Lemaire & Durand have proposed
that the three texts represent three loyalty-oaths, renewed at different moments during at
least three kings’ reigns, perhaps upon their accession.88 However, there is enough evidence
to suggest that the treaties were each imposed after an uprising, that is, as a sign of
subjugation and as a warning against future rebellion. Arpad instigated or participated in
three insurrection events against Assyrian rule, as is shown here.
The rebellion in the times of Adad-nērārī III: SF III (after the defeat at Paqarḫubūna)
According to Lemaire and Durand, SF III appears to be the earliest treaty, and they
assigned it to Adad-nērārī III’s time (810-783 B.C.).89 This fits well with the historical context.
The first preserved lines of SF III state that the Arpaddan king, his descendants, or
any other Arpaddan king should hand over traitors (1-4a), should extradite any fugitive who
seeks asylum in Aleppo (4b-7a),90 and should not harbor treasonous intentions or encourage
sedition (14b-17a; 21-23a).
The Eponym Chronicle for 805 B.C. records a campaign against Arpad.91 In an
inscription of unknown provenance, Adad-nērārī III accuses the kings of Ḫatti of having
85
I follow Lemaire and Durand’s translation here: ibid., 128.
Fitzmyer, op. cit., 125. See also SAA 2 6 §35, 398.
87
Despite the disputed identity of Bar Ga’yah (“Son of Majesty”) of KTK, who is the first named party on SF 1
and named in the other two inscriptions, most studies on these treaties coincide in connecting KTK with
Assyria: Lemaire and Durand, op. cit., 57f; SAA 2, XXVII; Liverani 2000, 60 and Ikeda 1993, 104-108. I am also
assuming the same connection. The gods cited in SF I on the part of KTK, and the phrasing of clauses and
curses, make this connection a certainty. Identifying Bar Ga’yah with the turtānu Šamšī-īlu, as argued by
Lemaire and Durand (op.cit., 38ff), who are followed by Ikeda, is certainly plausible, given the long life and
powerful status of this official. On the latter subject, see Grayson SAAB 7, and Fuchs 2008.
88
Op. cit., 57f.
89
Loc.cit., and n. 69. Since, according to them, each of the four treaties would have been drawn up on the
occasion of an Assyrian king’s accession, they counted back from Aššur-nērārī V.
90
Dion 1997, 120f; Greenfield 1991. Recent excavations at the citadel of Aleppo have shown that a Middle
Bronze Age/Early Iron Age temple dedicated to the Storm-God may have been under the sphere of influence of
th
Taita, king of Palistin/Patina (later Umqi, Kullania) in 11 century B.C.. Taita’s inscriptions have been found at
several spots in the temple. The excavators estimate that the temple was burnt and abandoned at the end of
the tenth century; cf. Kohlmeyer 2009. That the city belonged to neighbouring Arpad in the ninth century is
corroborated by an inscription of the last Luwian king of Ḫamath, Uratami, mentioning that the river-land of
Ḫurpata (Arpad) was inhabited by Halabeans. This inscription is to be dated to the later years of Shalmaneser
III’s reign; see Hawkins, CHLI 1.2 (HAMA 1), 411ff.
91
Millard, SAAS 2, 33.
86
18
made the kings of the Euphrates area rebel in the time of his father (by refusing to pay
tribute). The name of Ataršumki, king of Bīt-agūsi/Arpad, is preserved along with his
defeat.92 Another inscription explicitly mentions that the kings of the land of Ḫatti instigated
or participated in a rebellion with Ataršumki, son of Adramu/Aramu.93 The location of the
battle preserved in this inscription is Paqarḫubūna,94 also mentioned on the inscription on
the obverse of the Pazarcik Stele, erected to mark the border line between Gurgum and
Kummuḫ,95 and accusing Ataršumki of leading a coalition of eight states against pro-Assyrian
Kummuḫ.96
One of the preserved clauses in SF III mentions the city of TL’YM,97 which was to
become the property of Bar Ga’yah: “*Tal’ay+im, its villages, its citizens, and its territory (once belonged)
to my father and to *his house from+ forever. When (the) gods struck *my father’s+ house, *it came to belong+ to
92
RIMA 3 A.0.104.4.
RIMA 3 A.0.104.5 is the British Museum fragment, a stele from Dūr-Katlimmu. The Geneva one has been
recently published by Radner 2012b. This inscription also connects the campaign against Arpad (805) with
events mentioned in one other inscription: A.0.104.7, perhaps 1001 too. Records for years 804-802 in the
Eponym Chronicle state “to Hazāzu” (in Umqi), “to Ba’alu” and “to the Sea; plague”, suggesting protracted
military action in the area.
94
URU
Radner, ibid., p. 270: [ Pa-qi-ra-ḫu]-bu-na; reconstructed spelling for RIMA 3 A.0.104.5 based on the
Pazarcik Stele.
95
RIMA 3 A.0.104.3. The boundary was confirmed some years later by Šamšī-ilu’s inscription on the reverse of
this stele, boasting of his victory over Damascus (RIMA 3 A.0.105.1).
96
Na’aman 2005, 20ff.
97
It is highly unlikely that this city corresponds to the Talhāyum of the Mari period, as tentatively suggested by
Lemaire and Durand (op.cit., 69ff), since this city was located in the Upper Khabur. Lipioski defends its
identification with the Late Roman borough of Tillima, about 20 km northwest of ‘Azāz (Hazāzu): 2000, 23.
93
19
another” (ll 23b-24a).
98
Šamšī-Adad V (823-11 BC), Adad-nērārī III’s father, may have campaigned in this area,
roughly north of Arpad –perhaps through his powerful turtānu Bēlu-lū-balaṭ, who was also
the governor of several cities in the Baliḫ River area.99 According to a later inscription, from
the time of Tiglath-pileser III, the frontier region granted to the king of Que by this Assyrian
king had been “the border between the land of Beyond-the-River and Kummuḫ from the
days of Šamšī-Adad, king of Assyria”.100
“When (the) gods struck *my father’s+ house” could perhaps refer to the punishment
inflicted by the gods on Šamšī-Adad V after his destruction of Dēr (Southeastern Babylonia),
a city renowned for the religious prestige of its cult to Ištarān. A letter from the god Aššur to
the king gives the latter the approval he was seeking for his actions, which included the
kidnapping of gods statues.101 Perhaps more significantly, a roughly contemporary ruler of
Karkamiš relates in a fragmentary inscription that an Assyrian god carried off “Halabean
Tarhunzas”, which prompted some retaliatory action on the part of the Storm-God.102
Thus, with the defeat of the coalition, Adad-nērārī took advantage to impose his
terms on the status of Aleppo as a refuge for fugitives, and to claim the territory of TL’YM,
probably lost by his father some years earlier.
Additional evidence favouring Adad-nērārī III as the king who imposed this vassal
treaty on Arpad is also found in lines 17b-19a, stipulating that the king of Arpad should not
encourage any strife between the heir of KTK and one of his brothers.103 As is the case with
Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty, the mention of two brothers contending for the throne
could be due to recently experienced events.104 This scenario would fit well with Adad-nērārī
III, since his father had to defeat his brother with the aid of the king of Babylon for him to
ascend to the throne.
98
23b-24a. Durand and Lemaire render “citoyens” instead of Fitzmyer’s “lords”, and “depuis toujours” instead
of “from of old”: op. cit., 130.
99
See Mattila, SAAS 11, 109.
100
Incirli Stela, ll. 2-3. Edition and translation in Kaufman 2007.
101
RIMA 3 A.0.103.4 =SAA 3 41. From other events described in the text, Grayson considers its dating to be late
in his reign; see his introductory remarks to RIMA 3 A.0.103.4. SAA 3 43 further suggests Dēr was not an
isolated case, and that other Babylonian cities were similarly pillaged, something corroborated by the
Synchronistic History, see Chronicles 168, iv 6-9.
102
CHLI 1.1 KARKAMISH A24a2+3 (§6-7); Commentary, pp. 133-139; historical context on p. 78.
103
Cf. Wesselius 1984, 590f.
104
Note that SF II alludes instead to the potential threat coming from the son of a king who thinks his father is
too old to keep on ruling (7b-9).
20
The rebellion of 754 B.C. –SF I and SF II (after the defeat of an Arpad-Hamath
coalition):
Roughly fifty years later, thus at the very beginning of Aššur-nērārī V’s reign, the
Eponym Chronicle records another campaign against Arpad (754 BC).105 Aššur-dān III (772755 BC) had finished his last regnal year with a campaign against Ḫamath, Arpad’s southern
neighbor, with unknown results given the complete lack of royal inscriptions. 754 BC is
therefore the date proposed by Watanabe and Parpola for the dating of SAA 2 2, the treaty
between Aššur-nērārī V and Matī-ilu of Arpad. However, the Akkadian treaty probably comes
from the later part of Aššur-nērārī’s reign, as will be seen next.
Both SF I and SF II, likely one single treaty,106 name Mati-ēl as the king of Arpad, and
mention the unidentified land of Bīt-Aṣalli (ṢLL) in connection with Bīt-Guš (BītAgūsi/Arpad).107 There are several reasons to argue for an identification of Bīt-Aṣalli with the
kingdom of Ḫamath and Lu’ash.108 The latter had been the target of a coalition of Western
states, comprised by roughly the same who had united against Kummuḫ.109 Although the
coalition was not successful at first, the presence of a stele inscribed in Aramaic with the
name of king Hazael of Damascus in Tell Afis (Inv. TA.03.A.300),110 where the Stela of Zakkur
was also unearthed, indicates that Damascus had at least partially taken over Ḫamath.
The introduction to SF I states:
The treaty of King Bar-ga’yah of KTK, with Mati’el son of Attarsamak, the king *of Arpad and the treaty]
of the sons of Bar-ga’yah with the sons of Mati’el; and the treaty of the grandsons of Bar-*ga’yah and+ his
*offspring+ with the offspring of Mati’el son of Attarsamak, king of Arpad; and the treaty of KTK with *the treaty
of] Arpad; and the treaty of the lords of KTK with the treaty of the lords of Arpad; and the treaty of the [union
of+…with all Aram and with the king of MṢR and with his sons who will come after [him], and [with the kings of]
105
SAAS 2, 42.
Despite the fragmentary state of Stele II (cf. Lemaire and Durand, op.cit., 141), it is perfectly possible to see
its preserved content as an extension of SF I.
107
I B 3’, II B 10’.
108
See Kahn 2007, 81f.
109
Although the dating of the events narrated in the Stela of Zakkur (KAI 202) are disputed, I follow here
Na’aman’s outlook (2005, 22). The coalition against Zakkur of Hamath and Lu’ash, headed by Damascus, with
Arpad the second state cited (out of seven or eight), could only have taken place after the defeat of Arpad at
Paqarḫubūna: “It seems that the episode described in the Zakkur Stela reflects the efforts of Damascus to unite
an all-inclusive Syro-Hittite coalition against Assyria immediately after the defeat of the northern alliance in
805. (…) Zakkur of Hamath, possibly encouraged by the events of the 805 campaign, refused to join the alliance
and was attacked. The Assyrian campaigns of 804-803 forced the Syro-Hittite kingdoms to hurry northward to
defend their homeland and, thus, Hamath was saved”.
110
Found in a secondary context, lying on the basalt stratum of Temple A1. Cf. Amadasi Guzzo 2014, 54-57.
106
21
all Upper Aram and Lower Aram and with all who enter the royal palace.
111
The treaty is not only concluded with Arpad, but “with all Aram”, and specifically
“*with the kings of+ all Upper-Aram and Lower-Aram”.112 A later passage defines the borders
where the treaty was to be applied:
113
SF I B, 5-11 The treaty of the gods of KTK with the treaty of the g[ods of Arpad]. This is the treaty of
gods, which gods have concluded. Blessed forever be the reign of [Bar-Ga’yah+, a great king, and from this
happy treaty [ ] and heaven. [And all the gods] shall guard [this] treaty. Let not one of the words of thi[s]
inscription be silent, *but let them be heard from+ ‘Arqu to Ya’d*i and+ BZ, from Lebanon to Yabrud, from
114
Damascus to ‘Aru
and M..W, *and fr+om the Valley to KTK *…in Bē+t-Gush and its people with their
115
sanctuary (…).
It becomes apparent that more than the territory held by Arpad is included in the
treaty stipulations. Moreover, since Puech proposed his new reading for the Melqart
Stela,116 found at Bureij, a village 7 km north of Aleppo, it could be that the land of Aram at
this time may well have been more or less under the control of the same tribal dynasty.
There are two oft-quoted passages in the Tanakh (Kings 2 18: 34-35; 19: 13), a speech
coming from the mouth of Sennacherib’s rab šāqe in Jerusalem, that alludes to this coalition
and its lack of success: “Where are the gods of Ḫamath and Arpad? (…) Who of all the gods of these
countries has been able to save his land from me?”; “Did the gods of the nations that were destroyed by my
predecessors deliver them (…)? Where is the king of Ḫamath or the king of Arpad?”
The alliance with Urarṭu –SAA 2 2 (ca. 750 BC)
Since SAA 2 2 mentions the lands of Ḫatti and Urarṭu (iii 5’, 8’), it is likely that this
treaty belongs to the last problematic years of Aššur-nērārī V’s reign, a few years before
Tiglath-pileser III’s three-year campaign against Urarṭu and Arpad.
Tiglath-pileser III seized the throne after a revolt in 745 B.C.. His first two campaigns
were directed to eastern Babylonia and the northern Zagros, but immediately afterwards he
focused his attention on Arpad:
111
Fitzmyer, op.cit., 43.
According to the topography of this area, Upper Aram would correspond to Southern Syria; see Talshir 2003,
and Kahn, op.cit., 79ff.
113
Fitzmyer, op.cit., 47, 49.
114
Cf. Sader 2014, 24.
115
For ašerah as ‘sanctuary’ or ‘holy site’, see ’šrh1 in Hoftijzer and Jongeling, DNWSI I, 129.
116
Puech 1992: “(C’est) la stele qu’a érigée Bar-Hadad, fils d’`Attarsumki, fils d’Hadrame, roi d’Aram, à son
seigneur, Melqart, à qui il avait fait un voeu et (qui) a entendu son appel.” Gzella finds Puech’s interpretation on
the signs at the end of the first two lines dubious, and prefers to read br hdd m instead of brhdrm, attributing
the peculiar sequence of letters to a scribe repeating the name of the person who dedicated it, followed by the
beginning of the title mlk. The scribe realized he had no more space and wrote mlk afresh at the beginning of
the third line. Cf. Gzella 2004, 159, n. 120. In any case, Bar-Hadad’s filiation along with the title “king of Aram”
suffices to establish a link between Aram and Arpad at this time.
112
22
RINAP 1 35 i 21’-23’ In my third palû, Matī’il, *the son of A+ttaršumqa, fomented a rebellious
insurrection against Assyria and violated (his loyalty-oath)”. *He sent+ hostile messages about Assyria [to] the
kings who… to the… of the land Ḫatti (and) … the land Urarṭu and (thus) caused en[mity] in all (of those) lands.
RINAP 1 39 20’b-22’a Sarduri of the land Urarṭu revolted against me and conspired with Matī’il
(against me). In the lands Kištan and Ḫalpi, districts of the city Kummuḫu, I defeated him and took his entire
camp away from him.
