A Companion to Assyria

by Eckart Frahm

  The Hittite Teli‐Šarruma may well have been a member of the royal family from Carchemish (cf. Adamthwaite 2001: 64). His delegation had four chariots, three mule‐drawn wagons, and six donkeys. All in all, there were sixteen people who received beer, bread, meat, and spices, whereas the chariot drivers were supplied with beer of a higher quality than the rest of the group. The emissary of the Pharaoh, a certain Milku‐ramu from Sidon, had only one chariot and three donkeys. With him was Yabnan from Amurru. He was accompanied by another three men. All of these four travellers went on foot with ten donkeys.

  About five days afterwards, the Assyrian “foreign office” announced another delegation from Sidon, this time representing the city itself (Jakob 2009: 68f.). Contrary to the usual proceedings, only the origin of the delegate is mentioned and his name omitted. The amount of food supplied for the delegation corresponds to the provisions of the aforementioned Yabnan.

  The Assyrian scribes meticulously registered what was brought to the king in Ashur. Usually, he received both letters and a gift from a foreign ruler, so it is quite interesting to observe that the Egyptian envoy bore only some tablets with communications. It appears as if the Pharaoh did not attach great importance to his relationship with Assyria. Nevertheless, he was surely attempting, as were all of the other rulers who were sending their delegates, to hear about the plans of the conquerer of Babylon firsthand.

  Moreover, Amurru and Sidon could evaluate their present political stance towards the major powers Ḫatti and Egypt on the one hand and the future possibilities of a new coalition on the other. The Hittites, however, were interested in cultivating good relations with Assyria. During the course of the year, a lively exchange of messengers can be observed on the overland route in North Syria (Jakob 2009: 5). Ḫatti was hence willing to accept the claim by Tukulti‐Ninurta of his lordship over Babylonia. If the anti‐Assyrian party was still active there, it could hardly hope for help from its former ally.

  The south, in the meantime, seems to have been systematically exploited. In the (presumably) following year (Abi‐ili, son of Katiri; see Freydank 1991: 62f.), the construction of cargo ships was commissioned “to transport” great amounts of barley “from the Babylonian campaign” to the Assyrian heartland (MARV IV 34:15–18).

  Assyria now extended from the “Upper Sea to the Lower Sea,” and Tukulti‐Ninurta I was at the zenith of his power. As the “king of the extensive mountains and plains,” he ruled over the lands of Šubaru, Qutû, and Nairi, receiving tribute “from the four quarters” (RIMA 1, A.O.78.24:16–20). The Eastern Tigris River region was most likely under Assyrian control as well after regional centers like Arrapḫa had been integrated into the administrative structure of the state. In the west, where the anonymous “enemy” had constantly caused trouble in recent years, the Assyrian army, headed by Tukulti‐Ninurta himself, achieved considerable successes while thousands of workers were employed at the royal palaces in Ashur and Kar‐Tukulti‐Ninurta (MARV II 17). But the triumph did not last long. Assyria’s forces were overstrained, they were just enough to win battles but they were not sufficient to secure the conquered lands permanently. So, the tide turned again.

  The resistance against the Assyrians presumably grew in the southwest of Babylonia first, closely associated with a certain Adad‐šuma‐uṣur. Chronicle P ascribes the liberation of Babylonia from Assyrian rule to him: “The Akkadian officers of Karduniaš had rebelled and put Adad‐šuma‐uṣur on his father’s throne” (Grayson 1975: 176). In two inscriptions on bronze daggers from a private collection (Dossin 1962: 151), the new ruler calls himself a son of Kaštiliaš. Apart from this, Adad‐šuma‐uṣur never gives a filiation.

  In a letter from the Elamite king Kutir‐Naḫḫunte (or Šutruk‐Naḫḫunte?), we find Adad‐šuma‐uṣur among several usurpers who are blamed for illegally seizing the throne of Babylonia in contradiction to Elamite claims. There, the name of his father is given as Dunna‐Ṣaḫ and his origin as the Middle Euphrates River region (ša aḫ Puratti). Since this “letter” is a literary creation of the first millennium BCE rather than an authentic document from the end of the 13th century BCE (Brinkmann 2004: 292), this information does not have to be taken literally. Nonetheless, there is perhaps an element of truth in the text.

