As it had been for his grandfather Sennacherib, Elam proved to be the biggest thorn in Ashurbanipal's side. [121] A great deal of time and effort was spent dealing with the troubled and troublesome kingdom of Elam. When the Assyrian army was not campaigning in the region, Ashurbanipal was meddling in Elamite affairs of state. Despite his efforts, Elam and Assyria remained adversaries; even pro-Assyrian appointees to the Elamite throne did not remain in Ashurbanipal's good graces for long. Repeated transgressions against the oaths sworn by Assyria's gods soured friendly relations and ultimately brought an end to Elam as a political rival.
When Ashurbanipal ascended the throne, Assyria and Elam were on good terms; this was in part due to Esarhaddon having established a peace treaty with Urtaku several years earlier. Shortly after Ashurbanipal became king, a severe famine struck Elam. Assyria aided them by sending much needed grain and allowed starving Elamites to take refuge in Assyria.[122] This, however, was not enough and Urtaku, apparently influenced by anti-Assyrian leaders and officials in Babylonia and Elam, took matters into his own hands, mustered his army, invaded Babylonia, and laid siege to Babylon.[123] The unprovoked attack took the Assyrians by complete surprise. At first, Ashurbanipal was not concerned, since Elamite envoys were repeatedly assuring him of the enduring peace between their two countries, but, eventually, he sent his own men south to investigate. Upon receiving reliable information, Ashurbanipal mustered his army and dispatched them to Babylonia. Urtaku caught wind of this and fled to the Babylonian-Elamite border, but not before suffering a serious defeat. The Assyrian army did not continue its pursuit. Not long after arriving home, Urtaku died unexpectedly.[124] Teumman, a man described by the Assyrian king as "the (very) image of a gallû-demon," seized power and sought to exterminate Urtaku's entire extended family. Urtaku's sons Ummanigaš, Ummanappa, and Tammarītu, together with their families and entourages, fled to Nineveh, where Ashurbanipal granted them asylum, much to the displeasure of the new Elamite king.[125]
Over the course of the next decade, relations between Assyria and Elam remained tense. Teumman (Tepti-Ḫumban-Inšušinak?) sent hostile messages to Assyria demanding the extradition of the fugitive members of the former Elamite royal family, while Ashurbanipal refused to comply; he even detained two of his messengers (Umbadarâ and Nabû-damiq).[126] In 653 (Ashurbanipal's 16th regnal year), tensions came to a head and the Elamite king mustered his troops and marched towards Nineveh. Ashurbanipal was in Arbela, one of Ištar's principal cult centers, when he received word of the impending attack. The Assyrian army marched south to Dēr as quickly as it could. Teumman and his troops, who were preparing to invade Assyria via the east Tigris region at the stronghold Bīt-Imbî,[127] heard about the approach of their foe and started heading back to Susa. The Assyrians pursued them and met them in open battle at Tīl-Tūba, which was situated on the Ulāya river. The battle was bloody and Teumman fought to the bitter end, when a common soldier unceremoniously cut off his head.[128] The fugitive Elamite princes Ummanigaš and Tammarītu, who had accompanied the Assyrians, were installed as rulers: Ummanigaš (Ḫumban-nikaš II) was made king of Elam and his younger brother Tammarītu was installed as the ruler of the city Ḫidalu.[129]
On the march home, Ashurbanipal launched a full-scale assault on Gambulu.[130] Its capital Ša-pī-Bēl, whose fortifications Esarhaddon had improved to defend against Elam, was taken, looted, and destroyed, and its leader Dunānu (the son of Bēl-iqīša), together with his family and supporters, were captured alive and taken to Nineveh. Ashurbanipal returned home, entered his capital via the Aššur Gate in the midst of a joyous celebration, showing off the vast spoils of war and humiliating his defeated foes.[131] During triumphal processions held at Arbela, Aššur, and Nineveh, Dunānu and his brother Samgunu were paraded through the streets with the decapitated Elamite heads hung around their necks.[132] When they returned to Nineveh, Ashurbanipal had the Gambulian leaders publicly executed.[133] The head of Teumman, which had been preserved in salt, was hung at the Citadel Gate, to be a spectacle for all who entered that part of the capital.[134]
Although Ashurbanipal had kept Ummanigaš (Ḫumban-nikaš II) and his brother Tammarītu safe while Teumman was king and had appointed those sons of Urtaku to their positions of authority after the death of their adversary, good relations between Assyria and Elam did not last long. Shortly after becoming king, Ummanigaš allied himself with Šamaš-šuma-ukīn, who was thoroughly exasperated with his younger brother's constant meddling. After fifteen years of tolerating the king of Assyria's interference in internal religious and political affairs in Babylonia, the king of Babylon began secretly putting together a diverse and widespread anti-Assyrian coalition. Šamaš-šuma-ukīn incited the people of Akkad, Chaldea, Aram, and the Sealand to rebel against Assyrian control and won the support of the kings of Elam, Gutium, Amurru, Meluḫḫa (Ethiopia), and Arabia (through bribes and their distrust of Assyria). Ashurbanipal discovered his brother's intentions and made attempts to garner support in Babylonia, in Babylon in particular.[135] By late 652, hostilities broke out and the sibling monarchs went to war.[136]
Šamaš-šuma-ukīn's rebellion lasted nearly four years (from 19-X-652 to after 30-V-648).[137] Shortly after war was declared, the king of Babylon withdrew to his capital and prepared for the enemy. During the first part of the conflict (12-XII-652 to 11-IV-650), battles were fought all over Babylonia, from cities in the north to the Sealand in the south. Some victories went to the Assyrians, others to the Babylonians and their allies.[138] Key cities occasionally changed hands.[139] Given the number of armies on the move, it is no surprise that there was a considerable amount of chaos not only in Babylonia, but also in Assyria. To make matters worse, some major players secretly worked for the enemy,[140] while others were unexpectedly removed from power by their own people and replaced.[141] This made it very difficult to keep track of one's allies and enemies. Both kings did all
they could to discover the other's plans and movements.[142]
Despite military support from foreign rulers — the Elamite kings Ummanigaš (Ḫumban-nikaš II) and Tammarītu, and the Arabian tribal leader Abī-Iateʾ in particular — and crafty allies (especially the slippery governor of the Sealand Nabû-bēl-šumāti), the tide turned against Šamaš-šuma-ukīn early in the year 650. With the help of the loyal and capable Bēl-ibni,[143] the military commander of the Sealand, Ashurbanipal took control of the south, gained significant ground in the north, and cut off major urban centers' access to food, water, and military aid. On the eleventh of Duʾūzu (IV), the Assyrians laid siege to Babylon; Borsippa, Cutha, and Sippar were also besieged.[144] For two long years, the Babylonians endured the intense Assyrian blockade and suffered horribly from dehydration, malnutrition, and diseases. Documents from Babylon dated during the siege lend support to Ashurbanipal's grim descriptions in his inscriptions of the misery, despair, and death witnessed by the beleaguered citizens; to survive the ordeal, some people are said to have resorted to cannibalism.[145]
The siege, as well as the revolt, ended with the death of Šamaš-šuma-ukīn. Inscriptions of Ashurbanipal state that the gods threw the king of Babylon into a raging conflagration. It is uncertain from this cryptic remark whether Šamaš-šuma-ukīn took his own life or was murdered by his once-loyal supporters.[146] Sometime after Abu (V) 648 (and probably before the end of that year), Babylon and Borsippa opened their gates to the Assyrians.[147] The king of Babylon's principal supporters were severely punished, some on the spot and others later on, back in Nineveh.[148] Šamaš-šuma-ukīn's prized possessions — including his crown, scepter, and seal — were taken to Nineveh as spoils of war.[149] Once all of Babylonia was firmly in Assyrian control, new officials were appointed, including a new king of Babylon (Kandalānu).[150] Since there is no record of anti-Assyrian activities in Babylonia between 647 and 627, Ashurbanipal must have selected loyal appointees.
