Part 34 (1/2)
”What thou didst send me, saying, Has the King of Armenia with his troops moved away? He has gone. Where is he dwelling? The commander of Uesi, the commander of the district of the Ukkai, came, they sacrificed in the temple, they say that the king has gone, he is dwelling in Uesi; the commanders returned and went away. In Mu?a?ir they sacrificed. What thou didst send, saying, Without the king's order let no one put his hand to the work, when the king of a.s.syria shall come, I will serve him, what I have [always] done I will keep doing, and this according to his hand (?).”
Evidently Urzana lived in Mu?a?ir and was anxious to be thought a faithful va.s.sal. An unknown writer(874) tells the king that
”five commanders of Armenia entered the city of Uesi, Seteni [_of whom we heard above_] commander of ... teni, ?a??adanu of the writer's district, or of Ukkai, Sakuata of ?aniun, Siblia of Alzi, ?utu of Armiraliu, these are their names. With three underlings, they entered Uesi. Now their forces are weak and weakening (?), the forces are (?), the king has set out from ?urushpia, he has come into Kaniun. What the king, my lord, sent me, saying, 'Send scouts,' I have sent a second time. The spies (?) came, these are the words they say, and the spies as yet have not started.”
The whole tone of the letter and the fact that Ashur-ri?ua 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 In an unpublished text we read that the commander of Uesi was slain.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 ?urushpia 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 Upa??ir-Bel, doubtless the Eponym of B.C. 706, and governor of Amedi. He writes in the same style as Sennacherib and Ashur-ri?ua:(875)
Concerning news of Armenia I sent scouts, they have returned; thus they say: ”The commander of that district, and the deputy-commander with him, in ?arda, the district of the _sukallu_, keep ward from city to city as far as ?urushpia; weakness is written down, the messenger of Argista has come,”
and so on. The rest does not concern us here. But another letter,(876) 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. ?urushpia is also mentioned on fragments not yet published.
Other fragments occur which clearly belong to this group. Thus(877) a letter from an unknown writer names Ashur-ri?ua in connection with k.u.mai, 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,(878) 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.(879) It begins with precisely the same formulae of greeting in the first seven lines. Then it goes on:
The chieftains of the land of k.u.mu?ai (Commagene) have come and brought tribute. Seven mule mares apiece they brought and tribute with the mules. The chieftains are in the house appointed for the k.u.mu?ai. They are fed at their own expense, they would journey on to Babylon [where Sargon evidently is]. They have brought _akla_ (?), they have received them here. As we have told the king, my lord, let him send quickly. They brought cloth and fruit each of them. The factors say that we have received seven talents from them, that the k.u.mu?ai are not contented, saying, ”Our produce is reduced, let them bring the king's weavers and let them take charge.” Let the king, my lord, send word to whom they shall a.s.sign them.
(M797) Another letter-fragment only preserves the opening address.(880) Another very defective letter(881) with the same introduction refers to Dur-Sargon,
”in the district of Kurban are excessively great floods, they go on.”
We know from another source that this was the case, in B.C. 708, when the floods came into the lower part of the city, and the tribute could not be levied in the district.(882) Yet another fragment, opening in precisely the same manner, refers to a certain Nabu-e?ir-napshate and the city of Kal?u.(883) Here also we have too little left to make out any connected sense.
VI. Letters From The Last Year Of Shamash-Shum-Ukin
(M798) Another period on which the letters throw considerable light is the close of the reign of Shamash-shum-ukin in Babylon. This was coeval with the suppression of a great combined rebellion against the rule of a.s.syria.
From the historical texts of Ashurbanipal'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 a.s.surbanipal_, 1871, had used the information given by some of the letters. This was utilized by C. P. Tiele in his _Babylonisch-a.s.syrische Geschichte_.
(M799) But much more may be made out when the letters are fully available.
Thus Nabu-bel-shumate, grandson of Merodach Baladan II., had been made King of the Sealands on the death of his uncle, Na'id-Marduk. When the revolt broke out, Ashurbanipal sent a.s.syrian troops to help Nabu-bel-shumate to repel Shamash-shum-ukin. During the long process of suppressing the revolt, it is clear that Nabu-bel-shumate conceived the idea of rea.s.serting the independence of the Sealands. He endeavored to gain the alliance of the a.s.syrian garrison, some he imprisoned, others may have joined him. On the fall of Babylon, in B.C. 648, he saw that Ashurbanipal's vengeance must overtake him, so he fled to Elam. He took with him a certain number of a.s.syrians, evidently to hold as hostages.
Ashurbanipal had a long score to settle with Elam. He began by demanding of Indabigash the surrender of Nabu-bel-shumate and the a.s.syrians with him. But before the amba.s.sador could deliver the message, Indabigash had been succeeded by Umma.n.a.ldash. Nabu-bel-shumate was evidently a difficult person to lay hands upon. At any rate, Umma.n.a.ldash's land was invaded and devastated. But when the a.s.syrian troops were gone, he again returned to his capital, Madaktu, and Nabu-bel-shumate joined him there. Again Ashurbanipal sent to demand his surrender. Rather than further embarra.s.s his host, and quite hopeless of protection or pardon, Nabu-bel-shumate ordered his armor-bearer to slay him. Umma.n.a.ldash attempted to conciliate Ashurbanipal by sending the body of the dead man and the head of the armor-bearer to him. Such is the story as Ashurbanipal tells it in his great cylinder inscription.
(M800) The letters make no less than fifty distinct references to him. The officers write many bad things of Nabu-bel-shumate, 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 a.s.syria. Thus we read:(884)
(M801)