Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T23:56:59.065Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A CONSPIRACY TO MURDER SENNACHERIB? A REVISION OF SAA 18 100 IN THE LIGHT OF A RECENT JOIN

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 August 2021

Stephanie M. Dalley  and
Luis R. Siddall
Stephanie M. Dalley
Affiliation:
Oriental Institute and Wolfson College, Honorary Senior Research Fellow, Somerville College, University of Oxfordstephanie.dalley@orinst.ox.ac.uk
Luis R. Siddall
Affiliation:
Research Fellow, Australian Institute of Archaeology, luis.siddall@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

SAA 18 100 (ABL 1091) is a cuneiform text that has been at the heart of historical reconstructions of the assassination of the Assyrian king, Sennacherib, since it was first properly studied by S. Parpola in 1979. In 2005, J. C. Fincke discovered a new fragment of the document (28-3-23 [K.21923]) and joined it to the then known fragment (80-7-19, 28). Fincke's join offers the opportunity to study the tablet anew. We present the first full scholarly edition of the fragments and a new historical interpretation of the text that challenges the accepted understanding of its date, nature, content, and the information it provides on the assassination of Sennacherib. SAA 18 100 appears to be an archival copy of a letter originally sent to Nineveh that reported on matters concerning the Assyrian court heard in Babylonia. The best-preserved report concerns a supposed plot looking to frame the king's son, Urdu-Mullissu, in a conspiracy, and might be a product of the pro-Esarhaddon machinations of the royal court during the final years of Sennacherib's reign.

اللوح ABL 1091 (SAA 18 100) هو نص مسماري كان ركنا أساسيا في وصف عملية اغتيال الملك الآشوري سناحريب Sennacherib حيث تمت أول دراسة دقيقة لهذا اللوح من قبل س . باربولا S. Parpola في عام 1979. وفي عام 2005 أكتشف جيه سي فينك J. C. Fincke شظية جديدة من هذا اللوح (28-3-23 [K.21923]) وأوصلها بالقطعة المعروفة من اللوح (80-7-19,28). وقد وفر هذا التوصيل الذي قام به فينك Fincke فرصة لدراسة اللوح من جديد . ويقدم هذا البحث أول طبعة علمية كاملة لهذه الشظايا من اللوح مع تفسير تاريخي جديد للنص يتحدى المفهوم المقبول لتاريخه وطبيعته ومحتواه والمعلومات التي يوفرها حول اغتيال سناحريب Sennacherib. ويبدو ان اللوح ABL 1091 ما هو إلا نسخة أرشيفية من رسالة بعثت أصلا الى نينوى تخبر عن إشاعات تدور في بابل حول البلاط الآشوري . وأكبر إشاعة كانت واحدة تخص خطة مفترضة تتوخى ربط ابن الملك أوردو ماليصو Urdu-Mullissu بمؤامرة، وقد تكون ناتجة عن مكائد أفراد البلاط الملكي المساندين لإيسارهادون pro-Esarhaddon خلال الفترة الأخيرة من حكم الملك سناحريب Sennacherib.