With the rebellion successfully suppressed in Babylonia, the Assyrian king was again able to direct his attention elsewhere. Elam, under its new ruler Ummanaldašu (Ḫumban-ḫaltaš III), was Ashurbanipal's next target. In the month Simānu (III), the Assyrian army, accompanied by the deposed Elamite Tammarītu (who had taken refuge in Nineveh), marched south to Dēr, headed east into Elam, and attacked Bīt-Imbî, the fortress from which the Elamites launched many of their campaigns into Babylonia.[151] After successfully capturing and plundering Bīt-Imbî, the Assyrians set foot in Elam proper and marched east.[152] Ummanaldašu abandoned his capital Madaktu and fled to the mountains. A certain UmbaḪABua (Ḫumban-ḫabua) seized the throne, but fled shortly thereafter as the Assyrians continued to march east. Tammarītu was reinstalled as king in Susa, rather than at Madaktu or Ḫidālu. His second tenure as king, however, did not last long: he was removed for failing to keep his word to Ashurbanipal and taken to Nineveh to live out the rest of his days there.[153] Ummanaldašu returned from hiding and reclaimed the Elamite throne.
In Šabāṭu (XI) of that same year, Ashurbanipal, at the request of Bēl-ibni, sent a letter to the elders of Elam, warning them that failure to hand over Nabû-bēl-šumāti, the high-profile fugitive governor of the Sealand who had wronged him, would result in him laying waste to Elam.[154] The threat did not work. Nabû-bēl-šumāti remained at large and Ashurbanipal had no choice but to send his troops back to Elam. The Assyrians entered the country, retook the western part of Elam (the region around Bīt-Imbî, Rāši, and Ḫamānu), and then proceeded east.[155] Ummanaldašu mustered his troops and set up camp on the banks of the Idide river. The Elamite fled back to the safety of the mountains when the Assyrians arrived. Ashurbanipal, frustrated and fed up, decided to crush Elam once and for all: not only does he claim to have destroyed that country's most important cities and fortresses, but he also asserts that he had strewn salt and cress on its arable land. The religious capital Susa bore the brunt of the Assyrian king's wrath: its palaces and temples were emptied of their possessions; statues of its gods, goddesses, and former rulers were taken away; the trees of its sacred groves were cut down; and the tombs of Elam's kings were unceremoniously opened and had their bones removed and carried off to Assyria. Countless members of the Elamite royal family and nobility were exiled to Nineveh. While Susa was being robbed of all its glory, the Assyrians made an amazing discovery: a statue of the Urukian goddess Nanāya was found. This image, which had apparently been there for 1,635 years (since the Old Akkadian period), was returned to its rightful place in Uruk on the way home.[156]
Ashurbanipal's campaigns severely destabilized Elam and greatly weakened Ummanaldašu's authority. When Ummanaldašu returned from hiding, his bid for the throne was challenged by Paʾê.[157] The Assyrian king once again wrote to Ummanaldašu about extraditing Nabû-bēl-šumāti. The former governor of the Sealand found out and had his attendant kill him with his own sword. Ummanaldašu preserved Nabû-bēl-šumāti's corpse in salt and sent it, together with the head of his attendant, to Nineveh.[158] This did not go over well with the Elamites and they rebelled. Ummanaldašu, as he had done several times before, hid in the mountains.[159] A group of Assyrian soldiers tracked him down, captured him, and took him to Nineveh, where he lived out the rest of his days serving Ashurbanipal.[160] Elam appears not to have been a problem for the Assyrians again.