  It may be that Adad‐šuma‐uṣur actually did come from Suḫu and styled himself as a descendant of Kaštiliaš only later, trying to establish a connection to times prior to the Assyrian invasion. Or he truly was his legitimate successor and had gone into exile to Suḫu after his father’s defeat to envisage the reconquest of Babylonia from there. In both cases, it seems reasonable to assume that he was the “servant of Suḫu” mentioned in a letter from Tukulti‐Ninurta to the Hittite king Šuppiluliuma II (Singer 2008; for a different view cf. Durand and Marti 2005: 127–9). Several fragments of this communication, dating back to the eponym year of Ili‐padâ, are known today (KBo XXVIII 61–4). The Assyrian king complained to the Hittite king that he had remained silent on the usurpation of the “servant of Suḫu” (in Babylon?), which was an illegal seizure of power against Assyria’s interests. This reproach was all the more serious since diplomatic contacts between Assyria and Ḫatti went far beyond tolerance at this time, comprising not only economic, but also military cooperation (Cancik‐Kirschbaum 1996: 117–28; Singer 2008: 237).

  However, reading between the lines, it is possible to detect an increasing internal isolation of Tukulti‐Ninurta. Maybe there were also some opposition parties at the royal court who were dissatisfied with the king’s policies. At least, that is how the following words in KBo 28.63:9’ might be understood: “If I am alive, [I will send(?)] a message of/about my life, but if I am dead, the message of/about my death [will be sent to you(?)]” (see Singer 2008: 226).

  At this time, a bilingual prayer (KAR 128) might have been written wherein the aged monarch draws a positive picture of his reign, emphasizing his piety and faithfulness to the god Assur (see Foster 2005: 318–23): “I am he who ensures your rites, who keeps your ablutions pure. My prayers are continous before you, every[where]” (l. 55’–56’).

  This is in direct contrast to an eloquent lament over the wickedness of all the people of the world and their ingratitude to the Assyrian king: “The lands of one accord have surrounded your city Ashur with a noose of evil. All [of them] have come to hate the shepherd whom you named, who administers your people” (l.17’). In contrast to official inscriptions, in this text Tukulti‐Ninurta was not afraid to admit defeat and failures: “Your enemies and foes are glowering at [your standing?] place. They have concerted to plunder your country, O Assur, … and to destroy your cities, they strive above and below” (l. 24’–25’, 27’).

  In fact, there was little left of the glory of days past. In the view of Tukulti‐Ninurta, Babylonia belonged to the countries that he had acquired by the command of his lord Assur. If, in the meantime, someone else had been able to seize power, the sorrow of the Assyrian king was more than understandable. But the conflict with the suspected “servant of Suḫu” must have begun much earlier. According to the Babylonian King List, Adad‐šuma‐uṣur ruled for thirty years. Excluding the Assyrian seven‐year interregnum, he follows immediately after Adad‐šuma‐iddina, i.e. the years of Tukulti‐Ninurta’s reign were credited to him by later Babylonian tradition.

  The earliest evidence for his control over the city of Babylon dates to Adad‐šuma‐ uṣur’s 27th regnal year (Yamada 2003: 166). It seems, therefore, reasonable to assume that the compilers of the King List simply summarized several stages of Adad‐šuma‐ uṣur’s rule. In the initial phase, perhaps even already during the reign of the Assyrian puppet king Adad‐šuma‐iddina, he arguably took the city of Ur, attempting to gain more influence in the north. It is known, for example, that he carried out restoration works on sanctuaries in Nippur and Isin (Walker 1982: 405).

  Given that Adad‐šuma‐uṣur may well have been the natural son of Kaštiliaš IV and may have sought safety in Su
ḫu after the latter’s defeat and deportation, it comes as no surprise that the Babylonian elite regarded the support of Adad‐šuma‐uṣur as a welcome opportunity to restore the independence of their land after the latter had established a power base in the southwest of Babylonia.

