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 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 I don't believe George Smith or C. H. W. Johns (I knew these were your extremely outdated sources and I still say throw them in the trash and get Millard) ever made an illustration of how A3 looked before it was broken either.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.
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)?... more
Hi Tory Firstly, thank you for the copies of Millard’s copies of A3 and KAV 21-24. Secondly, great illustrations you have placed on the forum superimposing your arrangement of limus onto copies of... more
Re: Joe's 100+ year old outdated info on eponym-list A3 Tory Thorpe,Sun May 13 12:32
Hi Tory Oops, mistakenly said A3 instead of KAV 21-24 (but that should have been obvious). (The following year in 1921 Schroeder shifted gears and proposed that KAV 21-24 col. X did not contain any... more
Hi Joe Almost forgot. What is the argument, is your insistence that the last limu mentioned in column IX was Aššur-gimillu-tere. The authors listed in my last post were designed to show that I can... more
Hi Joe, Tory and all, some remarks and questions about KAV 21-24. - I do not have Millard's book, what does he say about the collation by Jakob-Rost? In particular: - Zawadzki wrote that the very... more
Hi Werner I have an unpublished paper where I propose a mathematical notation 2 for 22x60=1320 at the end of a limu list on two tablets, starting with Su-Istar and a note [1 li-]mu (for 1000)... more
Hi Werner All Millard says is that Jakob-Rost checked his arrangement of the various fragments (shown on Plate 7) and that he disagreed with Millard's placement of VAT 11260B. Like Zawadzki, Millard... more
Hi Tory, I have a ruptured finger ligament, so please excuse the short answer. > All Millard says is that Jakob-Rost checked his arrangement of the various fragments (shown on Plate 7) and that he... more
Hi Werner Werner: I have a ruptured finger ligament, so please excuse the short answer. Yes of course. I hope things improve. TT: All Millard says is that Jakob-Rost checked his arrangement of the... more
Hi Tory Schroeder explicitly said ... that the limmu-list on KAV 21-24 ended with Aššur-gimilli-tirri but the exact date of this limmu is yet to be determined: "D. h. die Liste umfasste den Zeitraum... more
Hi Joe I was simply not sure which limu your were using to get your “conventional” 32 years. Strange that you suddenly became unsure. We were always talking about the number of years in KAV 21-24... more
Hi Joe Perhaps a graphic of the obverse of A3 will help. This layout has the limmu names in Roman letters overlaying the cuneiform script on the water marked fragment and extending into the missing... more
Hi Joe Perhaps a graphic of the reverse of A3 will help. This layout has the limmu names in Roman letters overlaying the cuneiform script on the water marked fragment and extending into the missing... more
Hi all, I could feel something was off. Another look at the fragment and I realized I put the limmus of Zeru-ibni and Tab-šar-Aššur on two separate lines when in fact A3 shows them on the same line.... more