Arab tribal groups were a mild nuisance to Ashurbanipal, just as they had been since the mid-eighth century.[161] Prior to the outbreak of the Šamaš-šuma-ukīn rebellion (652–648), Ashurbanipal dealt with a few rulers who had not kept their oaths and who were disrupting Assyrian interests in the west. The Assyrian army marched against the Qedarite leaders Iautaʾ and Ammu-ladīn. The latter was captured with the assistance of the Moabite king Kamās-ḫaltâ. The former ruler, however, eluded capture after his tribesmen were defeated;[162] his region, on the other hand, if Ashurbanipal's inscriptions are to be believed, was thoroughly plundered. Iautaʾ, the son and successor of Hazael, fled first to the ruler of the Nabayatean king Natnu and then, after being refused asylum by the Nabayateans, into the Arabian peninsula, where he hid for many years, before being taken captive to Nineveh.[163]
In place of Iautaʾ, Ashurbanipal made Abī-Yateʾ, son of Teʾri, ruler.[164] Sometime after Ashurbanipal had declared war on Šamaš-šuma-ukīn, perhaps in 651 or at the very beginning of 650, the recently appointed Abī-Yateʾ, together with his brother Aya-ammu, broke the oaths they had sworn to Assyria, and formed an alliance with Babylon and sent fighting men to help Šamaš-šuma-ukīn. The Qedarite ruler and his supporters fought their way to Babylon and appear to have entered the city just before it closed its gates to the Assyrian army (IV-11-650).[165] The fear of dying of starvation motivated Šamaš-šuma-ukīn's Arab allies enough to try to escape. While fleeing Babylon, Abī-Yateʾ and his supporters were captured and brought before Ashurbanipal. Despite the treachery of Abī-Yateʾ, the Assyrian king had compassion on the Qedarite ruler and reinstated him. Ashurbanipal would come to regret this decision a few years later. Sometime after the fall of Babylon, Abī-Yateʾ, his brother Aya-ammu, Natnu the Nabayatean, and Uaiteʾ (a son of Bir-Dāda) carried out raids on border towns and disrupted trade. A major campaign was undertaken by Ashurbanipal's generals.[166] With much effort, the various Arab groups were defeated, and the instigators were brought to Nineveh to be severely punished for their crimes, oath breaking being the most grievous offense; Aya-ammu was flayed, while Uaiteʾ was publicly humiliated by making him guard the Citadel Gate like a dog and by hitching him up to the king's processional chariot and making him pull it like a horse during an akītu-festival.[167] Due to the lack of sources, it is unclear if the war against Abī-Yateʾ, Natnu, and Uaiteʾ marked the end of Ashurbanipal's problems with the Arabs or if further military action was required to pacify them.
At the start of Ashurbanipal's reign, in 668, the inhabitants of the east Tigris city Qirbit, under the leadership of Tandāya, regularly raided the area around the city Dēr.[168] The harassed citizens of that city appealed to the newly enthroned Assyrian king for assistance. Several local governors were ordered to deal with the problem. Qirbit, together with other cities in the region, was captured, Tandāya was killed, and Akkudāya (one of the chief conspirators) was arrested and taken to Assyria. Sometime after the first campaign to Egypt (667), Ashurbanipal had the inhabitants of this troublesome region deported to Egypt; presumably, people from other parts of the empire were settled in Qirbit.
Several inscriptions written around his 30th regnal year (639–ca. 638) record that Ashurbanipal received messengers bearing messages of goodwill and audience gifts from distant foreign rulers.[169] Cyrus I of Parsumaš (Persia), Pislumê of the remote land Ḫudimiri, Ḫundāru of the island kingdom Dilmun, Padê of the land Qadê, Šīlum of the land Ḫazmāni, and the ruler of the land Luppi are all said to have sent envoys and payment to Assyria; several reportedly did so after hearing about Ashurbanipal's victories in Elam.
121 For a detailed study of the Neo-Elamite period, see for example Waters, SAAS 12, especially pp. 42–80 for information on Ashurbanipal's Elamite contemporaries. For a study of Ashurbanipal and Elam, see especially Gerardi, Assurbanipal's Elamite Campaigns.
122 Baker and Waters, PNA 3/2 pp. 1418–1419 sub Urtaku 1; Frame, Babylonia pp. 119–121; Gerardi, Assurbanipal's Elamite Campaigns p. 123; Grayson, CAH2 3/2 p. 147; Henkelman, RLA 14/5–6 (2015) pp. 443–444 sub Urtak; Ruby, PNA 1/1 p. 165 sub Aššūr-bāni-apli II.3.d.1'; and Waters, SAAS 12 pp. 42–47. Text no. 3 (Prism B) iv 15–79, text no. 4 (Prism D) iv 9–49', text no. 6 (Prism C) v 24–107, text no. 7 (Prism Kh) iv 75''–v 47, and text no. 12 (Prism H) iii 10''–iv 12'. Text nos. 9 (Prism F) and 11 (Prism A) do not include Elam 1–2. A.K. Grayson (ZA 70 [1980] pp. 230 and 232) dates Elam 1 to 667, while Ashurbanipal was preoccupied with matters in Egypt. G. Frame (Babylonia p. 119 with n. 93) has argued in favor of a date of 664 or shortly before Urtaku's invasion of Babylonia and that proposal is followed here. The latest possible date is 664 since a Babylonian Chronicle (Grayson, Chronicles p. 128 no. 15 lines 2–3) records that an Elamite prince fled to Assyria on the twelfth day of the month Tašrītu (VII) of Šamaš-šuma-ukīn's 4th regnal year (= Ashurbanipal's 5th year); that prince, together with other members of the Elamite royal family, are reported in Ashurbanipal's inscriptions to have fled to Elam when Teumman seized power. It is now generally assumed that Urtaku died shortly after his failed invasion of Babylonia. Thus, Elam 1 took place ca. 664 and Elam 2 in 664 (around 12-VII-664).
123 These men were the Gambulian leader Bēl-iqīša, the šandabakku (governor) of Nippur Nabû-šuma-ēreš, and the Babylonian official Marduk-šuma-ibni. See Baker, PNA 1/2 pp. 315–316 sub Bēl-iqīša 7; Baker, PNA 2/2 pp. 731–732 sub Marduk-šuma-ibni 3; and Brinkman, PNA 2/2 p. 883 sub Nabû-šuma-ēreš 2.
124 Bēl-iqīša and Nabû-šuma-ēreš, according to Ashurbanipal's inscriptions, both died in the same year as Urtaku. The former is reported to have died after being bitten by a mouse, while the later died from dropsy.
125 Baker and Waters, PNA 3/2 p. 1306 sub Tammarītu 1; Baker and Waters, PNA 3/2 pp. 1383–1384 sub Ummanigaš 3; and Waters, PNA 3/2 p. 1382 sub Ummanappa 2. They were accompanied by Kudurru and Parrû, sons of their uncle Ummanaldašu (Ḫumban-ḫaltaš II), and sixty other members of the royal family.
