Hi Joe

When I turn to Schroeder’s 1920 explanation of Canon A3, here at the top of page VIII
http://archive.org/stream/keilschrifttexte00schr#page/n13/mode/1up
we see that he considered Aššur-gimillu-tere (which name he reads as “Ášur-bęl-la-mur?”) to be a post canonical and therefore several years after 659.

That was 1920. And that was not an explanation of A3 at the top of page VIII. It is an explanation of A7 = KAV 21-24. A3 is K4389 (Smith's Canon III). A3 is not in Schroeder's Keilschriftexte aus Assur verschiedenen Inhalts. The following year in 1921 Schroeder shifted gears and proposed that KAV 21-24 col. X did not contain any limmus. Therefore, Aššur-gimili-tirri appeared as the last name in col. IX. Look for Schroeder's Über die limmu-Liste KAV 21-24 (OLZ 1921), Sp. 20-22.

Ungnad's views about KAV 21-24 agree with Schroeder that col. X did not contain any limmus. He said [54]2 years (542 being his reconstruction of the broken time-span figure in the colophon in col. X) is the number of limmus in 9 columns only (NOT 10 columns). Thus, Aššur-gimili-tirri is Limmu No. 542 according to Ungnad. Now I'm well aware of Ungnad's reconstructed eponym-list from "Eponymen" article in RlA. His list appears to contradict his stated views regarding KAV 21-24, and this contradiction is one of the things that inspired Zawadzki to write his 1994 German paper (you seem to have missed footnotes 8 and 9).

So I say again, and again, that Schroeder and Ungnad believed KAV 21-24 col. X did not contain a single limmu except for the ones in the colophon which are used to measure the well over 500 limmus in the entire text from cols. 1-9. There is not enough space at the bottom of col. IX of KAV 21-24 to fit the years from Silim-Aššur to 641 (Faulkner's date for Aššur-gimili-tirri) and not certainly from Silim-Aššur to 636 (Zawadzki's date for Aššur-gimili-tirri).

One of the reasons Schroeder came to reject the idea that the limmu-list KAV 21-24 continued into col. X is that VAT 11260B is from the top left corner of the tablet and preserves the top edge. So whether Ungnad and Schroeder realized it or not, for col. X to not contain any limmus at all means that Aššur-gimili-tirri must have appeared on A3 somewhere between Silim-Aššur and Ša-Nabu-šu.

I did not say Schroeder and Ungnad made an illustration of A3 that looks like mine. As far as I know, neither scholar ever made an attempt to illustrate how A3 looked before the tablet was broken. I don't believe George Smith or C. H. W. Johns (I knew these were your extremely outdated sources and I still say throw them in the trash and get Millard) ever made an illustration of how A3 looked before it was broken either.

I have made an illustration of the obverse and reverse of A3 before it was broken and this illustration confirms Schroeder's proposal (followed by Ungnad) about col. X in KAV 21-24 being totally empty of a limmu-list. My challenge to you (or anyone) is to come up with an illustration of A3 that is more convincing than mine and is somehow able to conform to the conventional arrangement of the limmus of Aššur-ban-apli. Since I have already gone through this exercise you will forgive me if I predict failure.

Regards Tory