Five years of Aššur-nērārī V’s reign (754-745 BC) are recorded by the Eponym
Chronicle as “in the land”, so it could be that, a few years after the conclusion of the
previous treaties, Arpad started getting restless again, and cautiously started to cast for a
powerful enough ally. When news of this reached Assur, Mati-īlu was probably forced to
swear yet another oath specifically committing to never join forces with Sam’al, Que or
Urarṭu against Assyria. The fact that no more Aramaic steles have been recovered and what
we have is a standard clay tablet in Akkadian in its stead may not be a coincidence. Seeing
that the monumental steles inscribed in the recalcitrant vassal’s language had obviously not
had the desired effect for long, the oath ceremony probably took place in Assur –which
would explain the high number of Assyro-Babylonian deities witnessing the treaty (see Table
2 below), while the presence of the main Canaanite, Phoenician and Anatolian deities on
Arpad’s side implies wariness of an offensive Syro-Anatolian coalition.
Meanwhile, Urarṭu was getting stronger. Sarduri (II) claims in one of his inscriptions
to have defeated Aššur-nērārī,117 and in another he mentions the conquest of Kummuḫ
(Qummaḫa).118
There is another source that confirms Mati-īlu’s attempts at an alliance with Urarṭu,
the Incirli Stela.119 This stela, inscribed in Phoenician, is the record of the frontier land
marking “the border between the land of Beyond-the-River and Kummuḫ from the days of
Šamšī-Adad, king of Assyria”. The king of Que, Warikku, erects it by imposition of Tiglathpileser III (also named Puwal in the text).120 Coincidentally, the historical narration that
follows Warikku’s declaration of allegiance to Assyria refers to a “rebellion through the
Hittite country” and to a human sacrifice by the king of Arpad to Hadad.121 Though
fragmentary, the narration suggests that Mati-īlu was searching for a powerful sacrifice to
117
A 9-1 Ro (right side, 8’-10’): Salvini, CTU/1, 414f.
CTU/1 A 9-3 IV; on the dating of these events, see Kahn, op. cit., 83.
119
Kaufman 2007.
120
Byblical Pul; Ass. Pūlu would be a quasi-hypocoristic for apil, see Tadmor 2007, 280, n. 5.
121
See Kaufman’s comments on line 12 in op.cit., 23 (re. Hadad-mlk).
118
23
counteract the oath that he would have recently sworn to Aššur-nērārī V, that is, SAA 2 2.122
Rituals to counter the effects on one’s health of the curse conjured by swearing an oath
were widely known, and actually the subject of Tablets III and VIII of the canonical
incantation series Šurpu.123 Both Esarhaddon’s Accession Treaty (SAA 2 4, 10-11) and EST
(SAA 2 6 §32) contain a provision against avoiding the effects of the treaty curses by magical
means.124
The Akkadian treaty must have therefore been sworn late in the reign of Aššur-nērārī
V (around 754-745). That Tiglath-pileser tackled this problem as soon as he could after his
accession shows how important it was to him to suppress the threat in the north-west once
and for all.
To sum up, the treaties concluded with Arpad were drawn up after a rebellious
incident was suppressed. They represent a compromise of sorts, since annexation was still
not feasible: the steles were the treaties were inscribed were a means of “presencing” the
treaty. In her study on Assyrian and Babylonian visual representations, Bahrani refers to
ṣalmu, ‘image’, as “a mode of presencing”125 because they imply “a repetition” –instead of a
representation– of reality, that is, “another way the person or entity could be
encountered”.126 The displayed treaty was thus a repetition of the engagement that had
taken place during the treaty ceremony on the part of the defeated. It simultaneously acted
as a warning and as a reminder. SF I and SF II make a connection between the stele and the
inscribed words themselves,127 since the visual representation was the means of
permanently reenacting the treaty. As was the case with other inscriptions, curses to
prevent modification or erasure were thus included.
Subjugation through monumental display was also very significant in nearby Sam’al,
whose king Tiglath-pileser III allowed to rule “autonomously”. In one of the hilāni-buildings
122
Whereas in SAA 2, 2, it is a lamb “brought to conclude the treaty”, and its cut-off head and torn-out
shoulder that are used as symbolic representations of the curse (“This head is not the head of a spring lamb, it
is the head of Mati’ilu…”), SF 1, section IV, the imagery/rituals involve wax figurines, broken bow and arrows
and a calf cut in two. The treaty violation is mentioned in the Incirli inscription, LEFT 4’: “Arpad has betrayed
with the treaty-violation of a traitor”. Lines 15-20a seem to refer to Mati’ēl’s attempt to annex territory
belonging to Que (?).
123
Reiner 1958.
124
For more examples, cf. CAD P, pašārum, 237ff., 242, 244.
125
Using a “postprocessual archaeology” term: Bahrani 2003, 186.
126
Ibid., 137.
127
SF I C 16-20, II C 1-11.
24
at Zincirli, an orthostat depicting Bar-Rakkab and his scribe was found,128 described and
interpreted by Niehr as follows: “In this scene the king is the guarantor of law and order. He
is seated on his throne while an official approaches him with writing utensils in his hand and
a dyptich under his arm. Between the two figures in the center of the scene is the symbol of
the moon-god of Ḫarran, the divine guarantor of treaties and oaths. The king says the words:
‘I am Bar-Rakkab, son of Panamuwa. My lord is Ba’al Harran’, which commit him to follow
the legal order.”129 Five of Bar-Rakkab’s inscriptions openly acknowledge his subservience to
the Assyrian monarch, and one of these explicitly states it was both Bar-Rakkab’s personal
god and the Assyrian king (Tiglath-pileser III) who have granted him kingship.130
128
Other engraved orthostats decorating the entrance to Hilani IV (“Northern Hall”) depict the king, courtiers, a
banquet scene, and musicians, cf. Gilibert 2011, 85-88.
129
Niehr 2014, 172. The two tassels on the moon crescent standard have been interpreted as a symbol for the
two parties who conclude a contract, see Staubli 2003, 65.
130
KAI 216, 4-7: “Because of the loyalty of my father and because of my own loyalty, my lord Rakkab’el and my
lord Tiglath-pileser III seated me upon my father’s throne”; see also KAI 217, 3-6; 219, 4-5.
25
Table 2
List of deities witnessing SF I and SAA 2 2
SF I A 7’ -12’
SAA 2 2 vi 6’-26’
KTK
Arpad
Assyria
Arpad
131
*Aššur+ and Mulleš
All the gods of GN and Aššur
Hadad of Aleppo
133
Marduk and Zarpanit
GN
Anu and Antum
Palil
Nabû and T*ašmet+
[Hadad of A]leppo
Enlil and Ninlil
the Sebetti
[Ir and Nus]ku
Sibitti
Ea and Damkina
Dagan and [M]uṣuruna
134
Nergal and Laṣ
‘El and ‘Elyan
Sîn and Nikkal
M*elqart and Eš+mun
Šamaš and Nur
Hea[ven and Earth Šamaš and Aya
Kub[aba and Kar]huha
S[în and Nikkal]
Sea]bed and Springs Adad and Šala
Hadad-[x] and Ramman
132
Nikkar and Kadi’ah
Day and Night
Marduk and Zarpanītu
of [Damascus]
Nabû and Tašmētu
Za*…+
Ninurta and Gula
Uraš and Bēlet ekallim
Zababa and Babu
Nergal and Laṣ
Madānu and Ninğirsu
Ḫumḫummu and Išum
Girra and Nusku
Ištar of Niniveh
Ištar of Arbela
Adad of Kurba’il
131
See Barré 1985.
Ninkur and Ištar of Akkad, see Fales 1990, 162f.
133
Durand and Lemaire translate “la plaine et le sol”; Fitzmyer reads Raḥbah and ‘Adam, two geographical
names (see his commentary in op. cit., 73f).
134
El’s consort is otherwise unattested; cf. Niehr 2014, 151. “The connection to the god El Elyon from the Old
Testament, however, is definite, as the two Aramean deities fused to become one divine name for the god
YHWH” (151, n. 107).
132
26
1.2 The temple as the location for the celebration and display of adê
Several passages in Sfire I and II, already quoted above (SF II C 1-11, SF I B, 5-11),
strongly imply that the treaties were meant to be displayed in a temple, permanently under
the gods’ surveillance. For instance, and in addition:
SF I A 13-14a Open your eyes, (O gods!), to gaze upon the treaty of Bar-Ga’yah *with Mati’el, the king
135
of Arpad].
Past Hittite practices seem to indicate that at least some treaties were also kept in
temples: the treaty between Shattiwaza of Mittani and Suppiluliuma I of Ḫatti states that a
duplicate of the treaty-tablet is deposited before the Sungoddess of Arinna, in Ḫatti,
whereas another duplicate is deposited before the Storm-god, Lord of the kurinnu (a divine
symbol) of Kaḫat, in Mitanni. The treaty is to be read repeatedly before the king of Mittanni
and before the Hurrians.136
The treaty between Tudḫaliya IV and Kurunta of Tarhuntassa, engraved on a bronze
tablet bearing two piercings, states that six copies were meant to be kept before Hittite
deities, the seventh to be displayed by Kurunta, member of the royal family, in his palace.137
It could be argued that the concept of deities as witnesses is also behind the
placement of royal images in key cultic locations of recently subjugated cities, a practice
attested since the reign of Aššurnaṣirpal II.138 According to Yamada, the Assyrian monarch –
who is often represented as a worshipper–139 was “thus associated with every act of worship
performed in the sanctuary, both as an earthly representative of Assyrian and local gods and
as a participant in every favour they might vouchsafe to grant”.140
Yamada further posits that these steles or statues may have been connected to adê
ceremonies; thus, the royal image, “functioning as a witness together with the symbols of
135
Fitzmyer, op.cit., 43.
Beckman 1999, 6A §13, 6B §8. Both versions were written in Hittite and Akkadian.
137
Otten 1988, HDT 18C §28.
138
See Holloway 2002, Table 4, 151-159. There are five attestations of the placement of a royal image in a
subjugated king’s temple in Neo-Assyrian sources: one with Aššurnaṣirpal II: mentioned in a hymn, see
Hurowitz 1997, 470f (LKA 64, 13’) –in the temple of Sangara of Carchemish; and four with Shalmaneser III: 1)
RIMA 3 A.0.102.2 ii 44 –in the lower city of Saluria (Upper Euphrates), in the ēqu (perhaps connected to
Hurrian egi “spring, innermost part”, cf. Schwemer 2001, 601, n. 4864 with reference to Wegner 1981, 106); 2)
RIMA 3 A.0.102.2 ii 60b-63a –in Asāu’s city (land of Gilzānu, probably near Urmia Lake), in his temple (ina
ekurrīšu), inscribed with praises to Aššur and his victories in Nairi; 3) RIMA 3 A.0.102.16, 160’-161’ –in the
temple (ina ekurrīšu) of Maruba, fortified city of Ba’al of Tyre; 4) RIMA 3 A.0.102.14 156’ and 16 284’b-286’ –in
Kinalua, in Lubarna’s city, in the house of his gods.
139
See Magen 1986, König vor Gott, 40-64.
140
Yamada 2000, 296.
136
27
the gods, impressed on the local elite who came to take oaths that their world was bound to
the Assyrian empire, and perhaps reminded them of the vassal treaty which they had sworn
before the gods and their overlord”.141
For Holloway, however, it is the erection of the weapon/symbol of Aššur (kakki Aššur
šakānum) in border-land areas that should be associated with the conclusion of adê, even if
there are only seven attestations of this act.142 Holloway observes a correlation between the
erection of this divine symbol and “the violent inauguration of a provincial city”.143 However,
although Holloway’s reasoning is valid for the settlement of legal affairs, it stands to reason
that, once a subjugated territory became part of the empire administration, there would
hardly be any need for adê anymore.
A more likely candidate to facilitate the conclusion of treaties in territories still
outside the boundaries of the empire would have been easily-portable standards featuring
the main divine symbols (see Figure 2). Deller showed convincingly that these standards had
their own cult.144
Indeed, the most practical way to have Assyrian deities witnessing adê ceremonies
(and, in general, any cultic rite or legal procedure in a military fort or camp) would have
been through these deified objects, which minimized the risk of “godnapping”. Although
standards were also a prized booty,145 their easy portability –for instance, mounted on a
141
Ibid., 297.
Holloway 2001, 239-66; 2002, 67, and 160-178.
143
2002, 161.
144
See Deller 1992, pp. 291-298; 341-346; Menzel 1981 (T81, rev vi 11). There is a military position termed rab
kiṣir *…+ LÚ-PA.MEŠ “cohort commander of the staff-bearers” attested: Dezsö 2012, Vol. I, 179.
145
As may be inferred from an episode narrated in the Synchronistic Chronicle (Chronicles 160, i 26’-27’):
“Adad-nērārī (I) brought about the total defeat of Nazi-Marrutaš and conquered him. He took away from him
his camp and his standards”.
142
28
god’s chariot– made them easy to protect, an advantage while on campaign.146
But going back to the display of texts and/or images as evolving in the Neo-Assyrian
period in the context of the progressive conquest and annexation of the West, two
culminations of sorts are observed from Tiglath-pileser III onwards. The first is the complete
invasion of the defeated subject’s cultic space by means of king and gods:
(As for) Hanūnu of the city Gaza, he became frightened by/who fled before my powerful weapons and
escaped to Egypt. I conquered the city Gaza, his royal city, carried off (…) talents of gold, 800 talents of silver,
people, together with their possessions, his wife, his sons, his daughters, (…), his property, (and) his gods. I
fashioned (a statue/monumental stele bearing) image(s) of the great gods, my lords, and my royal image out of
gold, erected (it) in the palace of the city Gaza, (and) I reckoned (it) among the gods of their land; I established
their sattukku offerings.
147
The second is the simultaneous erection of Aššur’s divine emblem and a royal image
in front of it in “less civilized” territories, as does Sargon in the newly established KārŠarrukīn in Ḫarḫar (Media), and Sennacherib in a city of Ḫilakku (Cilicia),148 both visually
exemplifying complete possession of a territory.
It is precisely in Esarhaddon’s time –when it could be argued that the empire was
more or less at its pinnacle–, and from then onwards, that these visual practices coalesce
and transmute into a sophisticated use of the king’s image in both religious –as seen in the
placement of the king’s statue in the proximity of deities–149 and legal contexts –as a
witness–;150 practices that are different from yet run parallel to the cult of the deified image
of the king.151
146
Deller, op. cit., 291f.
RINAP 1 42 8’-12’; 48 14’-17’; 49 13-15. See also the inscription on Bēl-Ḫarran-bēlī-uṣur’s stele from Tell
Abta (A.0.105.2, 15-16): “I wrote my monumental inscription, engraved thereon images of the gods, and
erected (it) in the divine abode. I established forever income, food offerings, (and) incense offerings for these
gods”.
148
Holloway 2002, 158f; see also Radner 2003a, 50ff.
149
See SAA 13 34, and 61. SAA 10 13 (behind and in front); SAA 10 358 (right and left); SAA 13 140 (left and
right); SAA 13 134, 18’-20’: “Moreover, the king's father set up golden bottles of ...-liter capacity (with) royal
images on them. They would fill with wine the one in front of Bel and the one in front of Nabû”.