126 Baker, PNA 2/2 p. 821 sub Nabû-de'iq 5; Baker and Waters, PNA 3/2 pp. 1323–1325 sub Teumman 1; Frame, Babylonia pp. 121–124; Gerardi, Assurbanipal's Elamite Campaigns pp. 135–136; Grayson, CAH2 3/2 p. 148; Henkelman, RLA 13/ (2013) pp. 616–617 sub Te-Umman; Ruby, PNA 1/1 pp. 165–166 sub Aššūr-bāni-apli II.3.d.2'; and Waters, PNA 3/2 p. 1378 sub Umbadarâ. The identification of Teumman with Tepti-Ḫumban-Inšušinak is not certain; for details, see Waters, SAAS 12 pp. 47–50. Text no. 3 (Prism B) iv 80–vi 9, text no. 4 (Prism D) iv 50'–vi 12, text no. 6 (Prism C) v 1'–vii 10, text no. 7 (Prism Kh) v 48–vi 22', text no. 8 (Prism G) v 1'–vii 10', text no. 9 (Prism F) ii 53–71, text no. 11 (Prism A) iii 27–49, text 12 (Prism H) v 1–5, and text nos. 25–35. Text nos. 9 (Prism F) and 11 (Prism A) combine the Elam 3, Gambulu, and Elam 4 incidents. See also Borger, BIWA pp. 299–307 and Livingstone, SAA 3 pp. 67–68 no. 31. The campaign can be dated with certainty thanks to the mention of an eclipse in Ashurbanipal's inscriptions, which took place on July 13th 653 (=Duʾūzu); see Mayr in Piepkorn, Asb. pp. 105–109. F.R. Stephenson (in Reade and Walker, AfO 28 [1981–82] p. 122), however, believes that the eclipse occurred in August 663. For evidence refuting that proposal, see Frame, Babylonia pp. 122–123 n. 112. The 653 date is followed here for the Elam 3 incident.
127 A.K. Grayson (CAH2 3/2 p. 148) suggests that Teumman's assault was prompted by Šamaš-šuma-ukīn and that the Elamite army set foot on Babylonian soil. G. Frame (Babylonia p. 122) points out that it is unclear if Teumman's army moved beyond the borders of Elam.
128 The battle is depicted in a series of reliefs (with accompanying epigraphs) on the walls of Room XXXIII of the South-West Palace at Nineveh. See Barnett et al, Sculptures from the Southwest Palace 1 pp. 94–100 and 2 pls. 286–320. For studies of the visual narrative, see Watanabe, Iraq 66 (2004) pp. 103–114.
129 Tammarītu appears to have been installed in place of a certain Ištar-nandi (Šutur-Naḫūndi), who was also beheaded by the Assyrians; see text no. 6 (Prism C) vii 49–50 and text no. 7 (Prism Kh) vi 7''–8'', as well as Borger, BIWA p. 306 B line 11'//C line 6'. On Ištar-nandi's identity, see Waters, SAAS 12 pp. 54–55 and PNA 3/2 p. 1297 sub Šutur-Naḫūndi 2.
130 Baker, PNA 1/2 p. 388 sub Duānu; Baker, PNA 2/2 p. 854 sub Nabû-na'id 22; Frame, Babylonia pp. 124–125; Grayson, CAH2 3/2 p. 148; Jas, PNA 2/2 p. 684 sub Mannu-kī-aḫḫē 29; Luppert-Barnard, PNA 1/2 p. 299 sub Bēl-ēṭir 15; Luppert-Barnard, PNA 2/2 p. 900 sub Nabû-uṣalli 5; Radner, PNA 1/1 p. 117 sub Aplāia 27; Ruby, PNA 1/1 pp. 165–166 sub Aššūr-bāni-apli II.3.d.2'; and Waters, PNA2/2 p. 743 sub Massirâ. Text no. 3 (Prism B) vi 10–vi 85, text no. 4 (Prism D) vi 13–95, text no. 6 (Prism C) vii 11–47', text no. 7 (Prism Kh) vi 23'–vii 35, text no. 8 (Prism G) vii 11'–17'', text no. 9 (Prism F) ii 72–iii 5, text no. 11 (Prism A) iii 50–69, and text no. 12 (Prism H) v 6–13. The Gambulu incident is combined with Elam 3–4 in text nos. 9 (Prism F) and 11 (Prism A). See also Borger, BIWA pp. 299–307. The date of the campaign can be established as late 653 (after Ulūlu [VI]) since Gambulu was attacked on the return home after the defeat of Teumman.
131 For the king's entrance into Nineveh via the Lilbur-iššak-Aššur Gate ("May the Vice-Regent of the God Aššur Endure"), see Borger, BIWA p. 301 nos. 10–11. See also Fuchs, MSAW 5 pp. 97–98.
132 The head of Teumman was hung around Dunānu's neck, while that of Ištar-nandi (Šutur-Naḫūndi) was hung around Samgunu's. For further information on this three-city procession, see Weissert in Parpola and Whiting, Assyria 1995 pp. 347–350. A relief from Room XXXIII of the South-West Palace likely depicts Dunānu and Samgunu (Barnett et al, Sculptures from the Southwest Palace 2 pls. 286, 304–305, and 312). The sight of Teumman's head apparently upset the two Elamite envoys who had been detained at Nineveh: Umbadarâ is said to have tried to pull out his own beard and Nabû-damiq stabbed himself with his own dagger.
133 Dunānu's deputy Mannu-kī-aḫḫē and the overseer of Gambulu Nabû-uṣalli were executed earlier, in Arbela; they had their tongues ripped out and were then flayed. Nabû-naʾid and Bēl-ēṭir, sons of the former šandabakku (governor) of Nippur Nabû-šuma-ēreš, were forced to publicly grind up the bones of their father; this reportedly took place at the Citadel Gate of Nineveh.
134 For the famous garden scene of Ashurbanipal, with the head of Teumman hanging from a branch of a tree, see Barnett, Sculptures from the North Palace pl. LXIV.
135 For example, see Harper, ABL no. 301, a letter of Ashurbanipal addressed to the citizens of Babylon, in which the Assyrian king appeals to the people of that city not to join with his brother and in return they would continue to enjoy their special privileged status. The letter is dated to the twenty-third of the month Ayyāru (II), presumably in the year 652. For further details, see Moran, Studies Tadmor pp. 320–321; Frame, Babylonia pp. 138–139; and Parpola, Studies Grayson pp. 227–234. For other letters of this type see Ito, Letters of Assurbanipal.
