Joe Baker
Re: Limus following Šamši-Adad 1 - continued
Sat May 28, 2011 22:33

Hi Werner

Here is my revised list from 9909, taking into account three of your four suggestions/queries. I have also updated the list by adding the name of the limu’s father (as far as I can estimate). As for Aššur-imitti (number 33, now relabelled as g4), he is from the Günbattı article, “An Eponym List (KEL G) from Kültepe”, Altoriental Forsch, 35 (2008) page 112. Much of my filling of the gap is based on the Kryszat article in the same volume where he gives an extensive listing on pages 168-187. But a comparison with some of the entries in Günbattı’s article shows that Kryszat’s list does not contain all the known documents bearing limus names. However combining the information in both articles does give the result for Aššur-imitti.

The evidence I used came from the tablets listed under archive kt 98/k. From Günbattı and Kryszat, the ones containing limu names are

Doc. Limu                         = My identification
105 Aḫiaya s Adunaya
111 Nimar-Kubi = limu 46
113 Aššur-imitti
115 Adad-bani s [...] = limu 26
122 Aššur-taklaku = limu 47
123 Ab-šagiš s Šalma-Aššur
129 Nimar-Su'en s Aššur-ni[mri?]

So this archive seems to cover limus before and after the gap , so maybe those not known from KEL G are from the gap.

195    1  Ennam-Aššur s Aššur-taklaku
196 2 Aššur-emuqi
197 3 Abu-šalim
198 4 Pussanum s Adad-rabi
199 5 Ikuppi-Ištar s Abu-šalim
200 6 Aḫiya s Takiki
201 7 Beliya s Enna-Su’en
202 8 Ili-bani/Adad-bani s Puzur-Aya/Pussaya
203 9 Aššur-taklaku s Ilaprat-bani
204 10 Sassapum s Aššur-malik
205 11 Aḫu-waqar s DAM.GAR
206 12 Kizurum
207 13 Dadiya
208 14 YamZAxBE/NU
209 15 Adad-bani
210 16 Ennam-Aššur s Aššur-taklaku
211 17 Ataya s Šamaya
212 18 Aya
213 19 Azubiya
214 20 Kurkudanum
215 21 Ṣabrum s Puzur-Su’en
216 22 Ḫadiu/Hadiem s Aḫiya
217 23 Dadiya s Iddin-Su’en
218 24 Zaya s Beliaya
219 25 Zizaya s Abinara
220 26 Adad-bani s Azume
221 27 Ḫabil-kenum
222 28 Amur-Ištar
223 29 Ibqu-Ištar
g1 Aššur-kašid s Ṣilla-aḫum
g2 Ab-šagiš s Šalma-Aššur
g3 Aḫiya s Adunaya
g4 Aššur-imitti
g5 Aššur-nišu s Ili-elliti
g6 Enna-Sin s Aššur-ṫab
g7 Id[..] s Ba/Ma]..]
g8 Ili-aamgur
g9 Išme-Il/Išme-Ea s Aššur-emuqi
g10 Nimar-Sin s Aššur-ni[mri?]
g11 Šu-beli
g12 Tuttaya s Uṣur-piya

236 42 Puzur-Šamaš
237 43 Šu-[..ken?]
238 44 Qištili
239 45 Pilaḫ-Sin s Ikunum
240 46 Nimar-Kubi s Uṣur-piya
241 47 Aššur-taklaku s Enlil-nada
242 48 Buzua
243 49 Uṣur-ša-Aššur
244 50 A[.]ari
245 51 Puḫanum
246 52 Ḫaḫiya
247 53 Dadiya
248 54 Išme-Kittum
249 55 Aššur-muttabbil
250 56 Asirum
251 57 Enaya s Ḫurma
252 58 Ištar-tulid s Šagiš-kenum
253 59 Edinum
254 60 Ḫada[..]
255 61 Anak-ina-Aššur s Aššur-ṭab
Abaya s Karia
Aḫana[.] s Sin-adallal
Aššur-ṣululi s [.]-Aššur
Kubiya s Ikuppiya
[.m]urum s Azaya

By the way, Aḫiya s Adunaya is interesting. Besides occurring in the above late archive his name also dates a document that occurs in archive kt 01/k (document number 325B). This archive covers a period encompassing the career of Samsu-Adad and whose last identifiable limus are Ennam-Aššur s Aššur-taklaku (number 1), Aḫiya s Takiki (number 6) and Aššur-taklaku s Ilaprat-bani (probably number 9). So the Aḫiya s Adunaya of this archive is unlikely to be the same as the one in the later archive. Yet no Limu List names an Aḫiya earlier than Aḫiya s Takiki (number 6).

However (as you know) Charpin has shown that there was an unlisted Aḫiya who appears in documents from several places, late in the reign of Samsu-Adad. From their dates he concluded that an Aḫiya had initially held the office of limu during what became known as the limu year of Ili-ellat s Aššur-nišu, Aḫiya having died/been replaced during his 5th month in office. One remaining small problem with this (and I have mentioned it to you) is that Charpin notes that in a document Ili-ellat is referred to as “who replaced (ŠU) Idin-Ištar”. This is normally assumed to mean, as per “Adad-bani ŠU Su’en-naṣir”, that someone else was originally designated as limu but for whatever reason was unable to take up the office.

I would also note that archive kt 01/k also contains a document dated to an otherwise unknown Aḫiya s Laqep (311B) - maybe an error because all the other limus recorded in this archive can be placed.

Regards Joe

  • Limus following Šamši-Adad 1 - continuedJoe Baker, Sat May 28 09:49
    Hi Werner Firstly thank you for the Google Book reference to the 2008 Veenhoof book and therein the Eidem article. Pity it does not have more of the relevant pages. Still (as per post 9909) it does... more
    • Re: Limus following Šamši-Adad 1 - continued — Joe Baker, Sat May 28 22:33
      • Re: Limus following Šamši-Adad 1 - continuedMichael Liebig, Mon May 30 07:24
        Hi Joe The counting 105 to 129 for Aḫiaya s Adunaya to Nimar-Su'en s Aššur-ni[mri?] I find neither with Günbatti nor with Kryszat. Regards Michael
        • Re: Limus following Šamši-Adad 1 - continuedMichael Liebig, Tue May 31 02:28
          Klaas Veenhof explained to me by letter: “I discovered that Günbatti made a mistake in his reconstruction because the gap at the end of col. I and hence presumably also col. II must be five lines //... more
          • Re: Limus following Šamši-Adad 1 - continuedJoe Baker, Mon Jun 6 07:33
            Hi Michael The counting 105 to 129 for Aḫiaya s Adunaya to Nimar-Su'en s Aššur-ni[mri?] I find neither with Günbatti nor with Kryszat. These are not counts they are the document numbers... more
            • Re: Limus following Šamši-Adad 1 - continuedMichael Liebig, Thu Jun 9 04:22
              Hi Joe I quoted the original text of Veenhof. Furthermore he wrote: “Even the suggestion that no. 69 is to be read A-ia(=NI)-[malik] = Haya-malik of Mari – where indeed in this name ia is written by... more
Click here to receive daily updates