² RIMB 2: 133, though he was not called “king of Babylon” in the year names of Babylonian texts that mention him; Tukultī-Ninurta I was the first Assyrian king to conquer Babylonia but he was not recognized as a regent there. See Brinkman Reference Brinkman and Larsen1979: 229–31 for an overview of Assyrian kings and their Babylonian involvement starting in the 8^th century BCE.

³ Aššur-nādin-šumi was deposed and deported to Elam in 694 BCE, where he was probably executed (see Frahm Reference Frahm, Kalimi and Richardson2014: 193). This paper considers only legitimately installed members of the royal family; Sîn-šum-līšir, an Assyrian official who may have been considered king, is excluded as he unseated the royal heir Sîn-šar-iškun (see Da Riva Reference Da Riva2017: 81 and fn. 43).

⁴ Earlier studies have argued that Šamaš-šuma-ukīn was born to an ethnically Babylonian mother, but this has been convincingly dismissed, see Novotny and Singletary Reference Novotny, Singletary, Luukko, Svärd and Mattila2009: 174–76. Ethnicity is a complicated term when applied to the ancient Near East and has been subject to debate. In the case of Assyria, many different ethnic groups lived in the empire under the political identity of “Assyrian” (see Machinist Reference Machinist and Raaflaub1993: 89–90), further complicating the matter. Ethnic identity, as used in this study, is taken to be in line with Šamaš-šuma-ukīn's (and his family's) geographic origins in Assyria, and can be placed in conversation with his cultural identity, which was formed through his upbringing in Assyria; his familial identity is also Assyrian by virtue of being part of the Assyrian royal family. Šamaš-šuma-ukīn is then an ethnic minority in Babylonia, while his political identity becomes “Babylonian,” as does his royal self-presentation. Studies of ethnicity in the ancient Near East and Assyrian ethnicity in particular include Emberling and Yoffee Reference Emberling, Yoffee, Kühne, Bernback and Bartl1999, Alon, Gruenwald, and Singer Reference Alon, Gruenwald and Singer1994, Bahrani Reference Bahrani2006, Emberling Reference Emberling1997, Wäfler Reference Wäfler1975, Machinist Reference Machinist and Raaflaub1993, Van Soldt Reference Van Soldt2005, Parpola Reference Parpola2004b. For an overview of foreigners in cuneiform sources from the third through the first millennium, see Beckman Reference Beckman2013 and for Aramaean and Chaldean ethnicity in Babylon, see Fales Reference Fales, Cancik-Kirschbaum, van Ess and Marzahn2011. On the topic of language and cultural diversity, see Beaulieu Reference Beaulieu and Sanders2003.

⁵ On Assyrian royal inscriptions, see Fales Reference Fales1981 and Reference Fales1999–2001.

⁶ It is not clear whether Šamaš-šuma-ukīn had Assyrian or Babylonian scribes (or both), or to what extent these scribes were well-versed in the conventions of the others, but it is apparent from the distinct differences in how Šamaš-šuma-ukīn and Ashurbanipal depict themselves to the same audience that an attempt to be more Babylonian was undertaken for Šamaš-šuma-ukīn. One would imagine that the king himself would be consenting to these depictions, if not actively involved. There is evidence for the Neo-Babylonian and Persian periods that the kings deliberately excavated and collected inscriptions of the earlier Babylonian rulers, particularly in order to imitate the acts of the earlier kings, and these would have provided the contemporary scribes with common idioms and conventions expected for a traditional Babylonian king (Waerzeggers Reference Waerzeggers, Radner and Robson2011: 729, Jursa Reference Jursa and Crawford2007a: 78), so one could postulate a similar phenomenon happening here. On this topic, see Schaudig Reference Schaudig and Selz2003.

⁷ Frame Reference Frame2007: 93–95.

⁸ RIMB 2: 248, Novotny and Singletary Reference Novotny, Singletary, Luukko, Svärd and Mattila2009: 167–68, Frame Reference Frame2007: 94–95, including their depictions on the stelae from Zinçirli and Til Barsip. As will be discussed below, Ashurbanipal later portrays his brother as essentially a vassal, despite Šamaš-šuma-ukīn being the elder son, claiming responsibility for placing Šamaš-šuma-ukīn on his throne and exercising some jurisdiction over Babylonia himself. A number of Babylonian officials also reported to Ashurbanipal (Frame Reference Frame2007: 109–10).

⁹ That is, son and heir of Marduk, king of the gods. Nabû is a god who grants kingship in the Neo-Babylonian period as he, along with his father Marduk, are closely associated with the royal family and sit at the top of the Neo-Babylonian official pantheon. A text demonstrative of this phenomenon is the acrostic Nebuchadnezzar Hymn to Nabû (BM 55469), which is dedicated to Nabû, who is also named in the acrostic, and linked with Nebuchadnezzar II (605–562 BCE). The Hymn describes Nabû’s role in the royal investiture after Marduk creates Nebuchadnezzar II for kingship. A discussion about the rise of Nabû and a recent edition of the Hymn can be found in Oshima Reference Oshima2014: 473–80.

¹⁰ RINAP 4 113: 28–35.

¹¹ Šamaš-šuma-ukīn is called the “prince of the House of Succession of Babylon,” on analogy with Ashurbanipal as “great prince of the House of Succession of Assyria” in the loyalty oaths, see Frame Reference Frame2007: 95, see also parallel constructions in SAA II 6: 86–89, 668–69. Differences in the installation and coronation of the brothers are otherwise invisible besides the mention of what may have been the Babylonian House of Succession, the Edadihegal (RINAP 4 53: 10′−13′). Pongratz-Leisten has argued for distinct characteristics, such as humiliation, that are part of the Assyrian installation ritual but not the Babylonian one, and also points to the Ashurbanipal Coronation Hymn as evidence for the Assyrian coronation rite, which Da Riva contrasts to the Nabopolassar Epic’s coronation scene (Da Riva Reference Da Riva2017: 85–86, Pongratz-Leisten Reference Pongratz-Leisten2015: 438, Waerzeggers Reference Waerzeggers, Radner and Robson2011: 733). The naming and investiture of the king in the Nebuchadnezzar Hymn to Nabû may also be styled after a coronation ceremony since it shows Marduk and Nabû designating Nebuchadnezzar II as king and bestowing upon him royal symbols such as the mace and scepter. Oshima (Reference Oshima2014: 474) has suggested that “one may speculate that this hymn of Nebuchadnezzar to Nabû was recited on the occasion of [the specific] investiture ceremony” that would take place in Nabû’s temple, in which the god gave the king the royal scepter.

¹² Brinkman Reference Brinkman and Larsen1979: 228–30.