150
d
!
Cf. SAA 6, ch. 20 “Mannu-ki-Arbail, Cohort Commander (680-673 B.C.), no. 219, last line: IGI NU-LU[G]AL ;
Ungnad 1940, nos. 108, 21’and 112, 5’ (post-canonical); and ND 2080, a loan record from Kalḫu in Parker 1954,
Plate V, translation in p.33 (date unclear but probably post-canonical: cf. Fales, SAAB 2, 113, 115ff, esp. 117).
151
“Other evidence from the Neo-Assyrian period indicates that the royal image was the focus of offerings and
that in due course it came to be considered divine. (…) They also reflect practices and beliefs current in
Mesopotamia during the third and early second millennia and are thus perfectly consonant with ancient
tradition”: Cole and Machinist, SAA 13, XIV. Ungnad thought Ṣalam-šarri-iqbi as a PN is based on this cult (1940,
58). For sacrifices before a royal image engraved on a stele, see Börker-Klähn 1982, nos. 146, 147, 151
(Shalmaneser III-Balāwāt Gates), and Holloway’s comments on Layard’s Šarrat-Nipḫa tableau (2002, 188 and
Fig. 11). See also Menzel 1981, T80 obv i 10-11, ritual prescriptions where the king is to place sacrificed sheep
147
29
Likewise, the loyalty-oath tablet itself became a witness and guarantor in a legal
transaction. It is in Esarhaddon’s time that the formula adê ša šarri ina qātē-šu luba’’i’ū “the
adê of the king will hold him responsible/call him to account” is introduced.152
It has been suggested that, given the phrasing of EST §35, this tradition saw its birth
at this point:153
Whoever changes, neglects, violates, or voids the oath of this tablet (and) transgresses against the
father, the lord, (and) the adê of the great gods (?) (and) breaks their entire oath, or whoever discards this adêtablet, a tablet of Aššur, king of the gods, and the great gods, my lords, or whoever removes the statue of
Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, the statue of Assurbanipal, the great crown prince designate, or the statue(s) of
his brothers (and) his sons which are over him – you shall guard like your god this sealed tablet of the great
ruler on which is written the adê of Assurbanipal, the great crown prince designate, the son of Esarhaddon,
king of Assyria, your lord, which is sealed with the seal of Aššur, king of the gods, and which is set up before
154
you
However, the first attestation of this legal clause is dated to 675 BC. It is a marriage
contract coming from Assur, the same provenience as VAT 11449’s, Esarhaddon’s Accession
Treaty:
StAT, Band 2, 21’-r7 [Whoever] tomorrow [or thereafter, whether P]abbau [or his sons], his nephews,
*his prefect+, or his relatives, comes and seeks a lawsuit or litigation against Auwa, may Aššur and Šamaš be his
prosecutors. He shall give one mina of silver to and one mina of gold to Mullissu. Auwa shall not be involved in
it. May Aššur and Šamaš be his pro*sec+utors, and may the treaty of the king call him to account .
As we saw in the introduction, the composition SAA 9 3, so-called “the Covenant of
Aššur”, underlines the importance that Esarhaddon attached to adê, and the impact the
violation of Sennacherib’s Succession Treaty on his behalf must have had on his psyche.
Since the use of the formula at this stage seems still tentative and is not generalized, we can
only assume that some citizens, like Egyptian Auwa, decided to use Esarhaddon’s Accession
Treaty as reinforcement in their transactions.
before a royal statue; in two NA god-lists, the statue of Tiglath-pileser (I) is not preceded by the dinǧir sign:
d
Menzel, op.cit., T 147, i 12, T 138, 19-20, but note NU-MAN in the so-called Götteraddressbuch: T 150ff, i 57,
d
60 (2 statues), 80, 105 (2 statues), and ALAM-MAN in a list related to the tākultu ritual 3 R 66: T 119 vi 29, T
121 vii 35’. For further attestations, cf. SAA 13, XXIII, n. 29. An inventory of precious objects for the cult of
several gods and goddesses lists deified silver royal images six times (SAA 7 62). Thus, the combined visual and
cultic evidence makes Magen’s scepticism (1986, 44f) unsustainable.
152
Documents with “May DNx (and) the adê of the king be his prosecutors” belong to the later Neo-Babylonian
period, cf. Watanabe 1987, 23.
153
Fales 2012, 152f.
154
Lauinger 2012, 98f, 112.
30
Nevertheless, the presence of the king’s and princes’ statues as witnesses to the
proper observance of the adê at the moment of its oath (and in future) indicates that EST
may be indeed the first example of both a religious and legal use of material display,
endowed with what Fales calls a “theophorous substance”.155
155
Op.cit., 153.
31
2. DISPLAY OF EST: HOW AN ADÊ BECAME A TABLET OF DESTINIES
2.0 Adê as non-vassal loyalty oaths
In Part I we have shown that Esarhaddon’s decision to have his succession treaty
displayed in provincial temples, like at Kullania, was somewhat conforming to tradition.
Written and displayed adê were perceived by Assyrians as an expression of submission to
the empire. However, even if the Kalḫu EST tablets show the submission of Eastern vassals
by having them as the nominal oath-takers, their display needed to be “explained” so that
the elite of Assyrian citizenship could perceive this display as a religious instead of a political
expression.
But before going over how Esarhaddon achieved this, it should be noted that even
though there is some evidence that adê were sworn by palatial and military officials (oral
context), it is almost certain that Sennacherib’s Succession Treaty was the first explicitly
“dynastic” adê ever implemented. It could be argued that SST cannot be understood outside
the post-689 BC situation and the framework of his “theological reforms”, which included
the introduction of Akītu ceremonies at the Ešarra, which was enlarged and renovated, and
at the newly-built Akītu Temple of the Steppe.156 Indeed, he may have sensed that “Aššuretel-ilāni-mukīn-apli”, probably the eldest son of his second wife Naqī’a/Zakutu,157 would be
the best choice to carry on with his legacy. In terms of the complexity of his Babylonian and
other policies, Esarhaddon was like a feather to his father’s mace, but many of his actions
speak of continuity.158
Esarhaddon’s decision to have a loyalty-oath sworn to him upon his accession (SAA 2
4) comes obviously as a reinforcement of SST. SAA 2 4 probably included clauses with the
obligation to denounce any suspicious comment or behavior, as seen in some of the
correspondence of the 671-670 years; for instance:
156
See Frahm 1997, 18f (historical overview); Reformtheologisch inspirierte Texte mit Bezug zum Gott Aššur
(T182-185), 220ff; and Exkurs: Die Inschriften als Quellen für Sanheribs Religionspolitik, 282ff. See also SAA 12
86; RINAP 3/2, 18-22; and Novotny 2014.
157
See RINAP 3/2, 28.
158
Porter 1993, 143 (although for Porter, loc.cit.: “to assert in his inscriptions that Marduk had become the son
of Aššur was at one and the same time an expression of Esarhaddon’s unifying Babylonian policy and also an
effort to encourage acceptance of that policy by bringing all the force of the community’s shared religious
beliefs to its support”). In his article on Esarhaddon’s renovations in the Temple of Aššur (and Esaggil), Novotny
convincingly argues that Esarhaddon was very careful to respect the original layouts of the structures he had
rebuilt for fear his father’s alterations had angered the gods. He points out, however, that: “Interestingly, and
probably to the dismay of the Aššur priesthood, Esarhaddon did not undo the changes of his father” (2014,
107).
32
Now that (the illness of) the king is being taken away, he (finally) spoke out to me, and I wrote to the
king, my lord. Is it not said in the treaty as follows: "Anyone who hears something (but) does not inform the
159
king ..."
But neither Esarhaddon’s Accession Treaty, nor the one organized by Zakutu on
behalf of Ashurbanipal upon Esarhaddon’s death (SAA 2 8), should be seen as customary
loyalty-oaths sworn by palace personnel upon a king’s accession in the Neo-Assyrian period.
Despite the possible interpretation that may be given to SAA 4 139 and 142, both oracle
queries on the possibility of insurrection coming from palace, royal, and city circles, there is
no other evidence to sustain an argument for such practice.
In fact, the evidence coming from earlier periods, specifically the Old Babylonian160
and all Hittite periods,161 reflects the requirement for certain personnel or officials to abide
by a set of rules or instructions –a protocol– whose commitment to fulfill was logically
engaged by means of oath. This tradition fits well with the etymology of adûm given by
Durand,162 but it does not deny the overwhelming use of adê as an instrument of empire
building in the Neo-Assyrian period.
Slightly more visible, instead, is the evidence that points to adê being regularly sworn
by military personnel to their superior officer.
-One example comes from Tiglath-pileser III’s correspondence, reporting archers had
been arrested at Qadeš after they broke the adê sworn to an official of unknown rank at
Damascus.163 Though the letter is in a fragmentary condition, it seems the archers were
locals who had been forcefully conscripted and part of the Assyrian army after swearing
their allegiance.
-In SAA 10 113, the letter by the Babylonian astrologer Bel-ušezib quoted above, in
the introduction:
159
SAA 10 199, 19’-21’: mannu ša memeni išammūni ina pān šarri lā iqabbūni. See also SAA 18 80, where IttiMarduk-bālaṭu, reporting from Uruk, quotes this obligation more informally, and SAA 13 45.
160
The so-called Protocol of the Diviners: Durand 1991, 14f. Any other loyalty oath referenced in this article is
undertaken as an ad hoc procedure, or else belongs to lord-vassal relations.
161
Millard 2013.
162
Although these engagements are called isiktum ‘assignment, contract’ at this time, Durand remarks: “Adûm
est traduit en paléo-babylonien comme « Corvée », ce qui n’est que l’apparence extérieure d’un travail dû
normalement au Palais par certains groupes sociaux. L’évolution naturelle de cet « adûm » « travail
obligatoire » a pu l’entraîner à remplacer isiktum. Op. cit., 70, n. 167.
163
┌ ┐
┌
!┐
┌ ┐
SAA 19 44: Rev. 2’-4’: a -nu-rig ER[IM-MEŠ x x+ / a- de -e-šú-nu TA* [x x x] / URU.di-maš- qi iḫ-[ti-ṭí-ú].
Luukko offers “the king of“ at the end of line 3, but this makes no sense. The letter should be dated after 734
B.C., the defeat of Tyre. The title should be some kind of official or provincial governor, like Bēl-dūrī, the
governor of Damascus during the reign of Sargon II (see Fabritius, PNA I/II, 292).
33
In the same way Mardiya, the president of the court of the house of the chief eunuch, has left his lord
164
and entered under Nergal-ašarēd ; he is bringing 'third men' and cohort commanders
ašarēd and they are taking an oath of loyalty.
165
before Nergal-
-Additional evidence may be found in SAA 18 162 coming from Ashurbanipal’s reign,
where one of his officials swears a loyalty-oath in Babylon (stating that he missed Nippur’s
and Uruk’s since he was doing “the king’s watch”) in front of the images of the king’s gods.166
There may be a connection between this kind of oath and SAA 2 9, “Ashurbanipal’s Treaty
with Babylonian Allies”, written in the first person plural, despite the fact that the reference
to the messengers of Šamaš-šūmū-ukīn would place it in a slightly later historical context.
There is additional indirect evidence coming from one of Šamšī-Adad V’s inscriptions:
A.0.103.1, I 39—43a When Aššur-da’’in-apla, at the time of Shalmaneser (III), his father, acted
treacherously by inciting insurrection, uprising, and criminal acts, caused the land to rebel and prepared for
battle; (at that time) the people of Assyria, above and below, he won over to his side, and made them take
binding oaths [udannina tāmetu].
The formulaic expression “the people of Assyria, above and below” in connection
with the binding oath evokes Esarhaddon’s Nin A 15b: “the people of Assyria, young and
old”, or the opening lines of EST: “the men in his hands, young and old”. From the passage
above it is clear that –even if Šamšī-Adad V considered himself the legitimate heir–, Aššurda’’in-apla gathered support in his bid to the throne by making key people swear a loyaltyoath to him. Among these people, most important were those who were “prepared for
battle” on his behalf.
In conclusion, several professions working at the palace may have sworn a loyalty
oath when they entered palace service, but this is not attested. More certain is the fact that
military personnel swore an oath to their highest commanding officer and to the king;
furthermore, in extraordinary circumstances, either when a candidate to the throne was
fighting another contender for power, or when he had just obtained it, their supporters
swore a loyalty-oath. But, at this point, the affirmation that adê were customarily sworn
upon a king’s accession in this period cannot be made.167
164
Ašarēdu, šaknu of Cutha, is accused of prevarication and having a haruspex in his service by an astrologer in
SAA 18 131, and concerning the latter’s property in SAA 10 163, and 164. SAA 18 10 is a report of the
commandant to the queen mother. See also CT 54 37.
165
For the functions of these military categories, see Dezsö 2012, I/1 Cohort commander (rab kiṣir), 157-180;
Chief Eunuch (Rab ša-rēšē), 222-227; I/2 Tašlīšu (‘third man’, shield bearer), 102-108.
166
See SAAS 4, 77, incl. n. 55.
167
Frahm included a possible loyalty-oath treaty in his publication of historical texts for the Aššur series, VAT
10948, mentioning Aššur-nāṣir-apli and including curse clauses in the second plural, but unfortunately too
34
2.1 The ceremonies at Kalḫu in Nisannu and Ayyāru
The location of the adê ceremonies is important to understand the context of the
display of the EST tablets in Kalḫu, since both the archaeological and textual evidence
suggest that Esarhaddon may have “reinforced” the impact of these ceremonies by inserting
them among other rituals celebrated during the first two months of the Assyrian calendar.
From a strict archeological viewpoint, though, the lack of sufficient data prevents a
convincing assignment of a specific function to the so-called Throne-Room of the Nabû
Temple at Kalḫu,168 where the EST tablets were found.169 Nevertheless, there is enough
textual, archaeological, and theological evidence to posit that the location of the oathtablets is connected to the EST ceremonies, and that the Nabû Temple at Kalḫu was, for
several reasons, the best choice:
–SAA 10 5, 6, and 7 are letters from chief scribe Issar-šumu-ereš concerning the
arrangement of adê ceremonies in Kalḫu in the month of Nisannu. Enough details are
provided that the connection with EST can be safely made.
–The stone “tramlines” visible on the floor of the room leading to a stepped dais are
features also seen in throne rooms in palaces. In this suite, ivory strips probably decorating a
fragmentary for its true nature to be ascertained: 2009, No. 66.
168
As Schmitt argues: 2012, 91-100.
169
Wiseman 1958.
35
throne or chair were found, depicting some kind of processional ceremony that included
tribute bearers (see Figs. 3 and 4).170
–From the late Middle Babylonian period onwards, Nabû extends his status by
adopting new roles, which are transferred to him from Ninurta –the hero who slays the Anzû
bird, the guardian of the Tablet of Destinies, the keeper of royal insignia, and the conferrer
of the gidru ‘sceptre’ of kingship in ceremonies of unknown periodicity according to the
Nippur tradition.171 This religious development is reflected both in the Babylonian and the
Assyrian cult. In Assyria during the Neo-Assyrian period, the gradual cultic preeminence of
Nabû accompanied by an ever-decreasing visibility of his father’s cult, reaches its peak with
Sennacherib’s “reforms”.172 Given the amount of secondary literature on these topics, only
those arguments relevant to the implementation of the EST ceremonies will be discussed
here.
