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 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.
Would you know it, only the volumes of OLZ up to 1920 are available on the net. Now although I follow Zawadaki in having the top part of column X continuing the limmu listing, this is really not the argument. 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 find no scholar who agrees with you. Maybe, if you think Schroeder explicitly said this, then could you provide a quote and reference?
(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).
Whatever these authors though about column X, I understand them to say the end of column IX contained a very small number of limus (after the last surviving name) - but none of these names were that of Aššur-gimillu-tere. They see Aššur-gimillu-tere, a post canonical limu, as being named in column X because it was in his limu year that the tablet was produced. Zawadzki solved the problem of why the listing in column IX ended years before the limu year of Aššur-gimillu-tere.
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.
I must say your construction is a good attempt. Using your method the copy of A3 you sent me does not appear to fit to conventional chronology. Still Johns say it is composed of some 10 fragments and I see no joins in Millard’s copy. Have you taken into account if the backs of these two pieces join at some points. Or was it completely split down the middle of the interior such that they no longer join together ay any point?
Now as to some other recent posts. 12895
You again show some very strange un-even line spacing in Column VII, with some lines smooshed together, but the handcopy shows the lines to be evenly spaced.
You are being very quite about how you achieved this equal spacing. Too shy to say you slipped in Paqaḫa to give Tukulti-apil-Ešara an extra year (or is that a duplicated year)?
12947
I'm beginning to think you may have a hidden agenda to keep the period from Šarru-ken II to Iddin-ahhe at 31 years instead of the correct 32
Not guilty. Instead I, like everyone else, have 30 years inclusive between the accession of Šarru-ukin (in the limu year of Inurta-ilaya) and Iddin-aḫḫe.
You say Nergal-nirka-dain is completely missing in col. VI. This is wrong.
You caught me out here. Maybe I should have said only one part of one wedge remains. Not even a full winkel.
For example, Ungnad, Schroeder and more recently Jakob-Rost believe VAT 11260B preserves the top edge of the tablet (i.e. that Schroeder simply forgot to put "Rand" on the top of the drawing)
Was Schroeder really as confused as you make him out to be?
Regards Joe