¹³ Brinkman (Reference Brinkman and Larsen1979: 225), however, writes that “the population of Babylonia in the late eighth century was an unevenly blended mixture. The older stratum, usually identified simply as ‘Babylonian’, was itself an amalgam of such earlier groups as Sumerians and Akkadians with an admixture of later assimilated invaders such as Amorites and Kassites. By 750 B.C., these peoples had lost their political and ethnic identity and shared a common Babylonian culture … relative newcomers to Babylonia were the Chaldeans and Arameans.” Regarding Esarhaddon's Babylonian policy, Porter (Reference Porter1993: 36) writes “it was to the third powerful group in Babylonian politics, the citizens of the ancient city-centers, that Esarhaddon now turned his attentions, and it was this group which was to become the focus of his public relations program throughout the reign. The citizens of the long-established cities, who constituted the older Babylonian native stock—if one can use the term ‘native’ for any people in such a melting pot—were a complex ethnic mixture, blended by centuries of intermarriage within the cities; in the Assyrians’ eyes, however, they were a distinctive sociopolitical group, distinct from other groups more recently settled in the cities.” For further studies on Babylonian identity and the term “Babylonian,” see Alstola Reference Alstola2018: 26–28 and Frame Reference Frame, Berlejung and Streck2013.

¹⁴ Waerzeggers Reference Waerzeggers, Stökl and Waerzeggers2015: 181–83, noting that “there was no straightforward connection between foreign and improper kingship: some Assyrians who ruled as king of Babylon were recognised as fully legitimate holders of this office, others were not.”

¹⁵ Waerzeggers Reference Waerzeggers, Stökl and Waerzeggers2015: 187–88.

¹⁶ This is certainly true of kings of Babylon who had Chaldean or Aramaean origins, such as Neriglissar, Nabopolassar, and Nabonidus. These kings were also subject to the same need for assimilation into the Babylonian idiom, which in turn affected how their reigns were remembered (see Waerzeggers Reference Waerzeggers, Stökl and Waerzeggers2015: 213–19 and Beaulieu Reference Beaulieu and Sanders2003).

¹⁷ This was not a traditional method of Assyrian rule in Babylonia, however, and Brinkman (Reference Brinkman and Larsen1979: 233) calls Bēl-ibni an “experiment.”

¹⁸ Brinkman Reference Brinkman and Larsen1979: 233.

¹⁹ RINAP 3/1 1: 54, with similar statements in 2: 13; 3: 13, and RINAP 3/2 213: 53. Two inscriptions omit his ethnic background, though, and read “I placed Bēl-ibni, a son of a rab bānî, on his royal throne (and) entrusted him with the people of Akkad” (RINAP 3/1 4: 11; 8: 11). There is still some confusion regarding whether rab bānî refers to an official title, a prebend, or a specific family. For the rab bānî as a family designation, see Brinkman and Dalley Reference Brinkman and Dalley1988: 90–91 and Bongenaar Reference Bongenaar1997: 541.

²⁰ See George Reference George1992: 241–42, where he writes “as [the name] occurs in the royal inscriptions of the Sargonid and Chaldaean kings … šu-an-na ^(ki) may however be no more than an ornamental writing for bābilu.” This part of Babylon is likely used on analogy with Baltil in Assur, but this requires further inquiry. “Babylon” is generally written TIN.TIR.KI or KA₂.DINGIR.RA.KI (as pars pro toto).

²¹ The description of Bēl-ibni growing up in the Assyrian royal sphere like a “young puppy” or “young cub” may not be mocking (contra Van de Mieroop Reference Van de Mieroop1999: 46) or meant to speak to Bēl-ibni's dog-like loyalty but might play on uses of mīrānu to mean the cubs of lions and the association of the Assyrian king with lions, which ranged from hunting them to displaying fearsome characteristics like those of raging lions (CAD M II s.v. mīrānu and see for example RINAP 3/1 23: v 57).

²² Frame (RIMB 2: 157) suggests that Bēl-ibni's control over southern Babylonia was lost to the Chaldean tribes, but notes that it is still unknown whether this was the basis for Sennacherib's decision to remove the ruler.

²³ ABL 403, see Frame Reference Frame2007: 80.

²⁴ MacGinnis (Reference MacGinnis, Ceterez, Donabed and Makko2012: 145) writes “certainly the Assyrian kings strove to unify the lands under their rule by promoting a uniform Assyrian culture. This was achieved through a multifaceted programme, the elements of which included allegiance to the Assyrian king, recognition of the state god Aššur, use of the Aramaic lingua franca, taxation, conscription, a common calendar, a unified judicial system, and standardized weights and measures.” See Oded Reference Oded1979: 81–83 for “counting” subjects as Assyrian between the reigns of Tiglath-pileser I and Sargon II, and Pongratz-Leisten (Reference Pongratz-Leisten and Whiting2001: 223), who writes that that Tiglath-pileser I used the phrase “I … reckoned them as subjects of the god Aššur, my lord” but notes that “already in the Middle Assyrian period this phrase can be replaced by the phraseology turru ana or ruddû eli miṣir māt Aššur which during the first millennium in turn is combined with the political reorganization of the Assyrian empire, namely by setting a governor over the newly annexed territory.” Compare also Esarhaddon's repatriation of Babylonians, which draws from the same terminology: “I gathered the bought people who had become slaves (and) who had been distributed among the (foreign) riffraff and counted (them once again) as Babylonians” (RINAP 4 104: v 15–20; 105: vii 18–24). Esarhaddon's Succession Treaty gives some insight into how the Assyrians thought of the Babylonian territory, as Šamaš-šuma-ukīn is meant “to ascend the throne of Babylon. You will reserve for him the kingship over the whole of Sumer, Akkad, and Karduniaš” (SAA II 6: 86–89).

²⁵ There is no evidence that non-Assyrians were forced to worship Aššur, but taxes and tribute from conquered territories often went in support of his temple and cult. Esarhaddon's Succession Treaty includes a provision about rebellions started by “an Assyrian or a vassal of Assyria, or a bearded (courtier) or a eunuch, or a citizen of Assyria or a citizen of any other country,” which also provides an intriguing glimpse at an official division between Assyrians and citizens of Assyria (SAA II 6: 162–64). See also the note above about the Succession Treaty's description of Babylonia.

²⁶ As is well known, the territory of Assyria also bore the name Aššur, further binding together god and land.

²⁷ RIMB 2 B.6.26.1: 21′−23′, with the problems of reading “Bēl-ibni” in the text. Also of interest from this text is the colophon that suggests that the king collaborated with the scribe, though in somewhat broken lines: “official [document] which the king cleared […] of the palace scribe” (RIMB 2 B.6.26.1: 35′−36′).

²⁸ RINAP 4 53: 10′−13′, with a mention of what may have been the Babylonian House of Succession, the Edadihegal.