–As concerns the choice of the Nabû Temple at Kalḫu, instead of this deity’s temple
at Assur, Nineveh or Dūr Šarrukīn, the reasoning to explain it should not be made on cultic
grounds.173 Steymans’ argument that Kalḫu was a convenient location for the Eastern
chieftains to attend the ceremonies since it was probably the place where these vassals
were delivering their tribute (horses) from the Zagros and the Iranian Plateau, and working
in pirru units, is certainly relevant here.174 The Nabû Temple was a centre for the reception
and redistribution of horses (SAA 13 82-123).175 However, even though this connection may
certainly have played a role in Esarhaddon’s choice of vassals, it still does not satisfactorily
explain the ceremonies location. The presence of the elite of the Assyrian army, that is, the
170
Oates & Oates 2001, 48ff; 116f.
George 1992, 310-2, 450f; 1996, 384f; SAAS 14, 51-55; 61-71; 81-90.
172
Pomponio 1998-2001, 19f.; Porter 1993, 137-148; Pongratz-Leisten 1994, 96.
173
Pongratz-Leisten (1994, 97-102) identifies NTS 1/2 (see Figure 2) with cellae housing Marduk and Zarpanitu
in order to argue –with the aid of some textual evidence– for a parallelism between the Throne Room of the
Nabû Temples of Assur and Kalḫu and the chapel of Nabû ša harê in Esaggil, which in turn would support her
defence of an investiture of Esarhaddon at the NT of Assur, and an investiture of Ashurbanipal at the NT of
Kalḫu, as crown princes. For a critical discussion, see Schmitt 2012, 95-98. On the Nabû Temple in Nineveh,
only partially excavated, see Reade 1998-2001, 410.
174
Steymans 2006, 342ff. Steymans adopts Von Soden’s definition of pirru as a work unit (AHw II, 855).
175
Perhaps to be connected to Marduk’s role as a horse trainer. SAA 3 38, a cultic commentary on the rites of
Egašankalamma, the temple of Ištar of Arbela, which are “*enacted+ like those of Nippur”, describes Marduk’s
role in lines 14-15 as follows: The kurgarrû (cf. Pongratz-Leisten 1994, 74ff) and the horse trainer, who w[ash]
each other in water — the horse trainer is Bel (…). As Pongratz-Leisten adduces, CTN 3 95 and ABL 951 (=SAA
13 134) support the fact that Marduk was also worshipped at the NT of Kalḫu (ibid.,99); note that EST includes
Marduk as witness: ll.17, 27. The function of the NT as a center for horse administration, however, should be
additionally explained by the presence of Fort Shalmaneser in the city.
171
36
cavalry and chariotry,176 at Fort Shalmaneser, the ēkal māšarti of Kalḫu, should instead be
considered the most relevant reason for Esarhaddon to have his succession ceremonies
celebrated here.177 Esarhaddon built an extension for him to have residential chambers at
the fort,178 and his stay in Kalḫu more or less at this time is attested in the
correspondence.179 Considering the military power held by the Chief Eunuch,180 whose
abuse was probably manifested in the attempted insurrection of 670 BC,181 the status of the
location of EST as a whole cannot be underestimated.
Regarding the third point made above, and in particular that of Nabû’s role in
bestowing the sceptre to the king during the akītu festival, George states: “Apart from the
question of its origin, the business of an annual investiture in the temple of Nabû is an
attractive thesis. However, the form it took and its periodicity remain largely speculation”.182
It is tempting to think that, as part of his succession arrangements, Esarhaddon may have
seen the advantage of inserting the adê ceremonies within the ritual concatenation taking
place in Assur in Nisannu: the tākultu-offerings to several deities,183 and the newlyimplemented akītu in the Ešarra; and in Kalḫu in Ayyāru: the sacred marriage rites of Nabû
and Tašmētu at the Nabû Temple, but any suggestion should be made with caution.
Using an administrative text found at the Throne Room itself, where mention is made
of the bīt akīt and bīt akiāte, Postgate tried to pinpoint the exact location of these rooms
within the architectural plans of the Nabû temples of Kalḫu, Dūr-Šarrukīn and Assur.184
Postgate also discussed textual evidence from the royal archives of Nineveh,185 referring to
the arrangements for a quršu-ceremony of the god and his consort in Ayyāru, and the
176
See Dezsö 2012, Vol. 2, 37f, 76-78 for Kalḫu as a centre of royal musters, and the administration of the
cavalry and chariotry of the Assyrian heartland.
177
Contra Steymans, op.cit., 344, n. 30.
178
And strengthened the walls of the fort, see Kalḫu A (RINAP 4 77, 40-62), all versions dated to 672 B.C.. See
also Radner’s remarks on Esarhaddon’s “distrust against his environment” in 2003b, 168.
179
Cf. SAA 13 56-69, and SAA 4 119, 122, 183; SAA 10 152.
180
CTN 3, 37f; Dezsö 2012, Vol. 1, 222ff.; Vol. 2, 141f.
181
The Eponym Chronicle for this year states that Esarhaddon put his magnates to the sword: SAAS 2, 68, 97.
See also Chronicles, 86 (1 iv 29); 127 (14 l.27). Useful is Radner’s reconstruction of these events in 2003b, 174f,
and her remarks on Nissinen’s conclusions to SAAS 7, 135ff on n. 69. In his summary at the end of Vol. 2, Dezsö
notes for Esarhaddon: “The officers of the crown-prince, however, were members of units of real military
th
value. (…) This importance of the military units of the crown-prince can be followed throughout the 7 century
up to the fall of the empire” (ibid., 159).
182
George 1996, 379.
183
Frankena 1954; Pongratz-Leisten 2015, 10.3.2.
184
Postgate 1974, 51-57; transliteration and philological notes of ND 4318 in 64ff.
185
See more updated excerpts of these texts in Oates & Oates 2001, 120ff.
37
derived benefits from it for the heir and for the king’s family. He concluded that there is no
evidence of akītu festivals celebrated in Assyrian Nabû temples unless these are identified
“with the sacred marriage ceremonies of the month of Ayyāru”.186
When studying the combined evidence of cultic lists, prescriptions and
commentaries written during the reigns of Sennacherib, Esarhaddon, and Ashurbanipal
there is a certain impression of improvisation and on-going adaptation of Babylonian myths
and rituals to suit the new political needs, finally showing stabilization with Ashurbanipal. 187
This is also true in the case of akītu festivals celebrated in Assyria, which before
Sennacherib’s reign are limited to one: that in honour of Ištar of Nineveh.188 The attestation
of akītu shrines for Nabû and Tašmētu within the Nabû Temple at Kalhû (ND 4318189 and SAA
13 134) should thus be read in this light. A roughly contemporary cultic text, an excerpt
tablet written by the chief šangû of Aššur combining instructions for the tākultu-ritual and
for the akītu of days 7th and 8th of Nisannu notes that the latter could be carried out
“whether in Nineveh, or in Nimrud, or in an enemy country”.190
Not surprisingly then, on SAA 13 32 the deputy priest of Ešarra answers Esarhaddon’s
request of having the gods of the Inner City taken to Kalḫu for the adê ceremonies with a
negative, since Nabû had to stay in his room until the 12 th day. This letter may be interpreted
as Esarhaddon’s wish to have part of the akītu rituals celebrated in Kalḫu, but alternatively
and more likely, what he wanted was to have the Ešarra deities witness the investiture
ceremony officially appointing Ashurbanipal as Crown Prince.191 This act of investiture,192
which would have preceded the first oath ceremonies and been attended by the magnates,
the provincial governors, and eager vassals like the Eastern city-lords, finds its
186
Op.cit., 57-60.
See Pongratz-Leisten 2015, 10.4 and 10.5. For instance, note the changes on the kispu and kingship rituals,
which before Sennacherib were only celebrated in Šabaṭu (XI).
188
Something to be inferred from one of Ashurpanipal’s building inscriptions, stating that the akītu-house went
back to the time of Sargon II (Borger 1996, 254f); cf. Pongratz-Leisten 1997; Weissert 1997. See also SAAS 14,
90-94 for an overview with references to previous literature.
189
See above, n. 184.
190
To be published as SAA 20 15; cf. Pongratz-Leisten 2015, 421f.
191
Already suggested by Pongratz-Leisten 1994, 97ff, apud George 1986, 140ff. See n. 173 above.
192
Esarhaddon had probably been appointed Crown Prince in Nisannu as well, as Parpola noted in 1987, 164:
“The highly distinctive sequence of gods that appears in the curse sections of the text *=SAA 2 3, SST+ is
otherwise known only from texts relating to Sennacherib’s work on the Akitu Chapel of Assur *=SAA 12 86+,
which is known to have been completed in the king’s twenty-second year (683). The fact that the Akitu Chapel
is actually mentioned in line 8’ of the text may indicate that the treaty ceremonies were synchronized with the
celebration of the New Year’s festival, which would date the text to Nisan 683 or 682 B.C.”. The 683 date would
be later confirmed by legal documents, cf. SAA 6, XXXIIIf.
187
38
representation on the ivory panels found at the Throne Room of the Nabû Temple at
Kalḫu.193 Ashurbanipal may be depicted as an unbearded figure at several locations on strips
Nos. 67 and 69, already holding the sceptre. In Figure 3 (No. 67), for instance, he can be seen
under the tent on the left side, and during the procession, in front of the chariot.194 The
figure holding a sceptre under his armpit to the right of the central scene may be
Ashurbanipal’s brother.
The three central figures would correspond to Aššur-Adad holding the Axe
(dKalappu)195 on his left hand, Ashurbanipal with a whip draped over his left shoulder, and
Esarhaddon presenting his son to the god behind him. The whip may be explained by the
following commentary:
SAA 3 37 24’-26’a “*The chariots+ which they dispatch, and the ‘third man’ who *puts+ the whip in *the
king’s+ hand, takes him by the hand, leads him into the presence of the god and shows the whip to the god and
the king, is Nabû (…)”
The investiture then, in accordance with SAA 13 32, would have to have been
celebrated after the 12th of Nisannu. The juggling of dates to accommodate all this
concatenation of rituals was further complicated by the fact that two days were needed to
complete the adê ceremony, and the dates had to fit the wisdom imparted by menologies:
SAA 10 6 (written by Issar-šūmū-erēš, chief-scribe) The scribes of the cities of Nin[eveh], Kilizi and
Arbela (could) ent[er] the treaty [ana adê erūbū]; they have (already) come. (However), those of Assur [have]
not (yet) [come]. The king, my lord, [knows] that they are cler[gymen]; if it suits the king, my lord, let the
former who have (already) come, enter the treaty; the citizens of Nineveh and Calah would be free soon and
could enter (the treaty) under (the statues of) Bēl and Nabû on the 8th day. Alternatively, (if) the king, my lord,
orders, let them go, do their work, and get free (again); let them reconvene on the 15th, come here and all
enter the treaty in the said place at the same time. However, it is written as follows in the hemerologies of the
193
“The burnt remains of a throne and its decorated ivory overlay were found both on and around the dais in
the throne-room”: Mallowan and Davis 1970, 3.
194
See Mallowan and Davis 1970, No. 22, Pl. VIII, for a more clear depiction of Nabû/Ashurbanipal, who is also
carrying the quiver and bow, to be associated with his slaying of the Anzû bird in the Anzû Epic (Dalley 1989,
217f). Note the earring shaped as a cross, which for Parpola “undoubtedly symbolized the four points of
compass, and could thus well have served as an emblem of Nabû, who was often addressed as ‘supervisor of
the world’ (pāqid kiššati…)”; cf. 1983, 330f, referring to SAA 16 148, rev. 13-14 “let it be sealed with the crossshaped (stamp) seal”.
195
For the attestation of Aššur-Adad in Ešarra, see Pongratz-Leisten 2015, 396 (re: the tākultu text for
Ashurbanipal, written by Issar-šumu-erēš. This text was published by Frankena 1954 (K 252), and will be soon
published in a volume of the SAA series).
39
month Nisan (I): "He should not swear on the 15th day, (or else) the god will seize him." (Hence) they should
en[ter] the treaty on the 15th day, at d[awn], (but) conclude it [liškūnū] in the night of the 16[th] day before the
stars.
The entering of the treaty was probably related to the tablet’s presentation before
the gathered deities, and in light of §3 in EST, the oath-takers voiced individually their oaths
by each deity: “I swear by Aššur, father of the gods…, etc”. This stage may have been
followed by a reading of the provisions, according to the Covenant of Aššur, which as
suggested in the introduction should be considered Esarhaddon’s idealization on the
heavenly sphere of EST:
This is the šulmu before the Image. This adê tablet of Aššur enters the king’s presence on a cushion.
Aromatic oil is sprinkled, offerings are made, incense is burnt, and they read it out in the king’s presence.
196
As for the šakānu-stage, its conclusion, we may imagine a vocalization of the
standard curse sections pertaining to each of the deities assembled, followed by a vow
recited by the oath-takers (§57), and an enunciation of the ceremonial curses while some
kind of ritual involving the oath-takers was performed: “(either) by (setting) a table, by
drinking from a cup, by kindling a fire, by water, by oil, or by seizing breasts”.197 According to
Nin A, i 51, the people of Assyria swore on Esarhaddon’s behalf by water and oil. Ištar offers
her “fathers and brothers” bread and water in the Covenant, the second being the key
element:
SAA 9 3:4 iii 2-12: [She placed+ a slice… on the *ter+race and gave them water from a cooler to drink.
She filled a flagon of one seah with water from the cooler and gave it to the them with the words: “In your
hearts you say, ‘Ištar is slight,’ and you will go to your cities and districts, eat (your) bread and forget this
covenant. “(But when) you drink from this water, you will remember me
made on behalf of Esarhaddon.”
198
and keep this covenant which I have
The oath-takers would have thus drank water from the same cup or flagon, and let
themselves be anointed with the same oil.
Esarhaddon may have found, however, that the dates offered by the Chief Scribe on
SAA 10 6 were unsuitable. All we know is that the scholars of Nineveh finally entered and
196
SAA 9 3: 3 ii 26-32.
EST 154-155, warning the oath-takers against entering an adê with anyone in order to commit treason. For
ṣibit tulē, cf. Šurpu III 97: māmīt tulī ina pī šerri šakānu “the oath of putting the breast in the mouth of the
child”.
198
Forever is implied. To my knowledge, no myth or text refers to the ability of water, or a special kind of water,
make its drinker remember or heed some engagement, but see the opening lines of SAA 20 42, quoted in
Pongratz-Leisten 2015, 401. A ṣarṣaru, translated here as ‘cooler’, was a container for water storage at this
period. The CAD gives only one other attestation, again from the Šurpu series: III 62 māmīt ina ṣarṣari mê šatû.
197
40
concluded the adê on the 16th and 17th respectively:199
SAA 10 7 The scribes, the haruspices, the exorcists, the physicians and the augurs staying in the palace
and living in the city will enter the treaty on the 16th of Nisannu. Now, let them conclude the treaty the
following day (lit. tomorrow).
