The Online Library of Liberty

A project of Liberty Fund, Inc.

• Preface
• List of Abbreviations
• Sources and Bibliography
• Laws and Contracts
• I: The Earliest Babylonian Laws
• II: The Code of Ammurabi
• III: Later Babylonian Law
• IV: The Social Organization of the Ancient Babylonian State
• V: Judges, Law-courts, and Legal Processes
• VI: Legal Decisions
• VII: Public Rights
• VIII: Criminal Law
• IX: The Family Organization
• X: Courtship and Marriage
• XI: Divorce and Desertion
• XII: Rights of Widows
• XIII: Obligations and Rights of Children
• XIV: The Education and Early Life of Children
• XV: Adoption
• XVI: Rights of Inheritance
• XVII: Slavery
• XVIII: Land Tenure In Babylonia
• XIX: The Army, CorvÉe, and Other Claims For Personal Service
• XX: The Functions and Organization of the Temple
• XXI: Donations and Bequests
• XXII: Sales
• XXIII: Loans and Deposits
• XXIV: Pledges and Guarantees
• XXV: Wages of Hired Laborers
• XXVI: Lease of Property
• XXVII: The Laws of Trade
• XXVIII: Partnership and Power of Attorney
• XXIX: Accounts and Business Documents
• Babylonian and Assyrian Letters
• I: Letters and Letter-writing Among the Babylonians and Assyrians
• II: The Letters of Ammurabi
• III: The Letters of Samsu-iluna and His Immediate Successors
• IV: Private Letters of the First Dynasty of Babylon
• V: Sennacherib’s Letters to His Father, Sargon
• VI: Letters From the Last Year of Shamash-shum-ukÎn
• VII: Letters Regarding Affairs In Southern Babylonia
• VIII: Letters About Elam and Southern Babylonia
• IX: Miscellaneous Assyrian Letters
• X: Letters of the Second Babylonian Empire
• Appendix
• I: The Prologue and Epilogue to the Code of Ammurabi
• Prologue to the Code of Ammurabi
• The Epilogue
• II: Chronology
• III: Weights and Measures
• I.: Weights
• II.: Measures of Capacity
• III.: Measures of Length
• IV.: Measures of Surface
• V.: Measures of Time
• IV: Bibliography of the Later Periods
• The New Babylonian Empire
• Persian Period
• Macedonian Period
• Arsacide Period

BABYLONIAN AND ASSYRIAN LETTERS

I

LETTERS AND LETTER-WRITING AMONG THE BABYLONIANS AND ASSYRIANS

External form of the lettersThe ancient Babylonians early discovered the convenience of written communication between friends at a distance. The origin of letter-writing is not yet clear; for, when we first meet with letters, they are fully developed. A piece of clay, usually shaped like a miniature pillow, was inscribed and then enclosed in an envelope made of a thin sheet of clay. On the envelope was written the address. As a rule, the letter was baked hard before being put into its envelope.Their envelope Powdered clay was inserted to prevent sticking. The envelope, after being inscribed, was also baked hard. Of course, the letter could not be read without breaking the envelope, which was therefore a great protection to the interior letter. The envelope was naturally thrown away after being broken. Hence, extremely few envelopes have been preserved.

Their datesThe practice of dating letters does not seem to have been common. We have dated letters at all epochs, but they are few. In some cases the date may have been on the envelope. It is more common for the writer to give the day of the month, sometimes also the month. But the date of a letter was probably not then of any great importance.

Another method of insuring privacySome letters seem to have been covered with coarse cloth, on which was impressed a lump of clay, to act as a seal and bind down the edges. The lumps were then sealed with a signet-ring, or cylinder-seal. The clay envelopes were also sealed, before baking, with the sender’s seal. So usual was this habit, that the word for seal, unu, is often used to denote a sealed letter. Thus when an official acknowledges the receipt of the king’s “seal,” it means a sealed order or rescript.

Style of the opening addressThe early Babylonian letters usually open with the formula, “To A say: Thus saith B.” The formula probably goes back to the times when the message was verbally delivered. These would be the words used to a messenger who had to remember the message. The verb “saith” is not expressed exactly. The word used is umma, which is often rendered “saying”; it introduces a direct quotation. We might render, “In the name of B.” But the written letter replaced the spoken message. Some think the letter was read by a professional reader. Such readers are common still, where education is not widely diffused. It is very clear that the letter was generally written by a scribe. Thus, all ammurabi’s letters show the same hand, while those of Abêshu or Ammi-ditana are quite different. In the case of private letters we have less proof. But it is possible that the king sometimes wrote with his own hand. Some terms of expression render that very likely. It is, however, quite impossible to be certain on such points.

Variations of the formulaThe same opening formula also appears in the Tell el Amarna letters. It is not known in Assyrian letters, but survived in Babylonia to a late period. In Assyria the formula is nearly the same; with the omission of the ibi, or “say,” it reads “To A thus B.” In addresses to superiors, usually adds “thy servant.” Polite letters generally add good wishes for the recipient. These are exceedingly varied. The word šulmu plays a great part in them. Literally it denotes “peace.” “Peace be to thee” is very common. But it soon came to mean the “greeting of peace.” Thus “I have sent ana šulmika” means “I have sent to wish thee peace,” “to greet thee.” But it also takes the more general meaning of well-being. Thus šulmu iâši means “I am well,” “it is peace with me”; not only absence from war, but health and all prosperity was included. Hence Joram’s inquiry of Jehu, “Is it peace, Jehu?” means “Is everything all right?” “Be thou at peace” may be rendered loosely, “I hope you are well,” in the fullest sense that “all is well with you.” No consistent rendering can be given for such phrases as these.

References to a former correspondenceVery often letters quote the previous message of the present recipient, ša tašpuranni, “what thou didst send me.” But the quotation is often omitted and then this becomes an awkward rendering. We have to fill up some general sentence such as, “as to what you sent about.” A very difficult sort of construction arises when the writer sets down a list of questions, which he has been asked, and the answer to each. As there are no capitals, periods, or questionmarks, there is often some difficulty in separating a question from its answer. This may be done differently by different translators, with startlingly different results.

Elliptical phrasesVery many sentences are elliptical. Thus, it was common to add at the end of the letter something like, “I leave it to you to decide.” This might be put, “As the king, my lord, sees fit, let him do.” But a scribe would often merely say, “As the king sees fit.” Such elliptical sentences are often very difficult to complete. They were obviously clear to the recipient. To us they leave a wide margin for conjecture.

Inscribed seals on packagesVery early indeed in the history of Babylonia a sort of postal system had been developed. At any rate, in the time of Sargon I., bc 3800, an active exchange of commodities existed between Agade and Shirpurla. Packages or vessels of produce or goods were forwarded and with them small blocks of clay, impressed with seals and inscribed with the address of the recipient. These were probably used to prevent the fastenings of the packages from being untied, and on their backs may be seen the impressions of the strings which fastened the packages.1 As it happens, no letters have yet been published from the era preceding the First Dynasty of Babylon; but we can hardly doubt that such exist.

Letters of the First Dynasty of BabylonIn the time of the First Dynasty of Babylon letters appear frequently in the collections of tablets brought to our museums. The volumes of Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets, etc., in the British Museum, published by order of the Trustees,2 contain a large number of letters from copies made by Mr. T. G. Pinches. These have been made the subject of a study by Dr. Mary Williams Montgomery.3 Mr. L. W. King, in his work, The Letters and Inscriptions of ammurabi, published fifty-five letters of ammurabi to his subordinate officer, Sin-idinnam, six letters of Samsuiluna, thirteen of Abêshu’, two of Ammiditana, five of Ammizaduga, and two private letters. These were all transcribed, translated, annotated, and, with a number of other contemporary inscriptions, issued with admirable introductions, glossary, and index.4 Nowhere can a more vivid picture be obtained of the great empire and the manifold duties of a Babylonian king. A number of the texts published in the first volume were translated and commented upon by Dr. G. Nagel under the title, Die Briefe ammurabi’s an Sin-idinnam.5 Professor Delitzsch added some valuable notes. Dr. B. Meissner had already published the text of four letters as Altbabylonische Briefe.6 Professor V. Scheil gave the text of two letters of this period, found by him at Sippara, in the Recueil de Travaux1 and noticed others, and some more in his Une Saison de fouilles a Sippar.2 These are preserved at Constantinople, but the text has not yet been published. They are chiefly private letters and of a business nature. There are a great many other letters in American and European museums, the publication of which should not be longer delayed.

Of the subsequent periodFor the long period before the Tell el Amarna times, circabc 1500, nothing of any extent seems to have been published, though letters are also known to exist of this period. A late copy of one such letter, addressed by Adadi-Shumnâṣir, King of Babylon, to Ashur-narara and Nabû-dâni, kings of Assyria, about bc 1250, is partly preserved in the British Museum.3

The Tell el Amarna lettersThe Tell el Amarna tablets, some three hundred in number, were discovered in 1887-88, at the ruins of the palace of Amenophis IV., in Egypt. They will form the subject of a separate volume of this series. They consist of the letters or despatches sent to kings of Egypt by the kings of Babylon, Assyria, Mitanni, and the subject-rulers of many Syrian and Palestinian cities and states. From these can be obtained a very clear view of the state of Syria and Palestine just before the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt. Naturally, these letters have formed the subject of a very large literature. The most complete edition of the texts is by Winckler, Der Thontafelfund von el Amarna.4 With these should be compared Dr. J. A. Knudtzon’s Ergebnisse einer Collation der El Amarna Tafeln and Weitere Studien zu den El Amarna Tafeln.5 A full transcription with translation and glossary to these texts has been given by Winckler, as Die Thontafeln von Tell el Amarna.1 An excellent English translation by J. P. Metcalf is to be had. There are a few of these tablets, which found their way into private hands, or to other museums than London, Berlin, and Gizeh, whence Winckler’s copies were obtained. It is a duty to science that these should now be published. In the Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie orientale, t. II., published at Cairo, Professor Scheil gives the text of two more of these important letters. The explorer, Dr. F. Bliss, found another in the ruins of Lachish. It is included in Winckler’s work above. Professor Sellin has lately found several tablets, which by their script and personal references are shown to belong to this period. They were found at Ta’annek, and are published by Dr. Hronzy in the Anzeige der philos. hist. Klasse der Wiener Akademie.2 The interest of these additions lies in the fact that they were found in Palestine itself.

Cappadocian lettersThe numerous Cappadocian tablets are now generally recognized by their language and script to belong to this period. They also show considerable affinity with the documents of the First Dynasty of Babylon, and the Tell el Amarna letters preserve many characteristic expressions.