²⁹ A Babylonian parallel is found in Nabopolassar's Etemenanki Inscription from Babylon, which describes Nabopolassar's reconstruction of Marduk's ziggurat. The king mentions specific tasks he gave to two of his sons, an unusual addition, writing that Nebuchadnezzar, his firstborn, had to carry soil while he “had Nabû-šum-līšir, his close brother (talīmšu), the infant, my own offspring, the younger brother, my darling, seize mattock and spade. I made him bear a tupšikku-basket of gold and silver and dedicated him (i.e. gave him as a present, ana širiktim) to my lord Marduk” (II 49-III 24, the edition of this text is found in Da Riva Reference Da Riva2013: 77–92). It is notable that this inscription calls Nabû-šum-līšir Nebuchadnezzar's talīmu, the term that Ashurbanipal and Šamaš-šuma-ukīn use to describe their (friendly) relationship to one another in their own inscriptions, and that the phrase for giving Nabû-šum-līšir as a present to Marduk is identical to that in Esarhaddon's inscription about Šamaš-šuma-ukīn.

³⁰ Perhaps the primary distinctions between the Assyrian and Babylonian coronation rites are the gods and temples in which the ceremonies were probably undertaken: Aššur and the Ešarra in the former case, Marduk and the Esagil in the latter (Da Riva Reference Da Riva2017: 85–86), which then parallels the two Houses of Succession.

³¹ RINAP 5 Asbpl 73/Assyrian Tablet 2: iii 1′-iii 6′ (šarāku ana Marduk).

³² Ashurbanipal claims to have consecrated (literally “shaved”) two younger brothers as šešgallu-priests of Aššur and Sîn of Harran, respectively, but this links to a different tradition in which royal family members become cultic officials, see RINAP 5: Asbpl 72/Assyrian Tablet 1: 10–13 and Löhnert Reference Löhnert2007 on the installation of priests.

³³ “The transfer of the institution and symbols of Babylonian kingship to the Persian rulers is considered a satisfactory arrangement for both parties, as it enabled the accommodation of existing (Babylonian) and recently gained (Persian) prerogatives in a mutually supported political framework and symbolic system. However, the institutional, ethnic and geopolitical conditions under which Persian rulers exercised Babylonian kingship did not compare to those that prevailed under Nabonidus and his predecessors who ruled an independent state” (Waerzeggers Reference Waerzeggers, Stökl and Waerzeggers2015: 187). On the image of Cyrus, especially in later sources, see Kuhrt Reference Kuhrt, Heinz and Feldman2007.

³⁴ Waerzeggers Reference Waerzeggers, Stökl and Waerzeggers2015: 190, see also Jursa Reference Jursa and Crawford2007a: 74–75, including similar motifs and motivations in the Verse Account of Nabonidus. See van der Spek Reference Van der Spek and Kozuh2014 for a comparison of Assyrian and Persian policies in Babylonia, including an edition of the Cyrus Cylinder. A document from the reign of Cambyses, Cyrus’ successor, preserves the royal request for all inscribed stelae of the earlier Babylonian kings from the Eanna temple archives, and Jursa (Reference Jursa and Crawford2007a: 78) claims that “the obvious inference from this is that the new rulers adopted a conscious policy towards these old royal acts.”

³⁵ Warzeggers 2015: 195–196.

³⁶ However, the source for this story may have instead been referring to Cambyses (Waerzeggers Reference Waerzeggers, Stökl and Waerzeggers2015: 201). Van der Spek (Reference Van der Spek and Kozuh2014: 250) writes that it is during Cambyses’ investiture that Cyrus or Cambyses wore Elamite clothing.

³⁷ Waerzeggers Reference Waerzeggers, Stökl and Waerzeggers2015: 196–201. On the ideological importance of performing the akītu festival as Babylonian king, see Waerzeggers Reference Waerzeggers, Radner and Robson2011: 731. There are some indications that Cyrus may have worked on cultic buildings in Uruk (see Jursa Reference Jursa and Crawford2007a: 77–78), though one should note the modifications to the Babylonian idiom in these brick inscriptions as discussed by Waerzeggers, above.

³⁸ One can also compare to the text The Crimes and Sacrileges of Nabû-šuma-iškun, as Waerzeggers (Reference Waerzeggers, Radner and Robson2011: 740) writes that “more interesting than the historical truth behind the text is how the king is depicted: his portrait basically inverts the conventional role of the Babylonian king … Instead of protecting the continuity of the cult, he disrupts it: he changes rituals [a], dislocates the statues of the gods [c], and spends resources on unprecedented gods [e]. Instead of protecting the priests, he usurps their role [b]: by entering the inner sanctuary of Bel to perform sacrifice, he acts as a ‘temple-enterer’, while his unshaven status and wrong garb clearly should forbid his entry,” and he also removes the traditional protections of Babylon, Borsippa, and Cutha, demonstrating how powerful and well-defined the incorrect performance of Babylonian kingship was in cultural consciousness. In addition, the literary letter Declaring War (BM 55467), an Achaemenid or Seleucid-period text, portrays Nabopolassar accusing an Assyrian king (who scholars have identified as likely Sîn-šar-iškun) of grievous crimes against Babylonia. Da Riva (Reference Da Riva2017: 80) writes that, “the Assyrian's criminal record contains the worst atrocities that one might imagine: the seizure of booty, burglary in the Esagil temple, the stealing of city property, the murder of the city's highest representatives, and further outrages such as imprisoning rebels, filling the land with disorder, inciting unrest and rebellion, and so on. These scenes of utter disorder and chaos represent the exact opposite of the Babylonian idea of a prosperous and successful reign, and anticipate Nabopolassar's intention to restore order and normality.” Like The Crimes and Sacrileges of Nabû-šuma-iškun, the letter enumerates failures of performing Babylonian kingship ideals in order to cast the accused king as a villain. An edition of Declaring War can be found in Gerardi Reference Gerardi1986 and, for more recent editions and discussion of Akkadian literary letters including Declaring War, see Frazer Reference Frazer2015.

³⁹ Waerzeggers Reference Waerzeggers, Stökl and Waerzeggers2015: 196 and Michalowski Reference Michalowski and Kozuh2014.

⁴⁰ Waerzeggers Reference Waerzeggers, Stökl and Waerzeggers2015: 215–16. See also Waerzeggers Reference Waerzeggers2012 on the contexts and classifications of the chronicles.

⁴¹ Waerzeggers Reference Waerzeggers, Stökl and Waerzeggers2015: 221.

⁴² See Chronicle 7 in Grayson Reference Grayson1975. Finn (Reference Finn2017: 166) writes that “the (non-)performance of the akītu festival would be an ever-important gauge by which to judge the legitimacy of kingship in Mesopotamia.” Nabonidus’ ethnic identity is still unknown, but there has been speculation that he was or Aramaean or Assyrian origin, though the question of whether his mother Adad-guppi was from Harran or Babylon is also complicated and significant to the debate (Beaulieu Reference Beaulieu1989: 67–78). Beaulieu (Reference Beaulieu1989: 86) concludes only that he was “not a member of the Babylonian oligarchy.” For Adad-Guppi's biographical stele, see Schaudig Reference Schaudig2001: 500–513.