136 Ahmed, Southern Mesopotamia pp. 62–103; Baker, PNA 3/2 pp. 1214–1219 sub Šamaš-šumu-ukīn; Baker and Waters, PNA 2/1 pp. 542–543 sub Indabibi; Baker and Waters, PNA 3/2 pp. 1306–1308 sub Tammarītu 2; Baker and Waters, PNA 3/2 pp. 1383–1384 sub Ummanigaš 3; Brinkman, CAH2 3/2 pp. 47–60; Frame, Babylonia pp. 102–190; Frame, RLA 11/7–8 (2008) pp. 618–621 sub Šamaš-šuma-ukīn; Grayson, CAH2 3/2 pp. 149–151; Gerardi, Assurbanipal's Elamite Campaigns pp. 162–164; Henkelman, RLA 13/5–6 (2012) pp. 432–433 sub Tammaritu; Ruby, PNA 1/1 p. 166 sub Aššūr-bāni-apli II.3.d.3'; and Waters, SAAS 12 pp. 56–67. Text no. 3 (Prism B) vi 86–vii 76, text no. 4 (Prism D) vi 96–vii 79, text no. 6 (Prism C) vii 48'–ix 52'', text no. 7 (Prism Kh) vii 36–ix 9, text no. 8 (Prism G) viii 1'–ix 37', text no. 9 (Prism F) iii 6–32, and text no. 11 (Prism A) iii 70–iv 109; see also Borger, BIWA pp. 307–319 and Livingstone, SAA 3 pp. 110–112 no. 44. Text nos. 3 (Prism B), 4 (Prism D), and 9 (Prism F) do not contain the Šamaš-šuma-ukīn rebellion. Text nos. 6 (Prism C), 7 (Prism Kh), and 8 (Prism G) insert the Šamaš-šuma-ukīn rebellion within the narrative of Elam 4. In text no. 11 (Prism A) Elam 4 and Šamaš-šuma-ukīn are split over two military reports: campaign 5 (which also includes Elam 3 and Gambulu) and campaign 6. Details about the war are also known from numerous letters, queries to the sun-god, astronomical diaries, Babylonian chronicles, economic documents, and an Aramaic tale written in Demotic script.
137 According to a Babylonian chronicle (Grayson, Chronicles p. 131 no. 16 line 11) hostilities began on 19-X-652. Babylon fell sometime after 30-V-648; BM 40577 is the last economic document from Babylon dated by Šamaš-šuma-ukīn's regnal years. For a chronological outline of the revolt, see Frame, Babylonia pp. 188–190. Uruk was pro-Assyrian and it does not appear to have been held or captured by the Babylonians or their allies. Ur was also pro-Assyrian, although its governor may have offered some type of submission to Šamaš-šuma-ukīn out of desperation; there is no evidence, however, that this city was ever occupied by Babylonian forces or its allies during the rebellion.
138 For example, the Assyrians were victorious at Ḫirītu (27-XII-652) and Babylonian forces captured Cutha in 9-VI₂-651.
139 For example, Nippur, which joined Šamaš-šuma-ukīn at the outset of the rebellion but fell to the Assyrians at the end of 651, and Cutha, which the Assyrians held at the outbreak of the war but lost to the Babylonians in mid-651. At Mangisu, the Assyrians defeated the Elamite troops sent to Babylonia by Ummanigaš.
140 The most notable case being the Sealand governor Nabû-bēl-šumāti, a son of Marduk-apla-iddina II (Merodach-baladan). Despite reports that the governor of the Sealand had sided with the king of Babylon and was conscripting troops in Elam, Ashurbanipal had faith that Nabû-bēl-šumāti remained loyal and sent troops to support him on the southern front. By the time Ashurbanipal had learned the truth about this Chaldean leader's feigned loyalty, it was too late: the men he had sent him were taken captive during the night and imprisoned in Elam. The vilification of Nabû-bēl-šumāti in Ashurbanipal's inscriptions is a testament to the intense rage felt by the Assyrian king toward this man who deceitfully and cunningly betrayed him. For details about this important ally of Šamaš-šuma-ukīn, see Baker, PNA 2/2 pp. 811–814 sub Nabû-bēl-šumāti 10; Brinkman, CAH2 3/2 pp. 56–57; and Frame, Babylonia pp. 175–182.
The loyalty of Sîn-šarra-uṣur, the governor of Ur, appears to have been questioned and doubts about whether or not he would defect may have prompted Ashurbanipal to replace him with Sîn-tabni-uṣur. On these two men, see Frame, Babylonia pp. 162–167; Frame, NABU 2004 p. 71 no. 69; Novotny, PNA 3/1 pp. 1148–1150 sub Sīn-tabni-uṣur 2; and Radner, PNA 3/1 pp. 1145–1146 sub Sīn-šarru-uṣur 9.
141 The Elamite king Ummanigaš (Ḫumban-nikaš II), whom Ashurbanipal had appointed king, was an important ally of Šamaš-šuma-ukīn at the outset of the rebellion, but he was replaced by a certain Tammarītu, who in turn was deposed by Indabibi, who was murdered by Ummanaldašu (Ḫumban-ḫaltaš III). The instability in Elam undoubtedly played a role in hurting Babylonia's effectiveness to hold off the Assyrians. The dates and lengths of reigns of these rulers are uncertain. M. Waters (SAAS 12 pp. 56–67) assigns the following dates: 653–652? to Ummanigaš, 652?–649? to Tammarītu, and 649?–648? to Indabibi. From a query to Šamaš (Starr, SAA 4 p. 270 no. 289), it is certain that Tammarītu was king of Elam by XI-651 and, from one of Ashurbanipal's dateable inscriptions (text no. 3 [Prism B]), it is known that Indabibi deposed his predecessor sometime before V-649. Because Tammarītu sought asylum with Ashurbanipal and not Šamaš-šuma-ukīn, to whom he sent aid, this might suggest that Babylon was under siege at the time he was removed from the throne; thus, Indabibi may have seized power sometime after 11-IV-650 (but before V-649). As for when he became king, this could conceivably have happened as early as the beginning of 651 since the first recorded battle took place on 12-XII-652 and since his predecessor is reported to have sent troops to Babylonia; as G. Frame (Babylonia p. 292 n. 19) points out, the battle at Mangisu must have taken place prior to his death. Given the lack of clear evidence, it is not known if Indabibi was deposed by Ummanaldašu before or after the fall of Babylon; however, it is now generally thought that Indabibi's tenure as king ended in 648. For details on Elam's participation in the Babylonian revolt, see Frame, Babylonia pp. 182–186.
