Hi Joe

You wrote: As said I have not seen a copy of A3 nor have access to Millard. Is it possible to e-mail me scans of Millard’s handcopy (along with his reconstructed reverse of Cc in Plate 7)?

It's possible.

You say: You see, I very much doubt that he (or anyone else) supports your interpretation of A3.

Please. I've already pointed out enough times now that both Ungnad and Schroeder believed Aššur-gimili-tirri was the last limmu in col. IX of KAV 21-24. It should be obvious to you by now that Ungnad's and Schroeder's view depends entirely on Aššur-gimili-tirri appearing on eponym-list A3 somewhere between Silim-Aššur (preserved on KAV 21-24 but not preserved on A3) and Ša-Nabu-šu (not preserved on KAV 21-24 but preserved on A3 col. V line 2').

Surely you can come up with a stronger rebuttal than "Who else believes what you believe besides you?" How many conventional scholars believe your idea that the Babylonian calendar in 729, 728 and 726 began on 25 Feb, 14 Feb and 22 Feb respectively?

You say: You then start column 5 with Bel-naid (conventional 663, but you say 665) and end it with Aḫu-ilaya (conventional 649, but you say 642).

I have long since refined these dates. See for example my post #12694 from February 26, 2012. I say (and have said) the limmu year of Bel-naid was autumn-to-autumn 664/663 BC which is the second half of Year 6 (664) and the first half of Year 7 of Aššur-bani-apli (663). I say Ahu-ilaya was autumn-to-autumn 643/642 BC which is the second half of Year 27 (643) and the first half of Year 28 of Aššur-bani-apli (642).

You wrote: This means you see the surviving fragments of columns 4 and 5 of A3 as coming from the middle of the tablet. So, after the line under Aḫu-ilaya, do you see the lower half of column 5 being blank?

Yes the lower half of col. V is indeed blank (clear in the handcopy). The reason why there is a line under Ahu-ilaya (643/642) and nothing after is because that was the year the tablet was made in Nineveh. These clay tablets could not be updated annually. All of the limmu names were inscribed in one go.

You wrote: The only observations I can find on A3 are over 100 years old. It tells a different story - one that the conventional chronology is based on. So far the only objector I can find is yourself.

Here we go again with your version of scholarship by a show of hands. Truth is not determined by majority vote. My advice, throw your worthless over 100-year-old commentary on A3 with its outdated story in the trash where it belongs and get up-to-date information. Millard states on page 17 that eponym-list A3 commenced c.810 BC and that all of these Neo-Assyrian eponym-lists including A3 began with a royal limmu. So, according to the latest research, A3 commenced with the royal limmu of Adad-Nirari III, as do several other lists discussed by Millard.

You wrote: It says that column 4 began with Aššur-bani (713) and ended with Banba (676) while column 5 began with Nabu-aḫḫe-iddin (675) and ended with Aḫu-ilaya (649).

You reach I teach. Look, the first partially preserved limmu in A3 col. I on the obverse is Mušallim-Ninurta (792 BC conventional, but for me 793/792 BC) from the reign of Adad-Nirari III. Thus the top missing edge of the tablet was the distance of 17 limmus above Mušallim-Ninurta. Now the top edge of cols. I and II on the obverse is the same as the bottom edge of cols. III, IV and V on the reverse. (Keep in mind the drawings do not accurately reflect the shape of the fragments). The last limmu in cols. III and IV on the reverse just before the tablet breaks off are Taklak-ana-beli (715, for me 716/715) and Bamba (676, for me 677/676). Since the break at this point on the reverse is the same break at the top of cols.I and II on the obverse, how can these be the last limmus in cols. III and IV on the reverse and the space of some 16-20 lines until we reach the bottom edge of the tablet be totally blank? Your source is garbage.

You wrote: It also has no missing limus in column 5 between Silim-Aššur and Ša-Nabu-šu. Indeed, it say that above Ša-Nabu-šu there are traces of another name of which only the first sign is partially preserved. However enough had survived to narrow it down to only a “Si”.

Once again, your source is outdated garbage. The line in question is so badly damaged the only thing Millard thought he could see was "L" near the start of the line, not "Si". From the looks of the drawing, [m.Si]-l[im-Aššur] is clearly not the only restoration possible. With at least two votes in my favor (Ungnad and Schroeder), since you believe in counting votes, I feel that the traces of two wedges above Ša-Nabu-šu in A3 are probably the bottom part of the sign for "Bel" and the limmu is actually the Bel-lu-dari known from the sequence Mušallim-Aššur > Aššur-gimilli-tirri > Zababa-eriba > Sin-šarru-usur > Bel-lu-dari.

Regards Tory