  The Decline of Power in the Period after Tukulti‐Ninurta I

  After Assyria’s loss of dominion over its southern neighbor, trust in the authority of Tukulti‐Ninurta might have declined noticeably in his own land. Finally, in the 37th year of his reign, the time came for a violent overthrow. Chronicle P blames a certain Aššur‐naṣir‐apli for the crime. He had rebelled with the officers of his land and had put Tukulti‐Ninurta inside of a room in his own palace with the intent to murder him (Grayson 1975: 176). Considering the well‐known problems with personal names in Chronicle P, we should expect confusion with the prince Aššur‐nadin‐apli, who, in fact, succeeded to the throne of his father, reigning for another period of six years (see Pedersén 1985: 107, fn. 5). One of the leaders of the conspiracy seems to have been Ili‐padâ (the eponym of the aformentioned letter from Tukulti‐Ninurta to the Hittite king). Years later, he still retained a central position at the royal court after succeeding his brother(?) (Jakob 2009: 5) Salmanu‐mušabši in the office of the Grand Vizier. This function comprised, quite similar to the time of his grandfather Qibi‐Aššur, the title of “King of Ḫanigalbat” (šar Ḫanigalbat). That is why Adad‐šuma‐uṣur rightly contacted both Aššur‐nirari III (1192–1187 BCE) and Ili‐padâ, as demonstrated by a literary royal letter which questioned their kingship (ABL 924; see Llop and George 2001/2002: 10). Incidentally, the insults of the Babylonian concerning their supposed incompetence and drunkenness are a clear indication that the balance of power had, meanwhile, shifted. But the decline of Assyrian power would continue for a while longer. The next king on the Assyrian throne was Enlil‐kudurri‐uṣur (1186–1182 BCE), a son of Tukulti‐Ninurta, as his two predecessors were. His relationship with the branch of the royal dynasty to which the suspected conspirer Ili‐padâ had belonged suffered serious deterioration at this time. Perhaps the new king was a member of a party at the Assyrian court that had remained loyal to his father. The Assyrian King List reports, at any rate, that Ninurta‐apil‐Ekur (1181–1169 BCE), son of Ili‐padâ and offspring of Eriba‐Adad, went to Babylonia. From there, he finally returned to Ashur to seize the throne (Foster 2005: 142).

  These events took place during the reign and within the realm of Adad‐šuma‐uṣur. Therefore, it can be assumed that Ninurta‐apil‐Ekur was supported by the Babylonian king. According to the Synchronistic History, the latter approached Enlil‐kudurri‐uṣur to do battle while Ninurta‐apil‐Ekur tried to take this opportunity to seize power in the city of Ashur. Chronicle 25 considers Enlil‐kudurri‐uṣur to be the aggressor who, after he was defeated in battle, was surrendered to Adad‐šuma‐uṣur by his own people (Yamada 2003: 156–9). So it was another case of high treason that ended Tukulti‐Ninurtas I’s direct line of descent.

  In the face of the episode in Chronicle 25, according to which Adad‐šuma‐uṣur had conquered Babylon only now, it seems that he had ruled only a part of the country until then. The opponent, whom he overthrew during his final attack on Babylon, is characerized as a nobody who had no legal claim to the throne. Thus, it can be assumed that Assyria had no further role in the allocation of power. Adad‐šuma‐uṣur reached his goal, but there was little time to enjoy this success. He died shortly after the enthronement of Ninurta‐apil‐Ekur.

  This king, during the twelve years of his reign, was apparently not able to place much emphasis on foreign policy issues. Like his three immediate predecessors on the Assyrian throne, he could save very little of what the three prominent ancestors – Adad‐nirari I, Shalmaneser I, and Tukulti‐Ninurta – had established and created in the course of a century. This also resulted in a relatively low yield of monumental inscriptions. Only Aššur‐nadin‐apli, the aforementioned son and successor of Tukulti‐Ninurta, left a report concerning a large‐scale building project within the capital (RIMA 1, A.0.79.1). In the decades to follow, there were other priorities to consider, as we have seen.

  Some time after the death of Ninurta‐apil‐Ekur, the situation apparently changed for the better, at least in terms of the ongoing Assyro‐Babylonian conflict. According to the “Synchronistic History,” the cities of Zaban, Irrija, and Ugar‐Sallu were conquered (Grayson 1975: 162; cf. J. Llop 2003b) during a campaign of Aššur‐dan I (1168–1133 BCE) against the Babylonian king Zababa‐šuma‐iddina. This clearly suggests that Assyria, even during this period, had not abandoned all its ambitions of gaining control of the districts south of the Lower Zab. Rather, the state was waiting for its chance to regain a strong position vis‐à‐vis Babylonia.

