Hi Joe

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 at any point?

I guess this means you do not intend to produce a counter illustration of A3 that attempts to do the impossible and fit to the conventional chronology? A3 is not 10 fragments that join. Johns was wrong. And A3 is not your two pieces that might join or might not. It is just one fragment (K 4389). The scan I sent you are Millard's drawings of the obverse and the reverse of the one fragment.

As for the even spacing in KAV 21-24, you wrote: 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)?

I discussed the inclusion of Paqaha in KAV 21-24 in post 12778 back on March 19. Are you pretending I didn't?

The fragments of col. VIII do not join. If they did Schroeder's drawings would show this, for his drawings join together all those fragments of KAV 21-24 that actually do join. So there are no grounds for inventing a mistake in the limmu-list KAV 21-24 by creating the unheard of limmu "Adad-belu-KUR"(!). On the other hand, the šakin mati (mati = KUR) Paqaha belongs to the canonical period. I (and everyone else) assume Paqaha was a suffect limmu in the time of Tukulti-apil-Ešarra III and that his limmu year does not add to the total number of limmu years. Do you not see the words "20 years" (and not "21 years") in my recent illustration of the reverse of KAV 21-24 in post 12962 as the total number of years in col. VIII from Tukulti-apil-Ešarra III to Aššur-išmanni?

On my question about your continued miscounting of the total number of limmu entries in the sources from Šarru-ken II to Iddin-ahhe (conventionally 32 years but you keep saying 31) you wrote:

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.

And yet convention says there are not "30 inclusive years between the accession of Šarru-ukin (in the limu year of Inurta-ilaya) and Iddin-aḫḫe" the governor of Simirra. Not only are you confusing two different limmus named Iddin-ahhe, you also seem to have forgotten how to count like everyone else.

Ironically, 31 may actually be the correct number of "years", inclusively, from Šarru-ken II to Iddin-ahhe because A3 puts the limmus of Zeru-ibni and Tab-šar-Aššur on the same line (double eponymy?).

On Schroeder and VAT 11260B:

Was Schroeder really as confused as you make him out to be?

You mean like Joe Baker who confused Iddin-ahhe governor of Dur-Šarruken with Iddin-ahhe governor of Simirra?

Schroeder simply stated in print in 1921 that he made an error in 1920 and he corrected it by pointing out that VAT 11260B belongs to the upper left corner of the tablet. It actually preserves the top edge of the tablet. Thus according to Schroeder's 1921 correction the limmu-list ended at the bottom of col. IX and did not spill over into col. X as Zawadzki thinks. Ungnad agreed with Schroeder and the implications of the limmu-list ending at the bottom of col. IX are fairly clear.

Regards Tory