⁴³ Waerzeggers Reference Waerzeggers, Stökl and Waerzeggers2015: 194–95.

⁴⁴ One might also compare to the fact that “the deep hatred for Sin-šuma-lešir exhibited in the Nabopolassar Epic, which celebrates Babylonia's eventual emancipation from Assyria's overlordship … seems to have been rooted not so much in the fact that he was a representative of Assyrian power but that he had assumed authority illegitimately. Instead of contenting himself with an advisory role, he had taken on the executive function customarily reserved for the monarch, to the extent that at some point Babylonian documents were dated according to regnal years in Sin-šuma-lešir's name” (Radner Reference Radner, Radner and Robson2011: 375). Da Riva (Reference Da Riva2017: 81) notes that, in the Nabopolassar Epic, “Sîn-šum-līšir is never mentioned by name; perhaps in an attempt to denigrate his figure, he appears as ‘the almighty chief eunuch’ … or simply ‘the Assyrian.’”

⁴⁵ Waerzeggers Reference Waerzeggers, Stökl and Waerzeggers2015: 215.

⁴⁶ There are instances in which Šamaš-šuma-ukīn was clearly in Assyria, such as in order to bring back the Marduk statue and in one case when he was unwell, but there is no reason to believe that he lived in Assyria full time (see Frame Reference Frame2007: 96–97 on this issue).

⁴⁷ See for instance the bilingual inscription RIMB 2 B.6.33.1: 1–5, as well as B.6.33.3: 1–4, B.6.33.4: 11–15, and Frame's (Reference Frame2007: 107) summation: “in economic texts, Šamaš-šuma-ukin was given the title ‘king of Babylon,’ or occasionally just ‘king.’ In his royal inscriptions, he was called ‘king of Babylon,’ ‘viceroy of Babylon,’ ‘king of Sumer and Akkad,’ and ‘king of Amnanu.'” Interestingly, the preserved writings suggest MAN TIN.TIR.KI except for in a dedication to the king by the governor of Ur, which calls him LUGAL E.KI (RIMB 2 B.6.33.2001: 2).

⁴⁸ RIMB 2 B.6.33.2001; the Babylonian context is underscored with Nanāya's identification as “beloved of the gods Nabû and Marduk.”

⁴⁹ RIMB 2 B.6.33.1: 2, 5; B.6.33.2: 5–6; B.6.33.3: 1–4, B.6.33.4: 11–15, and Frame Reference Frame2007: 107 for a summary of epithets and the note that several descriptors parallel ones used already by Esarhaddon or Merodach-Baladan II. One title that Frame identifies as new in Šamaš-šuma-ukīn's reign is “the one who settled [the gods who] are in Esagila.”

⁵⁰ Frame Reference Frame2007: 107, and fn. 23 where he writes that Yaḫdun-Lim titled Baḫlu-kulim as “king of Tutul and Amnanu.” Tutul is in Syria so one might suggest that Amnanu should be nearby, and Bryce (Reference Bryce2009: 774) identifies the Amnanu with the Awnan as a sub-group of the Amorite tribes. Regarding the Old Babylonian kings and these Amorite tribes, Beaulieu (Reference Beaulieu2017: 67) writes that “the Mari archives mention five Benjaminite tribes: the Ubrabum, the Yarihum, the Rababum, the Amnanum and the Yahrurum. Members of these last two tribes settled further south around Sippar, northwest of Babylon, where they gave their names to the twin agglomerations of Sippar-Amnanum … and Sippar-Yahrurum … Amnanum and Yahrurum also appear as ancestors of the First Dynasty of Babylon in a very important administrative tablet from the reign of Ammisaduqa.” It is unlikely that Šamaš-šuma-ukīn seeks through this title to claim Amorite origins but rather that the exact meaning is less important for Šamaš-šuma-ukīn than the fact of its historical use among Old Babylonian kings, thus aligning him with their dynastic origins and antiquity. One can compare this to the title “king of the Sealand,” given to Nabopolassar in a Seleucid-period colophon: Da Riva (Reference Da Riva2017: 78–79) notes that “the assignation of the title ‘king of the Sealand’ for Nabopolassar has no historical basis, for at the end of the seventh century this area belonged to the administrative realm of Uruk and was no longer an independent kingdom, but it coincides with the tradition that points to a ‘southern’ origin for Nabopolassar's dynasty. Moreover, there is no evidence to suggest that Nabopolassar came from a royal dynasty” but that “the use of anachronisms (especially toponyms) and other fictional elements in the compositions to give the impression of a remote historical past.”

⁵¹ RIMB 2 B.6.33.1 (bilingual), B.6.33.2 (Sumerian). On antiquarianism, especially under Nabonidus, see Rubio Reference Rubio, Barreyra Fracaroli and del Olmo Lete2009.

⁵² RIMB 2 B.6.33.2: 5–6, RIMB 2 B.6.33.5: 14. As mentioned above, only one royal inscription is extant that may potentially come from Bēl-ibni's reign and calls him šarru “king.”

⁵³ RIMB 2: 194.

⁵⁴ RIMB 2: 194.

⁵⁵ There are several studies that discuss the importance and design of Assyrian titulary, though none of them cover the late Neo-Assyrian period: Cifola Reference Cifola1995, Karlsson 2015, Sazonov Reference Sazonov2016.

⁵⁶ RIMB 2: 163. Later, a similar situation occurs under Xerxes, whose response to Babylonian rebellions includes that he “symbolically removed the component ‘King of Babylon’ from his official royal title” (Waerzeggers Reference Waerzeggers2003/4: 150).

⁵⁷ Frame Reference Frame2007: 54, 61.

⁵⁸ RIMB 2 B.6.33.3: 9–12, B.6.33.6: 5′−8′, for instance.