The celebration of adê ceremonies for other groups, including those performed at
the provinces200 and that sworn at Kalḫu by the Eastern city-lords, must have taken place in
Ayyāru, probably after the celebration of a quršu201 ceremony at the Nabû Temple –involving
the sacred marriage of Nabû and Tašmētu–, as mentioned earlier. This ritual finds its parallel
in Babylonia when, commencing on the 2nd day of Ayyāru, Nabû and Nanaya entered their
bedroom in a nocturnal procession.202 It is not until Ashurbanipal’s reign that a quršu
between Aššur and Mullissu in Šabaṭu (XI) at Ešarra,203 and a similar one with Marduk and
Zarpanitu at Babylon after the restoration of Esaggil, are attested.204
The marriage ceremonies that were celebrated at Kalḫu were meant to bless
Esarhaddon’s newly appointed heirs and the rest of his children with a long, prosperous life:
SAA 13 56 To the king, my lord: your servant, Urdu-Nabû. Good health to the king, my lord. May Aššur,
Sin, Šamaš, Marduk, Zarpanitu, Nabû, Tašmetu, Ištar of Nineveh, and Ištar of Arbela — these great gods who
love your kingship — allow the king, my lord, to live 100 years. May they grant the king, my lord, the
satisfaction of old age, extreme old age. May they appoint a guardian of health and vigor (to be) with the king,
205
my lord. The 4th day of Iyyar Nabû and Tašmetu will enter the bed chamber. At the beginning of your reign, [I
performed] the sacrificial offerings before Nab[û and Tašmetu] which have given [life] to the king, my lord. Now
then I a[m writing to the king], my lord: I have given orders [regarding the matte]r which the king, my lord
206
[...e]d and (regarding) the offerings. I have given instructions about the offerings for Assurbanipal, the gre[at
crow]n prince, for Šamaš-šumu-ukin, the crown prince of Babylon, for Šeru'a-eṭerat, for Aššur-mukin-paleya,
and for Ašš[ur-et]el-šame-erṣeti-muballissu. I [will brin]g their offerings before Nabû and Tašmetu, and will
perform them in the [bed]room. May they allow them to live 100 years. Their children and grandchildren will
grow old, and the king, my lord, will see it.
SAA 13 56, in conjunction with No. 70, give valuable information on the calendar for
199
th
nd
th
See also SAA 10 5, written from Kalḫu and referring to the 20 , 22 and 25 .
Note that in SAA 16 126, the writter, Esarhaddon’s agent in Phoenicia, may be roughly quoting EST §96 and
§102.
201
Deriving from garāšu “to make love, to copulate”; cf. Nissinen 2001, 96, n. 22. Note SAA 13 78, rev. 16-19:
“May Bel and Nabû, who are betrothed in the month of Šabāṭu (XI), protect the life of the Crown Prince, my
lord.” Thus, the betrothal was performed in Šabāṭu and the marriage rites, at least for Nabû, in Ayyāru (see also
No. 79). Presumably, the consort’s intercession on behalf of the king took place during the second ritual. See
Nissinen’s remarks in 2001, 98, 105 and Matshushima 1988, 116ff.
202
Matshushima 1987, 158-161; Nissinen 2001, 99-101.
203
Nissinen, ibid., 95f, perhaps going back to Sargon’s reign (ibid., 96f, after SAA 1 54-55).
204
Nissinen, ibid., 103-105.
205
The exaggerated tone of his wishes for the king’s wellbeing may imply that Esarhaddon’s health had indeed
already started to decline.
206
SAA 13 78, addressed by the hazannu “inspector” of the Temple to the Crown Prince on the arrangements
for this ceremony, suggests that it was thus regularly performed here from 682 BC onwards.
200
41
the different rituals to be performed during the quršu, so a celebration for the remaining
adê after the 12th of Ayyāru may be inferred therefrom. This fits well with the dates
inscribed on the different EST tablets (16th – 18th of Ayyāru, on SAA 2 6 l.664; “at least 16 but
could be as high as 19”,207 on T1801), and the inscriptions of Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal
(18th on Kalḫu A/RINAP 4 77, ex. 6 and its partial duplicate Tarbiṣu A/RINAP 4 93, and either
the 12th on A I 12 or the 18th on F I 11).208
It is quite possible, however, that the EST ceremonies were not performed in
Babylonia though. Although this is, of course, conjectural, the situation of appeasement,
resettlement, and reconstruction taking place at several key Babylonian cities and their
temples, along with the obscure return of some god statues,209 and the continued presence
in Assyria of those of Marduk and his consort taken from Esaggil by Sennacherib,210 makes it
very unlikely that Esarhaddon would have dared have the adê ceremony performed, much
less the oath-tablet displayed, in Babylon, Borsippa, or elsewhere.
Nevertheless, there may be a hint of an “intermediate” solution: SAA 2 14, which
Parpola termed “Esarhaddon’s treaty inscription”, makes an interesting reference to both
Marduk’s protection of EST and the return of deities. It is a three-fragment clay tablet,
possibly a draft, whose provenience is said to be from Sippar.211 The preserved content
includes three ruling lines structuring the text: a petition to the mother goddess Bēlet-īlī; an
annalistic kind of narrative started with “At that time”, claiming Marduk’s support to his
kingship and his adê, followed by curses to those who may seek to betray the adê; and
finally, a petition to a plurality of deities (second person plural) beseeching them to accept
their return. It could be argued that, instead of being destined to be inscribed on a prism or
other annalistic format, this text could have been meant to be a Letter to the Gods.
One last point needs to be made concerning the matter of the witnessing deities
representing the Eastern oath-takers, which –as I mentioned in the introduction– are not
207
Lauinger 2012, 122 (viii 63).
Borger 1996, 15-16.
209
Little is known of the date and circumstances surrounding the return of Babylonian gods as narrated on
AsBbA (RINAP 4 48), to be dated after the successful Egyptian campaign of 671. Cf. Porter 1993, 60f; 121ff.
210
Porter 1993, 143-148. The Esarhaddon Chronicle concludes its record on his reign as follows: “For eight
years (during the reign of) Sennacherib, for twelve years (during the reign of) Esarhaddon –twenty years
(altogether)– the god Bēl stayed *in B+altil (Assur) and the Akītu festival did not take place. The god Nabû did
not come from Borsippa for the procession of the god Bēl”. Chronicles, no. 14, 31’-33’.
211
Grayson 1987, 155; SAA 2, L. RINAP 4 48, l.95 mentions the return of gods Ḫumḫumiya, Šuqamuna and
Šimaliya to Sippar-arūru.
208
42
Eastern deities. The Ta’yinat manuscript has contributed to their full identification:212 §54
Aramiš of Qarnê and Aza’i (southern Syria); §54 A (only preserved in ms T) Adad and Šāla of
Kurba’il (to the northwest of Nineveh, east of Tarbiṣu and north of Dūr-Šarrukīn);213 §54 B
(only preserved in ms T) Šarrat-Ekron214 (southwestern Canaan); §54 C (preserved in a Kalḫu
fragment and ms T) Bethel and Anat-Bethel (northern Syria);215 and §55 Kubaba of
Carchemish (northern Syria).
The overwhelming presence of Aramean deities somehow makes the noticeable lack
of Zagros deities more palatable. Aramean presence in the area south of Lake Baikal is
attested since the 8th century.216 Moreover, Larkutla, city-lord of Zamua, capital of Zamua –
an Assyrian province since Shalmaneser III–, was probably of Aramean origin, as shown by
lines 1-4 of his treaty,217 different from the others’:218 the treaty is not concluded with him,
his children and his grandchildren, but with his children, his brothers, his clan (lit. his nest),
and with the offspring of the house of his ancestor.
Larkutla sent his emissaries to represent him at Kalḫu and we know that Esarhaddon
himself attended the ceremonies (SAA 16 150).219 He was not the only oath-taker holding a
position subject to Assyrian approval: Sikris was located within the province of Ḫarḫar,
created by Sargon II.220 There is also correspondence (SAA 16 146 and 147) mentioning
Humbareš, an Elamite, in a broken context, but preserving the word ‘kitru’, alliance.221 He is
probably the oath-taker in ND 4336. We learn from Esarhaddon’s inscriptions that the
alliance forged with the chieftains of Partakka, Partukka, and Urukazabarna had been made
by their request to defeat rival city-lords in exchange for horses and lapis lazuli,222 and
Ramataya of Urukazabarna is the oath-taker in the most complete Kalḫu EST manuscript at
our disposal. This was also probably the case with Tunî of Ellipi, whose ancestor agreed to an
212
Lauinger 2012, 90f, 113, 119 (commentaries to vi 44-50).
Schwemer 2001, 596; worshipped within Assyrian state cult: op.cit., 595-600.
214
Gitin et al. 1997.
215
Van der Toorn 1992, 83-85; Niehr 2014, 153.
216
Fales 2003, 131-147. See also SAA 4 58, on whether Esarhaddon should send an Aramean scribe to (GN or
PN). The gentilic Sapardean is partially preserved in line 4. Šaparda was located within the province of Ḫarḫar,
cf. Radner 2003a, 50.
217
Only lines 1-12 and 77-83 of ND 4343 are preserved (Wiseman 1958, Plate XII and Plate 11).
218
For a convenient simultaneous reading, see Watanabe 1987, Partitur, p. 56.
219
But, in my opinion, Larkutla attended the investiture himself.
220
Radner, ibid., 50, 55, 60.
221
For the connotations inherent to this term, see Liverani 1982, 43-66, esp. 61f.
222
RINAP 4 1, iv 32-45; 2 iv 1-20; 3 iv 3’-19’; 4 iii’ 12’-16’; 6 iii’ 25’-32’, 35 3-11.
213
43
alliance with Sargon II.223
On his work on the Assyrians perception of Zagros rulers as inferred from the annals,
Lanfranchi concluded that Assyrians gradually realized the inferiority of the Eastern polities
by comparison with the more substantial Western ones (see Figure 4 below): “The
experience of managing such complexity, accumulated during the process of converting
conquered polities into provinces, favoured the recognition of the structural differences
between the western and the Zagros polities. (…) Their structure was regarded unsuitable
for controlling a major area of influence, because of the primitiveness of their cultural world
and of their institutions”.224
To sum up, after the discovery of T1801 at the local temple in Ta’yinat, we may
assume that –since EST was sworn by the governor and dignitaries of Kullania– it would have
been also sworn by all provincial governors and magnates of the empire and displayed at a
local temple (except, probably, in Babylonia). However, we cannot assume that –due to
geographical inconveniences or random causality– those concluded with the city-lord of
Zamua (not the provincial governor)225 and at least six other city-lords were casually left on
display at the Throne Room of the NT in Kalḫu. The common link between them is that they
were unimportant chiefs amenable to swear without much ado. There is absolutely no
reason why the adê sworn by them could not have been displayed, as was the Kullania one,
at their main local temple. As for the quantity of them, we may assume that their EST tablets
needed to be evenly distributed around the room, lest the impact factor would be lost.
223
Radner, 2003a, 53, 55.
Lanfranchi 2003, 95.
225
Who was an Assyrian: see, for instance, the eponimy of year 712 or SAA 7 172, l.7 (LÚ.NAM KUR_[za]-mu-a).
224
44
2.2 The EST tablet as a sacred object meant for display
Once the ceremonies performed, Esarhaddon needed to have the tablets displayed
to serve as a reminder to his intended target audience (the magnates) of the commitment
they had made; hence, he chose the adê sworn by the Eastern vassals to be written down in
tablets that were meant to become a Tablet of Destinies,226 to be seen as a religious instead
of a political expression. In other words, he needed for the physical expression of this Treaty
to become sacred itself, not just the adê by virtue of the oath, but the tablet itself by virtue
of the adê. Thus, the Succession Oath-Tablet itself needed to be 1) atemporal, universal, 2)
awe-inspiring, and understood as always under the protection of the gods, forever present
in their minds; and 3) a point of reference, constitutional, apt to be a witness in lawsuits.
This was achieved in three ways:
a) The three sealings of Aššur
b) Monumental size and display in the sancta sanctorum
c) Made to be fully read
a) The three sealings of Aššur
This is doubtless the most striking visual element of the EST-tablets.227
Let’s briefly consider the most relevant features of each one and the significance of
226
In the Enūma Eliš (Epic of Creation) and Anzû bird narratives, it is seen as the compendium of cosmic
regulations established by Enlil, the supreme deity in Babylonia in the third and beginning of the second
millennium. It is also rikis Enlilūti “the bond of Enlilship”, that is the cosmic bond of heaven and underworld.
See George 1986, 138ff; SAAS 14, 148-152.
227
See drawings of the three in Watanabe 1985, Abb. 1, 2, 3 and 4.
45
the three combined.
-The Old Assyrian sealing: the smallest, impressed vertically in the middle, its legend
declares it to be “of the god Aššur, of the bīt alim”.
On a well-known article where George published a two-fragment tablet,228 one of
which describes an image featuring the god Aššur holding the Tablet of Destinies, on which,
in turn, the god and Sennacherib standing before him are depicted, George considered these
representations of god and king to be part of a seal impression on the Tablet. This he
connected to the Sumerian ceremonial name of the bīt alim of Assur as recorded in a NeoAssyrian cultic text (“the house *where…is+ put (and) the Tablet of Destinies is sealed as a
secret”) to suggest that the City Hall must have been a place for “the drawing up of treaties
and other state documents”,229 and as demonstrated by the presence of the bīt āli among
the shrines listed for this temple in said cultic text, and in a different section, that of its
deified representation residing in the temple of Bēl-šarru, a part of the nearby Nabû Temple
in Assur.230
-The Middle-Assyrian seal impression: impressed on the right side, legend illegible,
probably from the reign of Tukulti-Ninurta I, depicting the king between two deities, one of
them Aššur.231
-Sennacherib’s, impressed on the left side, depicting the king between Aššur and
Mullisu,232 and bearing the following legend:
233
RINAP 3/2 212 The Seal of Destinies [by which] Aššur (written AN.ŠÁR ), king of the gods, seals (the
destinies of) the Igīgū and Anunnakū gods, the heavens, the netherworld, and man*kind+. Whatever he seals
cannot be changed. Whoever (tries to) change (what he seals), may Aššur, king of the gods, (and) the goddess
Mullissu, together with their children, kill him with their mighty weapons. I am Sennacherib, king of [As]syria,
the ruler who reveres you. Whoever erases (my) [inscr]ibed name (or) alters this Seal of Destinies belonging to
you, erase his name (and) his seed from the land.
The question that arises concerning this sealing is: why did Esarhaddon use his
father’s divine seal instead of commissioning one of his own to the temple staff? The most
obvious answer is that he wanted the connection to the Tablet of Destinies concept and
228
K6177 + 8869.
George 1986, 140f; cf. Menzel 1981, No. 64, the so-called Götteraddresbuch, 159’ (T158). This text is
composed of eight lists or inventories, and was written by Kiṣir-Aššur, chief exorcist.
230
Loc.cit.; cf. Menzel 1981, No. 64, 158’-63’: 159’; 68’ (T150), together with Bel-šārru and Nabû.
