Going Native: Šamaš-Šuma-Ukīn, Assyrian King of Babylon

Abstract

Šamaš-šuma-ukīn is a unique case in the Neo-Assyrian Empire: he was a member of the Assyrian royal family who was installed as king of Babylonia but never of Assyria. Previous Assyrian rulers who had control over Babylonia were recognized as kings of both polities, but Šamaš-šuma-ukīn's father, Esarhaddon, had decided to split the empire between two of his sons, giving Ashurbanipal kingship over Assyria and Šamaš-šuma-ukīn the throne of Babylonia. As a result, Šamaš-šuma-ukīn is an intriguing case-study for how political, familial, and cultural identities were constructed in texts and interacted with each other as part of royal self-presentation. This paper shows that, despite Šamaš-šuma-ukīn's familial and cultural identity as an Assyrian, he presents himself as a quintessentially Babylonian king to a greater extent than any of his predecessors. To do so successfully, Šamaš-šuma-ukīn uses Babylonian motifs and titles while ignoring the Assyrian tropes his brother Ashurbanipal retains even in his Babylonian royal inscriptions.

The Most High God vs. Nabû: A God of Letters, Wisdom, and Fate Who Can(not) Read, Understand, or Foretell

“…Due to his lofty position in the pantheon, Nabû was closely related to kingship. 13 Shana Zaia (2019: 248 n. 9) avers, “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.” 14 Onomastic evidence confirms the popularity and significance of Nabû; subsequent to Ashurbanipal’s reign and the defeat of the Neo-Assyrian empire, the name Nabû appears as an element of the personal names of Neo-Babylonian rulers (Nabopolassar, Nebuchadnezzar II, Nabonidus). 15 Among these, “both Nebuchadnezzar II and Nabonidus claimed to have received their scepter from Nabu,” thereby legitimating their rulership.…”

The Roving Other: Shepherds, Ungovernable Spaces, and Imperial Authority in First-Millennium Mesopotamia

“…Moreover, a spate of at times brilliantly insightful literature has brought real depth and sophistication to our understanding of first-millennium Babylonian temples. Recent work, much of it studying a time of stability during the reign of Nebuchadrezzar II, now argues for a temple/state Realpolitik that involved inter-city colonial priestly families (Jursa & Gordin 2018;2019), divine syncretisms (Beaulieu 2003, targeted administrator removals (Jursa 2007), administrative law (Wunsch, Wells & Magdalene 2019), and pinpointprecise administrative reforms (Sandowicz 2012: 45-49).…”

“…Neo-Babylonian royal inscriptions are often disdained for their repetitiveness and lack of originality, in addition to an indifference to political or military information. This is indeed true, yet they are not out of step with normal expressions of hegemony in Babylonia (Porter 1996;Waerzeggers 2011;Zaia 2019). One of the recurring themes we find in them is royal attention to systems of sacrificial sheep offerings-either in terms of supplying temples with the means of producing sacrificial sheep offerings, 25 increasing the sacrificial sheep offerings at temples, 26 25 See, e.g., "I made the sattukku-offering(s) of Egipar abundant.…”