Eponym Dates

In Assyria, each eponym-year, called a limmu or līmu in Akkadian, was named after a high state official and lists of these officials (eponyms) were compiled by Assyrian scribes. The eponym list for Ashurbanipal breaks off after his 20th regnal year and, thus, the exact sequence from 648 to the end of the Assyrian empire (ca. 610) is unknown (see below for details). The following list of the eponym officials from 669–649 is based upon Millard, SAAS 2 pp. 61–62. Dated inscriptions that are included in the present volume are also noted below. A number of inscriptions whose dates may possibly be determined with some degree of confidence (e.g., instances with a clear terminus post quem for the inscription) are given in bold.

As mentioned above, the Assyrian eponym list breaks off after 649 (Ashurbanipal's 20th year). The reconstruction of this sequence has received a number of scholarly treatments over the years. As to be expected, every person who has attempted to order the eponyms after 648 has his/her own sequence. Therefore, the chart below presents the post-canonical eponyms in alphabetical order, with the proposed dates of M. Falkner (AfO 17 [1954–56] pp. 100–120), S. Parpola (PNA 1/1 pp. XVIII–XIX), and J.E. Reade (Orientalia NS 67 [1998] pp. 255–265) given in the second, third, and fourth columns; a near identical chart appears in Baker, PNA 4/1 pp. 265–266. The inscriptions of Ashurbanipal edited in Part 1 dated by these eponyms are provided in the last column. Additional comments are provided in footnotes or after the chart.

There is general scholarly consensus that Bēlšunu (governor of Ḫindānu) was eponym in 648, the year immediately after Aḫu-ilāʾī (governor of Carchemish). This is suggested by the fact that at least two exemplars of text no. 3 (Prism B; exs. 5–6) were inscribed while Aḫu-ilāʾī held the post of eponym and one copy of that inscription (ex. 1) was written when Bēlšunu was eponym, and by the fact that three exemplars of text no. 4 (Prism D; exs. 1, 5, and 9), an inscription whose military narration is identical to text no. 3 (Prism B), were inscribed in the eponymy of Bēlšunu. Because inscriptions dated by Bēlšunu record neither the fall of Babylon nor the death of Šamaš-šuma-ukīn (after Abu [V] 648), those texts were presumably composed in the same year as those events.

It is clear from the contents of Ashurbanipal's inscriptions that Nabû-nādin-aḫi (governor of Kār-Shalmaneser) was eponym before Nabû-šar-aḫḫēšu (governor of Samaria) and that Nabû-šar-aḫḫēšu held that post prior to Šamaš-daʾʾinanni (governor of Babylon). Based on K 4773 (Fales and Postgate, SAA 7 pp. 77–78 no. 59), it is certain that six years separated the eponymies of the canonical Sagabbu (governor of Ḫarrān) and the post-canonical Nabû-šar-aḫḫēšu. Scholars are divided on whether the six-year count is inclusive or exclusive, that is, whether the eponymy of Nabû-šar-aḫḫēšu is five or six years after Sagabbu. This would mean that Nabû-šar-aḫḫēšu was eponym in either 646 or 645. Based on careful studies of Neo-Elamite history and a closer examination of the editorial history of text nos. 6 (Prism C), 7 (Prism Kh), and 8 (Prism G), the eponymy of Nabû-šar-aḫḫēšu appears to have been in 645, and not in 646, otherwise there would not be sufficient time for Ashurbanipal to wrap up affairs in Babylonia in 648 and to launch two major campaigns against Elam.^[184] Because it is unlikely that text no. 6 (Prism C) was written in the same year as text nos. 7 (Prism Kh) and 8 (Prism G),^[185] it is fairly certain that the eponymy of Nabû-nādin-aḫi is separated from that of Bēlšunu by one year. The name of the official who was eponym in 647, the year when text no. 6 (Prism C) was inscribed on prisms, is not known.^[186] Thus, text no. 6 (Prism C) dates to 647, text nos. 7 (Prism Kh) and 8 (Prism G) to 646, and text nos. 9 (Prism F) and 10 (Prism T) to 645.