⁵⁹ RIMB 2 B.6.33.4: 18–23. The title “scion of Baltil” seems to work essentially on analogy with “scion of Šuenna,” further suggesting that the latter was part of the Assyrian conceptualization of a Babylonian identity. There are, however, some differences in writing between the Assyrians and the Babylonians. Esarhaddon uses NUNUZ or per'u (“bud”) Baltil in his Babylonian inscriptions to describe Bēl-bāni in his genealogy, see RIMB 2 B.6.31.10: 17′; B.6.31.11: 14; B.6.31.12: 28 (reconstructed), B.6.31.15: 29. A Babylonian king, possibly Nebuchadnezzar I, calls himself “scion of Šuanna” as well but writes it NUMUN (zēru) “seed” (RIMB B.2.4.10: 9). Esarhaddon's writing is replicated under Šamaš-šuma-ukīn, who writes that Adasi is scion (NUNUZ) of Baltil (RIMB 2 B.6.33.4: 23). Sennacherib likewise calls Bēl-ibni “scion of Šuenna” with the writing per'u, (RINAP 3 1: 54; 2: 13; 3: 13; 213: 53) suggesting that NUNUZ/per'u perhaps indicates an Assyrian-trained scribe, which then means that one (or more) was writing at least some of the Babylonian inscriptions of Assyrian kings, but this is quite speculative. Shibata (Reference Shibata2014: 86) remarks that Baltil is written BAL KI in the Akkadian line in the bilingual cylinder B.6.33.1: 14–15 and might be a purposeful writing to parallel the exegetical translation of Tintir in the Sumerian with “Seat of Life” in the Akkadian. He suggests that the exegetical translation of Baltil in this case is māt nukurti ‘enemy land’ and that “if this is the case, the present inscription describes the return of the Marduk statue in a tone much like that of the erstwhile return of his statue from Elam to Babylon during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar I” (Shibata Reference Shibata2014: 87–88).

⁶⁰ The few letters that are known from Šamaš-šuma-ukīn to Esarhaddon show nothing unusual in the crown prince's loyalty to his father and Assyria at that time, see Parpola Reference Parpola1972. Porter (Reference Porter, Parpola and Whiting1997: 255) has suggested that the order of Nabû before Marduk in deity sequences is particularly Assyrian, and this is certainly consistent with the letter edited in Parpola's article, hinting that Šamaš-šuma-ukīn did use Assyrian scribal conventions before becoming the official king of Babylonia and within Assyrian-only contexts, which may also have to do with the scribes involved. In support of this are Šamaš-šuma-ukīn's letters to Ashurbanipal, at a point when the brothers are sitting on their respective thrones, which use a more openly Babylonian greeting formula of Marduk, Zarpanītum, Nabû, Tašmetu, and Nanāya (ABL 809 and ABL 1385, ABL 426 has the same sequence but uses the bynames Bēl and Bēltiya for the first two deities), see SAA XXI: 86–87.

⁶¹ On the king's relationship with Aššur, see Parker Reference Parker2011: 365 (with further references) and Maul Reference Maul and Frahm2017.

⁶² Waerzeggers Reference Waerzeggers, Stökl and Waerzeggers2015: 183.

⁶³ Many of Esarhaddon's inscriptions do not mention Aššur and Ashurbanipal tends to limit invocations of Aššur to his titulary, see RIMB 2 B.6.32.2: 7–10, B.6.32.14: 4–6, and B.6.32.15: 10.

⁶⁴ This is a surprisingly profound glimpse into the identity crisis, given the relationship between identity (particularly family or dynastic affiliation) and cylinder seals, which were quite personal. The Assyrian royal seals can be found on the exemplar of Esarhaddon's Succession Treaty from Calah, which preserves a caption that reads “seal of the god Aššur, king of the gods, lord of the lands—not to be altered; seal of the great ruler, father of the gods—not to be disputed” (SAA II 6 i-iv), explicitly linking the seal with the supreme Assyrian god. The use of three Assyrian seals, dating to the Old, Middle, and Neo-Assyrian periods, respectively, suggests that the continuity of tradition was an important feature. The Neo-Assyrian seal, also partially preserved on the Tell Tayinat manuscript (Lauinger Reference Lauinger2012: 90), belonged to Sennacherib, which might provide an additional reason why Šamaš-šuma-ukīn would reject the family seal in Babylon, the city Sennacherib had infamously destroyed. Šamaš-šuma-ukīn's seal is apparently original. For the text edition and discussion, including a drawing of the seal, see Da Riva and Frahm Reference Da Riva and Frahm1999/2000: 156–82. Aššur-nādin-šumi is mentioned with the title “king of Babylon” in the text, apparently as a predecessor of the king making the decree, which renews the former Assyrian crown prince's stipulations and allowances (Da Riva and Frahm Reference Da Riva and Frahm1999/2000: 160), but a familial relationship is not mentioned. As discussed below, Ištar of Nineveh was strongly associated with Assyrian kingship especially during the reign of Ashurbanipal. Šamaš-šuma-ukīn does not venerate the goddess in his royal inscriptions but the movement of her cult to Babylonia may indeed be another subtle nod at Šamaš-šuma-ukīn's origins as part of the Assyrian royal family.

⁶⁵ Da Riva and Frahm Reference Da Riva and Frahm1999/2000: 159–60, 163–64, 166–69. The partially-preserved description of the royal seal as being “without rival” is common in Babylonian kudurrus, Da Riva and Frahm Reference Da Riva and Frahm1999/2000: 167.

⁶⁶ Da Riva and Frahm Reference Da Riva and Frahm1999/2000: 166–68, including the iconography that identifies the figure as a Babylonian king, especially the hat, which Aššur-nādin-šumi also wears on his kudurru, and Ashurbanipal receives from his soldiers after the fall of Šamaš-šuma-ukīn. They (1999/2000: 168) write that “bei der Gestaltung des neuen Siegels scheint, wie von verschiedenen Autoren angedeutet worden ist, als leitender Gedanke das Bestreben gewirkt zu haben, ein für Babylonien gültiges königliches Siegel zu schaffen, das vom Motiv her dem assyrischen Königssiegel ähneln sollte. Denn die Abbildung auf unserer Tafel weist ganz offensichtlich Parallelen mit dem Siegel der assyrischen Herrscher auf: Hier wie dort ist der König dargestellt, jeweils im landesüblichen Ornat, wie er im Begriffe ist, ein aufrechtstehendes Tier, im Falle des assyrischen Siegels einen Löwen, im Falle des babylonischen einen Capriden, mit einem Schwert zu töten. Unter der Voraussetzung, daß es Šamaš-šuma-ukīn war, der das auf unserer Tafel kopierte Siegel in Auftrag gab, wird man ihm wohl unterstellen dürfen, daß ihm daran gelegen war, ein Siegel zu besitzen, auf dem in assyrischer Tradition der König im Mittelpunkt stand, und nicht eines, das wie das oben erwähnte Königssiegel AO 4793 nur Göttersymbole und Tierdarstellungen aufwies.” Da Riva draws a comparison between Šamaš-šuma-ukīn's robe and that of Nebuchadnezzar and Nabonidus, writing that, despite an earlier identification as an Assyrian-type robe, “this was the royal garment which, with minor variants, was worn by the Babylonian monarchs in the middle of the I millennium BC,” adding that Nebuchadnezzar “also wears the typical I millennium BC Babylonian crown, a high conical pointed cap with a long tassel hanging down the back, as did Šamaš-šuma-ukīn before him and Nabonidus was to do after him” (Da Riva Reference Da Riva and Vidal2010: 180–81). Already in his depiction on Esarhaddon's Sam'al stele, Šamaš-šuma-ukīn wears Babylonian garments that are identical to those of Marduk-zakir-šumi and Marduk-apla-iddina II (Da Riva Reference Da Riva and Vidal2010: 181 fn 85).