142 See the comments of G. Frame (Babylonia p. 145): "Ashurbanipal frequently turned to the gods for advice on what to do and on what the enemy was planning. Extispicies were performed to determine the truth of reports which had reached him and the potential for success of various planned military movements." The texts of these extispicies are published in Starr, SAA 4.
143 Baker, PNA 1/2 pp. 306–310 sub Bēl-ibni 18; and de Vaan, Sprache des Bēl-ibni.
144 Note the comments of G. Frame (Babylonia p. 150): "The goal of the Assyrians was to force the city into surrendering by cutting off its access to supplies of food and military aid .... Probably the Assyrians did not set up a continuous encirclement about the city but rather established a number of camps in the area in order to keep a close eye on it."
145 Accounts of Babylon's dire straits are known from text no. 6 (Prism C) ix 1'–20', text no. 7 (Prism Kh) viii 1'–54', text no. 8 (Prism G) viii 1'''–16''''a, and text no. 11 (Prism A) iv 41b–46. At least six economic documents from Babylon date to the siege; these were written between 13-VIII-650 and 29-II-648. For details on these texts, see Frame, Babylonia p. 150 n. 81 and p. 153, and JCS 51 (1999) pp. 101–106.
146 W. von Soden, (ZA 62 [1972] pp. 84–85) suggests that an official by the name of Nabû-qātē-ṣabat threw Šamaš-šuma-ukīn into the fire; for evidence against that proposal, see Frame, Babylonia p. 154 n. 101. Ctesias' account of the death of Ashurbanipal may have mistaken the death of the Assyrian king at Nineveh with that of the king of Babylon; that story states that the Assyrian king had himself burned alive in his palace. If that description of Ashurbanipal's death was based on the death of Šamaš-šuma-ukīn, then the king of Babylon may have committed suicide. For this opinion, see Frahm, Studies H. and M. Tadmor p. 39* and MacGinnis, Sumer 45 (1987–88) pp. 40–43. Another possibility is that Ctesias confused Ashurbanipal (Sardanapallos) with Sîn-šarra-iškun (Sarakos), who according to Berossos burnt down his palace around him when the Babylonian king (Bupalassaros = Nabopolassar) besieged him. Because nothing about Ashurbanipal's death is recorded in cuneiform sources, it has been sometimes suggested that Ashurbanipal also died by fire; see Frame, Babylonia p. 155.
147 Babylonian chronicles do not record the date of the end of the siege. G. Frame (Babylonia pp. 155–156 nn. 106–107) suggests that Babylon was captured by 1-XI-648 since large numbers of literary tablets were taken from Babylonia to Assyria after that time; see Parpola, JNES 42 (1983) pp. 7 and 11.
148 The rebels taken back to Assyria may have been executed on the very spot where Sennacherib had been murdered. For details on the murder of Sennacherib and where it might have happened (with references to earlier literature), see Grayson and Novotny, RINAP 3/2 pp. 28–29.
149 A relief showing the aftermath of the siege adorned part of Room M (the so-called Throne Room) of Ashurbanipal's palace at Nineveh. See Novotny and Watanabe, Iraq 70 (2008) pp. 105–125.
150 Ahmed, Southern Mesopotamia pp. 104–120; Baker, PNA 2/1 p. 601 sub Kandalānu 11; Brinkman, Prelude pp. 105–106; Brinkman, RLA 5/5–6 (1980) pp. 368–369 sub Kandalānu; Brinkman, CAH2 3/2 pp. 60–62; and Frame, Babylonia pp. 191–213 and 296–306 (for information regarding who this king of Babylon might have been). Some scholars (especially S. Zawadzki [Fall of Assyria pp. 57–62]) have suggested that Ashurbanipal and Kandalānu were one and the same person, but this seems unlikely, as already pointed out by J.A. Brinkman and G. Frame.
151 Baker and Waters, PNA 3/2 pp. 1380–1382 sub Ummanaldašu 3; Frame, Babylonia pp. 186, 204–206, and 293–295; Grayson, CAH2 3/2 pp. 151–153; Gerardi, Assurbanipal's Elamite Campaigns pp. 181–194; Ruby, PNA 1/1 p. 166 sub Aššūr-bāni-apli II.3.d.4'; Waters, SAAS 12 pp. 58–75 and 117–118; and Waters, PNA 3/2 pp. 1378–1379 sub UmbaḪABua. Text no. 7 (Prism Kh) ix 10–63'', text no. 8 (Prism G) ix 29''–x 16', text no. 9 (Prism F) iii 33–iv 16, and text no. 11 (Prism A) iv 110–v 62. Although it is not known when Ummanaldašu came to the throne, it is generally thought that he gained power in 648. G. Frame points out that there is no clear evidence that Indabibi's deposition took place before or after the fall of Babylon. M. Waters suggests that this may have happened sometime after Babylon was captured, following Frame's conjecture that that city's fall might have played a part in that king's removal from the throne. One plausible scenario is that relations between Ashurbanipal and Indabibi quickly deteriorated when the latter refused to extradite the villainous Nabû-bēl-šumāti. The Assyrian king threatened war, something he was able to do since the Babylonian rebellion had been quelled, and the Elamites fearing Ashurbanipal's wrath deposed Indabibi, and installed Ummanaldašu. This bold move bought them some time. The date of the Elam 5 incident has been a matter of debate. A.K. Grayson (ZA 70 [1980] p. 235), following H. Tadmor's proposed chronological arrangement of Ashurbanipal's annals, suggests a date of 648. P. Gerardi (Assurbanipal's Elamite Campaigns pp. 194 and 207–208) suggests that the wars against Ummanaldašu happened in 647. Frame (Babylonia pp. 293–295) suggests three possible dates (III-648, III-647, and III-646), but prefers the III-647 date. Waters (SAAS 12 pp. 68–70) prefers a date of 647, but does not rule out that the expedition was launched in 648. Because text nos. 7 (Prism Kh) and 8 (Prism G) are now thought to have been composed in 646 (and not in 647), the Elam 5 incident probably took place in 647; thus, the dates of Elam 6–8 differ from Grayson's proposed chronology. For discussions on the matter, see in particular Gerardi, Assurbaipal's Elamite Campaigns pp. 185–199; Frame, Babylonia pp. 293–295; and Waters, SAAS 12 pp. 68–70. The motive for the campaign is uncertain. Grayson (CAH2 3/2 p. 152) and Frame (Babylonia p. 204) suggest the expedition was to win back the buffer states, to seek revenge for Elam's participation in the Babylonian rebellion, and to replace Ummanaldašu with Tammarītu.