Assyrian lettersThe subsequent periods in Babylonia are represented by few letters. It is not until we come down to the end of the eighth century and the Sargonide times that we meet with many letters. The archives of Nineveh contained immense numbers. A great many of these are now in the Kouyunjik Collections of the British Museum. There they early attracted attention. Being written by the imperial officials to the kings of Assyria, they contain most valuable material for history.Published texts George Smith in 1871 gave extracts from several of them in his History of Ashurbanipal. A number were published in Rawlinson’s Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia. Mr. S. A. Smith, in the Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archæology, 1887-89,1 and in the second and third volumes of his Keilschrifttexte Asurbanipals gave some seventy more. Professor Delitzsch also published a number in his Zur assyrisch-babylonischen Briefliteratur,2 and in his translations and comments laid the real foundation for their interpretation. In 1892 Professor R. F. Harper began the colossal task of publishing the text of all the letters from Nineveh, in his Assyrian and Babylonian Letters belonging to the Collections of the British Museum, of which eight volumes are already published.3

TranslationsA considerable number of scholars have busied themselves with the translation and elucidation of these texts. Professor C. Johnston in his work, The Epistolary Literature of the Assyrians and Babylonians;4 C. van Gelderen, Ausgewählte babylonisch-assyrische Briefe;5 A. J. Delattre, Quelques Lettres Assyriennes;6 G. R. Berry, The Letters of the Rm. 2 Collection, in American Journal of Semitic Literature, xi., pp. 174-202; F. Martin, Lettres assyriennes et babyloniennes—besides the many articles by other scholars on particular words or subjects—have contributed to the understanding of these difficult texts. Professor R. F. Harper has published a few preliminary studies on these texts.7 Dr. H. Winckler not only gave several important texts in his Texte verschiedenen Inhalts,8 but translations and comments on them in his Altorientalische Forschungen.1

Late Babylonian lettersThe letter-texts of the latter Babylonian period at present published are extremely few. Some may be found in Strassmaier’s great collection of Babylonische Texte, among the contracts. A list of those for the reigns of Nabonidus and Nebuchadrezzar is given in Dr. K. L. Tallqvist’s Die Sprache der Contracte Nabû-nâ’ids, p. xviii.

Historical value of the lettersOne of the uses to which the letters may be put is to illustrate the history of the time. From the letters of ammurabi we can gather a great deal of information as to the civil policy of the reign. From the Tell el Amarna tablets we may reconstruct almost a complete survey of the condition of politics in Palestine. From the Assyrian letters we can rewrite the history of affairs in Armenia at the end of Sargon’s reign, or the wars with Elam in Ashurbânipal’s time.

General valueThe letters are also a rich mine of information on all sorts of topics, and those very often on which almost all other literatures are silent. We gain here a closer and more intimate acquaintance with humanity than at any other period of ancient history. We must not expect finality in our translations for a long while to come. Fresh documents will continually be found or published that will help us to revise our views. But that is the perennial interest of the letters. We may read and reread them, always finding something fresh to combine with every new piece of information.

Methods of classificationSeveral different methods of classifying the letters suggest themselves. One plan would be to group those letters which illustrate some phase of civil life. Thus we may collect the references to medical cases, or the illustrations of religious life, or the contributions to astronomy and astrology. But none of these methods will be exhaustive or generally applicable. A letter rarely deals with only one subject. The only scientific classification seems to be that adopted by Professor Harper in his edition of the Nineveh letters, or Mr. King in his letters of ammurabi. This is to place together all the letters written by one scribe. Here we have two difficulties. There may be more than one scribe of the same name. Thus it is practically certain that in Professor Harper’s groups of letters apparently assigned to one man, more than one person is often really involved. Again, a very large number of letters no longer preserve the name of their scribe. Only a prolonged study can reduce these difficulties; it is not likely that we shall ever quite eliminate error.

Royal lettersThere is one large group that has a claim to separate consideration. Many letters are written by, or to, a king. They are on various subjects. A subdivision might be made of reports sent by officials concerning public affairs. But even these often contain side-references; and at the last we have really to consider each letter as a separate document.

II

THE LETTERS OF AMMURABI

Great historical value of this collectionThe letters of ammurabi are by far the most important collection of letters hitherto published for the period of the First Dynasty of Babylon. They had a certain adventitious value at one time, because one of them was thought to contain the name of Chedorlaomer, and this association with ammurabi, as Amraphel, was exploited in the interests of a defence of the historical value of Genesis xiv. Mr. L. W. King’s edition of the letters, however, showed that such a use was unwarranted. But it served a much more useful end, giving us a very full picture of the times of the founder of the First Babylonian Empire. The excellent account given by Mr. King of the contents of these letters is fairly exhaustive. The importance of such sources for history cannot be overestimated. They are contemporary. They are not written to impress posterity, but with absolute fidelity to fact. We may disbelieve some of the excuses made for misconduct, but in the references to current events or general customs we have a sure witness, if only we can understand them. This is often difficult because a letter presupposes relations between the correspondents which we must conjecture.

The letters to Sin-iddinamSince Mr. King’s introduction to his first volume gives a full account of the few letters previously published, this need not be reproduced here. Of ammurabi’s letters fifty-three are addressed to one and the same man, Sin-iddinam. It is doubtful whether he was the King of Larsa who bore this name, or the official who in the next reign seems to be Governor of Sippara. There are many persons who bore this name known at this period. However, several mentions of the temple of Shamash at Larsa occur in these letters and there is a certain presumption that Sin-iddinam of Larsa was the person intended.

ammurabi as an administratorammurabi’s ability as an administrator, which these letters reveal, and his care even for small details of his rule, may well be the reason why his empire proved so stable. He established a tradition which was long followed by his successors. He organized his land, appointed governors, and held them responsible to himself. He had a direct interest in their doings and sent minute written instructions, demanding reports, summoning defaulters to his presence, or directing their punishment where they were. The dates for his reign, as for others of the dynasty, show, not only raids and conquests, but chiefly public works of utility. The construction or repair of canals, public buildings, temples, the ordering of justice, are works that repaid his care.

His care for the revenues of the templesammurabi was a man of many business enterprises. The collection of the temple revenues was an object of his attention. There is no evidence that these were available for his use, but he had a personal interest in all that was right and just. To him the herdsmen and shepherds of the temple flocks and herds had to report. He often appears as restoring, rebuilding, or adorning shrines, and he was careful of his religious duties. Thus he postponed a case because of a festival at Ur, which he seems to have found demanded the presence of one of the parties.

The ordering of the calendarHe had to settle important questions concerning the calendar; whether or not reports of astronomical observations were then received is not clear, but at any rate the king decided when the intercalary months should be inserted. Thus he told Sin-iddinam there was to be a second Elul.

His supervision of justiceThe administration of justice was also no small part of his work. Not only did he promulgate a code, but he also superintended its execution. There was a right of appeal to his judgment. He actively supervised his judges in the provinces. Thus a case of bribery was reported from Dûrgurgurri and he instructed Sin-iddinam to investigate the case and send the guilty parties to Babylon for punishment. He upheld a merchant’s claim against a city governor, for the recovery of a loan. He protected the landowners against money-lenders. He examined claims to land and sent instructions to Sin-iddinam to carry out his decision. Thefts of corn, loans withheld, rents, were adjudicated by him. He summoned not only the parties, but the witnesses, to Babylon. Prisoners were sent under escort, and arrests ordered.

His private propertyThe king’s own herds and flocks were a personal care to him. They were stationed in various parts of the country. He received reports about them, or sent inspectors to report upon them. On one occasion he summoned forty-seven shepherds to come and report to him in Babylon. He ordered additional shearers to assist those already at work. He regulated supplies of wood, dates, seed, and corn. These were often sent by ship, and there is evidence of a large number of ships being employed, of varied capacities.

His building enterprisesPublic buildings demanded large gangs of workmen. They were drawn from the slave and serf population. A great many letters are concerned with the supply and movements of these laborers. Whether forced labor was inflicted as a punishment may be doubted. But the corvée was in full operation. The hire of laborers is referred to, and it is probable that the forced laborers were fed and clothed at the expense of the state. Thus we see that ammurabi was a busy man and worked hard to build up his empire. His successors, though we have fewer of their letters, seem to have been fully as active.

The return of the goddesses of Emutbal to their homesIt is not easy to select specimens for this period. Each letter has an interest of its own, and it is tempting to include most of them. But we may take the two letters referring to the goddesses of Emutbal, because one of them by a series of misreadings and misunderstandings was made to contain the famous reference to Chedorlaomer. The first1 may be rendered.

The date of their captureThese goddesses were very likely captured during an expedition to Emutbal which was a border province of Elam. It is natural to associate this with the thirty-first year of ammurabi, for which the full date is:

The transport of the goddesses was made possible by the system of canals. Intercommunication was in an excellent state, for ammurabi ordered a man to be sent to Babylon from Larsa, and allowed him two days, travelling day and night. The hierodules are the female attendants of the goddesses. The officers whom ammurabi sent bear titles not yet clearly recognized. The name ammurabi-banî points to a deification of the king. Whether the goddesses reached Babylon and there brought misfortune on the country and so were sent back again, or whether their restoration to their shrines in Emutbal was part of the king’s policy for a pacification of the conquered country, does not appear. But we read in another letter:1

The construction of the passage seems to imply that the goddesses had protected Inu-samar. The latter was in command of troops that were within Sin-iddinam’s jurisdiction; for when Sin-mâgir complained to ammurabi that Inusamar had impressed some of his servants for military service contrary to a bond given him by the king, ammurabi referred the matter to Sin-iddinam, ordering the servant to be given up.2 It was this name Inu-samar that Scheil misread as Kudur-nû-gamar.

The care of the canalsA number of letters concern the canals of the country. Thus we read:3

Here we are introduced to the duty which lay upon riparians to keep the canals running alongside their land in order. This was part of the ilku, or customary obligation. It lay with the governor to enforce it. In another letter4 the king complains that a canal which had been partly cleared had not been cleared as far as Erech, and so the boats could not enter that city. Here Sin-iddinam was ordered to do the work with the men at his disposal and complete it in three days. After that he was to go on with the work he had already been ordered to do. In another fragmentary letter the king orders the clearing away of the water-plants which had obstructed the course of the Euphrates between Ur and Larsa. One is reminded of the sudd on the Nile.1

A case of briberyThe case of bribery is referred to in a way that leaves it rather doubtful whether a theft may not be meant. The meaning of the word rendered “bribe” by King is unknown, and his identification of tâtu with da’tu is not certain. But at any rate the wrong was brought under the cognizance of ammurabi, and he writes:2

A case of oppression redressedA case of oppression by a governor is complained of, and redressed by the king. He writes:3

It is clear that Lalu was one of those privileged officials who held lands by royal charter, and who could not be dispossessed of their land. The Code directs1 that a governor shall not lend on mortgage to a reeve or runner or tributary, under pain of death. Although a kadurru is not there named, this letter makes it probable he was similarly protected. It is interesting to notice where the record was to be found. The palace, or “great house,” was the residence of the governor. The tablet probably recorded the appointment of Lalu to his benefice; it therefore was his title-deed.The depository for deeds An interesting question may be raised here. Did ammurabi mean in his own palace? It may be so, for he writes in another letter:2

Now how could ammurabi know this unless the tablet had been shown to him? Perhaps the claimant brought his tablet with him when he came to lay his plea before the king. That is quite possible, but it may well be that the king insisted that all title-deeds be deposited in the capital.