⁶⁷ Compare to Ashurbanipal's Hymn to Assur (SAA III 1), in which Aššur is venerated above all other gods, including Marduk, perhaps reemphasizing Ashurbanipal's divine endorsement and ultimate supremacy (see Foster Reference Foster2007: 83–84).

⁶⁸ Letters from Šamaš-šuma-ukīn to his father, Esarhaddon, show that he invoked Nabû and Marduk, in that order, in his greeting formulae to the king, as does Ashurbanipal on occasion, although the latter more commonly uses the sequence Aššur, Bēl, Nabû (see SAA XVI 14, 15, 17, 18 for Ashurbanipal and SAA XVI 22, 23, and 24 for Šamaš-šuma-ukīn). As noted above, Šamaš-šuma-ukīn switches to a more Babylonian sequence in his greeting formula (Marduk, Zarpanītum, Nabû, Tašmetu, and Nanāya) when he is king of Babylon and writing to Ashurbanipal.

⁶⁹ This might suggest that he was working with a combination of Assyrian- and Babylonian-trained scribes, or ones who were trying to accommodate both traditions. It should be noted that both Ashurbanipal and Šamaš-šuma-ukīn have bilingual Akkadian-Sumerian or Sumerian-only inscriptions in their Babylonian corpora. See Shibata Reference Shibata2014 for the argument that the scribe of at least Šamaš-šuma-ukīn's bilingual inscription was highly educated in an elaborate and archaizing script.

⁷⁰ See, for example, the literary text The Myth of the Creation of Man and King, in which the role of creating the king goes to Bēlet-ilī, with assistance by Ea (Pongratz-Leisten Reference Pongratz-Leisten2015: 208–209).

⁷¹ For instance, RINAP 5 Asbpl 73/Assyrian Tablet 2: i 5′−6′, and Ashurbanipal's Coronation Hymn, which reads “Aššur is king — indeed Aššur is king! Assurbanipal is the [representative] of Aššur, the creation of his hands” (SAA III 11: 15).

⁷² RINAP 3/1 43: 3, 49: 3, 50: 3.

⁷³ RINAP 4 43: obv. 12, RINAP 5 Asbpl 10: v 33, RINAP 5 Asbpl 3: v 51, 4: v 4′′, 7: v 130, 6: vi 34 (partially preserved).

⁷⁴ Sîn is also a god that creates kings in Ashurbanipal's inscriptions, though when he is invoked alone in this role it is specifically in the context of designating the king to renew the Eḫulḫul temple (see, for instance, RINAP 5 Asbpl 10: ii 29-ii 35). Sîn-šarru-iškun also claims that the gods “guided me like a father and a mother” in several inscriptions but in a broad sense, as specific deities are not always mentioned in this role.

⁷⁵ SAACT X 18 i 2, 11; RINAP 5 Asbpl 2: i 4; 8: viii 29′′′; 9: i 1; 11: i 1. Mullissu takes on maternal epithets under Ashurbanipal, for example “the great mother” in SAACT X 18: i 11. See also the combination “may Mullissu and the Lady of Arbela keep Assurbanipal, the creation of their hands, alive for ever!” (SAA IX 9 r. 1′−3′). During the late Neo-Assyrian period, Mullissu and Ištar of Nineveh are increasingly closely identified with one another.

⁷⁶ RINAP 5 Asbpl 75/Assyrian Tablet 4: 5.

⁷⁷ SAA III 13 r. 6–8.

⁷⁸ RINAP 5 Asbpl 11: i 1-i 5.

⁷⁹ RIMB 2 B.6.33.1: 6–8. This line has been interpreted as identifying Šamaš-šuma-ukīn's mother as Babylonian but Frame (Reference Frame2007: 96) notes that “the idea that an individual could [be] chosen by the gods before his birth is well attested in Mesopotamian tradition. While it would seem logical that Esarhaddon might have decided to entrust the future rulership of Babylonia to Šamaš-šuma-ukīn because the latter's mother came from that land, there is in fact no other evidence that she did so.” Unfortunately, nothing else is known about Šamaš-šuma-ukīn's childhood or how and where he was raised, see Bock Reference Bock2012: 230, 242 fn. 187, 280.

⁸⁰ RIMB 2 B.6.33.4: 9. Similarly, Nebuchadnezzar I makes the claim that Marduk created his features, while Nabonidus chooses to say the same of Sîn, who was particularly important to him (CAD N I s.v. nabnītu with further references).

⁸¹ The relevant passages are blessing and cursing formulae, see RIMB 2 B.6.32.3: 1′−3′; B.6.32.4: 13–24; B.6.32.5: 14–24. The name Bēl is not exclusive to Assyrian royal inscriptions, but certainly more prominent, and Assyrian kings’ Babylonian inscriptions tend to use Marduk instead. For the motif of “GN beruft PN im Mutterlieb zu einem bestimmten Zweck” and how it applies to Šamaš-šuma-ukīn and Ashurbanipal, respectively, see Bock Reference Bock2012: 24–27.

⁸² RIMB 2 B.6.31.11: 2.

⁸³ RIMB 2 B.6.33.4: 1–10. For “son of Asari,” “star of Marduk,” Šiḫṭu, Imdudu, Šiddukišarra and Mudugasâ, see also B.6.33.5: 6–13, 18-r. 21. Šamaš-šuma-ukīn refers in another inscription to Marduk as Asari, discussed below, which was earlier attested in Sargon II's Babylonian inscriptions. Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal also refer to Marduk as Asari but in Babylonian dedications, only Sargon II refers to Asari as selecting him for kingship (RIMB B.6.22.3: 27–28).

⁸⁴ RIMB 2 B.6.33.4: 9–10.

⁸⁵ RIMB 2 B.6.33.1: 4–5. Frame (Reference Frame2007: 107) identifies this epithet as an innovation of Šamaš-šuma-ukīn's. Interestingly, this triad is used in the royal inscriptions again only under Nabopolassar when he is rebuilding Imgur-Enlil, the wall of Babylon, and the Ninurta temple of Babylon: “I called up the workers of the Enlil, Šamaš, and Marduk, I made them carry hoe, I laid (on them) the tupšikku-basket” (Da Riva Reference Da Riva2013: 62, 96). Nabopolassar himself is an intriguing figure; he refers to himself as “son of nobody” (see Jursa Reference Jursa2007b), though his origins seem to have been in Uruk (Da Riva Reference Da Riva2017: 78, Jursa Reference Jursa2007b), and he performs Babylonian kingship similarly well as the founder of the Neo-Babylonian dynasty, as Da Riva (Reference Da Riva2017: 77) notes that later texts remember him as “a model of a just and pious king, a man who, by means of his profound piety and reverence of Marduk, had liberated Babylonia from the Assyrians … the avenger of Akkad, a symbol of resistance to foreign domination. The language of vengeance and divine providence that we encounter in these compositions was probably inspired by the king's original inscriptions, which scholars of the Esagil consulted and in all probability were on display in the city.”