152 The chief archer of Elam, Imbappa, and members of Teumman's family were among the people taken prisoner. According to text no. 11 (Prism A), the Bīt-Imbî conquered by Ashurbanipal was a different city than the one conquered by Sennacherib. Apparently, the Elamites constructed a new Bīt-Imbî opposite the one destroyed by Ashurbanipal's grandfather.
153 The duration of Tammarītu's second tenure is unknown, but as M. Waters suggests (SAAS 12 pp. 72–74), it may have lasted for several months rather than that king being removed from the throne immediately after his installation, as Ashurbanipal's inscriptions insinuate. It is unclear exactly who removed Tammarītu from power. Bēl-ibni may have been involved since he was probably in Elam at the time hunting down Nabû-bēl-šumāti, who was still being protected by the Elamites.
154 The letter is dated by the eponymy of Nabû-nādin-aḫḫē (probably 647), the same year that text nos. 7 (Prism Kh) and 8 (Prism G) were inscribed on ten-sided prisms. For a proposed historical background of BM 132980, see Frame, Babylonia pp. 206–207.
155 Baker, PNA 2/2 pp. 811–814 sub Nabû-bēl-šumāti 10; Baker and Waters, PNA 3/2 pp. 1380–1382 sub Ummanaldašu 3; Frame, Babylonia pp. 206–208 and 293–295; Grayson, CAH2 3/2 pp. 151–153; Gerardi, Assurbanipal's Elamite Campaigns pp. 195–207; Ruby, PNA 1/1 pp. 166–167 sub Aššūr-bāni-apli II.3.d.5'; Waters, SAAS 12 pp. 75–79 and 117–118; and Waters, PNA 3/2 pp. 1378–1379 sub UmbaḪABua. Text no. 9 (Prism F) iv 17–vi 21, text no. 10 (Prism T) iv 12–v 32, and text no. 11 (Prism A) v 63–vii 8. The Elam 6 incident is regarded here as having taken place in 646; A.K. Grayson (ZA 70 [1980] pp. 231 and 235) and P. Gerardi (Assurbanipal's Elamite Campaigns p. 208) suggest that it took place one year earlier (647). Most scholars believe that the campaigns against Ummanaldašu took place during two consecutive years; Gerardi, however, argues that both wars took place in the same year. Close studies of the available sources by G. Frame (op. cit.) and M. Waters (op. cit.) strongly argue against such a scenario.
156 According to text no. 11 (Prism A) vi 116–124, Nanāya was returned to her sanctuary Eḫiliana ("House, Luxuriance of Heaven") in the Eanna ("House of Heaven") complex at Uruk on the first of Kislīmu (IX).
157 Baker and Waters, PNA 3/1 p. 979 sub Pa'ê; and Waters, SAAS 12 pp. 77–80. Text no. 11 (Prism A) vii 9–81. The date of some of the events of the Elam 7 incident (ca. 645) can be confirmed from a Neo-Assyrian letter (see the following note).
158 Harper, ABL no. 879 is dated to the twenty-sixth day of Duʾūzu (IV) of the eponymy of Nabû-šar-aḫḫēšu (probably 645) and, as G. Frame (Babylonia p. 207) has suggested, that letter was either to accompany the corpse or was to be sent shortly after the body had been dispatched. The Elamite king blames a tribal group called the Martenaya for protecting Nabû-bēl-šumāti in Elam and says that he will punish them for their actions. Ashurbanipal did not bury the body of Nabû-bēl-šumāti, but made it "more dead than before" by cutting off its head and hanging it around the neck of Nabû-qātī-ṣabat, the simmagir-official of Šamaš-šuma-ukīn.
159 Text no. 11 (Prism A) x 6–39. A.K. Grayson (ZA 70 [1980] pp. 231 and 235) dates the Elam 8 incident to ca. 643. This may be true, but since it is uncertain when text no. 11 (Prism A) was written (644, 643, or 642), it is best to give a more general date of ca. 645–643. Ummanaldašu may have been deposed as early as late 645, as M. Waters (SAAS 12 p. 109) suggests, but he may have been captured one or two years later. A firm dating for the eponymy of Šamaš-daʾʾinanni, the year in which text no. 11 (Prism A) was written, might clarify matters. In any event, both Paʾê and Ummanaldašu had been taken into custody before the composition of the aforementioned inscription. The latter's capture is depicted on a relief from Ashurbanipal's palace; see Barnett, Sculptures from the North Palace pl. XXXIV.
160 A relief from the North Palace (Room S¹) depicts a group of Elamite kings serving Ashurbanipal; see Barnett, Sculptures from the North Palace pls. LXIII–LXIV. Several inscriptions record that Tammarītu, Paʾê, and Ummanaldašu, together with with the Arabian king Uaiteʾ, were hitched up to Ashurbanipal's processional carriage and pulled him on it to the gates of the akītu-house on the citadel at Nineveh during a New Year's celebration (held in the month Ṭebētu [X]); see, for example, text no. 11 (Prism A) x 17–39 and text no. 23 (IIT) lines 118–121a.