Based on Ashurbanipal's annalistic texts, there is little doubt that Šamaš-daʾʾinanni (governor of Babylon) held the office of eponym shortly after Nabû-šar-aḫḫēšu. The earliest and latest possible dates are 644 and 640 respectively since text no. 11 (Prism A) was composed after text no. 9 (Prism F), which is dated by the eponymy of Nabû-šar-aḫḫēšu (dated here to 645), and before text no. 12 (Prism H), which is dated in the Babylonian fashion to Ashurbanipal's 30th regnal year (639). It is generally assumed that text no. 11 (Prism A) was not written more than one, two, or three years after text no. 9 (Prism F) and, thus, Šamaš-daʾʾinanni may have been eponym in 644, 643, or even 642.^[187] Although it cannot be proven with certainty, the eponymy of this governor of Babylon may have been separated from that of Nabû-šar-aḫḫēšu by at least one year (643), rather than following it immediately. The scant evidence is as follows:

• Ummanaldašu (Ḫumban-ḫaltaš III) sent the corpse of Nabû-bēl-šumāti to Nineveh towards the end of Duʾūzu (IV) of the eponymy of Nabû-šar-aḫḫēšu (645). Because Ashurbanipal claims to have hitched up that Elamite king, together with other rulers, to his chariot during an akītu-festival held at Nineveh (in the month Ṭebētu [X]), it seems unlikely that there was sufficient time (five months) for (1) the Elamites to rebel against him and (2) for Assyrian troops to locate Ummanaldašu, who reportedly was hiding in the mountains in eastern Iran, capture him, and bring him all the way back to Nineveh, especially since the Assyrians had been unable to capture that fugitive Elamite king on two previous occasions.^[188]
• Ashurbanipal appears to have been rebuilding Ištar's akītu-house at Nineveh in the middle of the eponymy of Nabû-šar-aḫḫēšu (645); the two known dated copies of text no. 10 (Prism T) were inscribed on the sixth of Abu (V) and the twenty-fourth of Ulūlu (VI). Assuming prisms inscribed with copies of this text were deposited in the structure of that temple, then Ashurbanipal would have had only three months to wrap up construction before performing an akītu-festival in Ṭebētu (X). It is unlikely that the king's workmen could have finished building the superstructure, roofing the temple, hanging doors in its principal gateways, and lavishly decorating its interior in such a short time.^[189]
• According to text no. 11 (Prism A), Ashurbanipal's troops departed the city Damascus only in the month Abu (V) on their long journey into the Arabian desert to pursue rulers who had instigated anti-Assyrian behavior among their people. Presumably it took some time to capture the fugitive rulers and bring them back to Nineveh. If Ashurbanipal's claims to have hitched up Uaiteʾ to his processional carriage during an akītu-festival held at Nineveh, then that campaign would have had to have been completely wrapped up by the month Kislīmu (IX) since New Year's festivals at Nineveh were held in Ṭebētu (X).^[190]
• Text no. 11 (Prism A), assuming it provides accurate information, states that the Assyrians conquered Ušû (mainland Tyre) and Akko on their return march from Arabia. If that proves true, then those military actions would have had to have been concluded well before scribes started writing text no. 11 (Prism A) on prisms at the very beginning of the eponymy of Šamaš-daʾʾinanni; one copy, assuming it does not involve a ceremonial ante-dating, was inscribed on the first of Nisannu (I).

Thus, it seems likely that Šamaš-daʾʾinanni was eponym in the year 643 at the earliest. However, because it cannot be proven with absolute certainty that the eponymy of Šamaš-daʾʾinanni did not immediately follow that of Nabû-šar-aḫḫēšu, 644 cannot be entirely ruled out of consideration. Since other events are included in text no. 11 (Prism A) — for example, the death of Gyges of Lydia and the receipt of an audience gift from Sarduri III of Urarṭu — a later date (642 or even 641 or 640) is also possible for this governor of Babylon's tenure as eponym. The eponymy of Šamaš-daʾʾinanni is tentatively dated here between 644 and 642, with preference given to 643 (or 642).

Notes

¹⁷⁸ J.E. Reade (Orientalia NS 67 [1998] p. 258), following a suggestion by R. Whiting, believes that Bēl-šaddûʾa is not the same man as Bēl-Ḫarrān-šaddûʾa, who was eponym in 650.

¹⁷⁹ K. Kessler (Studies Parpola p. 109) and R. Mattila (Studies Parpola p. 159 n. 3) argue against J.E. Reade's proposed dating.

¹⁸⁰ J.E. Reade (Orientalia NS 67 [1998] p. 259) proposes that Pašî was an alternate name used for Nabû-tappûtī-alik at Aššur.