⁸⁶ RIMB 2 B.6.32.2: 7–11. Aššur always appears at the beginning of deity sequences in which he is invoked.

⁸⁷ Ashurbanipal invokes Enlil in a title in a dedication to the god; even then, the title reads “vice-regent for the gods Aššur, Enlil, and Ninurta,” keeping the Assyrian god elevated over the others (RIMB 2 B.6.32.15: 10).

⁸⁸ Ashurbanipal carried out construction work in his own name at Babylon, Borsippa, Sippar, Uruk, and possibly several other cities. The governor of Ur, Sîn-balāssu-iqbi, dedicated his building works to Ashurbanipal as the “king of kings” and entirely omits the Babylonian king from his inscriptions, though there is no unequivocal evidence for poor relations between Sîn-balāssu-iqbi and Šamaš-šuma-ukīn (Frame Reference Frame2007: 110, RlA XI: 619).

⁸⁹ RIMB 2 B.6.33.1: 9–13, B.6.33.1: 19–22. Nippur was not particularly central but its political significance at this time was as a periodic Assyrian stronghold. There is evidence that revolts against Esarhaddon had taken place there and a number of city governors were removed and executed by the Assyrians (Frame Reference Frame2007: 66). As Cole (SAAS IV: 73) writes, “Nippur vacillated sharply and frequently between pro- and anti-Assyrian sentiment during the period of intensive Assyrian involvement in Babylonia from 745 to 612” and that, after Esarhaddon became king, “Nippur became Babylonia's most persistently rebellious city.” It was only in 664 that Ashurbanipal was able to take control of Nippur, giving over rule to Šamaš-šuma-ukīn from 660 to 651 before taking the city back during the civil war (SAAS IV: 74). Regarding Assyrian efforts to control the city, Frame (Reference Frame2007: 48 fn 100, 49) writes that there were many different groups in Nippur and that “the heterogeneous nature of the population at Nippur may help explain why this city frequently gave trouble to the Assyrians and was placed under direct Assyrian control during the second half of the reign of Ashurbanipal,” adding that it was “during and after the time of Kandalānu when [Nippur] was directly controlled by the Assyrians and served as their base of operations in the south.” Most importantly for the performance of Babylonian kingship, Nippur had a strong tradition of being symbolically and culturally important due to Enlil's temple there, and there is some evidence that Nippur joined Šamaš-šuma-ukīn in his revolt against Ashurbanipal (Frame Reference Frame2007: 134). On Nippur generally in the Neo-Assyrian period, see SAAS IV.

⁹⁰ RlA XI: 619, RIMB 2 B.6.33.3: 13–16 (the Ezida enclosure wall), B.6.33.4: 26–27 (the Ezida storehouses). The king also dedicates a cultic object to the god in B.6.33.5; Frame suggests that it is a boat or part of one, see RIMB 2: 256–57. As a result of these works, Nabû is particularly prominent in the king's corpus since he is invoked in the dedications, blessings, and curses that are part of construction reports. For the renovation of Šamaš’s Ebabbar temple in Sippar and the city wall, see RIMB 2 B.6.33.1 and B.6.33.2.

⁹¹ RIMB 2 B.6.33.2: 1–14 (a Sumerian inscription, so the title is written LUGAL ZIBBIR^KI), B.6.33.3: 22 (note that Nabû’s name is written syllabically here, which is quite unusual).

⁹² RIMB 2 B.6.33.1: 23–26. Frame (Reference Frame2007: 129) suggests that this could have been part of a plan to fortify the city for Šamaš-šuma-ukīn's rebellion against his brother, but this is speculative.

⁹³ RIMB 2 B.6.33.1: 30–35. On the Assyrian convention, see Greenwood Reference Greenwood2010: 211–18.

⁹⁴ RIMB 2 B.6.33.4: 14, 17.

⁹⁵ The return of the Marduk statue seems to also have affected the timing of Šamaš-šuma-ukīn's ascension, as Ashurbanipal took the Assyrian throne immediately after Esarhaddon's death but Šamaš-šuma-ukīn only took the Babylonian throne a year later (RlA XI: 619).

⁹⁶ Frame Reference Frame2007: 77–78.

⁹⁷ For an overview of Assyrian ideological strategies around this event, see Finn Reference Finn2017: 39–40.

⁹⁸ The timing of the return was also determined by prophecy, see Finn Reference Finn2017: 40 fn. 100 and 101.

⁹⁹ For a full discussion on how Šamaš-šuma-ukīn's complicated identity affected the civil war between him and Ashurbanipal, see Zaia (Reference Zaiaahead of print).

¹⁰⁰ RIMB 2 B.6.33.3: 5–7, B.6.33.4: 15–17. Ashurbanipal does not use Enlil ilānī in his Babylonian royal inscriptions but does use the epithet almost exclusively for Aššur in his Assyrian inscriptions (RINAP 5 Asbpl 75/Assyrian Tablet 4: 4; SAACT X 18 ii 32′, which mentions Marduk with this epithet, Weippert Reference Weippert1973: 81, SAAS X: 241–245), consistent with the Assyrian inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III and Sennacherib (RINAP 1 Tp III 35 col. i 1, 34–35; 37: 1; RINAP 3/2 159: 5). One should note that, overall, this particular epithet is rarely attested in the Neo-Assyrian royal inscriptions. Esarhaddon's inscriptions suggest that this epithet was instead more closely associated with Babylonia, since he uses Enlil ilānī almost exclusively for Marduk and essentially only in his Babylonian inscriptions, with the exception of Aššur-Babylon A, which was found in Nineveh: see RINAP 4 48: 8; 50 (Aššur-Babylon A): 2′; 104: i 34, vii 35; 105: i 38, x 22; 106: v 3; 107: x 26′−27′; 108: ii 3′; 111: i 12′; 114: i 19; 116: obv. 9′.

¹⁰¹ RIMB 2 B.6.33.1: 14–15; B.6.33.3: 25. Esarhaddon uses this epithet for Marduk mostly in his Babylonian inscriptions and Ashurbanipal in some of his Assyrian inscriptions, but not in his Babylonian ones, in which he attributes the epithet to Enlil instead. Nonetheless, šar ilānī is used in the Assyrian inscriptions much more frequently with Aššur in all of the Sargonid kings’ official corpora.

¹⁰² RIMB 2 B.6.33.1: 14–15. The Sumerian line has Tintir (i.e. Babylon) for “Seat of Life.”