231
For the problems with this seal’s iconography and fragmentary legend, see Fales’ comments with previous
literature: 2012, 138, n. 39.
232
Hence similar to Sennacherib’s Maltian and Bavian reliefs: Watanabe 1985, 382.
233
On the political theology behind the use of this name, see Frahm 2010, 9, 13.
229
46
literary topos, so well exploited by his father as part of the arrangements for the Akītu
festival dedicated to Aššur in Assur,234 to be transferred to his own Succession Treaty.
Moreover, as Fales remarks, that way he was emphasizing his father’s own succession on his
behalf.235
The three sealings need to be understood as one,236 their temporal continuum
contributing to the sense of atemporality that pervades the mythical narrations that inspire
them, but in case someone was missing the significance of these three sealing impressions
combined, Esarhaddon presents them with a two-line heading, divided into four columns:
“Seal of the god Aššur, king of the gods, lord of all the lands, not to be altered. Seal of the
great ruler, father of all the gods, not to be contested”.237 This heading is placed at the very
top of the obverse, hence, as Wiseman noticed, differing from Assyrian contracts “on which
the seal impression usually follows immediately after the written description of it.”238
b) Monumental size and display in the sancta sanctorum
The different versions of EST are, on average, 28 cm high x 42 cm long, which makes
this treaty-tablet clearly stand-out.239 Although the reasons behind it may be explained by its
intentionality, that is, its size was clearly meant to grab people’s immediate attention and to
appear as a precious, worship-worthy object; Esarhaddon deliberately recurred to past
tradition for “added value” and legitimacy. For practical reasons, inscribing the EST on stone
was unfeasible, but the sheer size of the clay tablets may have reminded their intended
234
George saw a connection between the iconography on Sennacherib’s “Seal of Destinies” and the image
described on the tablet published in the cited article (now RINAP 3/2 158). He regarded this tablet as a draft
for/ a transcription of a monumental inscription (1986, 138). However, as Frahm noted (1997, 221), neither the
legend nor the iconography in Sennacherib’s seal on EST coincide with the description on RINAP 3/2 158. He
suggested instead that the described image, having the Tablet of Destinies as a protagonist, may have been
part of the decoration of the bronze Bīt-Akīti Gate in Ešarra (cf. RINAP 3/2 160). SAA 12 86, a donation
allocating personnel for the newly-built Akītu of the Steppe in Assur, which Whiting and Kataja consider a draft
(see SAA 12, XX, XXV, XXXIVf), bears a superscript for the (missing) seal impression. The superscript reads: “The
se[al of] Aššur, king of the gods; the seal of the ruling God, not to be contested”. Considering the unfinished
state of this document, and despite the fact that its superscript bears no similarity to RINAP 3/2 212,
Sennacherib may have finally fashioned the latter for documents like this one.
235
2012, 138.
236
Watanabe realized that it was not only the Old Assyrian seal that should be seen as Aššur’s seal, as Wiseman
originally thought, but the three of them. Therefore: “Dieses Verfahren läßt auf den religiösen Charakter der
Vereidigung selbts schließen. (…) Asarhaddon beabsichtigte zweifellos, durch diese Siegelung die VTE mit
religiöser Autorität auszustatten und durch die drei verschieden alten Siegel die Authentizität der Siegelung zu
verstärken”; 1985, 388.
237
SAA 2 6, i-iv. Compare with superscript on SAA 12 86 (n. 235 above).
238
1958, 14.
239
See Diagram 1 on SAA 2, XLIV.
47
audience of past vassal treaties, which, as we saw in Part 1 when commenting SAA 2 1 and
the Sfire steles, may have been engraved on stone and displayed in a sacred place.
This traditional monumental display shared with past treaties not only its “attentiongrabbing” aspect, but also the sense of “atemporality”, further supported by provisions
stipulating that future generations were meant to respect EST too.
c) Made to be fully read
All the EST tablets need to be rotated along their vertical axis to continue reading
from the obverse to the reverse, as if turning a page in a book.240 This is a peculiarity not
only born out of practicality, given their size, but closely related to their display context.
As can be expected, Building XVI at Ta’yinat and the Nabû Temple at Nimrud differ far
more than they share. Building XVI measured 9 x 21 m and had a very simple layout,
consisting of a porch, a central room and the inner sanctum. The Ezida rose on an elevation
at the south of the citadel and had a complex layout, in accordance with what might be
expected considering its lifespan and status. While the Nabû Temple has evidence of postAssyrian occupation after its destruction,241 a fire put an end to Building XVI: “A thick layer of
collapsed burnt brick sealed the entire room, and in some places had fused with the
brickwork of the temple’s outer walls, vivid evidence of the intense conflagration that had
consumed the structure”.242
All these factors are important when considering the archaeological context in which
the epigraphic material unearthed together with T1801 was found, in the northeast
quadrant of the podium that occupied most of the inner sanctum of Building XVI, opposite
what must have been the altar.243 Three to seven tablets (9 fragments) are menologies
(calendrical omens),244 one is a docket, and the remaining one, a lexical list.245 This means
that the inner sanctum was at the same time a temple library of sorts and a cultic room.
T1801 was found face down (reverse facing up), as if it had toppled after falling in
situ. It was aligned with the temple’s north and west walls, across from the altar, though not
240
An observation already made by Wiseman: “The text of the reverse is written in the same direction as that
of the obverse so that the tablet has to be turned as the page of a book (…)” (1958, 14); and then in a footnote:
“Perhaps due to its large size” (n. 140). See also Watanabe 1987, 265.
241
Oates 1957, 36ff; Mallowan 1966, 271ff.
242
Harrison & Osborne 2012, 130.
243
Ibid., 137.
244
See now Lauinger 2016, 229-248.
245
Lauinger 2011, 6f.
48
facing it, but facing the newcomer:
All of the menologies belong to the iqqur īpuš series. Two of these have preserved a
pierced projection/handle: T1701+1923 has a handle on top, “pierced through its horizontal
axis so that the tablet, like amulet-shaped tablets known from elsewhere, could be hung on
display”;246 T1927 has a projection on its left side. “Only after the tablet received additional
cleaning did it become clear that this projection is also pierced, though necessarily through
the tablet’s vertical axis”.247 Lauinger suggests that these tablets were suspended as “a
votive object”.248
That these two tablets bore two piercings for hanging purposes may be correct,249
but the implication that they were sacred objects and their display is at the same ideological
level as EST seems a bit premature.
Generally speaking, tablets with projections, menologies, and specifically, iqqur īpuš
texts and within this series, tabular-format ones, seem to be scarce, as the author himself
acknowledges. Lauinger bases his thoughts on “amulet-shaped” tablets mostly on Reiner’s
1960 work on this subject. Reiner observed that the tablet she was studying, an incantation
against plague, had an “amulet shape” and incisions in a geometrical pattern to prevent
further writing, but that similar incantations may show a variety of features, including
246
2016, 232; 2011, 7. See figs. 1 and 2 on 2016, 233.
2016, 232; see figs. 3 and 4 on p. 234.
248
2011, 11. In his most recent article, he argues that this collection “was not stored in the temple for
safekeeping or reference but rather was put on display there”; 2016, 230.
249
See also the conservator’s observations to the author on 2016, 232. Note, however, that the piercing of
T1927 is said to be “smaller”.
247
49
projections that were always incised with double crosses or other geometrical shapes.250 She
concluded that “what was at first a purely functional device –a projection provided at the
upper end of a tablet to be pierced so as to be hung up– became associated with the
beneficent value originally inherent only in the content (…)”.251
However, as has been convincingly argued by Panayotov, many “tablets with a
projection or handle” do not have an apotropaic function at all.252 A cursory overview of
these tablets known or published to date will immediately give an impression of
heterogeneity.253
Since not all tablets with handle, even those well-preserved, had piercings, it
becomes clear that the handle itself had a different function than that of facilitating
suspension. SAA 10 6, quoted above, had Issar-šumu-ereš citing convenient days for the adê
ceremonies after consulting either a hemerology or a menology, which he calls ‘biblāni’,
“portables” (11’). In a Late Assyrian catalogue of scholarly texts, a commentary is made
equating this term to iqqur īpuš.254
Considering scribal lore during Esarhaddon’s reign was still in a “construction” phase,
that is, in a stage where sources from Babylonian private archives and Assyrian temple
libraries were still being collected, processed and selectively copied,255 it would be hasty to
assume menologies had acquired a sacred object status at this point.256 This is illustrated by
a letter written on two Late Babylonian scribal exercise tablets from Borsippa describing
250
Reiner called the apparently decorative incisions “magical diagrams” since they were, in her opinion, “a
cancellation of whatever blank space there was left on the amulet” in order “to prevent a further inscription
which might annul or reverse the protective power of the amulet” (1960, 151f). Thus, the geometrical shapes
framed the few signs that were sometimes inscribed on the projection.
251
Ibid., 155.
252
Or at least not conventionally apotropaic: cf. Panayotov 2013, nos. 3-4, 287. See also Panayotov & Llop
u
2013. Panayotov states that the terminus technicus IM.ŠU.GUB.BA=imšugubbû(ŠU- )=qa-tum šá ṭup-pi (apud
Landsberger 1959, 113, 118’; 102, 444’) refers most probably to this kind of tablet, or else, to the handle itself:
2013, n. 19.
253
The Assyrian King List of Khorsabad, a list of priests (KAV 26), a coronation ritual (KAR 135+), a building
inscription (KAH II 27), or a syllabary (K13.T5) can serve as illustrating examples. See the up-to-date
bibliography on n. 18 in Panayotov 2013, 287.
254
K14607+, l.7: diš iq-qur dù-uš ; bi-bil-a-ni; Koch 2015, 7, apud Lambert 1976.
255
Fincke 2003/2004, 117ff.
256
Lauinger observed that, in one instance in T1701+, “the length of the protasis far exceeds the amount of
space in the column allotted to it so that the protasis extends into the columns allotted to the months” (2016,
232, 239), and gives a similar occurrence from a Nineveh exemplar as an additional example. But the lack of
“neatness” in these tabular-format series tablets does not make them any less legible. See also the calendar
drawn at the end of the so-called Babylonian Diviner’s Manual, where commentaries are added: Oppenheim,
1974 200f, 212, 214.
50
certain kinds of tablets to be brought to an Assyrian king from Ezida:257
CT 22 1, ll 10-28: amulet-tablets for the king, for (crossing?) rivers, (tablets) to do with days (i.e.,
hemerologies), (menologies/rituals) of Nisannu, {stone amulets for (crossing?) rivers}, for (success in?) lawsuits,
“Day”, sets of four stone amulets for the head of the king’s bed and the foot of the king’s (bed), (the ritual)
Wand of E’ru-Wood, for the head of the king’s bed, the incantation “Let Ea and Asalluḫe use wisdom in full for
me!”, (tablets of) “Mustering” (the army?), series to do with war, as many as there are, including their
additional tablets, as many as there are, (the ritual) So that in Battle Arrows do not Come Near a Man, (the
series) Travelling through the Country, (the series) Entering the Palace, (medical?) rituals, šuilla-prayers,
inscriptions on stone amulets and those that are good for kingship, (the ritual) Purification of the City, (spells
against) Dizziness, (the medical text?) “Out of Concern” and any texts that might be needed in the palace, as
many as there are *…+
T1801 itself –whose piercing seemed at first to go all the way through its horizontal
axis some centimeters below the top–, is described now as having “two circular indentations
on either side, most likely made by pegs that helped hold it in a frame”. 258 Also of interest is
the observation that: “a varied pattern of oxidization on the tablet’s reverse may reflect
where this frame covered the tablet”.259 In the case of the two iqqur ipuš tablets, a curved
metal handle with two pegs or clamps at the ends, or a rope –as with T1701+1923–, could
have taken care of their portability and, perhaps, display.
Significantly, the EST differs from these tablets in two substantial points:
-there is no projection or handle, and
-the reverse can be read by rotating the tablet on its vertical axis
Together with the fact that the reverse seems to show some signs of metal
oxidization, the tablet probably lay resting on its lower edge on a table.260
257
Frame & George 2005. Frame and George concluded that: “The overwhelming impression given by the
letter is that the royal author wanted texts that would above all protect his person from sickness and keep him
free of injury” (p. 281).
258
Lauinger 2016, 230.
259
Loc.cit. Lauinger had stated: “Because the reverse faced up when the tablet toppled over in the fire that
destroyed the temple, it was completely baked” (2012, 90). Perhaps the metal encasing also helped keep the
reverse more or less intact.
260
As already proposed by Watanabe 1988, 265. See Fig. 8 on Lauinger 2011, 11.
51
CONCLUSION: RELIGIOUS DISPLAY AS AN ELEMENT OF POLITICAL CONTROL
This paper has discussed how, on his ninth regnal year, three years before his death,
Esarhaddon took advantage of beliefs based on mythical lore and Assyria’s hegemonic status
in Mesopotamia entailing display practices used for subjugation purposes in order to create
a Succession Treaty Tablet that would be seen as a religious icon instead of an instrument of
internal political control, with the aim of:
1) legitimizing his reign in the eyes of his subjects and rivals
2) endorsing Ashurbanipal’s right to rule, despite his not being the eldest son261
3) making the most powerful elite, namely the highest military officials, endorse
Ashurbanipal’s future rulership
Thus, Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty became a Tablet of Destinies in 672 BC.262 It
was the written expression of the will of Aššur, guaranteed by the god’s seals, forever to be
guarded by Nabû, who had also bestowed the sceptre of rulership on Ashurbanipal prior to
the adê ceremonies.
Depending on one’s perspective, Esarhaddon may be seen as an intelligent planner263
or as a paranoid ruler.264 Whether paranoid or methodical, as concerns the arrangement,
implementation and display of EST, he showed an understanding of Assyrian society that was
uncanny. The uniqueness of EST as a text, a tablet, and a ‘tableau’ of carefully orchestrated
ceremonies throughout the empire cannot be denied.
Esarhaddon was a king inclined to appear as a good follower of tradition and open to
negotiations, but his religious devotion and diplomatic skills should be read as a constant
effort to please and control the powerful and educated elites of Assyria and Babylonia.
261
Concerning Esarhaddon’s decision to appoint Šamaš-šumu-ukīn as king of Babylon, Porter pointed out that
“Esarhaddon was certainly aware of the threat the older brother Šamaš-šumu-ukīn might pose to
Assurbanipal’s succession”, but he “may have felt that he had no choice to placate Šamaš-šumu-ukīn and his
supporters (…). The kingship of Babylon may well have been the only appointment prestigious enough to serve
the purpose.” 1993, 134f.
262
Lauinger proposes a translation of all adê as “duty, destiny” (2013, 99; mostly after Durand 1991 and George
1986) taking EST as a point of reference because “it has come down to us in multiple exemplars, and this
fortunate event allows us to confirm that both vassal rulers and Assyrian administrators entered into the exact
same adê. From a methodological point-of-view, this fact is quite helpful because it gives us some justification
for considering any conclusions we reach about the nature of EST to be applicable to other adê’s whether they
involve the rulers of subordinate polities or various officials in the Neo-Assyrian empire” (p. 108). From a
historical point-of-view, however, EST must be regarded as a unique text, a product of a particular political
context.
