Download PDF version of SAA 19 introduction - UCL

STATE ARCHIVES OF ASSYRIA XIX
first and most obvious difference between the two lay in the fact that Tiglathpileser
III took the throne of Babylon (under the name of Pulu). In this way
he kept the crowns of Assyria and Babylonia separate, creating the impression
of an autonomous Babylonian region in the face of the otherwise vast and
multicultural Assyrian empire. 106 This expedient of the double throne was also
continued by Tiglath-pileser III’s successor, Shalmaneser V, who used his
birth name Ululayu on succeeding to the throne of Babylonia, in contrast to
Sargon II who did not create two separate names to distinguish his roles as
the king of Assyria and of Babylonia.
These different approaches to Babylonia from a titular point of view were
also reflected in the administration of the region. In fact, as has been noted
above, during the reign of Tiglath-pileser III there was no Assyrian governor
in the city of Babylon or in the other important cities of southern Mesopotamia.
In his summary inscriptions, 107 found in the secondary place from the
North-West Palace of Nimrud, it is written that Tiglath-pileser III placed
governors in the territories immediately to the north of Babylonia, where the
Aramaic tribes had settled, whereas the Assyrian sovereign offered pure
sacrifices to the most important local deities of the principal cities, Babylon,
Cutha, Nippur, etc. 108
Considering that the titles that Tiglath-pileser III
assumed included the title of king of Babylon, 109
and that he boasted of
appointing eunuchs as governors in the territories he had conquered, 110
it
seems relatively clear that there was no Assyrian governor in Babylon; given
the importance of the city, one might expect this to have been listed in his
royal inscriptions. The presence of an Assyrian governor in Babylon would
have contrasted with Tiglath-pileser’s intention of giving the region that
appearance of autonomy for which the expedient of the double throne had
been created.
If there was no Assyrian governor in Babylon, who was it that protected
the interests of Tiglath-pileser III when he was busy at Calah, or in other
regions of the empire? We may find the answer to this question in no. 99,
presumably sent by Šamaš-bunaya, Nabû-nammir and the Babylonians. In the
light of this letter and what is said in SAA 17 95, 111 Šamaš-bunaya must have
been the Assyrian prefect of the region whose function was to assist in, and
much more likely to control and direct, the activities of a council of Babylonians
in charge of the administration of the region. If Šamaš-bunaya and
Nabû-nammir really sent this letter, the former was probably in continuous
office in Babylonia given that, contrary to the other letters 112 written during
the military campaign that led to the conquest of the region, the text is in
Neo-Babylonian and includes a salutation typical of southern Mesopotamia:
ana dina − n be − l l −
ni nillik “We would gladly die for our lord!” 113
Another detail worth noting and related to administering Babylonia is that
this corpus includes a letter addressed to the grand vizier, presumably to be
dated to the reign of Tiglath-pileser. 114 This curious detail may underline the
difference between the titles of high-ranking officials in Babylonia from
Tiglath-pileser to Sargon: despite many references to the vizier in the letters
from the reign of Sargon II, so far there is not a single attestation of sukkallu
rabiu among them. 115
XXXII