Restitutions orderedAn order for the restoration of stolen corn appears in another letter:3

Another letter reads thus:1

The title “over five” seems to be meant literally. He was a superior merchant. Like many another hint, this speaks for the strict organization of each class of the community. The Šakkanak was usually the superior official, “governor,” of a city, or of a ward of a city. We are not told what was Sin-mâgir’s district. But it was under Sin-iddinam’s rule. In other letters we read of a Sin-mâgir being sent to Babylon.2 Perhaps he refused to give up the corn.

Another letter illustrates the incidence of taxes and the relations of landlord and tenant:3

The case is not quite clear, but Ibni-Martu owed a tax on his field. He had either mortgaged or let his field to another. This tenant had not given him the corn to pay the tax and excused himself on the ground that the produce of the field was now mixed up with that of another field. Hence he could not say how much the tax should be; clearly it was proportionate to the yield. The method of solving the difficulty was that a sworn estimate had to be taken from competent witnesses and the tax levied on that basis. This course was recommended by Sin-iddinam in a previous report on the situation. The amount was to be given to the landlord, who then had to pay the tax. He clearly had no rent in corn from the land; but he could not sell or mortgage his crop except subject to the tax. The mortgagee was liable for the tax and the owner was bound to pay. The mortgagee must furnish him the means to do so; he had no right to claim the part of the crop due as tax, whatever bargain he had made with the owner of the land.

Commerce under strict control by the StateWhile agriculture was in the hands of free men who only paid on produce, there are indications that commerce was very strictly controlled by the State. The merchant was the only money-lender as a rule. He also seems to have acted as contractor, or farmer of taxes. The merchant, or factor, was under the king’s protection and also directly responsible to him. Hence some have regarded him as a royal official. But this is hardly correct. He was to ammurabi what the Jew of the Middle Ages was to the king then, or the Stock Exchange or Bourse is now. Probably we should not be far wrong in applying to him the term “publican,” in the New Testament sense. He owed a certain amount to the treasury, which he recouped from the taxes due from the district for which he contracted.The collection of taxes If he did not secure enough, he had to make up the deficit. The following letter1 deals with what was probably common, namely, an evident reluctance on the part of such officials to settle accounts:

The title which I have rendered “chief collector” may be read “scribe of the merchants.” The sign pa, read aklu, does in some of its connections mean “scribe,” as tamkaru does mean “merchant.” But the sign often denotes merely an overseer. Hence we may take it that this was the derived meaning. The reason may well be that over a group of shepherds or merchants, one was always set who could keep accounts. Hence the term aklu, properly a “scribe,” came to be an “overseer.” Such a high official as the paMartu would be the Superintendent of Martu. The person referred to in this letter, Shêp-Sin, occurs also in two other letters of ammurabi.1 In one, Sin-iddinam is told to send him to Babylon with money; in the other, he complains of not being able to collect money due to a temple, and having to make up the deficit himself.

Illegal impressment for public serviceThe officials who were under obligation to furnish men for public work and the army, doubtless often found a difficulty in making up their quota, and impressed men who were not strictly liable for duty. Such men as those called kadur, kapar, mu, patesi, are named on the letters as exempt from the service. But even this is not conclusive. They are not exempted because they are of these ranks, but because they have been wrongly assigned to the service. Their masters may have been exempt from the liability to furnish a man; or already engaged in royal service. Slaves and poor men were subject, as we know from the Code. Here is one of the letters on the question:1

Here the kabar, or herdsmen, are the employees of the shepherd, his “sheep-boys.” Their absence would be a danger to the flocks. The delinquent Etil-bi-Marduk was often in fault. Several other complaints against him appear in the letters, in his capacity of money-lender.2 On two occasions he was sent for by the king, evidently with a view to punishment. Further, a patêsi in his service appealed to be transferred to another master.3

III

THE LETTERS OF SAMSU-ILUNA AND HIS IMMEDIATE SUCCESSORS

Few in numberThe discovered letters of Samsu-iluna are as yet comparatively few. They are not all addressed to one man. We may take one or two specimens.

About change of air for a goddessLike his father ammurabi, Samsu-iluna cared for the health of the goddesses, providing them with an occasional change of scene. This time it is the goddess Anunitum, who makes a journey:1

The name of the official to whom the letter is sent is broken and it could be completed in several different ways. Sippar-edina was one quarter of Sippara.

Temple duesThe following letter is concerned with the supply of corn for the Shamash temple at Larsa. It is addressed to three officials:2

The “treasure-house” may be only a “store-house” in general. Instead of “make up,” we may render “buy.”

Fishing rightsSamsu-iluna looked into the details of his government quite as closely as his father. We see him regulating fishing rights:1

Clearly each district owned its own fishing rights, as it was responsible for the repairs of the banks and scouring the beds of the water-ways in it. It is far from unlikely that Kâr-Sippar denotes some ruling body in Sippara, for in the contracts we find that cases were brought before the Kâr-Sippar. As they are associated with the judges of Sippara, they may be the town elders. Sin-iddinam here is hardly the official of Larsa to whom ammurabi usually wrote, though he might have been promoted to Sippara in the meantime.

Business detailsTwo other letters were addressed to him by Samsu-iluna,2 one about corn due from certain persons, the other about a contingent of men sent to strengthen the walls of Sippar-Amnanu. In another letter, the king summons to Babylon, Sin-iddinam, Ibni-Marduk, the Kâr-Sippar, and the judges of Sippara, but the letter3 is too defaced for us to determine the reason. It was to be “at seed-time.”

Letters of Abêshu’The letters of Abêshu’ are somewhat more numerous. Mr. King published thirteen. They are all more or less defective, and add nothing to our knowledge beyond the fact that the same policy of centralization went on.

Of Ammi-ditanaThe letters of Ammi-ditana, two in number, are more interesting. One deals with the supply of corn for men at work on the citadel of Shagga, a town probably near Sippara. The king orders the authorities of Sippara to make up and send on the supply, and adds that the soothsayers were to be consulted as to favorable auspices for sending the corn.1 The other deals, as do three letters of Abêshu’, with tribute due in wool from Sippar-iaruru. The report from the superintendent of this source of revenue in each case is that the tribute is over-due and the king sends a peremptory order for it to be sent forthwith to Babylon.

Of Ammi-zadûgaAmmi-zadûga’s letters, five in number, all happen to be concerned with the annual sheep-shearing at Babylon. They differ slightly, in the person addressed, and the date assigned for the shearing. Thus one2 reads:

Of Sin-iddinamThe one letter written by Sin-iddinam3 is addressed to the rabiânu of Katalla, ordering him to send the plaintiff in a suit to him. Very interesting is a letter from Tabbi-Wadi and Mâr-Shamash to Aâti, the wife of Sin-iddinam,4 asking her to intercede for them with Sin-iddinam. He had himself referred them to her, perhaps because their offence immediately concerned her. They say that they are ill acquainted with the ways of the court. From several unusual forms of expression it may be concluded that they were strangers who had settled in Babylonia. They do not state either their offence or the grounds on which they would be excused, but ask for an interview, that they may remove Aâti’s resentment against them.

Periphrasis for “king”Some letters are addressed to “the man whom may Marduk make to flourish.”1 Some have taken this as a proper name. But that seems very unlikely. Others regard it as a sort of polite address to a superior. Winckler2 suggested that it was an address to the king. The Code has made it clear that the amêlu was the “gentleman,” or “noble,” who lived in a “palace,” or “great house.” Hence, these letters may be addressed to any great official. But many turns of expression support the view that the king is really meant; he was thus the “First Gentleman” of Babylonia. It was not till ammurabi that the title “king” was generally given. Perhaps the old nobles were slow to admit a king over them.

Freeing of runaway slavesAs an example we may take:3

It is probable that recaptured runaway slaves, who would not name their owners, were forfeit to the State. The king is the only one who would have power to release such slaves. It is clear that the recipient of the letter was at Babylon.

IV

PRIVATE LETTERS OF THE FIRST DYNASTY OF BABYLON

Many details uncertainIn these cases, as a rule, we know neither the sender nor receiver, beyond their names, and what we can gather from the letter itself. Hence a great deal must always remain uncertain. Here is a letter which comes from a prisoner, who says he is nearly starved and does not know why he was imprisoned:1

There are many obscurities about this letter. Some are caused by the difficulty of reading the defaced characters. Some by the fact that the signs, printed here in capitals, are ideograms whose meaning is not yet clear. The prisoner, if his plea is true, was sent on an errand for his master, apparently to trade for him. He was either robbed by the nomad Sutû, or compelled to give up his oil to them. Why this led to imprisonment is not clear, unless it was regarded as furnishing supplies to the enemy. But though his master did not get him out of prison, it seems that he had sent him supplies from time to time. The word rendered “jailer” is perhaps a name, Mâr-abulli, “son of the gate.” But it may be a title used as a name, “Mr. Jailer.” The prisoner thinks that it is in the power of his master to put an end to his imprisonment and promises to be grateful. But he does not seem sure whether his master can do this. He asks, however, for further supplies, if he is to live. Let us hope he was released or at least fed. We may perhaps conclude that imprisonment was the punishment due for robbery and burglary.

A father reminded of a broken promiseHere is a letter reminding a father of a broken promise:1

The letter suggests that the father was king, by the phrase so common in the historical inscriptions, “named his name,” usually equivalent to “nominated” to rule. The word rendered “fault” is sardu, which may be for sartu. There is nothing to show whether Elmeshu is a man or woman. There was an Elmeshu (the name means “Diamond”) who was daughter of Ammi-ditana.1 But the mention of Dûr-Ammi-zadûga seems to demand a date at least as late as that in which this wall or city was built. But Ammi-zadûga succeeded Ammi-ditana. Unless the latter built Dûr-Ammi-zadûga and called it after his son, we can hardly identify this Elmeshu with the daughter of Ammi-ditana. The mention of Sin Amurrû is not quite clear. We may suppose two gods, Sin and Amurrû, or take the latter name as an epithet, “Sin of the Amorites.” To have “the ears attentive,” is to be in a state of expectation. In the last sentence, Elmeshu seems to hint that, if she does not have a favorable answer, she will not be able to pray for her father. This may be regarded as an un-Christian attitude, but people then thought more of the efficacy of prayer; and it was a threat, if so meant, likely to have great weight with the father. But it may mean that Elmeshu being vowed to a religious life, yet needed material means to maintain her alive, and she merely hopes, by her father’s continued sustenance of her, to be long spared to pray for him.

