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 important fragment VAT 11260B with the final summation line could not be found during his visit to Berlin. Did Jakob-Rost state that she saw it? If not, then Schroeder is the only relevant source of information for this fragment, in particular for the question if it went to the horizontal edge.
- I can send you a file with a provisional matching of KAV 21+22 done by V. Melis with some supervision by Marzahn. Nothing better can be done at present, since the tablets are packed and will remain in storage for quite a while.
- Tory's rescaling of the fragments for reconstruction led to some slight mismatches (e.g. Bel-tarsi-iluma in Kol. VII has to be aligned with Nergal-ilaya in Kol VI).
- I agree with the reconstruction of Kol. VII, however. Joe's remark about a horizontal line expected before the line naming Adad-Nirari is important, as are the preserved wedges at the end of the name Assur-taklak.
- One surprise is that the text contains an error in Kol VI, since either Nergal-alik-pani or Bur-Ramman were omitted. I guess that Schroeder did not give a compound drawing of KAV21+22, since he considered such an error as unlikely, but could not get convincing names for some Assur-rabi eponymes on the other side, if he left space for both Nergal-alik-pani and Bur-Ramman.
- Unfortunately KAV 23 is not included in the composite drawing I got, so I can't say much about Tory's addition of Paqaha shakin mati. If Schroeder's drawing is reliable (and he was very conscientious!) the wedge before the mati does not agree with a short writing for shakin, and the available space is hardly large enough for holding five signs. This is a pity, the idea might have worked.
- Concerning the size of column X, one really would need a 3D image to know where the writing did start. I agree with Tory that one needs extra space for Assur- in Assur-gimillu-tere, but that may have been available on the edge. A number like 542 or 572 seems too long even when the extra space is taken into account. I have an unpublished paper where I propose a mathematical notation [2]2 for 22x60=1320 at the end of a limu list on two tablets, starting with Su-Istar and a note [1 li-]mu (for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) after the line of the (lost) thousandth limu. In that case the first tablet would have ended in the middle of the reign of Tukulti-Ninurta I. Brinkman and Michel object that a mathematical notation is unexpected in such a text, and Brinkman finds the small size of the 1000 note somewhat problematic, however.

Regards,
Werner