¹⁰³ RIMB 2 B.6.33.1: 16–18.

¹⁰⁴ RIMB 2 B.6.32.1: 10–16; B.6.32.2: 36–50; B.6.32.6: 7–17; B.6.32.12: 8–15; B.6.32.13: 13–18; B.6.32.14: 23–32; B.6.32.19: 16–22. A theological reform had taken place under Sennacherib in which Aššur was identified with the primordial AN.ŠÁR and the creation epic Enūma eliš was rewritten to promote the Assyrian god over Marduk; as part of this reworking, Aššur also becomes Marduk's ancestor, AN.ŠÁR's role in the epic.

¹⁰⁵ The more basic titles are on brick inscriptions, see RIMB 2 B.6.32.7–11, and in the narrative of Marduk's return in RIMB 2 B.6.32.13–15. Šamaš-šuma-ukīn also uses these epithets but features more elaborate ones as well.

¹⁰⁶ RINAP 5 Asbpl 76/Babylonian 1 (RIMB 2 B.6.32.1) contains the most (and most flowery) epithets, giving the god the titles such as šar ^dIgigu u ^dAnunnaku “king of the Igigu and Anunnaku gods,” bēlu rabû “the great lord,” and šar gimri “king of everything,” the first of which is included in the opening dedication.

¹⁰⁷ RINAP 5 Asbpl 73/Assyrian Tablet 2; RINAP 5 Asbpl 61: 13–33 also describes Ashurbanipal's renovation of the Esagil and the return of Marduk to his rightful place, but is somewhat fragmentary.

¹⁰⁸ Parpola Reference Parpola and Frame2004a: 232–33 (emphasis his).

¹⁰⁹ Ashurbanipal adds that “it is nothing but a scheme that he has devised in order to make the name of the Babylonians, who love me, detestable along with him,” further aligning himself with the Babylonians and driving a wedge between them and their king (Parpola Reference Parpola and Frame2004a: 227).

¹¹⁰ Parpola Reference Parpola and Frame2004a: 231.

¹¹¹ Parpola Reference Parpola and Frame2004a: 229.

¹¹² This is even despite some of the letters being written in Neo-Babylonian dialect (Parpola Reference Parpola and Frame2004a: 228).

¹¹³ Porter Reference Porter1993: 79. Sargon II's inscriptions, in particular, were probably the foundation for Esarhaddon's strategies.

¹¹⁴ Porter Reference Porter1993: 3–6, including the argument that of the many factors that led to Esarhaddon's success, “of central importance, however, was Esarhaddon's use of images and symbols associated with kingship and nation as tools to help him develop support for his rule of Babylonia.”

¹¹⁵ Porter Reference Porter1993: 7

¹¹⁶ Porter Reference Porter1993: 39, 44, noting that the Assyrian king presenting his building activities in Babylonia is a trend that began with Sargon II. See Waerzeggers (Reference Waerzeggers, Radner and Robson2011: 726–29) on this distinction between Assyrian and Babylonian kingship, particularly noting that, in Babylonian royal texts, “it is a common trait of all these inscriptions to focus heavily on the king as principal donor in three areas of religious patronage: the erection and renovation of temple buildings, the provision of regular sacrifices, and the supply of objects for use in the daily worship and at festivals.”

¹¹⁷ According to Porter (Reference Porter1993: 77), “this public relations program took a variety of forms; in Babylonia it included, for example, the king's adoption of certain Babylonian royal titles, his personal enactment of an ancient Babylonian royal ceremony, and his use in Babylonian settings of statements carefully shaped to appeal to Babylonian audiences. At the same time that messages of reconciliation were being presented in Babylonia, a different message was being presented to Assyrian audiences to reassure them of their king's continuing commitment to their needs and traditions, despite his attentions to Babylonia; this message was presented through a different building program for Assyria, as we have seen, and also through different, Assyrianized versions of the royal inscriptions commemorating Esarhaddon's restoration work in Babylon.” For questions of the audience and dissemination of these texts, see Porter Reference Porter1993: 112.

¹¹⁸ See Porter Reference Porter1993: 95–96.

¹¹⁹ See Porter Reference Porter1993: 98–104.

¹²⁰ Esarhaddon revived titles such as “king of Sumer and Akkad” and “governor of Babylon” (Porter Reference Porter1993: 79–80).

¹²¹ Porter Reference Porter1993: 152.

¹²² Porter Reference Porter1993: 122–24.

¹²³ Porter Reference Porter1993: 71. Also according to Porter (Reference Porter1993: 7), the latter half of Esarhaddon's reign is concerned with uniting the Assyrians and Babylonians, including through his attempt to restore Marduk's statue to its rightful place.

¹²⁴ Porter Reference Porter2003: 57–58.

¹²⁵ Porter Reference Porter1993: 86. Nabonidus’ Etemenanki inscription features the “basket bearing” quite prominently, and the king even mentions that he “made (foundation) figurines (representing) me as king, bearing the tupšikku-basket, and deposited (them) variously in the foundation platform” (Da Riva Reference Da Riva2013: 89) and Da Riva (Reference Da Riva2013: 91) writes that “according to Ellis (1968: 26, 151) this ṣalmu was probably not a figure in the round, but rather similar to the small stelae of Assurbanipal and Šamaš-šum-ukīn carrying soil-baskets (tupšikku).” There is some evidence that Šamaš-šuma-ukīn's stele was purposefully defaced during or after the civil war, which may have been an act of damnatio memoriae (RlA XII: 620; Porter Reference Porter1993: 89 shows the image, which has a destroyed face; Ashurbanipal's stele shows no purposeful damage).

¹²⁶ Porter Reference Porter1993: 67, 82–87. Concerning the scribes and artists involved in depicting these motifs, Porter (Reference Porter1993: 90) has suggested that Babylonian priests in the Assyrian court may have been the source for knowledge about the basket-carrying ritual. In general, Babylonian experts in Assyria may have facilitated the use of Babylonian tropes in Assyrian inscriptions.

¹²⁷ Porter Reference Porter1993: 87, BM 90865 and BM 90866, respectively. For more on Assyrian headdresses and crowns, see Reade Reference Reade, Luukko, Svärd and Mattila2009 and for Babylonian garments, Da Riva Reference Da Riva and Vidal2010: 180–81.

¹²⁸ Ashurbanipal “involved himself actively in Babylonian affairs while his brother sat on the throne of Babylon. It was probably this interference in Babylonia's affairs which eventually caused Šamaš-šuma-ukīn to rebel against Assyrian overlordship” (RIMB 2: 248).

¹²⁹ How the civil war and Šamaš-šuma-ukīn's death are depicted in the official Assyrian record, however, become complicated by the identity politics taking place in the background, see Zaia (ahead of print) for a full discussion.

¹³⁰ Parpola Reference Parpola and Frame2004a: 228, SAA 3 44.