Request from a tenant for the grant of a good cowAnother letter is apparently from a tenant, or serf, to his landlord:1

Evidently, the wise man sent only five shekels on deposit with his brother, holding back the rest of the price, till he had seen what sort of a cow he was to get for his money. It was from this letter that Winckler2 deduced a meaning for ṣamâdu something like “weigh out,” “pay,” whence a better meaning for ṣimittu than “yoke” was readily obtained. As Dr. Peiser pointed out, the word is also used in the Cappadocian tablets in a way that leaves small doubt of its meaning. It may have come to mean simply “pay,” but must have ordinarily meant “measure,” or “weigh,” according as it was applied to grain, or money.

Authorization to compel a creditor to pay his debtsHere is a very interesting example showing how the merchants of those days transacted business at a distance:3

The two, Erib-Sin and Ibni-Nabû, are either partners, or agents. The former had asked the latter to pay over fourteen shekels to a certain Shamash-bêl-ilâni, either because the latter had money of his, or had promised to honor his order. But this particular order was not honored. Ibni-Nabû had intrusted a sum of forty shekels to one Ardi-ilishu, with which to pay Shamaiatu. But Ardi-ilishu had gone off to Assyria without discharging the obligation. So Shamaiatu had demanded payment and perhaps the doubtful signs express the fact that Ibni-Nabû had to pay a second time. Fortunately, he could prove that Ardi-ilishu had had the money, having taken a receipt. He seems to think that Erib-Sin can find Ardi-ilishu. Was the former resident in Assyria? If so, this must be a copy of the letter sent him. But perhaps Erib-Sin was to arrest the defaulter on his return to Sippara. At any rate, this was a warrant for so doing. That, perhaps, is why the letter was kept. If Erib-Sin could get forty shekels and the interest, he had a fair margin from which to pay the fourteen shekels, due to him from Ibni-Nabû. But he had to take risks. If Shamash-bêl-ilâni had given Erib-Sin consideration for his order on Ibni-Nabû for fourteen shekels, he was badly served.

A warning connected with the filing of a suitHere is a letter, warning a man of a suit brought against him in his absence:

The word of most difficulty is nistu, rendered “title.” It may mean something different, but the “title” seems the most likely thing to be disputed.

A request for fish and other foodA letter to a father from an absent son1 is interesting for its personal character:

A love-letterThe following is what may be fairly described as a love-letter, though the real relation between the correspondents is not certain:2

It is certain that Bibêa was a lady, perhaps the writer’s wife.

Assyrian copies of old Babylonian lettersThe interest which these ancient letters inspire in us was felt in the seventh century bc, for there are two Assyrian copies of early Babylonian letters, preserved in the remains of Ashurbânipal’s library. One was a letter from the Babylonian King Adadi-shum-uṣur to Ashur-nirari and Nabûdaian, kings of Assyria, about bc 1250.1 It is too fragmentary to translate. Another2 is a letter from a King of Assyria to his father, who is King of Babylon. The names are lost, and its contents cannot now be made out. It was a copy made for Ashurbânipal, and has his “library mark.”3

V

SENNACHERIB’S LETTERS TO HIS FATHER, SARGON

The proof that the letters are Sennacherib’sAmong the Ninevite collections we can single out several periods where the history is supplemented by the letters. Thus Sennacherib’s letters to his father, Sargon, chiefly deal with events in Armenia, which must have transpired during Sargon’s last few years, when his annals and other historical inscriptions are silent. This view of them was first worked out by the present writer,1 and later with increased material by R. C. Thompson.2 Briefly put, the argument from them is this: a person called Sennacherib, who might be any officer from the times of Sargon onward, writes to the king, whom he does not address as his father, on the reports which have reached him from a number of officials, concerning events in Armenia. We have, however, two letters which refer to the same events, naming the same officials and certainly from the same Sennacherib. In one of them he is twice referred to as the king’s son. The officials named are all found in documents of the reign of Sargon, or the early part of Sennacherib’s reign. The King of Armenia is named Argista in one of these reports to the king, which belongs to the same group. The King of Assyria himself is said to be at Babylon at the time. One report quoted comes from Tabal, and is brought by the major-domo of the Princess Aat-abisha, probably the daughter of Sargon, who was married by him to the King of Tabal. We have independent copies of these reports, quoted by Sennacherib, which enlarge our knowledge of the events. Hence, there can be no doubt that we have here Sennacherib’s letters to his father, Sargon, while that king was absent in Babylonia. We are, therefore, able to reconstruct a chapter of Assyrian history, on which the historical monuments have nothing to say. The first letter reads thus:1

The second letter2 began in exactly the same way, so far as one can judge from the traces of the first seven lines. As before,Another letter regarding the movements of the Armenian king Sennacherib quotes reports, which he has received, in the sender’s own words. From what is left of the first report we learn that the King of Armenia had ordered the forces at his command to capture the commanders of the King of Assyria and bring them alive to him. The city of Kumai is named as the place where these commanders were. As yet the sender “is cut off” and has not withdrawn from his post. But, as he has heard, so he has sent to the king’s son:

This seems to be the end of Ashur-riṣûa’s news. A few traces refer to news from the Mannai concerning some “letter,” “as yet” something has “not” happened.

These fragments of the report are difficult to disentangle, as the person referred to seems sometimes to be the King of Armenia, sometimes another person. But all may be news sent from the Mannai to Ashur-riṣûa.

Then follow a few traces from which we gather that a messenger came to the writer and brought a present; that the “Mannai said” something, someone “returned” and “I appointed him” something, that a messenger from the land of Sadudai came to Kala, that “I received and sealed” something, and “I appointed” something. Again we have a reference to the month of Elul, a letter, and the word “brought.”

These letters explained by a comparison with those of Ashur-riṣûaThis letter is very obscure from the many lacunæ. We naturally turn to the letters of Ashur-riṣûa. This man may well be the same as the witness, shaû, and scribe of the queen, at Kala in bc 709. We have nine letters of his referring to Armenian affairs. In one of them1 he announces that “at the commencement of Nisan the King of Armenia set out from Ṭurushpîa and went to Eliṣada, that Ḳaḳḳa-dânu, his tartan, went into the city Uesi, that all the forces of Armenia have gathered to Eliṣada.” The rest of the letter is obscure. At the end of another2 he says: “I have heard, saying, “the king has come into the midst of Uesi, as yet he has not left.” In the same letter he reports that “three thousand foot-soldiers, with their officers, belonging to Sêtini, his military commander, have set out to Muṣaṣir, crossed the river by night, that Sêtini has camels with him, and that Sunâ, who is in command among the Ukkai, has started with his troops for Muṣaṣir.” It is clear from these that the movements here refer to the beginning of the year after that in which, in Elul, the King of Armenia was in Uesi, and before the defeat of Armenia by the Gimirri.

A mere glance at the contents of his other letters will show their connection with these events. In one,3 he sends Naragê, a colonel, with twenty men who had plotted against the king and were caught. He mentions the capture of a second tartan, Urṣini, in Ṭurushpîa and the mission of Urṣini’s brother, Apli-uknu, to see him there. The King of Armenia had entered Ṭurushpîa with a number of restless men. In another,1 he reports the return to Assyria of a messenger from the Ukkai, who had gone up into Armenia; and mentions Muṣaṣir. In a third,2 he reports that “Gurânia, Nagiu, the fortresses of Armenia and Gimirri, are giving tribute to Armenia.” But that “when the Armenians went to Gimirri, they were badly defeated.” The rest is so injured as to give little sense. In another,3 he names Ariê and Ariṣâ, Dûr-Shamash, Barzanishtun, the city of Ishtar-dûri, and Shulmu-bêl-lashme; but the text is so defective that one cannot discern what he had to say about them. In another,4 he acknowledges the king’s order to send scouts into the neighborhood of Ṭurushpîa. In another,5 he writes that “the Mannai in the cities of Armenia on the coast of the sea rebelled, that Apli-uknu, the commander of Muṣaṣir, and Ṭunnaun, the commander of Kar-Sippar, went to the borders of the Mannai, to garrison Armenia and made a slaughter there, that all the commanders are present.” But these are not the only references to him. Ṭâb-shâr-Ashur6 writes to the king that he has received a letter from Ashur-riṣûa: “Thus it is written in it, saying, a messenger of the Ukkai went to Armenia, he has sent a letter to the palace, and these are the contents of the letter, on the morning of the sixth, this letter came to me; he sent, saying, the Ukkai have heard concerning Ariê that he went against him (the king of Armenia) and his city.” Then the letter becomes very defective, but we hear again of Kumai and Eliṣ (clearly the Eliṣada above). Ṭâb-shâr-Ashur again mentions Ashur-riṣûa,7 saying that a letter of his was brought, which referred to the King of Armenia entering some city. But too little is preserved to make out the message. In a report8 about beams of wood, collected by Ashur-riṣûa, he is associated with Ariê, and Uriṣâ, evidently the Ariṣâ above, and the city Kumai. Finally, on a letter by Gabbu-ana-Ashur he is mentioned in a most significant way. The writer says: “Concerning the news which the king gave me about the garrisons of Armenia, from the time that I entered the city Kurban, my messengers went to Nabû-li’, to Ashur-bêl-danân, to Ashur-riṣûa; they came to me.” After a break he goes on, “Like this I have heard; the Armenian (king) has not gone out of Ṭurushpîa.” After some more uncertain traces, he adds: “On the twenty-third of Tammuz I entered into Kurban, on the twentieth of Ab I sent a letter to the king, my lord.” It is evident that Nabû-li’, Ashur-bêl-danân, and Ashur-riṣûa were the commanders most concerned in these events. Nabû-li’, we have already seen, sent reports to Sennacherib; no letters of Ashur-bêl-danân, yet published, seem to refer to these events. But clearly the king was concerned to hear from other quarters than Kala, where Sennacherib evidently was. Ashur-riṣûa is also named elsewhere on fragments not yet published.

We may now pursue the clew given by the fact that Uesi was the city which seems to have been the bone of contention. Thus Urzana, whose name recalls that of the King of Muṣaṣir, who may have been reinstated as a vassal by Sargon, writes1 to the nâgiru of the palace:

Evidently Urzana lived in Muṣaṣir and was anxious to be thought a faithful vassal. An unknown writer1 tells the king that

The whole tone of the letter and the fact that Ashur-riṣûa above acknowledges having received an order to send scouts make us think he is the unknown writer. But, of course, the king may have sent the order to other commanders as well. In an unpublished text we read that the commander of Uesi was slain.