¹⁸¹ J. Novotny (Kaskal 11 [2014] p. 164 n. 11) suggests that the eponymy of Saʾīlu must come before that of Bēl-aḫu-uṣur since it is unlikely that Sîn-šarra-iškun's Cylinder A Inscription was written on cylinders several years after that king's clay cone inscription. This arrangement of the eponyms follows those of Falkner and Reade.

¹⁸² This eponym date appears on BM 122613, a fragment of a clay cylinder. J.E. Reade (Orientalia NS 67 [1998] p. 257), following the proposal of A.R. Millard (Iraq 30 [1968] p. 111), believes this piece belongs to the same cylinder as BM 122616+ (text no. 21) and, thus, dates it near the end of Ashurbanipal's reign (634). Following E. Weissert (apud Borger, BIWA p. 356), this fragment more likely dates to the reign of Sîn-šarra-iškun and, therefore, Sîn-šarru-uṣur, governor of Ḫindānu, is presumed here to have been eponym while Sîn-šarra-iškun was on the throne.

¹⁸³ J.E. Reade (Orientalia NS 67 [1998] p. 258) suggests that the palace scribe Sîn-šarru-uṣur died during the year that he was eponym and that Nūr-ṣalam-ṣarpi replaced him; Reade reads the name as Nūr-ṣalam-kaspi. Moreover, he postulates that the hapax Sîn-šarrūssu-ukīn is Sîn-šarru-uṣur.

¹⁸⁴ See Frame, Babylonia pp. 293–295; Novotny, SAOC 62 p. 128; and Waters, SAAS 12 pp. 117–118.

¹⁸⁵ For details, see Novotny, SAOC 62 p. 128 and the commentary to text no. 6 (Prism C).

¹⁸⁶ J. Novotny (SAOC 62 p. 128), following M. Falkner (AfO 17 [1954–56] p. 118), tentatively suggests that Nabû-daʾʾinanni (governor of Que) was eponym for the year 647. Of course, there are numerous other possibilities, apart from Nabû-šar-aḫḫēšu and presumably Nabû-nādin-aḫi.

¹⁸⁷ The year 643 is the most commonly assigned date for Šamaš-daʾʾinanni's tenure as eponym. See, for example, Gerardi, Assurbanipal's Elamite Campaigns p. 72; Tadmor, Proceedings of the 25th International Congress p. 240; and Waters, SAAS 12 p. 79 n. 58. A.K. Grayson (ZA 70 [1980] p. 245) and G. Frame (Babylonia pp. 222 and 271) tentatively give a date of ca. 643–642. J.E. Reade (Orientalia NS 67 [1998] p. 256) prefers the year 644. Earlier and later dates have been proposed. For example, S. Parpola (PNA 1/1 p. XVIII) dates the eponymy of Šamaš-daʾʾinanni to 645, while S. Melville (Chavalas, ANE p. 360) suggests 639, and M. Falkner (AfO 17 [1954–56] p. 118) places it in 636.

¹⁸⁸ The quick succession of events may have been possible only (1) if the Elamites rebelled immediately after learning that Ummanaldašu sent Nabû-bēl-šumāti's corpse to Nineveh to appease Ashurbanipal and (2) if Assyrian troops (perhaps under the direction of Bēl-ibni) were already in the region and pursued the deposed Elamite king as soon as he fled his capital.

¹⁸⁹ There were two akītu-houses at Nineveh: one in the citadel and one north of the Nergal Gate. The older of the two, and the one that Ashurbanipal was rebuilding, was in the citadel, probably near Emašmaš, the temple of Ištar/Mullissu. The newer temple (Ešaḫulezenzagmukam; "House of Joy and Gladness for the Festival of the Beginning of the Year") was built anew by Sennacherib (ca. 690) outside the city wall, a little north of the Nergal Gate. It is probable that Sennacherib never finished work on that building and this may be the reason why Ashurbanipal decided to renovate the original akītu-house at Nineveh. For details, see Frahm, NABU 2000 pp. 75–79 no. 66; and Grayson and Novotny, RINAP 3/1 p. 22. Further information on this building will be provided in the introduction of Part 2.

¹⁹⁰ It is not impossible for everything to have been wrapped up by the beginning of Ṭebētu (X). The impression given by Ashurbanipal's inscriptions, however, is that the campaign took some time to complete and, therefore, it is plausible that this military expedition concluded after the month Ṭebētu (X).

Jamie Novotny & Joshua Jeffers

Jamie Novotny & Joshua Jeffers, '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, 2022 [http://oracc.org/rinap/rinap5/rinap51introduction/datingandchronology/eponymdates/]