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 between the summary total immediately above the limmu of Šarru-ken II and the summary immediately above the limmu of Sin-ahhe-eriba. According to convention that period is not 31 years as you keep on saying it is (because you saw 31 in Zawadzki's paper). According to convention the period is 32 years.

I only shout in the dark because that is where you kept me.

Me sending you scans of Millard's work, and anything else you need, is hardly me keeping you in the dark.

On my stance that Aššur-gimilli-tirri is the last limmu in col. IX vs. Schroeder's position in 1921 that col. IX ended in the year 645 BC and that Aššur-gimilli-tirri's date is yet to be determined:

Strange, if Aššur-gimillu-tere were the last limu of column IX, he can not be both undateable and exactly dateable.

Once again, I did not mean Schroeder agreed with my placement of Aššur-gimilli-tirri in col. IX. I simply followed Schroeder's view that col. X did not continue on with the limmu list from col. IX to its logical end: The way I see it the logical end is that Aššur-gimilli-tirri was either the last limmu in col. IX or he was the only limmu in col. X (besides the limmu that begins the whole text on the obverse) and the limmu list ended in the summary text in the colophon.

Since you seem to have access to the 1921 Schroeder paper, please quote just what he said about the top of VAT 11260 being actually an edge (which he “forgot” to annotate in his illustration).

He does not mention the fragment (or any fragments) explicitly but I (and also Zawadzki) deduce from the updated table Schroeder provided in the 1921 article where he would place VAT 11260B. In that table he shows that KAV 21-24 col. IX covered the years 709-645 BC. For col. X he put, tentatively, the year 644 BC in the summary text from the colophon. He did not give any names to the years 658 to 644 BC but it seems fairly clear that he was thinking of 644 BC as the year of Aššur-gimilli-tirri. Since Aššur-gimilli-tirri appears near the bottom of col. X unless the top of the column was blank the summary text on VAT 11260B begins the column and belongs to the upper left corner of the tablet's reverse face. Jakob-Rost would appear to agree.

Regards Tory