263
Porter 1993.
264
Radner 2003b.
52
APPENDIX 1
Table 1
EST stipulations with an eye to the past or the future
Provisions to prevent same circumstances General
provisions
and
provisions
as those surrounding Sennacherib’s foreseeing potential problems in future
murder and subsequent war, or to codify
positive actions that led Esarhaddon to
the throne
§5 Obligation to Protect Heir –includes §7 Succession at Esarhaddon’s Untimely
warning against revolts and aiding Death
usurping brothers
§8 Definition of Loyalty
§6 Obligation to Report Opposition to §9 Prohibition of Disloyal Conduct –includes
Succession
brothers by the same mother
§10 Obligation to Report Treason
§16 Rejection of Rebellion
§11 Injunction against Treason –includes §17 Succession of Assurbanipal
handing heir over to enemy
§20 Action against Pretenders to Throne –
§12 Action against Those Suborning includes royal family members who have
Treason
fled to another country
§13 Action against Traitors –includes §21 Allegiance to Assurbanipal
prohibition to take a mutually bounding §22
Action
against
Murderer
of
oath to conclude an adê
Assurbanipal –if the heir is murdered, the
§14 Action against Open Rebellion
successor should be one of Esarhaddon’s or
§15 Obligation to Escape from Rebels
Ashurbanipal’s still unborn sons
§18 Rejection of Palace Revolt against §23 Prohibition against Killing Assurbanipal
Esarhaddon –it would seem Esarhaddon’s (by magical means)
fleeing to western lands may have come §24 Action in Favour of Assurbanipal's
after an attempt on his life as described Brothers –trying to promote siblings (of the
here
same mother) harmony
§19 Prohibition against Seditious Meetings §25
Perpetuating
Allegiance
to
§22 Action against Murderer of Assurbanipal –obligation to speak of the
Assurbanipal (in case he is murdered) –the oath to future generations; Šamaš-šumuattention paid to officers (bearded or ukin is a full brother of Ashurbanipal
eunuchs) in this section makes it likely that §26 Action against Usurper of Esarhaddon's
Arda-Mullissi and his brother did not kill Throne
their father, but had high-ranking officer(s) §29 and §30 Injunction against Fomenting
do it
Strife between Prince and His Brothers
§27 Injunction against Fomenting Strife §31 Injunction against Fomenting Strife
between King and Crown Prince
after Assurbanipal's Accession
§28 Response to Fomentors of Strife – §32 and §33 Prohibition against
again, Arda-Mullissi may have allowed and Invalidation/Undoing of Oath (by magical
encouraged other people to slander means)
Esarhaddon before his father
§34 Attitude toward Swearing the Oath –
active engagement is expected
§35 Obligation to Guard/Revere the OathTablet –the deities, together with the
53
statues of king and princes guard the treaty;
it should be revered like a god
§36 Injunction against Destroying the OathTablet
54
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Altman, A. (2003) ‘Who Took an Oath on a Vassal Treaty –Only the Vassal King or Also the Suzerain?
The Hittite Evidence’, Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 19, 178-184.
Amadasi Guzzo, M. G. (2014) Near Eastern Archaeology 77/1, 54-57.
Annus, A. (2002) The God Ninurta in the Mythology and Royal Ideology of Ancient Mesopotamia.
SAAS 14. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press.
Bahrani, Z. (2003) The graven image: representation in Babylonia and Assyria. Philadelphia, PA:
University of Pennsylvania Press.
Barré, M. (1985) ‘The First Pair of Deities in the Sefîre I God-List’, JNES 44/3, 205-210.
Beckman, G.M. & Hoffner, H.A. (1999) Hittite Diplomatic Texts, 2nd Edition. Atlanta, GA: Scholars
Press.
Bleibtreu, E. (1992) 'Standarten auf neuassyrischen Reliefs und Bronzetreibarbeiten' Baghdader
Mitteilungen 23, 347-356.
Borger, R. (1996) Beiträge zum Inschriftenwerk Assurbanipals. Die Prismenklassen A,B,C = K, D, E, F, G,
H, J und T sowie andere Inschriften. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.
Börker-Klähn, J. (1982) Altvorderasiatische Bildstelen und vergleichbare Felsreliefs. Mainz: Von
Zabern.
Brinkman, J.A. (1990) ‘Political Covenants, Treaties, and Loyalty Oaths in Babylonia and between
Assyria and Babylonia’, in L. Canfora et al. (Eds.), I trattati nel mondo antico. Forma ideologia
funzione, 81-105. Roma: “L’Erma” di Bretschneider.
Cole, S. W. (1996) Nippur IV: The early Neo-Babylonian Governor’s Archive from Nippur. OIP 114.
Chicago, IL: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.
Cole, S. W. (1996) Nippur in Late Assyrian Times c. 755-612 BC. SAAS 4. Helsinki: Helsinki University
Press.
Cole, S. W. and P. Machinist (Eds.) (1998) Letters from Priests to the Kings Esarhaddon and
Assurbanipal. SAA 13. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press.
Dalley, S. (1989) Myths from Mesopotamia. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
Deller, K. (1992) 'Enleitung'; 'Neuassyrische Rituale für den Einsatz der Götterstreitwagen‘,
Baghdader Mitteilungen 23, 291-298; 341-346.
Dezsö, T. (2006) ‘Šubria and the Assyrian Empire’, Acta Antiqua Hungaricae 46, 33-38.
Dezsö, T. (2012) The Assyrian Army. The Structure of the Neo-Assyrian Army. Vol. 1 Infantry. Vol. 2
Cavalry and Chariotry. Budapest: Eötvös University Press.
Dion, P.-E. (1997) Les Araméens à l'âge du fer : histoire politique et structures sociales, Paris: Gabalda.
Donbaz, V. and S. Parpola (2001) Neo-Assyrian Legal Texts in Istanbul. StAT Band 2. Berlin: Deutsche
Orient-Gessellschaft Berlin. Helsinki, Helsinki University Press.
Donner, H. & W. Rollig (1971) Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften. Band I: Texte. Wiesbaden:
55
Harrassowitz.
Durand, J.-M. (1991) ‘Précurseurs syriens aux Protocoles néo-assyriens’, in Garelli P. et al. (Eds.)
Marchands, diplomates et empereurs: études sur la civilization mesopotamienne offertes a Paul
Garelli, 13-71. Paris: Éditions Recherches sur les Civilizations.
Eidem, J. and Laessoɇ, K (2001) The Shemshara Archives, Vol. 1 The Letters. Copenhagen:
Munksgaard.
Eph’al, I. (1982) The ancient Arabs: nomads on the borders of the fertile crescent 9th-5th centuries
B.C.. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, The Hebrew University; Leiden: Brill.
Fales, F. M. (1988) ‘Neo-Assyrian Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, 2: The Many Faces of
Nabû-Šarru-Uṣur’, SAAB 2, 104-121.
Fales, F.M., (1990) ‘Istituzioni a confronto tra mondo semitico occidentale e Assiria nel I millennio
A.C.: Il trattato di Sefire’, in L. Canfora et al. I Trattatti nel mondo antico: forma, ideologia, funzione,
149-173. Roma: “L’Erma” di Bretschneider.
Fales, F.M. (2003) ‘Evidence for west-east contacts in the 8th century BC: the Bukan Stele’, in G.B.
Lanfranchi et al. (Eds.) Continuity of Empire (?): Assyria, Media, Persia, 131-148. Padova: Sargon.
Fales, F.M. (2009-2011) ‘Sefire’, Reallexikon der Assyriologie 12, 342-344.
Fales, F.M. (2012) ‘After Ta’yinat: The New Status of Esarhaddon’s Adê for Assyrian Political History’,
Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 106, 133-158.
Fales, F.M. and Lanfranchi, G.B. (1981) ‘ABL 1237: The Role of the Cimmerians in a Letter to
Esarhaddon’, East and West 31, 9-33
Fales, F.M. & J.N. Postgate (1992) Imperial Administrative Records. Part I: Palace and Temple
Administration. SAA 7. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press.
Fincke, J. C. (2003/2004) ‘The Babylonian Texts of Nineveh. Report on the British Museum’s
Ashurbanipal Library Project’. Archiv Für Orientforschung 50, 111-149.
Fitzmyer, J. A. (1995) The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefire, Rev. Ed., Roma: Editrice Pontificio Istituto
Biblico.
Frahm, E. (1997) Einleitung in die Sanherib-Inschriften. Wien: Institut fü r Orientalistik der Universität
Wien.
Frahm, E. (2009) Historische und historisch-literarische Texte. Keilschrifttexte aus Assur literarischen
Inhalts Bd. 3, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Frahm, E. (2010) ‘Counter-texts, Commentaries, and Adaptations: Politically Motivated Responses to
the Babylonian Epic of Creation in Mesopotamia, the Biblical World, and Elsewhere’, Orient 45, 3-34.
Frame, G. & A. R. George (2005) ‘The Royal Libraries of Nineveh: New Evidence for King
Ashurbanipal’s Tablet Collecting Author(s)’, Iraq 67/1, Papers of the 49th RAI II, 265-284.
Frankena, R. (1954) Tākultu, de sacrale maaltijd in het Assyrische ritueel : met een overzicht over de in
Assur vereerde goden. Leiden: s.n.
Fuchs, A. (2008) 'Der Turtān Šamšī-ilu und die große Zeit der assyrischen Großen (830-746)', Der Welt
des Orients 38, 61-145.
56
Fuchs, A. & S. Parpola (2001) Letters from Babylonia and the Eastern Provinces (Sargon II, Part 3). SAA
15. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press.
George, A. R. (1986) ‘Sennacherib and the Tablet of Destinies’, Iraq 48, 133-146.
George, A. R. (1992) Babylonian Topographical Texts. Leuven: Peeters.
George, A. R. (1996) ‘Studies in Cultic Topography and Ideology’, Biblioteca Orientalis 53, 363-395.
Gilibert, A. (2011) Syro-Hittite Monumental Art and the Archaeology of Performance: Stone Reliefs at
Carchemish and Zincirli in the Earlier First Millennium B.C.E.. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Gitin, D. & Y. Naveh (1997) ‘A Royal Dedicatory Inscription from Ekron’, IEJ 48, 1-16.
Grayson, A.K. (1975) Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles. Locust Valley, NY: J.J. Augustin Publisher.
Grayson, A.K. (1987) ‘Akkadian Treaties of the Seventh Century B.C’, Journal of Cuneiform Studies
39/2, 127-160.
Grayson, A.K. (1993) ‘Assyrian Officials and Power in the Ninth and Eighth Centuries’, SAAB 7, 19-52.
Grayson, A.K. (2002) Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC II (858-745 BC). RIMA 3. Toronto,
Buffalo, London: University of Toronto Press.
Grayson, A.K. and Novotny, J. (2012) The Royal Inscriptions of Sennacherib, King of Assyria (704-681
BC), RINAP 3/1, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Grayson, A.K. and Novotny, J. (2014) The Royal Inscriptions of Sennacherib, King of Assyria (704-681
BC), RINAP 3/2, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Greenfield, J.C. (1991) ‘Asylum at Aleppo: A Note on Sefire III, 4-7’, in M. Cogan et al. (Eds.) AH,
Assyria…: studies in Assyrian history and ANE historiography presented to Hayim Tadmor, 272-278.
Jerusalem: Magnes Press, Hebrew University.
Gzella, H. (2004) Tempus, Aspekt und Modalität im Reichsaramäischen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Harrison, T.P. (2009) ‘Neo-Hittites in the “Land of Palistin”: Renewed Investigations at Tell Ta’yinat on
the Plain of Antioch’, Near Eastern Archaeology 72/4, 174-189.
Harrison, T.P. and Osborne J.F (2012) ‘Building XVI and the Neo-Assyrian Sacred Precinct at Tell
Tayinat’, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 64, 125-143.
Hawkins, J.D. (2000) Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions. Vol. 1: Inscriptions of the Iron Age.
Berlin. NY: de Gruyter.
Hoftijzer, J. et al. (1995) Dictionary of North-West Semitic Inscriptions. Leiden: Brill.
Holloway, S. W. (2002) Aššur is King, Aššur is King!: Religion in the Exercise of Power in the NeoAssyrian Empire. Leiden: Brill.
Holloway, S.W. (2001) ‘The GIŠKakki Aššur and Neo-Assyrian Loyalty Oaths’, in P. Steinkeller et al. (Eds.)
Historiography in the Cuneiform World, Part 1: Proceedings of the 45 RAI, 239-66. Bethesda, MD: CDL
Press.
Hurowitz, V. (1997) ‘A Hymn Celebrating Assurnasirpal II’s Campaigns to the West (LKA 64)’ in W.Wl.
Hallo (Ed.) The Context of Scripture, Vol. 1, 470-71. Leiden: Brill.
Ikeda, I. (1993) ‘Once again KTK in the Sefire Inscriptions’, Eretz Israel 24 (Fs. Malamat), 104-108.
57
Kahn, D. (2007) ‘The Kingdom of Arpad (Bīt-Agūsi) and “All Aram”’, Ancient Near Eastern Studies 44,
66-89.
Kataja, L. & R. M. Whiting (1995) Grants, decrees and gifts of the Neo-Assyrian Period. SAA 12.
Helsinki: Helsinki University Press.
Kaufman, S.A. (2007) “The Phoenician Inscription of the Incirli Trilingual: A Tentative Reconstruction
and Translation”, Maarav 14/2, 7-26.
Knapp, A. (2016) ‘The Sitz im Leben of Esarhaddon’s Apology’, JCS 68, 181-195.
Koch, U.S. (2015) ‘Review of Alasdair Livingstone, Hemerologies of Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars’
(Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology). Bethesda: CDL Press 2013, posted on the
Cuneiform Library at Cornell University website on 01/11/2015:
http://cuneiform.library.cornell.edu/sites/default/files/Review_of_Alasdair_Livingstone_Hemerologi
es_CUSAS_25.pdf
Kohlmeyer, K. (2009) ‘The Temple of the Storm God in Aleppo during the Late Bronze and Early Iron
Ages’, Near Eastern Archaeology 72/4, 190-202.
Kwasman, T. & S. Parpola (1991) Legal Transactions of the Royal Court of Nineveh. Part 1: TiglathPileser III through Esarhaddon. SAA 6. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press.
Lafont, B. (2001) ‘Relations internationales, alliances et diplomatie au temps des royaumes
amorrites’, in Durand, J.-M. and Charpin, D. (Eds.) Mari, Ébla et les Hourrites, dix ans de travaux
(Amurru 2), 213-328. Paris : Éditions Recherches sur les Civilizations.
Lanfranchi, G. B. (2003) ‘The Assyrian expansion in the Zagros and the local ruling elites’, Continuity
of Empire (?): Assyria, Media, Persia, 79-118. Padova: Sargon.
Lauinger, J. (2011) ‘Some Preliminary Thoughts on the Tablet collection in Builiding XVI from Tell
Tayinat’, Journal of the Canadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies 6, 5-14.
Lauinger, J. (2012) ‘Esarhaddon's Succession Treaty at Tell Tayinat: Text and Commentary’, Journal of
Cuneiform Studies 64, 87-123.