The references to Ṭurushpîa are also significant. We know that this city was once the stronghold of Sardaurri, King of Armenia, and was doubtless still attached to its old rulers. We have a letter written by Upair-Bêl, doubtless the Eponym of bc 706, and governor of Amedi. He writes in the same style as Sennacherib and Ashur-riṣûa:2

and so on. The rest does not concern us here. But another letter,3 evidently from the same writer, gives news from Armenia and a message from Argista, which the writer says he has answered, as the king directed. It also states that the commander keeps ward in arda. Ṭurushpîa is also mentioned on fragments not yet published.

Other fragments occur which clearly belong to this group. Thus1 a letter from an unknown writer names Ashur-riṣûa in connection with Kumai, Babutai, Ukkai, and Uliai, and narrates something about ten commanders. The loss of nine commanders in Armenia, at one time, is the subject of a very fragmentary letter,2 but it is not clear that it refers to this period.

To the same period seems to belong another letter of Sennacherib, probably to his father Sargon.3 It begins with precisely the same formulæ of greeting in the first seven lines. Then it goes on:

A letter about the chieftains of the KumuaiAnother letter-fragment only preserves the opening address.4 Another very defective letter5 with the same introduction refers to Dûr-Sargon,

We know from another source that this was the case, in bc 708, when the floods came into the lower part of the city, and the tribute could not be levied in the district.1 Yet another fragment, opening in precisely the same manner, refers to a certain Nabû-eṭir-napshâte and the city of Kalu.2 Here also we have too little left to make out any connected sense.

VI

LETTERS FROM THE LAST YEAR OF SHAMASH-SHUM-UKÎN

The period well knownAnother period on which the letters throw considerable light is the close of the reign of Shamash-shum-ukîn in Babylon. This was coeval with the suppression of a great combined rebellion against the rule of Assyria. From the historical texts of Ashurbânipal’s reign we know the names of many of the actors in that great struggle. They are frequently referred to in the letters. Already G. Smith, in his History of Assurbanipal, 1871, had used the information given by some of the letters. This was utilized by C. P. Tiele in his Babylonisch-assyrische Geschichte.

The case of Nabû-bêl-shumâteBut much more may be made out when the letters are fully available. Thus Nabû-bêl-shumâte, grandson of Merodach Baladan II., had been made King of the Sealands on the death of his uncle, Nâ’id-Marduk. When the revolt broke out, Ashurbânipal sent Assyrian troops to help Nabû-bêl-shumâte to repel Shamash-shum-ukîn. During the long process of suppressing the revolt, it is clear that Nabû-bêl-shumâte conceived the idea of reasserting the independence of the Sealands. He endeavored to gain the alliance of the Assyrian garrison, some he imprisoned, others may have joined him. On the fall of Babylon, in bc 648, he saw that Ashurbânipal’s vengeance must overtake him, so he fled to Elam. He took with him a certain number of Assyrians, evidently to hold as hostages. Ashurbânipal had a long score to settle with Elam. He began by demanding of Indabigash the surrender of Nabû-bêl-shu-mâte and the Assyrians with him. But before the ambassador could deliver the message, Indabigash had been succeeded by Ummanaldash. Nabû-bêl-shumâte was evidently a difficult person to lay hands upon. At any rate, Ummanaldash’s land was invaded and devastated. But when the Assyrian troops were gone, he again returned to his capital, Madaktu, and Nabû-bêl-shumâte joined him there. Again Ashurbânipal sent to demand his surrender. Rather than further embarrass his host, and quite hopeless of protection or pardon, Nabû-bêl-shumâte ordered his armor-bearer to slay him. Ummanaldash attempted to conciliate Ashurbânipal by sending the body of the dead man and the head of the armor-bearer to him. Such is the story as Ashurbânipal tells it in his great cylinder inscription.

Letters about himThe letters make no less than fifty distinct references to him. The officers write many bad things of Nabû-bêl-shumâte, and it is plain that he had been a very vicious enemy. We have a number of letters from a writer of his name, who may well be the King of the Sealands before he broke with Assyria. Thus we read:1

Then come a number of defective lines, from which not much can be made out. But there can be little doubt that this letter was written in the days when policy still kept him faithful to Assyria. There was another Nabû-bêl-shumâte, whose letters1 begin quite differently, and refer to horses and troops. There is even a third, a êpu of Birati, named by Tâb-ṣil-esharra,2 who was concerned in repelling a raid on Sippara, and is named in a contract of bc 686.3 It is just possible that the second and third are the same man. But while we must exercise care in assigning the references of the letters, we have a guide in the historical connection.

Bêl-ibni’s lettersBêl-ibnî was a very important officer who held the position of a manzâz pâni, having the right of access to the royal presence and a place near the king on all state occasions. He is probably to be distinguished from the Bêl-ibnî set on the throne of Babylon by Sennacherib in bc 702. He is a frequent writer to the king during this period. Ashurbânipal placed him over the Sealand after the flight of Nabû-bêl-shumâte. The king’s proclamation to the Sealanders4 reads thus:

Then after some defaced lines, he threatens that if they do not obey,

This order is dated the fifth of Iyyar, bc 650. By that date Nabû-bêl-shumâte had fled. It is not easy to say whether Ashurbânipal had appointed a lady, once the arimtu, or courtesan, of Menânu, as ruler of the Sealand before Nabû-bêl-shumâte, or whether he means to call Nabû-bêl-shumâte by this opprobrious epithet. Who is meant by Menânu is hard to see, unless it be the Elamite King, Umman-minana, the contemporary of Sennacherib, who had protected the family of Merodach-Baladan II.

Letter of Ummanaldash offering to give up Nabû-bêl-shumâteWe have a fragmentary letter1 from the King of Elam, Ummanaldash, to Ashurbânipal, which says:

The rest of the letter is hard to make out. It was dated on the twenty-sixth of Tammuz, in the Eponymy of Nabû-shar-aêshu, probably bc 645.

Letter of Bêl-ibnî accusing Nabû-bêl-shumâte of imprisoning his brotherBêl-ibnî had a great hatred for Nabû-bêl-shumâte. For the latter had years before laid hands upon Bêl-ibnî’s eldest brother, Bêlshunu, and put him in prison. This we learn from a letter to the king,2 which, although the name of the writer is lost, is clearly from Bêl-ibnî. The first few lines yield no connected sense, but name Umman-shimash and the nobles with him:

The rest is obscure, but names Ṣalmu-shar-iḳbi as sending news to the palace.

Bêlshunu’s identityThe Bêlshunu here named is probably the Eponym of bc 648, who was then governor of indana, who also dates a letter from the king to Umman-shimash, which names Bêl-ibnî. There are over fifty references in the letters to Bêl-ibnî, most of which directly connect him with these events. His duties in command of the Sealand brought him into relations with the many Elamites, who in the frequent revolutions in that land, fled for refuge to the Assyrians. Here is one of the best of his letters to the king:1

The incident here referred to, the reception of the fugitive Shumâ, who probably on account of his illness was unable to join his uncle Tammaritu, is very similar to that related of Tammaritu himself. This King of Elam succeeded his cousin Ummanigash, whom he dethroned, but after a short reign was himself dethroned by the usurper Indabigash. He and his brothers and family and eighty-five princes of Elam, his supporters, fled by sea from Elam to the marshes at the mouths of the Tigris and Euphrates. There he fell sick. But Ashurbânipal sent him a friendly message, and he came before the Assyrian governor, and kissed the ground in token of submission. We learn that Mardukshar-uṣur was the officer who received him, and a very mutilated letter seems to refer to it. He was probably the Rabshakeh to whom Bêl-ibnî wrote1 complaining of certain slanders about him. So even the faithful servant was not entirely free from court intrigues. In another letter Bêl-ibnî refers to his having received and sent on to the king, Tammaritu, his brothers, family, and nobles.2

Many letters of this periodLike Ummanigash and Indabigash, Tammaritu corresponded with Ashurbânipal. We have letters from him to the King of Assyria and from Ashurbânipal to him. Unfortunately these letters are very imperfect, or not yet published. He is mentioned continually in the letters. There were several of the name: (1) son of Urtaku, third brother of Teumman, (2) son of Teumman, slain with his father, (3) son of Ummanigash, King of Elam, succeeded his cousin Ummanigash, whom he dethroned, (4) son of Attamitu. To which of these a reference is made is often hard to decide.

VII

LETTERS REGARDING AFFAIRS IN SOUTHERN BABYLONIA

Their character that of forecasts or omensAnother group refers to the events at Ur, in the far south of Babylonia. Sin-tabni-uṣur, son of Ningal-iddina, was governor there during the time of Shamash-shum-ukîn’s great rebellion. This we learn from some of the forecast tablets, published in George Smith’s Assurbanipal.1 The greater part of these tablets is unintelligible, containing a record of the omens observed, probably on inspection of the entrails of the slaughtered sacrifices. What these symptoms were cannot yet be determined. Much has been done by Boissier in his Textes Assyriens relatifs au Présage, and many articles contributed to various journals. The omens are generally such as also occur in the tablets published by Dr. Knudtzon in his Gebete an den Sonnengott, and ably discussed by him there. The tablet evidently was meant to submit these omens to some oracle that a prediction might be given on their authority. The king also usually stated his cause of anxiety and asked for guidance and direction. These forecast tablets, many of which are dated,Their great value are of the greatest service for the chronology of the period. They have been partly discussed by the present writer.2 Thus the two, which refer to Sin-tabni-uṣur, announce that he is governor of Ur, and seem to inquire whether he can be relied upon to prove faithful. We may conclude that his appointment took place in Ab, bc 648.

