Joe's 100+ year old outdated info on eponym-list A3
Thu May 17, 2012 09:26
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.
Hi Joe You wrote: As said I have not seen a copy of A3 nor have access to Millard. Is it possible to e-mail me scans of Millard’s handcopy (along with his reconstructed reverse of Cc in Plate 7)?... more
Hi Tory Firstly, thank you for the copies of Millard’s copies of A3 and KAV 21-24. Secondly, great illustrations you have placed on the forum superimposing your arrangement of limus onto copies of... more
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 Almost forgot. 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... 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
Joe's 100+ year old outdated info on eponym-list A3 Tory Thorpe,Thu May 17 09:26
Hi Joe Perhaps a graphic of the obverse of A3 will help. This layout has the limmu names in Roman letters overlaying the cuneiform script on the water marked fragment and extending into the missing... more
Hi Joe Perhaps a graphic of the reverse of A3 will help. This layout has the limmu names in Roman letters overlaying the cuneiform script on the water marked fragment and extending into the missing... more
Hi all, I could feel something was off. Another look at the fragment and I realized I put the limmus of Zeru-ibni and Tab-šar-Aššur on two separate lines when in fact A3 shows them on the same line.... more