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?
Yes it is my argument that if col. X did not continue the limmu list from col. IX then col. IX most likely ended with the limmu of Aššur-gimilli-tirri. I never said this view was shared by Schroeder or Ungnad (or anyone else), only that those two scholars believed the list in KAV 21-24 ended in col. IX. I agree with them.
As for what Schroeder explicitly said, he said in 1921 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 von Tukulti-Ninurta I Ende bis auf Ašurbanipal. Der letzte limu der Liste war gemäss der Unterschrift [Aššur-gim]illi-tirra, der jedoch noch nicht datierbar ist" (OLZ 1921, Nr. 1/2, Sp. 21).
Whatever these authors thought 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.
You have a bad habit of shooting in the dark. Schroeder said col. IX ended with the limmu year 645 BC. That is, from the last surviving name of Silim-Aššur (conv. 659) Schroeder thought the rest of that column could fit more than 12 additional limmus. I have already said that that is not plausible. Will you pretend I didn't?
Since I do not think it is plausible to fit this many limmus at the bottom of col. IX, I put forward the proposal that Aššur-gimilli-tirri is actually a limmu from the canonical period, not the post-canonical period, and there is indeed plenty of room for him on A3 in the apparent gap between Silim-Aššur and Ša-Nabu-šu.
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.
They see the "[X]2 years" in the summary in col. X as the total number of limmus RECORDED in nine columns on KAV 21-24. Millard also rejects Zawadzki's idea that the summary only relates to the last part of the text.
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, 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