A letter of the governor of ErechFrom a letter,1 which G. Smith2 ascribes to Kudur, governor of Erech, we learn that he had heard from Sin-tabni-uṣur, who reports that a messenger had arrived from Shamash-shum-ukîn, inciting the people to rebel against Ashurbânipal. As a result,

The good Kudur sent five or six hundred archers and joined Aplîa, the governor of Arrapa, and Nûrêa, governor of Ṣameda, and went to Ur. He was able to seize the leaders of the revolt, among them Nabû-zêr-iddin. But someone had captured Sin-tabni-uṣur. Bêl-ibnî is named, and later Nabû-ushêzib, the archer, but the text is too mutilated to make out a clear account. But it seems likely that Sin-tabni-uṣur was rescued, and being re-enforced, held out well for his master. Ashurbânipal writes to assure him of his continued confidence.3

The persons mentionedIt is clear that Sin-shar-uṣur and Ummanigash had been intriguing against Sin-tabni-uṣur. There are several persons of the name Sin-shar-uṣur about this time. No less than three Eponyms bear the name after bc 648. The aba mâti, or governor of Hindana, or the arû might be meant here. But there was a brother of Sin-tabni-uṣur, of this name, who perhaps coveted his post. Among the many unpublished texts which refer to him one may, perhaps, be found to explain the hostility. Nor is it clear which Ummanigash is meant. There was one of the three sons of Urtaku, who took refuge at the court of Ashurbânipal, when their father was murdered and dethroned by his brother, Teumman. When the Assyrian king espoused his cause, he was enabled by Assyrian troops to defeat and slay the usurper Teumman and take the throne of Elam. But he was faithless and allied himself with Shamash-shum-ukîn. He was dethroned by his cousin, Tammaritu, shortly before the fall of Shamash-shum-ukîn. That he, while at the Assyrian Court, should have slandered the governor of Ur, is quite in accordance with his character, but what was his purpose, or what he alleged, we do not know. There was another Ummanigash, brother of Urtaku; another, son of Umbadara; another, a son of Amedirra. The latter raised a rebellion against Ummanaldash, as we learn from a report by Bêl-ibnî.1 After his usual salutations, Bêl-ibnî reports,

Here follows a bad break in the narrative, but Iḳisha-aplu is named, and Bêl-ibnî promised to send on to the king whatever they captured and brought to him. The letter then resumes:

Kudur’s letters about the king’s favoriteKudur, governor of Erech, who sent news of the outbreak of rebellion in the south, gives us further information about Mushêzib-Marduk, who was a favorite with the king. After a long salutation occupying nearly the whole of the obverse, with a short reference to a certain Upaḳu, the reverse side goes on:1

The king’s replyThe king himself writes to Bêl-ibnî2 in a most friendly way about Mushêzib-Marduk:

Mushêzib-Marduk is also mentioned by Nabû-zêr-ukîn, in a letter to the king,1 in close connection with Shum-iddin, the governor of Dûr-ilu. It is not clear what the writer had to say of him, but farther on in the letter Bêl-ibnî is named. The same Nabû-zêr-ukîn is mentioned in a tablet of epigraphs,2 where he is associated with Shamash-shum-ukîn, Tammaritu and Indabigash. He is there said to be son of Nabû-mushêṣi. In another letter he writes with Adadi-shum-uṣur, Nabû-shum-iddin, Ardi-Ea, and Ishtar-shum-êresh to the king,3 but hardly anything remains except a mention of Nineveh. The same group of writers is elsewhere associated with Nabû-mushêṣi. Of another letter4 from him to the king only the introduction is found.

Kudur’s letters about the rebellionKudur, governor of Erech, was a frequent correspondent with the king. A score of letters from him to the king, or from the king to him, are preserved. They are nearly all concerned, more or less, with the events during the great rebellion. There were several others of the name, one an Elamite prince, son of Ummanaldash. The name itself may be Elamite and may point to a strong admixture of Elamite blood in Erech. The element Kudur occurs in such names as Kudur-Mabug, Kudur-Naunte, and Kudur-lagamar, the prototype of Chedorlaomer. There was another Kudur, son of Dakkuri, who was brought captive to Assyria with Shum-iddin. We may take as one example:5

It seems that the men of Pekod (see Jer. i. 21, Ez. xxiii. 23) had made an attack upon Bît-Amuḳâni and nearly destroyed the country. Kudur moved into the country, but sent for explicit orders as to what he should do. He changes his subject rather abruptly at times and it is not quite clear always of whom he is speaking. The most obscure sentence is where he says that “we abhor the alienation of territory,” literally “the sin of the land.” It seems that a land sinned when it was occupied by an enemy.

Ashurbânipal was deeply attached to his faithful servant, as the following letter shows:1

The king had sent a doctor who had restored Kudur, when he had despaired of himself. Then he started to come and thank the king in person, but when on the road the chief baker (if that was his right title) recalled him, because a sealed despatch had reached Erech addressed to him from the king. He sends at once this letter, not having reached Erech again; at any rate, he does not refer to the contents of the despatch.

VIII

LETTERS ABOUT ELAM AND SOUTHERN BABYLONIA

The downfall of Elamite powerIn Elam, during the reign of Ashurbânipal, there was a protracted series of revolutions, interspersed with invasions of, or by, Assyria. The result was the utter decay of Elamite power, and after Ashurbânipal’s final reduction of the country and sack of Susa, the land was an easy prey to the Aryan invaders. From the story, as told by Ashurbânipal, the Elamites richly deserved their fate, and lest we should suspect him of undue partiality, the matter-of-fact letters of his officers give us substantial grounds for crediting his view. It seems that Urtaku, who came to the throne of Elam in bc 675, was always on good terms with Assyria. We have a letter from Esarhaddon to him1 in very friendly terms. It begins:

This friendship at first maintained by AshurbanipalThe rest is obscure by reason of lacunæ. The reverse seems to be inscribed with numerals, perhaps relating to items of presents sent. Ashurbânipal kept up the friendship, and, when a famine broke out in Elam, allowed some Elamites to take refuge in his land, and afterwards restored them to their country. He also sent grain into Elam itself. But, perhaps as consequence of having spied out the land, the Elamites contrived to make Urtaku attack Assyria.The Elamites invade Babylonia He was incited to this act by Bêl-iḳisha, prince of the Gambûlai, who inhabited the marshes about the mouth of the Uknû, or Blue River, perhaps the modern Karoon, bordering on Elam. Bêl-iḳisha rebelled against Assyria, and with his troops joined Elam. Nabû-shum-êresh, the tik-en-na, apparently sheik of the district of Dupliash, another Assyrian subject, seems to have done the same. Marduk-shum-ibnî, the general of Urtaku, who led the invasion, was evidently not an Elamite, but perhaps a Chaldean, or renegade Babylonian. At any rate, the Elamites invaded Akkad and covered the land like grasshoppers. They laid siege to Babylon. On the approach of the Assyrian army, the invaders fled. Urtaku died.The punishment Bêl-iḳisha was killed by a wild boar. Nabû-shum-êresh was smitten with dropsy and died. “In one year the gods cut them off.” The throne of Elam fell to Teumman, a brother of Urtaku, who maintained a hostile attitude. Dunânu, son and successor of Bêl-iḳisha, joined Teumman. Ashurbânipal accordingly invaded Elam, defeated and slew Teumman, ravaged the land of Gambulû and captured Dunânu, who was taken to Nineveh and made to march in the triumphal procession, with the head of Teumman slung about his neck, and was finally tortured to death.

Nabû-ush-abshi’s letters as governor of Southern BabyloniaAll the time that Shamash-shum-ukîn was king in Babylon, Ashurbânipal seems to have retained the rule over Southern Babylonia. At any rate, the governors of the cities there wrote to him as their king and lord. The above-mentioned revolt in Gambulû was a direct concern of the governor of Erech, who seems to have suffered severely. As late as the twentieth year of Ashurbânipal, Nabû-ushabshi was governor there. We have many letters from him to the king. One1 refers to the above events:

Then comes a break, in which the fragments indicate that Nabû-ushabshi prayed daily for revenge. Then we read:

The last request is very unusual, but we are glad it was obeyed. Another of his letters refers to the intrigues of Pir’-Bêl, son of Bêl-eṭir. This Bêl-eṭir may be the son of Nabû-shum-êresh, who, with his brother, Nabû-nâ’id, was carried captive to Nineveh, along with Dunânu, and there made to desecrate the bones of their father. But it seems possible that we have here to do with another Bêl-eṭir, as these events seem earlier in the history. After the same introduction as before, the letter2 reads:

After some broken lines:

we read:

Letters about presents sent to the sanctuary of ErechOne event, very characteristic of the times, is the subject of three letters. The sanctuary of Ishtar, at Erech, was celebrated far and wide, and on one occasion the King of Elam sent gifts to it. These Nabû-ushabshi seems to have been unable to possess himself of, or to send to the king. Thus, we read:1

The king replied:1

Evidently in consequence of this, we have another letter,2 where both writer and recipient are unknown. It is much injured, and while there are a few sentences intelligible, it is not easy to say to what they refer. But on the reverse after the first six or seven lines, the words of the last letter are repeated verbatim. It is perhaps another letter from the king to Nabû-ushabshi. The governors of Lairu and Arbaa are said to be with the receiver of the letter.

IX

MISCELLANEOUS ASSYRIAN LETTERS

Letters about omens and predictionsA very interesting group may be made up of letters concerned with omens and predictions. The Assyrian kings were firm believers in omens. They did not venture upon any great undertaking without consulting the augurs. We have numerous letters telling the king what days were propitious for certain projects which he had formed. For the most part, the whole point is obscure to us. We know neither the purpose he had, the omens relied on, nor the real grounds of the decision. Very often translation is impossible. In some cases the publication of the innumerable omen texts may give some light on the subject, but usually it is quite impossible to see how these were made to apply to the actual case. It is very like the case of Nebuchadrezzar’s dream. We are without any data to work from.

About a fox’s falling into a wellHere is an example of some interest, and more easily understood than many:1

Whether this was a good or evil omen, or even an omen at all, we do not know. Nabûa is a very common name. There are fourteen of fifteen astrological reports which bear his name. In these he appears as an inhabitant of the city Asshur. The name occurs some forty times in the contracts, but it is clear that there were several of the name. Perhaps the scribe who appears from bc 668 down to postcanon times may be our writer, but, as he lived at Nineveh, that is doubtful.

Regarding auspicious days for a journeyAnother case which is fairly intelligible is a letter of Balasi and Nabû-aê-erba,1 on a question of auspicious days for a journey. It reads:

We have fairly frequent references to Ashur-mukîn-palêa in a way that shows that he was delicate. From a letter of Ardi-Nabû’s we learn that the order of seniority in the family of Esarhaddon was Ashurbânipal, Shamash-shumukîn, Sherûa-eṭirat (a princess), Ashur-mukin-palêa, Sharrushame-erṣiti-balâṭsu-(iḳbi). He is often named in the letters, usually as king’s son. But despite his delicate health he survived to be made high-priest of Sin at arrân, by his royal brother, and even as late as bc 648 his name occurs in the contracts.2

Balasi’s letters about astrologyBalasi is a frequent writer of astrological reports, some five and twenty being preserved, besides some fifteen letters. In the latter he is associated with Nabû-aê-erba no less than seven times, once with Ishtar-shum-êresh also. In these cases we probably have the same person. But the name occurs often in the contracts, and there belongs to at least three different men. Nabû-aê-erba was the writer of some five and thirty astrological reports, besides some seven or eight letters, usually with Balasi. The name belongs to several persons named in the contracts.

Ardi-Êa’s letters of congratulationArdi-Êa was also a frequent writer to the king. Besides three or four astrological reports, he wrote nine letters to the king. He is generally associated with Adadi-shum-uṣur, Ishtar-shum-êresh, Akkullânu, or Marduk-shâkin-shum. But one letter,1 written to Sargon II., and mentioning Merodach-Baladan II., clearly belongs to another Ardi-Êa. Most of his letters are defective. The most intelligible2 reads thus:

Adadi-shum-usur’s lettersThe great group of writers with whom he is associated is responsible for a large number of letters. Adadi-shum-uṣur wrote some thirty-five letters and five or six astrological reports. He is especially prolix in his introduction. Here is a specimen:3

Judging from the frequent mention of Ardi-Gula in other letters and that he wrote to the king about his sons, Ashurbânipal and Shamash-shum-ukîn, we may be sure the old courtier got his request, and that he was writing to Esarhaddon. The letters of Adadi-shum-uṣur concern domestic affairs, the sickness of one, an auspicious day, the health of another, rarely does he mention any news of public interest. The persons about whom he writes are the members of the royal family, Esarhaddon’s children and the above-named circle of officials. The king sent him to see certain sick folk,1 he writes about an eclipse, or a ring, or something of the sort. He usually gives a very long introduction; often the real message occupies only a few lines.