161 Baker, PNA 2/1 pp. 497–498 sub Iauta'; Baker, PNA 2/2 p. 966 sub Nuḫūru 1; Baker, PNA 3/2 p. 1353 sub Uaiate'; Berlejung, PNA 2/1 p. 600 sub Kamās-ḫaltâ; Brinkman, PNA 1/1 p. 11 sub Abī-Iate'; Brinkman, PNA 1/1 pp. 89–90 sub Aia-ammu 2; Gerardi, SAAB 6/2 (1992) pp. 67–103; Grayson, CAH2 3/2 pp. 154–155; Ruby, PNA 1/1 p. 167 sub Aššūr-bāni-apli II.3.e; Tenney, PNA 2/2 pp. 938–939 sub Natnu 2; Weippert, WO 7/1 (1973) pp. 39–85; and Villard, PNA 1/1 pp. 104–105 sub Ammi-ladīn. For studies on the Arabs in cuneiform sources, see in particular Ephʿal, Arabs. Text no. 3 (Prism B) vii 77–viii 55, text no. 4 (Prism D) vii 80–viii 57, text no. 6 (Prism C) x 1'–18'', text no. 7 (Prism Kh) ix 64''–x 52', text no. 8 (Prism G) ix 38'–28'', and text no. 11 (Prism A) vii 82–x 5; see also Borger, BIWA pp. 69–70 K 3087 (and duplicates) and pp. 77–81 K 2802+ i 1–v 2. Text no. 9 (Prism F) does not include a report about the Arab campaigns. A.K. Grayson (ZA 70 [1980] pp. 231–232 and 234–235) dates the Arabs 1 and 2 incidents to ca. 650 and ca. 644 respectively. Thanks to the efforts of I. Ephʿal, P. Gerardi, and M. Weippert, it is now fairly certain that some of the events mentioned in Grayson's Arab 1 occurred before 652, while others took place ca. 650 (during the Šamaš-šuma-ukīn rebellion). Thus, a more general date (before 652 and ca. 650) is suggested here. As for Grayson's Arab 2 incident, it clear that this took place before the composition of text no. 11 (Prism A), in the eponymy of Šamaš-daʾʾinanni. Because the date of that eponym is uncertain (644, 643, or 642), a range of ca. 645–643 is given here. For further information, see the Dating and Chronology section.
162 According to text no. 11 (Prism A), Adiya, the wife of Iautaʾ, was captured at this time. The earliest inscription to record her defeat is text no. 8 (Prism G). It is uncertain if the inclusion of the Adiya incident in that inscription records new information (an event that had taken place prior to the composition of that text) or if it recorded old information (an event that had taken place years earlier but not immediately incorporated into the military narrative). Thus, Adiya was either caught by the Assyrians before 652 or in early 646.
163 In later inscriptions, text no. 11 (Prism A) and K 2802+ (Letter to Aššur), the Assyrian scribes sometimes confused Iautaʾ with the similarly named Uaiteʾ (son of Bir-Dāda). Both men were in custody ca. 645–643. For details about the confusion between these Arab rulers, see in particular the on-page note to text no. 11 (Prism A) vii 82–x 39; Gerardi, SAAB 6/2 (1992) pp. 67–71; and Lämmerhirt, RLA 14/3–4 (2014) pp. 255–256 sub Uaiteʾ.
164 The earliest dateable inscription mentioning Abī-Yateʾ's installation as ruler is text no. 3 (Prism B). It can be inferred from text no. 11 (Prism A) that Abī-Yateʾ and his brother Aya-ammu were in Babylon while it was under siege (after IV-650) and, therefore, he had to have been made ruler of the Qedarite tribes by Ashurbanipal before aiding Babylon. Thus, following more recent studies, the appointment of Abī-Yateʾ likely took place prior to 652.
165 The date is recorded in a Babylonian chronicle (Grayson, Chronicles p. 130 no. 15 line 19); see the Dating and Chronology section for a translation of the passage.
166 A.K. Grayson (ZA 70 [1980] pp. 231 and 235) dates the Arab 2 incident to ca. 644. See the comments in n. 161.
167 The punishments of Abī-Yateʾ and Natnu are not recorded in extant inscriptions. Ashurbanipal installed Natnu's son Nuḫūru as ruler of the Nabayateans.
168 Alhadeff and Jean, PNA 3/2 pp. 1309–1310 sub Tandāiu; Grayson, CAH2 3/2 p. 155; Lämmerhirt, RLA 13/5–6 (2012) p. 441 sub Tandāja; Lapinkivi, PNA 1/1 p. 95 sub Akkudāiu; Ruby, PNA 1/1 p. 167 sub Aššūr-bāni-apli II.3.f. Text no. 1 (Prism E₁) vi 1–10, text no. 2 (Prism E₂) v 1'–vi 13, text no. 3 (Prism B) iii 5–15, text no. 4 (Prism D) ii 73'–iii 8, text no. 6 (Prism C) iv 8'–18', and text no. 7 (Prism Kh) iii 31''–35''. Text nos. 9 (Prism F) and 11 (Prism A) do not include reports about Qirbit. The Babylonian Chronicle (see below) also records this event; that text states that that city was captured in Šamaš-šuma-ukīn's accession year (=Ashurbanipal's 1st regnal year; 668).
169 Ambos and Zadok, PNA 3/1 p. 977 sub Pādê; Baker and Schmitt, PNA 2/1 p. 639 sub Kuraš; Brinkman, PNA 2/1 p. 479 sub Ḫundāru 2; Grayson, CAH2 3/2 p. 155; Luukko, PNA 3/2 p. 1266 sub Šīlum; Ruby, PNA 1/1 p. 167 sub Aššūr-bāni-apli II.3.f.; and Waters, PNA 3/1 p. 997 sub Pislumê. Text no. 12 (Prism H) vi 1'–25', text no. 13 (Prism J) viii 1–5; text no. 21 lines 20'–21'; text no. 23 (IIT) lines 114–117 and 131b–139a. The reading of the names Šīlum and Luppi are not entirely certain. The name of the ruler of Luppi, as far as it is preserved, is [...]raBADte. A.K. Grayson (ZA 70 [1980] pp. 232 and 235) dates the Cyrus and Ḫudimiri episodes to ca. 641 since "these incidents are not found in Edition A but the motive for sending the gifts is said to be an Assyrian victory over Elam, presumably Elam 8." A more general date of ca. 642–640 is tentatively suggested here since it is not known when Grayson's Elam 8 took place, apart from that it occurred before the eponymy of Šamaš-daʾʾinanni (644, 643, or 642).
Jamie Novotny & Joshua Jeffers
Jamie Novotny & Joshua Jeffers, 'Military Campaigns, Part 3', 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/militarycampaigns/part3/]