Type
Research Article
Information
IRAQ , Volume 83 , December 2021 , pp. 45 - 56
Copyright
Copyright © The British Institute for the Study of Iraq 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baker, H. D. 2001. “Nabû-šumu-iškun” in in Baker, H. D., ed. The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire Volume 2, Part II L–N. Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, pp. 887–890.Google Scholar
Boiy, T. 2004. Late Achaemenid and Hellenistic Babylon. Leiden: Peeters.Google Scholar
Burstein, S. M. 1978. The Babyloniaca of Berossus. Sources from the Ancient Near East 1/5. Malibu: Undena Publications.Google Scholar
Dalley, S. M. 1979. “dNIN.LÍL = mul(l)is(s)u, the Treaty of Barga'yah, and Herodotus’ Mylitta”. Revue d'assyriologie et d'archéologie orientale 73: 177–178.Google Scholar
Dalley, S. M. 2006. “Review of F. Reynolds, ‘The Babylonian Correspondence of Esarhaddon’”. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 96: 142–144.Google Scholar
Dalley, S. M. 2007. Esther's Revenge at Susa: From Sennacherib to Ahasuerus. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dalley, S. M. 2015. “Review of A. K. Grayson and J. Novotny, ‘The Royal Inscriptions of Sennacherib, Volumes 1 and 2’”. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 105 (1): 118–120.Google Scholar
Deller, K. 1962. “Studien zur neuassyrischen Orthographie”. Orientalia Nova Series 31 (1): 186–198.Google Scholar
Dietrich, M. 2003. The Babylonian Correspondence of Sargon and Sennacherib. State Archives of Assyria 17. Helsinki: University of Helsinki Press.Google Scholar
Elayi, J. 2018. Sennacherib, King of Assyria. Archaeology and Biblical Studies 24. Atlanta: SBL Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, M. de J. 2003–2004. “‘Fear Not, O King!’ The Assyrian Prophecies as a Case for a Comparative Approach”. Jaarbericht Ex Oriente Lux 38: 113–121.Google Scholar
Fincke, J. C. 2003–2004. “The Babylonian Texts of Nineveh”. Archiv für Orientforschung 50: 111–149.Google Scholar
Fincke, J. C. 2018. “List of Nineveh Joins”. http://fincke-cuneiform.com/nineveh/joins/index.htm, last updated: 28 December 2018, date accessed: 21 July 2021.Google Scholar
Frahm, E. 1997. Einleitung in die Sanherib-Inschriften. Archiv für Orientforschung Beiheft 26. Vienna: Institut für Orientalistik der Universität Wien.Google Scholar
George, A. R. 2003. The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic. Introduction, Critical Edition and Cuneiform Texts, 2 volumes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Grayson, A. K. 1975. Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles. Texts from Cuneiform Sources V. New York: J. J. Augustin.Google Scholar
Grayson, A. K. 1991. “Assyria: Sennacherib and Esarhaddon (704–669 B.C.)” in Boardman, J., Edwards, I. E. S., Sollberger, E., Hammond, N. G. L., eds. The Cambridge Ancient History Volume 3, Part 2: The Assyrian and Babylonian Empires and Other States of the Near East, from the Eighth to the Sixth Centuries B.C., 2nd ed. pp. 103–141.Google Scholar
Grayson, A. K., and Novotny, J. 2014. The Royal Inscriptions of Sennacherib, King of Assyria (704–681 BC), Part 2. Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period 3/2. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.Google Scholar
Hämeen-Anttila, J. 2000. A Sketch of Neo-Assyrian Grammar. State Archives of Assyria Studies 13. Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project.Google Scholar
Harper, R. F. 1911. Assyrian and Babylonian Letters Belonging to the Kouyunjik Collections of the British Museum, Part 11. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ito, S. 2019. “The Problem of Original Letter, Draft, and Copy”. In Lanfranchi, G. B., Mattila, R., and Rollinger, R., eds. Writing Neo-Assyrian History: Sources, Problems, and Approaches. State Archives of Assyria Studies 29. Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, pp. 247–260.Google Scholar
Jones, C. 2019. “New Light on the Assassination of Sennacherib”. Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires 2019 (2), study no. 53, pp. 88–90.Google Scholar
Knapp, A. 2015. Royal Apologetic in the Ancient Near East. Writings from the Ancient World Supplements 4. Atlanta, Georgia: Society of Biblical Literature.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knapp, A. 2016. “The Sitz im Leben of Esarhaddon's Apology”. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 68: 181–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leichty, E. 2011. The Royal Inscriptions of Esarhaddon, King of Assyria (680–669 BC). Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period 4. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.Google Scholar