Miscellaneous lettersMarduk-shâkin-shum is another of the same group, with twenty-five letters. They are of the same domestic nature as the last. Ishtar-shum-êresh is the writer of a score of letters and about thirty astrological reports. He was evidently a younger member of the group, son of Nabû-zêr-lîshir, and chief scribe to Ashurbânipal. In the reign of Esarhaddon he ranked as a mašmašu. Akkullânu, who was an êrib bîti, of Ashur, writes sixteen letters and some dozen astrological reports.

Nabûa’s letters about the calendarWe have seen that in the second epoch the king had to fix the time when intercalary months should be inserted. In this period the calendar was very carefully regulated by astronomical observations. As a new month began on the day on which the new moon was seen, it is clear that a month would often exceed twenty-nine days, but that a new moon might sometimes be seen on the twenty-ninth. Nabûa, the astronomer of the city Asshur, sends a number of such letters as:1

So Nabû-shum-iddin writes:2

The gardener, or rather irrigator, may be a royal title. At present these observations are useless to us in our attempts to fix chronology, as we do not know the month and year of many of them.

The queendowager’s importanceThe queen-mother was always an important personage in the state and she had very great influence indeed at court. But probably few ladies ever obtained a higher degree of power than did Naki’a, or Zakutu as she was also called, the wife of Sennacherib and mother of Esarhaddon. She had a sister Abirami.3 The queen-mother resided in Lairu, but there seem to have been more than one city of the name. Her necklace, or some part of it, is in private possession and has been described by Professor Scheil.1 She survived her son, and, with her grandsons, Ashurbânipal, Shamash-shum-ukîn, and the nobles of Assyria, issued a proclamation to the empire, declaring Ashurbânipal the true heir to the throne.

Letter of Nâ’id-Marduk to herIt is, of course, uncertain whether the person addressed as mother of the king is always Zakûtu, since we cannot always date the letters. But the letter of Nâ’id-Marduk,2 which names Ummanigash as King of Elam, was certainly addressed to her. Nâ’id-Marduk was a son of Merodach Baladan, who, in the reign of Esarhaddon, when his brother Nabû-zêr-kînish-lîshir was killed by Ummanaldash II., threw himself on the mercy of Esarhaddon and was by him made ruler of his ancestral domain of Bît Jakin, as a vassal king. He speaks for himself:

It is evident that the writer regards the queen-mother as so thoroughly identical with the king that he does not scruple to address her as “my lord.” Despite several lacunæ the general sense is clear. After the break the passage in quotation-marks seems to be quoted from a report made to the writer. The sons of Ningal-iddina were Sin-tabni-uṣur, Sin-balâṭsu-iḳbi, and Sin-shar-uṣur, all of whom were in important commands in Southern Babylonia. It seems probable that the events referred to in this letter are those which led up to the Elamite invasion of Babylonia, when they came raiding as far as Sippara. Esarhaddon was away at the time in the west. There is no record of how they were driven back.

King’s letter to herHere is a letter from the king to his mother:1

The meaning is obscured for us by our complete lack of information as to the persons concerned. We may conjecture that amunai was the servant of Amushe, but we do not know. However, we see that the queen-mother gave good advice.

Aplfa’s cordial letter to herZakûtu must often have been a prey to great anxiety, left in command as she was in Assyria, with her warrior son nearly always away and such awkward neighbors as the Elamites. But she was on the whole faithfully served. It seems that the proud nobles of Assyria became restless during Esarhaddon’s long absences, for we learn from the Babylonian Chronicle that, in bc 670, Esarhaddon put a number of them to death. Here is a letter, however, from an attached subject:2

There is a suggestion in the mention of Nanâ that Aplîa wrote from Erech. He may be the Aplîa afterwards associated with Bêl-ibnî and Kudur in the south. If so, we may suppose that the messenger came from Esarhaddon, from Egypt, by way of Southern Babylonia. One would suppose that a messenger from Canaan, or the west, would reach Nineveh, before Chaldea. But, of course, the queen-mother may have been at Lairu. Only it is doubtful whether she lived there, while Esarhaddon was away.

It is more likely still that the Aplîa is the same as the râb ali of Lairu, who in bc 678 was over the house of the queen-mother there.1

Asharîdu’s letter of loyaltyAnother letter2 conveys assurance of fidelity:

That Asharîdu is the same as the writer of some thirty astrological reports who was the son of Dankâ, a atnu, and servant of the king, may be doubted. He is more likely to be the author of several letters who seems to have been connected with Borsippa. Another letter3 is from Nêrgal-sharâni in response to another about some sacrifices, sent by the queen-mother. He prays for a thousand years of rule for Esarhaddon, so there can be no mistake about the period. He recounts the preparations made—an ox, two sheep, and two hundred geese. But he says that Ninḳai, the handmaid of the queen-mother, for some reason, will not perform the sacrifice. The queen-mother is asked to send authority for someone to open the treasury and perform the work. The letter is defective and obscure by reason of unknown words. Nêrgal-sharâni may be the same Ashur-shum-uṣur who so often writes to the king about this time. Again Nabû-shum-lîshir writes to the queen-mother1 about a woman, Kallati, who was intrusted to the writer in the house of Shama’, and about some sheep.

Medical lettersAnother group includes the letters which refer to medical treatment. Here especially Dr. C. Johnston, himself a medical man, has made a most valuable start in his Assyrian Epistolary Correspondence, and we can hardly do better than to follow his guidance. As a rule, what these ancient peoples said and thought of disease is very obscure to us. Many terms were then, as now, used in the medical vocabulary which were well known in ordinary language, but which were given a distinctly different technical meaning. Great attention was paid to surgery and medicine, as is shown by the clauses in the Code.2Medical records numerous There are also a great number of tablets dealing with medicine, some of which have been published. Long ago Professor Sayce discussed one such text under the title, “An Ancient Babylonian Work on Medicine,”3 and from the British Museum Catalogue fully four hundred and fifty such texts are known. Dr. C. F. H. Küchler in his Beiträge zur Kenntniss der Assyrischen Medicin has made great progress toward settling the reading and meaning of certain words and phrases. Dr. Baron Felix von Oefele, who has devoted much study to ancient medicine in general, has made noteworthy contributions to the study, by his articles in learned journals. Still, the great obstacle is that so much of the materia medica, which was a very full one, is unknown; and the diseases appear under names which do not assist us in determining the meaning. The medical treatises considered affections of all parts of the body, and made much of symptoms. They prescribe roots and oils and a great variety of powdered drugs. Some of the treatment is evidently based on extended trial and observation.Exorcism as well as hearing the duty of a physician But also much reliance was placed on charms, and diseases were associated with demons. To drive away the demon, as well as cure the pain, was the doctor’s duty. There was full recognition of the mental factor in sickness.

A letter reporting the progress of a diseaseWith considerable hesitation the following two letters from the physician Ardi-Nanâ to the king Esarhaddon are given, in which Dr. C. Johnston’s rendering is closely followed. In the first, Ardi-Nanâ reports on the state of a patient, perhaps one of the young princes, who was suffering from a disease of the eyes, or perhaps facial erysipelas. He was progressing so well that the physician piously opines that some god has taken the case under his care. The gods who were special patrons of the healing art were Ninip and Gula, whose blessing the physician accordingly invokes. We read:1

There is also another letter1 from Ardi-Nanâ to the king, but part of it is too defective to render. It begins in exactly the same way as before, save that greeting is also sent to the king’s son.

The messenger here was a rab mu-gi, in which title it has been proposed to see the original of the Rabmag of Jeremiah xxxix. 3. He was a high official charged with the care of horses and chariots, and here sent to hear news of the patient. There is no evidence that he had any medical knowledge himself. In another letter,2 Ardi-Nanâ writes concerning Ashur-mukîn-palêa, a younger son of Esarhaddon and brother of Ashurbânipal. He bids the king not to fear. The young prince seems to have been in the doctor’s care. Further he writes about the health of a tooth (of the prince’s?) about which the king had sent to inquire. He had greatly improved its condition (literally, uplifted its head). In another letter,3 also partly defective, he directs the king to anoint himself as a protection against draughts (?), to drink pure water, and to wash his hands frequently in a bowl. Presently the rash (?) will disappear. In another still more defective letter4 he mentions the plant martakal, to which magical efficacy was ascribed. Another long letter,1 after the same complimentary opening as the others, goes on:

The rest is obscure, simply because we do not know what the disease, or remedy, was.

Shamash-mîtu-uballiṭ, probably the youngest son of Esarhaddon, writes to the king, but whether to his father or his brother Ashurbânipal does not seem clear, about the health of a lady, in whose well-being the king seemed to take interest.2

Letters regarding the appointment of officialsThere is also an interesting letter concerning the appointment of a successor to a dead official,3 sent by a writer whose name is lost:

It is clear that succession was not purely hereditary. Even when the son was alive, he might be passed over in favor of a cousin, or for a still more distant relation. There are many other interesting cases where the king inquires for the proper persons to be placed in the offices vacated through death or deposition. For example, when Esarhaddon began to set in order the temple services, he heard the following report:1

The text is difficult, partly because some signs are defaced, partly because some words could be read more ways than one, and others are obscure. It seems quite clear that the cult of Ashur had greatly suffered. We know from the arrân census that certain lands were charged with dues to the temples, others with salaries to officials. The list of defaulters is of geographical value. The deposition of rightful temple officers and the intrusion of unworthy substitutes, on slight grounds, is charged to Sennacherib. He was evidently estranged from the cult of Ashur. Doubtless a comparison of other letters will clear up some of the obscurities, but sufficient is clear to indicate the importance of such documents.

Women’s lettersIt is of interest to note that we have a few letters sent by women. We may select the following:1

Evidently the lady Sarai had great influence with the scribe of the palace; perhaps she was his wife. The reason why the governor took certain servants of his and gave them to Marduk-erba is not clear. Perhaps they were sold for some government claim. It seems that the lady wished to keep them back, but that the purchaser had called and was about to take them away, unless the scribe in some way intervened.

