The persons mentioned
It is clear that Sin-shar-uṣur and Ummanigash had been intriguing against Sin-tabni-uṣur. There are several persons of the name Sin-shar-uṣur about this time. No less than three Eponyms bear the name after b.c. 648. The aba mâti, or governor of Hindana, or the arḳû might be meant here. But there was a brother of Sin-tabni-uṣur, of this name, who perhaps coveted his post. Among the many unpublished texts which refer to him one may, perhaps, be found to explain the hostility. Nor is it clear which Ummanigash is meant. There was one of the three sons of Urtaku, who took refuge at the court of Ashurbânipal, when their father was murdered and dethroned by his brother, Teumman. When the Assyrian king espoused his cause, he was enabled by Assyrian troops to defeat and slay the usurper Teumman and take the throne of Elam. But he was faithless and allied himself with Shamash-shum-ukîn. He was dethroned by his cousin, Tammaritu, shortly before the fall of Shamash-shum-ukîn. That he, while at the Assyrian Court, should have slandered the governor of Ur, is quite in accordance with his character, but what was his purpose, or what he alleged, we do not know. There was another Ummanigash, brother of Urtaku; another, son of Umbadara; another, a son of Amedirra. The latter raised a rebellion against Ummanaldash, as we learn from a report by Bêl-ibnî.[899] After his usual salutations, Bêl-ibnî reports,
Bêl-ibnî's letter about Ummanigash
When I left the Sealand, I sent five hundred soldiers, servants of my lord, the king, to the city Ṣabdânu, saying, “Hold a fort in Ṣabdânu and make raids into Elam, slay and make prisoners.” When they went against Irgidu, a city two leagues this side of Susa, they slew Ammaladin, the sheik of Iashi'ilu, his two brothers, three brothers of his father, two of his brother's sons, Dalâ-ilu, son of Abi-iadi', and two hundred well-born citizens of that city. They had a long journey before them. They took one hundred and fifty prisoners. The sheiks of Laḫiru and the people of Nugû', when they saw that my [pg 356] raiders had extended on their farther side, were full of fear, sent word and took the oath to Mushêzib-Marduk, my sister's son, a servant of the king, my lord, whom I had appointed over the fort, saying, “We will be servants of the King of Assyria.” When they had gathered their bowmen, as many as they had, they went with Mushêzib-Marduk, and marched into Elam.
Here follows a bad break in the narrative, but Iḳisha-aplu is named, and Bêl-ibnî promised to send on to the king whatever they captured and brought to him. The letter then resumes:
News from Elam: they say that Ummanigash, son of Amedirra, has rebelled against Ummanaldash. From the river Ḥudḫud as far as the city Ḥa'adânu they have sided with him. Ummanaldash has gathered his forces, and they are now encamped on the river opposite one another. Iḳisha-aplu, whom I have sent to the palace, has penetrated their designs. Let one question him in the palace.
Kudur's letters about the king's favorite
Kudur, governor of Erech, who sent news of the outbreak of rebellion in the south, gives us further information about Mushêzib-Marduk, who was a favorite with the king. After a long salutation occupying nearly the whole of the obverse, with a short reference to a certain Upaḳu, the reverse side goes on:[900]
Mushêzib-Marduk, Bêl-ibnî's sister's son, who has come two or three times into the presence of the king, my lord, on a message from Bêl-ibnî, Bêl-ibnî has appointed him concerning it (the case in hand). The gate-keepers have told him that those soldiers are not lovers of the house of my lord. It is not good for them to cross over to our midst. They will give news of the land of the king, my lord, to Elam, and if there be a famine in Elam, they will furnish them provisions. To the king, my lord, I have sent; let the king, my lord, do what he sees fit.
The king's reply