Eponym Dates

In Assyria, each eponym-year, called a limmu or līmu in Akkadian, was named after a high state official. Lists of these officials (eponyms) were compiled by Assyrian scribes. The eponym list for Ashurbanipal's reign breaks off after his 20th regnal year and, thus, the exact sequence from 648 to the end of the Assyrian empire (609) is unknown, so every scholar who has attempted to order the eponyms after 648 has his/her own sequence, most notably M. Falkner (AfO 17 [1954–56] pp. 100–120), S. Parpola (PNA 1/1 pp. XVIII–XX), and J.E. Reade (Orientalia NS 67 [1998] pp. 255–265). P. Miglus (Befund und Historierung pp. 11–14) has carefully assessed the proposed sequences of eponyms against the dated texts in twenty-three Neo-Assyrian archives at Aššur and has concluded Parpola's proposed reconstruction for Sîn-šarra-iškun's eponyms for the years 614-612 cannot be reconciled with the archaeological findings from Aššur, whereas Reade's suggested arrangement for this same three-year period does.^[246] Charts comparing Falkner's, Parpola's, and Reade's suggested arrangement of the post-canonical eponyms have been recently published in Baker, PNA 4/1 pp. 265–266 and Novotny and Jeffers, RINAP 5/1 pp. 31–32, and, therefore, not reprinted here. The chart below provides the proposed eponyms for the second half of Ashurbanipal's reign (648–631), as well as for the complete reigns of Aššur-etel-ilāni, Sîn-šarra-iškun, and Aššur-uballiṭ II.

Seven inscriptions of Sîn-šarra-iškun bear dates. These are as follows:

Given that Sîn-šarra-iškun's inscriptions from Kalḫu and Nineveh record different building projects,^[250] it is not possible to establish a chronological sequence for Bēl-aḫu-uṣur, Dādî, Nabû-tappûtī-alik, and Sîn-šarru-uṣur (governor of Ḫindānu) based solely on those texts. However, since all of the dated inscriptions of Sîn-šarra-iškun from Aššur record the construction of the Nabû temple at Aššur, it might be possible to suggest an order for the eponymies of Aššur-mātu-taqqin, Bēl-aḫu-uṣur, and Saʾīlu. As proposed already by Falkner and Reade,^[251] the chronological order of these three eponym-officials is likely Aššur-mātu-taqqin, Bēl-aḫu-uṣur, and Saʾīlu. There is probably no gap or an interlude of not more than a year (or two) between Aššur-mātu-taqqin and Bēl-aḫu-uṣur.^[252] The provisional order is based on (1) the fact that Ssi 9 (Ass 3518+) is a shorter version of Ssi 10 (Cylinder A) and (2) the assumption that Ssi 11, an inscription written on clay cones adorning the interior walls (once they had been built), would have been written after Ssi 10, a text copied onto clay cylinders (and prisms) deposited inside the structure of the temple (as its walls were being built). Given the size of this building, it is tentatively proposed here that Aššur-mātu-taqqin, Bēl-aḫu-uṣur, and Saʾīlu held the post of eponym one after the other, with no gaps, or with no more than one year between their tenures. If this proves correct, then the end date for this three- to five-year period might have been 620 (Sîn-šarra-iškun's 7th year as king) — or 619, 618, 617, or even 616 (his 8th–11th regnal years) at the absolute latest — since Nabopolassar besieged Aššur in Ayyāru (II) and Simānu (III) of 615 and the Medes under Cyaxares (Umakištar) captured and destroyed Assyria's traditional religious capital sometime after Abu (V) 614.^[253] Given what little we know about Sîn-šarra-iškun's reign, most of which comes from the Fall of Nineveh Chronicle (see below), Aššur-mātu-taqqin, Bēl-aḫu-uṣur, and Saʾīlu were most likely eponyms earlier in Sîn-šarra-iškun's tenure as king, perhaps starting in 626, 625, 624, or 623. An early date for Aššur-mātu-taqqin's stint as eponym is fairly certain since, as already pointed out by J.E. Reade,^[254] a Babylonian-style legal text from Nippur is dated by his eponymy and, therefore, that governor of (U)pummu must have been eponym before 620, at the absolute latest, because the last documents from Babylonia dated by Sîn-šarra-iškun's regnal years are from that year.^[255] Given that transactions from Nippur are dated by his 2nd to 6th regnal years, it is likely that the legal transaction in question (Ni 2534) dates to near the beginning of Sîn-šarra-iškun's reign, possibly either to his 1st (626), as proposed by Reade, or 2nd (625) year as king.^[256] The year 625 is tentatively preferred here for the eponymy of Aššur-mātu-taqqin (1) since the year 627 was extremely turbulent;^[257] (2) because Sîn-šarra-iškun, at least according to his own inscriptions, spent a great deal of time and effort preparing the building site that he could construct Nabû's temple at Aššur; and (3) since Aššur-mātu-taqqin's tenure as eponym was shortly after that of Kanūnāyu, governor of Dūr-Šarrukīn, and there do not appear to have been any irregularities during the period that Kanūnāyu was eponym.^[258]

With regard to Parpola's suggestion that Nabû-tappûtī-alik was eponym in 613, this seems highly unlikely,^[259] unless, however, the work on the western part of the South-West Palace was a last-minute effort to strengthen it from potential breaches via the Step Gate of the Palace and the Step Gate of the Gardens. If that was not the case, then one should expect that Nabû-tappûtī-alik held that prestigious post before Babylonian and Median forces started campaigning in the Assyrian heartland, that is, before 615, as Falkner and Reade suggest.