Private lettersA few quite private letters found their way into the archives of Nineveh, unless indeed this is a mere freak of the discoverers. Thus:1

Here is another from Borsippa:2

Reports and listsAs before remarked, many letters are notices of the movements of horses. These are really obscure in that we do not know what the real purpose of the reports was. They are very similar to many reports which lack the form of address that marks a letter. Many of the terms applied to the horses are also obscure and there is no way to translate them. In other cases we have reports to the king or his officials on various every-day subjects. A list of slaves assigned to one or more men, a list of guests, men of high rank, sent to stay with certain officials, lists of furniture and effects, including books, sent to arrân with one of the princes, all serve to throw light upon the daily life at the court of Nineveh. Incidentally we have many hints for history as well as life and manners. But such lists and reports do not lend themselves to translation.

Inquiries of the oraclesA group of texts, very similar to the letters, only with an especial character of their own, are the inquiries addressed by Esarhaddon and Ashurbânipal to the oracle of the sun-god. Their great interest lies in the fact that they usually state the events which cause the king’s anxiety and so make important contributions to history. But the larger part of them consist of a detailed statement of what omens have been observed by the augurs on examining the entrails of the sacrifices. On these it is probable that the sun-god was to base his opinion. He would know and declare what they portended.

MetrologyOccasionally a letter serves to make a contribution to some subject which is of interest apart from the events of the day. Thus, information is furnished regarding metrology in a letter primarily concerned with materials for the repair of a temple or palace.1 There we read of “six articles of mismakanna wood, six a apiece, one cubit long and one cubit thick.” The thickness is clearly a cubit each way, and we learn that a cubit cube contained six a. There are many letters and fragments which concern beams of wood and stones sent from great distances for buildings and repairs. When these are all published and considered together, no doubt they will clear up the difficulties which at present render translation impossible.

Diary of a journeyA fragmentary report—it may have been a letter—gives a diary of a journey. If we could complete it, or find a few more like it, we should have a knowledge of geography such as we have not for any other part of the world for early times.2 We may summarize it as follows: On the sixth, the writer went from Bagarri to Sarî, from Sarî to Arzuina, from Arzuina to Tel-Arzuina. He stated the distances from city to city, but these are now lost. This was the first journey. The second journey was from Tel-Arzuina to Dûr-sisite. The third journey was from Dûr-sisite to Maturaba, from Maturaba to Dûr-Taliti. The fourth journey was from Dûr-Taliti to Babiti, from Babiti to Lagabgalagi. The fifth journey was from Lagabgalagi to the river Radânu, thence to Asri. The sixth journey was from Asri to Arrakdi. The seventh journey was from ualsundi to Napigi, thence to Dûr-Ashur. Here we get the whole distance from Arrakdi to Dûr-Ashur as two kaspu, twenty-four uš, twenty-four u. The identification of these places would be of enormous value for a determination of the Assyrian measures of length. The distances are correct to the cubit. The eighth journey was from Dûr-Ashur to Tarzini, thence to Banbala. The ninth journey was from Banbala to Ishdi-dagurrai, thence to Gupni-Bêl-arrân, one kaspu, five uš, fifty-four u. The tenth journey was from Gupni-Bêl-arrân to Dûr-Adadi-rîmâni, thence to Dûr-Tukulti-apil-esharra, on the seventeenth. Several of these places are already known. Others may be identified with some certainty. The whole would have a great value if preserved complete.

X

LETTERS OF THE SECOND BABYLONIAN EMPIRE

Business lettersSome Babylonian letters of the Second Empire are to be found in the great collections published by Strassmaier. For the most part they are of a business nature, asking for some payment to be made or some object sent on.

Thus,1 one reads:

Or,2

A somewhat longer but imperfect letter3 reads:

Of some interest for the nature of public works is:1

Or this:2

The following is another of the best-preserved letters of this period:3

Fragmentary notesFor the most part the others are fragmentary and of no special interest. It is noteworthy that they all begin with much the same form of greeting.

Dr. T. G. Pinches published the text of three letters of this period in Recueil des Travaux.4 Two are very fragmentary; the third reads thus:

Here is an interesting letter:1

Several words in this text are not found elsewhere, but very strangely we know much about the persons. Shirḳu, whose other name was Marduk-nâṣir-aplu, son of Iddinâ, was of the important commercial house of Egibi, and lived in the reign of Darius. He was a great ship-owner, and had the tolls of a certain bridge. He travelled to Elam in the fifth year of Darius. A great many of his business transactions are detailed by Dr. Pinches.2 Daian-bêl-uṣur and his wife Nanâ-bêl-uṣri were slaves of Shirḳu, who pledged them with their six children, at one time. In the sixteenth year of Darius their master gave them as part of her dowry, to Amat-Bau, daughter of Kalbâ. They lived in the town of Suppatum.

The reader has now before him a few specimens of this extremely valuable but very obscure class of literature. As time and study avail to clear up the obscurities, much more will be learned of the life and customs of these ancient peoples. Enough may have been given to stimulate research, and interest a wider circle of readers. It is the writer’s hope that many may be led, even by these scattered and disjointed specimens, to undertake such studies as may render more perfect his slight contribution and rescue from oblivion the heroes of a bygone civilization.

[1 ] Heuzey, Revue d’Assyriologie, iv., pp. 1 ff.

[2 ] Vol. II., 1897; Vol. IV., 1898; Vol. VI., 1898; Vol. VIII., 1899.

[3 ]Briefe aus der Zeit des Babylonischen Königs ammurabi, Leipzig, 1901.

[4 ] Three volumes, 1898-1900, Luzac, London.

[5 ] , iv., p. 434-500.

[6 ] , ii., pp. 557-64, 573-79.

[1 ] XVI., p. 189.

[2 ] Pages 105, 106, 107, 116, 123, 124, 125, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137.

[3 ] Published III. R. 4. No. 5.

[4 ] Heft I. of Mittheilungen aus den Orientalischen Sammlungen der Königliche Museen zu Berlin, Speman, Berlin.

[5 ] , iv., pp. 101-54, 279-337, and 410-17.

[1 ] Vol. V. of Schrader’s Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek, Reuther and Reichard, Berlin, 1896.

[2 ] June 17, 1903.

[1 ] IX., pp. 240-56; X., pp. 60-72, 155-77, 305-15.

[2 ] , i., pp. 185-248, 613-31; ii., 19-62.

[3 ]University of Chicago Press; Luzac, London.

[4 ] Baltimore, 1898.

[5 ] , iv., pp. 501-45.

[6 ] , 1901, pp. 331-59.

[7 ] , x., pp. 196-201; xiii., pp. 209-12, xiv., pp. 1-16, 171-82; xv., pp. 129-44.

[8 ] Pfeiffer, Leipzig.

[1 ] II., pp. 52, 58, 184 f., 302 f.

[1 ] , No. 34.

[2 ] , iii., p. 237.

[1 ] , No. 45.

[2 ] , No. 26.

[3 ] , No. 71.

[4 ] , No. 5.

[1 ] , No. 4.

[2 ] , No. 11.

[3 ] , No. 6.

[1 ] § .

[2 ] , No. 76.

[3 ] , No. 12.

[1 ] , No. 24.

[2 ] , Nos. 13, 41.

[3 ] , No. 28.

[1 ] , No. 33.

[1 ] , Nos. 16, 30.

[1 ] , No. 3.

[2 ] , Nos. 18, 30, 73.

[3 ] , No. 38.

[1 ] , No. 81.

[2 ] , No. 49.

[1 ] , No. 80.

[2 ] , Nos. 79, 104.

[3 ] , No. 105.

[1 ] , No. 56.

[2 ] , No. 50.

[3 ] , No. 47.

[4 ] , No. 48.

[1 ]Ana Amélim-ŝha-Marduk-ubalaṭuŝhu.

[2 ] , ii., 312.

[3 ] , Th. 793; , ii., p. 563.

[1 ] B. 290 ff.

[1 ] 212.

[1 ] 193.

[1 ] 2185.

[2 ] , ii., p. 90.

[3 ] 315.

[1 ] S. 273.

[2 ] S. 274.

[1 ] III. R. 4, No. 5.

[2 ] K. 2, 41.

[3 ] , i., p. xxiii., note 2.

[1 ] , 1895, p. 220 f.

[2 ] , xvi., pp. 160-67.

[1 ] K. 181; H. 197.

[2 ] H. 198.

[1 ] H. 492.

[2 ] H. 380.

[3 ] H. 144.

[1 ] H. 145.

[2 ] H. 146.

[3 ] H. 147.

[4 ] H. 148.

[5 ] H. 381.

[6 ] H. 101.

[7 ] H. 488.

[8 ] H. 490.

[1 ] H. 409.

[1 ] H. 444.

[2 ] H. 424.

[3 ] H. 548.

[1 ] H. 619.

[2 ] H. 646.

[3 ] H. 196.

[4 ] H. 199.

[5 ] H. 731.

[1 ] , 1141.

[2 ] H. 730.

[1 ] H. 839.

[1 ] H. 832, 833, 835, 836, 837.

[2 ] H. 88.

[3 ] , 9.

[4 ] H. 289.

[1 ] G. Smith, ii., pp. 51 ff.

[2 ] H. 460.

[1 ] H. 282.

[1 ] H. 283.

[2 ] H. 284.

[1 ] Pages 184, 185.

[2 ] In , etc.

[1 ] H. 754.

[2 ] Page 201.

[3 ] H. 290.

[1 ] H. 280.

[1 ] H. 277.

[2 ] H. 399.

[1 ] H. 412.

[2 ] K. 4453.

[3 ] H. 332.

[4 ] H. 513.

[5 ] H. 275.

[1 ] H. 274.

[1 ] G. Sm., p. 24.

[1 ] H. 269.

[2 ] H. 266.

[1 ] H. 268.

[1 ] H. 273.

[2 ] H. 543.

[1 ] H. 142.

[1 ] H. 77.

[2 ] , 1053.

[1 ] H. 30.

[2 ] H. 28.

[3 ] H. 2.

[1 ] H. 1.

[1 ] H. 825.

[2 ] H. 816.

[3 ] , 70.

[1 ] Rec. Trav., xx., p. 200.

[2 ] W. Sm., p. 7.

[1 ] H. 324.

[2 ] H. 303.

[1 ] , No. 301.

[2 ] H. 254.

[3 ] H. 368.

[1 ] H. 263.

[2 ] §§ -21.

[3 ] II.

[1 ] H. 392.

[1 ] H. 108.

[2 ] H. 109.

[3 ] H. 110.

[4 ] H. 111.

[1 ] H. 391.

[2 ] H. 341.

[3 ] H. 577.

[1 ] H. 43.

[1 ] H. 220.

[1 ] H. 345.

[2 ] H. 219.

[1 ] H. 566.

[2 ] , No. 1096.

[1 ] 574.

[2 ] 1134.

[3 ] 460.

[1 ] 207.

[2 ] 209.

[3 ] 376.

[4 ] XIX., p. 104 f.

[1 ] Peek-Pinches, No. 22.

[2 ] Peek-Pinches, pp. 85 ff.