Lauinger, J. (2013) ‘The Neo-Assyrian adê: Treaty, Oath or Something Else?’, Zeitschrift für
Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 19, 99-115.
Lauinger, J. (2016) ‘Iqqur Īpuš at Tell Tayinat’, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 68, 229-248.
Leichty, E. (1991) ‘Esarhaddon’s Letter to the Gods’ in M. Cogan et al. (Eds.) AH, Assyria…: studies in
Assyrian history and ANE historiography presented to Hayim Tadmor, 52-57. Jerusalem: Magnes
Press, Hebrew University.
Leichty, E. (2011) The Royal Inscriptions of Esarhaddon, king of Assyria (680-669 BC). RINAP 4.
Winona Lake, Ind: Eisenbrauns.
Lemaire, A. and Durand, J.-M. (1984) Les inscriptions araméennes de Sfiré et l'Assyrie de Shamshi-ilu,
Genève, Paris: DROZ.
Lie, A. G. (1929) The inscriptions of Sargon II, King of Assyria, Paris: Paul Geuthner.
Lipioski, E. (2000) The Aramaeans: their ancient history, culture, religion. Leuven: Peeters.
Liverani, M. (1982) ‘Kitru, Katāru’, Mesopotamia 17, 43-66.
58
Liverani, M. (1995), ‘The Medes at Esarhaddon’s Court’, JCS 47, 57-62.
Liverani, M. (2000) ‘Once again on MLK KTK in the Sefire Stelas’, NABU 2000/53.
Livingstone, A. (1989) Court Poetry and Literary Miscellanea. SAA 3. Helsinki: Helsinki University
Press.
Luukko, M. & G. Van Buylaere (2002) The Political Correspondence of Esarhaddon. SAA 16. Helsinki:
Helsinki University Press.
Luukko, M. (2012) The Correspondence of Tiglath-Pileser III and Sargon II from Calah/Nimrud. SAA
19. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press.
Magen, U. (1986) Assyrische Königsdarstellungen: Aspekte der Herrschaft; eine Typologie. Mainz am
Rhein: Philipp von Zabern.
Mallowan, M. (1957) ‘The excavations at Nimrud (Kalḫu), 1956’, Iraq 19/1, 1-25.
Mallowan, M. (1966) Nimrud and Its Remains. New York: Dodd, Mead; London: Collins.
Mallowan, M. and L.G. Davies (1970) Ivories from Nimrud (1949-1963) Fascicule II: Ivories in Assyrian
Style. London: The British School of Archaeology in Iraq.
Matshushima, E. (1987) ‘Le Rituel Hiérogamique de Nabû’, Acta Sumerologica 9, 131-175.
Matshushima, E. (1988) ‘Les Rituels du Mariage Divin dans les Documents Accadiens’, Acta
Sumerologica 10, 95-128.
Mattila, R. (2000) The King’s Magnates. A Study of the highest Officials of the Neo-Assyrian Empire.
SAAS 11. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press.
Menzel, B. (1981) Assyrische Tempel. Bd. II: Anmerkungen, Textbuch, Tabellen und Indices, Rome:
Biblical Institute Press
Millard, A. (1994) The Eponyms of the Assyrian Empire 910-612 BC. SAAS 2. Helsinki: Helsinki
University Press.
Millard, J.L. (2013) Royal Hittite Instructions and Related Administrative Texts. Atlanta, GA: Scholars
Press for the Society of Biblical Literature.
Na’aman, N. (2005) ‘Forced Participation in Alliances in the Course of the Assyrian Campaigns to the
West’, in Ancient Israel and its neighbors: interaction and counteraction. Collected Essays, Vol. 1, 1639. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Na’aman, N. (2006) ‘Sennacherib’s Sons Flight to Urartu’, NABU 2006/5.
Niehr, H. (2014) in Niehr, H. The Aramaeans in Ancient Syria. Chapter 6: Religion; 7: Art. Leiden: Brill.
Nissinen, M. (1998) References to Prophecy in Neo-Assyrian Sources. SAAS 7. Helsinki: The NeoAssyrian Text Corpus Project.
Nissinen, M. (2001) ‘Akkadian Rituals and Poetry of Divine Love’ in Whiting, R.M (Ed.) Mythology and
Mythologies. Methodological Approaches to Intercultural Influences. Proceedings of the Second
Annual Symposium of the Assyrian and Babylonian Intellectual Heritage Project held in Paris, France,
October 4-7, 1999, 93-136. Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project.
Novotny, J. (2014) ‘ “I did not alter the site where that temple stood”: Thoughts On Esarhaddon’s
59
Rebuilding of the Aššur Temple’, JCS 66, 91-112.
Oates, D. (1957) ‘The Temple of Nabû’, Iraq 19/1, 26-39.
Oates, J. and D. Oates (2001) Nimrud: an Assyrian imperial city revealed. London: British School of
Archaeology in Iraq.
Oppenheim, A.L. (1960) ‘The City of Assur in 714 B.C.’, JNES 19/2, 133-147.
Oppenheim, A.L. (1974) ‘A Babylonian Diviners Manual’ JNES 33/2, 197-220.
Otten, H. (1988) Die Bronzetafel aus Boğazköy: ein Staatsvertrag Tutḫalijas IV. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz.
Panayotov, S. V. (2013) “A Ritual for a Flourishing Bordello”, BiOr 70, 285-309.
Panayotov, S. V. & J. Llop-Radua, (2013) ‘A Middle-Assyrian Juridical Text on a Tablet with Handle’,
Oriental Archive 81, 223-233.
Parker, B. (1954) ‘The Nimrud Tablets, 1952: Business Documents’, Iraq 16/1, 29-58.
Parpola, S. (1980) ‘The Murderer of Sennacherib’, in B. Alster (Ed.) Death in Mesopotamia.
Proceedings of RAI 26, 171-82. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag.
Parpola, S. (1983), Letters from Assyrian scholars to the kings Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal, Part II.
Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, etc.
Parpola, S. (1987) Letters from Assyria and the West (Sargon II, Part I). SAA 1. Helsinki: Helsinki
University Press.
Parpola, S. (1987) ‘Neo-Assyrian Treaties from the Royal Archives of Nineveh’, JCS 39/2, 161-189.
Parpola, S. (1989) in Tadmor, H. Landsberger, B. and Parpola, S. ‘The Sin of Sargon and Sennacherib’s
Last Will’, SAAB 3, 3-51, Part IV: pp. 45-49.
Parpola, S. (1993) Letters from Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars. SAA 10. Helsinki: Helsinki University
Press.
Parpola S. (1997) Assyrian Prophecies. SAA 9. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press.
Parpola, S. & K. Koskenniemi (1970) Neo-Assyrian Toponyms. Kevelaer: Butzon&Bercker, etc.;
Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag des Erziehungsvereins.
Parpola, S. & K. Watanabe (1988) Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths. SAA 2. Helsinki: Helsinki
University Press.
Parpola, S. & M. Porter, Eds. (2001) The Helsinki Atlas of the Near East in the Neo-Assyrian Period.
Maine: The Casco Bay Assyriological Institute & Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project.
Pomponio, F. (1998-2001) ‘Nabû. A. Philologisch’. Reallexikon der Assyriologie 9, pp. 17-24. Berlin,
New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Ponchia, S. (2002-2005) ‘Notes on the legal conventions and on the practice of the adê’, SAAB 14,
133-167.
Pongratz-Leisten, B. (1994) Ina šulmi īrub: die kulttopographische und ideologische Programmatik der
akītu-Prozession in Babylonien und Assyrien im 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr.. Mainz am Rhein: Von Zabern.
60
Pongratz-Leisten, B. (1997) ‘The Interplay of Military Strategy and Cultic Practice in Assyrian Politics’,
in S. Parpola and R.M. Whiting (Eds.) Assyria 1995, pp. 242-52. Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text
Corpus Project.
Pongratz-Leisten, B. (2015) Religion and Ideology in Assyria. Boston: De Gruyter.
Pongratz-Leisten, B. ‘“The Writing of the God” and the Textualization of Neo-Assyrian Prophecy’,
Institute
for
Advanced
Study,
Princeton,
self-published:
https://www.academia.edu/369483/_The_Writing_of_the_God_and_the_Textualization_of_NeoAssyrian_Prophecy
Porter, B.N. (1993) Images, Power, Politics. Figurative Aspects of Esarhaddon’s Babylonian Policy.
Philadelphia: American Oriental Society
Postgate, J.N. (1974) ‘The bit akiti in Assyrian Nabû Temples’, Sumer 30, 51-74.
Puech, E. (1992) ‘La stèle de Bar-Hadad et les rois d’Arpad’, Revue Biblique 99, 311-334.
Radner, K. (2003a), 'An Assyrian view on the Medes', in G. B. Lanfranchi et al. (Eds.), Continuity of
Empire (?): Assyria, Media, Persia, pp. 37-64. Padova: Sargon.
Radner, (2003b) ‘The Trials of Esarhaddon: The Conspiracy of 670’, ISIMU 6, 165-184.
Radner, K. (2006) ‘Assyrische ṭuppi adê als Vorbild für Deuteronomium 28, 20-44?’, in M. Witte et al.
(Eds.) Die deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerke. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamenliche
Wissenschaft, Band 365, pp. 351-378. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Radner, K. (2006-8), ´Provinz. C. Assyrien‘, Reallexikon der Assyriologie 11, 42-68.
Radner, K. (2010) ‘Gate Keepers and Lock Masters’ in H.D. Baker et al. (Eds.) Your Praise is Sweet: a
Memorial Volume for Jeremy Black, 269-280. London: British Institute for the Study of Iraq.
Radner, K. (2012a) ‘Between a rock and a hard place: Muṣaṣir, Kumme, Ukku and Šubria –the buffer
states between Assyria and Urarṭu’, Acta Iranica 51, 243-264.
Radner, K. (2012b) ‘The Stele of Adad-nērārī III and Nergal-ēreš from Dūr Katlimmu (Tell ŠaihḤamad)’, AfO 39, 265-277.
Reade, J.E. (1998-2001) ‘Ninive (Nineveh)’ Reallexikon der Assyriologie 9, 388-433. Berlin, New York:
Walter de Gruyter.
Reiner, E. (1958) Šurpu. A Collection of Sumerian and Akkadian Incantations. AfO Beiheft 11. Graz: Im
Selbstverlage des Herausgebers.
Reiner, E. (1960) ‘Plague Amulets and House Blessings’, JNES 19/2, 148-155.
Reynolds, F. (2003) The Babylonian Correspondence of Esarhaddon and Letters to Ashurbanipal and
Sin-šarru-iškun from northern and central Babylonia. SAA 18. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press.
Sader, H. (2014) in Niehr, H. The Aramaeans in Ancient Syria, Chapter 2: History. Leiden: Brill.
Schmitt, A. W. (2012) Die Jüngeren Ischtar-Tempel und der Nabû-Tempel in Assur: Architektur,
Stratigraphie und Funde. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
61
Schwemer, D. (2001) Die Wettergottgestalten. Die Wettergottgestalten Mesopotamiens und
Nordsyriens im Zeitalter der Keilschriftkulturen: Materialien und Studien nach den schriftlichen
Quellen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Staubli, T. (2003) 'Sin von Harran und seine Verbreitung im Westen', in Werbung für die Götter.
Heilsbringer aus 4000 Jahren. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag.
Starr, I. & Aro, J. (1990) Queries to the Sun God: Divination and Politics in Sargonid Assyria. SAA 4.
Helsinki: Helsinki University Press.
Steymans, H.U. (2006) ‘Die literarische und historische Bedeutung der Thronfolgevereidigung
Asarhaddons‘, in M. Witte et al. (Eds.) Die deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerke, Beihefte zur
Zeitschrift für die alttestamenliche Wissenschaft, Band 365, pp. 331-349. Berlin, New York: Walter de
Gruyter.
Tadmor, H. (1982) ‘Treaty and Oath in Ancient Near East’, in G.M. Tucker and D. Knight (Eds.)
Humanizing America’s Iconic Book. Society of Biblical literature centennial addresses 1980, pp. 127152. Chico, CA: Scholars Press.
Tadmor, H. (1983) ‘Autobiographical Apology in the Royal Assyrian Literature’, in H. Tadmor et al.
(Eds.) History, Historiography and Interpretation: Studies in Biblical and Cuneiform Literatures, 36-57.
Jerusalem: Magnes Press, Hebrew University.
Tadmor, H. (1987) ‘The Aramaization of Assyria: Aspects of Western Impact’, in H. Nissen and J.
Renger (Eds.) Mesopotamien und seine Nachbarn: Politische und kulturelle Wechselbeziehungen im
alten Vorderasien vom 4. Bis 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr., 449-470. Berlin: Reimer.
Tadmor, H. (2007) The Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III, King of Assyria. Jerusalem: The Israel
Academy of Sciences and Humanies.
Tadmor, H. et al. (2007) The Royal Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III (744-727 BC) and Shalmaneser V
(726-722 BC), Kings of Assyria. RINAP 1. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Talshir, D. (2003), ‘The relativity of geographic terms and re-investigation of the problem of Upper
and Lower Aram’, Journal of Semitic Studies 48, 259-285.
Ungnad, A. (1940) 'Spätassyrische und neubabylonische Privaturkunden vom Tell Halaf', in Die
Inschriften vom Tell Halaf, in Friedriech et al. (Eds.) AfO Beiheft 6. Berlin: Ernst F. Weidner.
Van der Toorn, K. (1992) “Anat-Yahu, Some Other Deities, and the Jews of Elephantine”, Numen 39/1,
80-101.
Warmenbol, E. (1985) ‘La statuette égyptisante de Sfiré, en Syrie du Nord: une image d’orant de la
première moitié du Ier millénaire AV.N.È.’, in E. Gubel and E. Lipi’nski (Eds.) Phoenicia and Its
Neighbours (StPhIII), pp. 163-180. Leuven: Peeters.
Watanabe, K. (1985) ‘Die Siegelung der ‘Vasallenverträge Asarhaddons’ durch den Gott Aššur‘,
Baghdader Mitteilungen 16, 377-392.
Watanabe, K. (1987) Die adê-Vereidigung anlässlich der Thronfolgeregelung Asarhaddons, Baghdader
Mitteilungen Beiheft 3, Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag.
62
Watanabe, K. (1988) ‘Die Anordnung der Kolumnen der VTE-Tafeln’, Acta Sumerologica 10, 265-6.
Weissert, E. (1997) ‘Royal Hunt and Royal Triumph in a Prism Fragment of Ashurbanipal (82-5-22,2)’,
in S. Parpola and R.M. Whiting (Eds.) Assyria 1995, pp. 339-358. Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text
Corpus Project.
Wesselius, J. W. (1984) ‘A New Reading in Sfire III, 18’, BiOr 41, 589-591.
Wiseman, R. (1958) ‘The Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon’, Iraq 20/1, pp. i-ii + 1-99.
Wiseman, D. J. & J. Black (1996) Literary Texts from the Temple of Nabû. CTN 4. London: British
School of Archaeology in Iraq.
Yamada, S. (2000) The Construction of the Assyrian Empire. A Historical Study of the Inscriptions of
Shalmaneser III (859-824 BC) Relating to his Campaigns to the West. Leiden: Brill.
63