Notes

[246] P. Miglus (Befund und Historierung pp. 13–14) makes the following statement about the post-canonical eponym sequence for the years 614–612: "Zusammenfassend ist festzustellen, dass die von Simo Parpola vorgenommene Rekonstruktion der Eponymen-Abfolge für die Jahre 614-12 v. Chr. mit den archäologischen Befunden in Assur nicht in Einklang zu bringen ist. Sie setzt eine Kontinuität der Privatarchive voraus, von denen mindestens neun die Eroberung der Stadt unbeschadet überdauert haben müssten. Dies würde bedeuten, dass ihre Besitzer in einer völlig neuen politischen und wirtschaftlichen Lage unverändert ihren bisherigen Geschäften hätten nachgehen können. Julian Reade listet als Eponymen für 614 v. Chr. Sîn-šarru-uṣur, den Statthalter von Ninive, auf, für 613 v. Chr. Marduk-rēmanni, den Statthalter von Kalizi, und für 612 v. Chr. Nabû-mār-šarri-uṣur (Tab. 1.2). In Assur findet man lediglich den ersten auf dem Schuldschein 1.23 im Archiv 52a. Das Dokument datiert vom 22. Elūlu (VI.) und dürfte somit unmittelbar vor der Stadteroberung verfasst worden sein. Die beiden anderen Namen sind hingegen in Assur nicht belegt, was die von Reade vorgenommene Rekonstruktion der postkanonischen Eponymenreihe für diesen Zeitabschnitt zu bestätigen scheint."

[247] 627, Aššur-etel-ilāni's 4th regnal year, is also the accession years of Sîn-šuma-līšir and Sîn-šarra-iškun.

[248] 612, Sîn-šarra-iškun's 15th regnal year, is also the accession year of Aššur-uballiṭ II, starting in late Abu (V) or early Ulūlu (VI) of that year, based on the extant account of the year 612 in the Fall of Nineveh Chronicle (lines 38–52); see p. 45 below.

[249] J.E. Reade (Orientalia NS 67 [1998] p. 259) proposes that Pašî was an alternate name used for Nabû-tappûtī-alik at Aššur.

[250] Ssi 1 (lines 12´–15´) records work on the "Alabaster House" at Nineveh (=the South-West Palace), Ssi 6 would have described the construction on Nineveh's city wall, and Ssi 19 (lines 30–37) gives an account of the rebuilding of the Nabû temple (Ezida) at Kalḫu. The building account of Ssi 3 is not sufficiently preserved to be able to identify which building at Nineveh that text commemorated.

[251] For this opinion, see also Novotny, Kaskal 11 (2014) p. 164 n. 11.

[252] This would mean that it took Sîn-šarra-iškun five or six years to build the superstructure of Nabû's temple at Aššur. Based on S. Parpola's arrangement of these eponyms, it would have taken him eight years to build the temple.

[253] Fall of Nineveh Chronicle lines 16–30 (see p. 44).

[254] Reade, Orientalia NS 67 (1998) p. 258.

[255] See n. 231 above.

[256] Brinkman and Kennedy, JCS 35 (1983) p. 62 no. Sn.2.

[257] One could suggest, for example, that Sîn-šarru-uṣur the palace scribe (attested in date formulae for months I–X), Sîn-šarru-uṣur "the later" (IX–XI), and Nūr-ṣalam-ṣarpi (XII) were all eponym in 627, while Sîn-šuma-līšir and Sîn-šarra-iškun vied for power.

[258] For the evidence that Aššur-mātu-taqqin (immediately) followed Kanūnāyu as eponym, see Dalley and Postgate, Fort Shalmaneser pp. 55–56 and pl. 2 no. 6.

[259] P. Miglus (Befund und Historierung pp. 13–14) has also come to this conclusion; see n. 246 above.

Jamie Novotny

Jamie Novotny, 'Eponym Dates', RINAP 5: The Royal Inscriptions of Ashurbanipal, Aššur-etel-ilāni, and Sîn-šarra-iškun, The RINAP/RINAP 5 Project, a sub-project of MOCCI, 2023 [http://oracc.org/rinap/rinap5/rinap53introduction/datingandchronology/eponymdates/]