  In Ashur, an archive was unearthed that covers more than one year of activities in an office for receiving “audience gifts” (nāmurtu) to the prince Ninurta‐tukulti‐Aššur. The provenance of the supplicants is often specified, so we have a good impression of the extent of the Assyrian realm at this time (Pedersén 1985: 56–68). The documents mention the cities of Kulišḫinaš and Amasakku in the Khabur basin, as well as Arrapḫa and (N)arzuḫina east of Ashur, and the land of Suḫu (see Llop and George 2001/02: 15). It is from there that the nāmurtu of a certain Adad‐šuma‐iddina was delivered. The gift was recorded as if it had been delivered by Assyrian officials, whereas the messenger of Mannu‐lu‐ya’u, a local ruler from Ṭabetu on the Khabur, was treated like a foreign delegate. Indeed, these two cases point to the fact that there were political structures within the Assyrian realm with varying degrees of independence from the central government. Be that as it may, the place names mentioned in the texts suggest that the border of Assyria extended roughly from the Khabur basin in the west to the Middle Euphrates River area in the southwest and to the region east of the Tigris River as far as the Zagros Mountains. The preceding conquest of Arrapḫa by the Elamite Šilḫak‐Inšušinak (1150–1120 BCE) had not been followed by a permanent occupation (Potts 1999: 244).

  After the death of Aššur‐dan, as reported by the “Assyrian Kinglist,” his sons Ninurta‐tukulti‐Aššur and Mutakkil‐Nusku struggled for power (Glassner 2005: 142). While the former went into exile in Babylonia, the latter usurped the Assyrian throne (Llop and George 2001, 8f.). The boundary line between both countries seems still to have run alongside the Lower Zab, as is shown in another literary royal letter which refers to this phase. In the city of Zaqqa, which was under Assyrian administration since the 14th century BCE (Nashef 1982, 281), an encounter between a Babylonian king and Mutakkil‐Nusku was supposed to take place.

  The same town name, now spelled as Zanqi and called “a fortress of Assyria,” occurs in the “Synchronistic History” in a passage about the conflict between Aššur‐reša‐iši (1132–1115 BCE) and the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar I, during which the Babylonians burned their own siege engines in order to prevent them from being captured by the enemy. At another time, both protagonists were involved in a battle near Idu on the Lower Zab (see van Soldt 2008, 73). There, Nebuchadnezzar was not only beaten, but also lost his camp – at least, that is how the “Synchronistic History” records it (Grayson 1975: 163f.). According to other Assyrian sources, Assyria was in distress at the time of Nebuchadnezzar’s predecessor, Ninurta‐nadin‐šumi (1131–1126 BCE), but was saved by the courageous intervention of Aššur‐reša‐iši. The Babylonian king had already advanced to the city of Arbail when he heard of the approach of the Assyrian army and fled with his warriors. This episode cannot be found in official inscriptions of Aššur‐reša‐iši, but it seems to be close to reality insofar as, after the aforementioned incidents under Nebuchadnezzar, the Assyrians were able to defend their positions at the southeastern border. Aššur‐reša‐iši, it seems, had claimed the epithet “avenger of Assyria” for a reason.

  Territorial Expansion and Consolidation: A Second Attempt

  Aššur‐
reša‐iši’s successor Tiglath‐pileser I (1114–1076 BCE) was thus free to give a lower priority to the Eastern Tigris region after his accession and focus on new challenges. The report concerning his first five regnal years has come down to us on a dated prism (RIMA 2, A.0.87.1). Its introduction contains an elaborate list of epithets that clearly shows that this king was willing to speak much more confidently than his immediate predecessors. Tiglath‐pileser calls himself, inter alia, the “unrivalled king of the universe, king of the four quarters, king of all princes, lord of lords … whose weapons the god Assur has sharpened and whose name he has pronounced eternally for control of the four quarters … splendid flame which covers the hostile land like a rain storm.”

  One passage in the text is dedicated to the king’s victory over the Mušku people, who are mentioned here for the first time in Assyrian royal inscriptions (see RlA 8, 493f.). Maintaining that no king was able to vanquish them in battle until then, Tiglath‐pileser claims to have confronted them decisively in his accession year. Until then, they had control not only over the lands of Alzu and Purulumzu for the previous fifty years, lands formerly claimed by Assyria, but also over Katmuḫu. How their army of 20,000 men, under the leadership of five kings, was resoundingly defeated is depicted with bloodthirsty imagery. The surviving 6,000 men submitted to the Assyrian king, becoming his subjects (i 62–88).

  Katmuḫu itself remained a trouble spot for years. Tiglath‐pileser’s first punitive action against it is said to have been a consequence of the cessation of tribute payment. Despite the fact that Katmuḫu was supported by the neighboring land of Papḫû, the Assyrian ruler won a victory. The defeated king, Kili‐Teššub, the son of Kali‐Teššub, called Errupi, was deported with his family, and the royal palace was looted and destroyed (RIMA 2, A.0.87.1: i 89–ii 35). Urraṭinaš, a city ruled by a certain Šadi‐Teššub that required the crossing of the Tigris River in order to reach it, suffered a similar fate.