Machinist, P. 1983. “Assyria and Its Image in First Isaiah”. Journal of the American Oriental Society 103: 719–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Novotny, J. 2015. “New Proposed Chronological Sequence and Dates of Composition of Esarhaddon's Babylon Inscriptions”. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 67: 145–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Novotny, J. 2018. “A Previously Unrecognized Version of Esarhaddon's ‘Annals’”. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 108 (2): 203–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parpola, S. 1980. “The Murderer of Sennacherib” in Alster, B., ed. Death in Mesopotamia: Papers read at the XXVIe Rencontre assyriologique internationale. Mesopotamia: Copenhagen Studies in Assyriology 8. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, pp. 171–182.Google Scholar
Parpola, S. 1988. “The Reading of the Neo-Assyrian Logogram lúSIMUG.KÙ.GI ‘Goldsmith’”. State Archives of Assyria Bulletin 2 (2): 77–80.Google Scholar
PNA: Radner, K. and Baker, H. D., eds. 1998–2011. The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, 3 volumes. Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project.Google Scholar
Porter, B. N. 1993. Images Power, Politics. Figurative Aspects of Esarhaddon's Babylonian Policy. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society.Google Scholar
Postgate, J. N. 1974. “The Royal Exercise of Justice under the Assyrian Empire” in Garelli, P., ed. Le palais et la royauté (Archéologie et Civilisation). Paris: Libraire orientaliste Paul Geuthner, pp. 417–426.Google Scholar
Prosobab: Waerzeggers, C., Groß, M., et al. , 2019. Prosobab: Prosopography of Babylonia (c. 620–330 BCE). Leiden University, available at https://prosobab.leidenuniv.nl, date accessed 21July 2021.Google Scholar
Radner, K. 2003. “The Trials of Esarhaddon: The Conspiracy of 670 BC” in Miglus, P. A. and Córdoba, J. M., eds. Assur und sein Umland im Andenken an die ersten Ausgräber von Assur, ISIMU 6, pp. 165–184.Google Scholar
Radner, K. 2011. “Urdu-Mullissu”, in Baker, H. D., ed. The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire Volume 3, Part II Š–Z. Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, pp. 1407–1408.Google Scholar
Rainey, A. F., and Notely, R. S.. 2014. The Sacred Bridge: Carta's Atlas of the Biblical World, 2nd ed. Jerusalem: Carta.Google Scholar
Reynolds, F. 2002. “Ṣillāia,” in Baker, H. D., ed. The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire Volume 3, Part I P–Ṣ. Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, pp. 1173–1175.Google Scholar
Reynolds, F. 2003. The Babylonian Correspondence of Esarhaddon and Letters to Assurbanipal and Sin-šarru-iškun from Northern and Central Babylonia. State Archives of Assyria 18. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press.Google Scholar
Reynolds, F. 2017. “Corrections to SAA 18 by Frances Reynolds”, http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/saao/knpp/lettersqueriesandreports/saa18corrections/index.html, last updated: 13 Jan 2017, date accessed: 21 July 2021.Google Scholar
Schaudig, H. 2001. Die Inschriften Nabonids von Babylon und Kyros’ des Groẞen samt den in ihrem Umfeld entstandenen Tendenzschriften: Textausgrabe und Grammatik, Alter Orient und Altes Testament 256. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.Google Scholar
Siddall, L. R. 2013. The Reign of Adad-nīrārī III: An Historical and Ideological Analysis of an Assyrian King and His Times. Cuneiform Monographs 45. Leiden: E. J. Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tadmor, H. 1983. “Autobiographical Apology in Assyrian Royal Literature” in Tadmor, H. and Weinfeld, M., eds. History, Historiography, and Interpretation: Studies in Biblical and Cuneiform Literatures. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, pp. 36–57.Google Scholar
Van der Spek, R. 2008. “Berossus as a Babylonian Chronicler and Greek historian” in van der Spek, R. J., ed. Studies in Ancient Near Eastern World View and Society, Presented to Marten Stol on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday. Bethesda: CDL Press, pp. 277–318.Google Scholar
Waterman, L. 1930. Royal Correspondence of the Assyrian Empire Translated into English, with a Transliteration of the Text and a Commentary, vol. 2. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Woodington, N. R. 1982. A Grammar of the Neo-Babylonian Letters of the Kuyunjik Collection. Unpublished PhD Thesis: Yale University.Google Scholar
Zawadzki, S. 1990. “Oriental and Greek Traditions about the Death of Sennacherib”. State Archives of Assyria Bulletin 4 (1): 69–71.Google Scholar
Zawadzki, S. 2010. “Garments in Non-Cultic Context (Neo-Babylonian Period)” in Michel, C. and Nosch, M.-L., eds. Textile Terminologies in the Ancient Near East and Mediterranean from the Third to the First Millennia BC. Ancient Textile Series 8. Oxford and Oakville: Oxbow Books, pp. 409–429. Google Scholar