you know Wiggermanns "Seal of Ili-Pada...(2006)"? There he presented the chronology clearly in a table (Buria and Assur-nadin-apli from 1196). I am sending you a copy when you submit me your e-mail address.
Hi Joe Nothing prevents Bloch from keeping to his dates even with the inclusion of new limmus. All he needs to do is have the limmu of Aššur-Dan I not be the king's first official year but a later... more
Hi Joe and Tory, to Salmanu-aha-iddina: Bloch ("Solving the Problems...", p. 38f.), following Wiggermann, notes that the limu year of Salmanu-aha-iddina followed after the limu year of Assur-nerari... more
Hi Michael, > Buria held the office it seems 3 years after the dead of Tukulti-Ninurta I. Who were the eponyms besides Urad-Kube? Concerning UDbu: does your mail imply that there are definitively too ... more
Hi Werner, It seems so. In personal communication Bloch even acknowledged that there was more than 28 eponyms. But it is not impossible that eponyms have died in office, so that it may have given two ... more
Hi All Michael in post 13021 Bloch ("Solving the Problems...", p. 38f.), following Wiggermann, notes that the limu year of Salmanu-aha-iddina followed after the limu year of Assur-nerari III. This is ... more
Hi Michael and Joe, >Despite all the uncertainties the quantity of eponyms rather speaking against the short chronology of Boese and Wilhelm. I agree. Since Freydank's BMCG quite a number of new... more
"The limu year of Haburraru must therefore have been after the fourth year of Ellil-kudurri-usur (after the third year if Assur-nadin-apli reigned 4 years)" -------- That only applies to the unlikely ... more