Why should he therefore only be interested in the line 10 and not in the limu in the date of the document, if the date exist? Naturally he would mentioned also UBRU, if he is mentioned there.
You have in Röllig 2004 another document where he only discusses one of the limmus mentioned in the document. He cites MARV 2, 17 (= VAT 18007) as one of the records attesting to the limmu Sulmanu-suma-usur. Röllig does not mention anywhere in the 2004 paper that the limmu of Abili is also in this document. According to your logic it means Abili is not in MARV 2, 17?
It is clear Jakob obtained from Wiggerman a transliteration of T 93-10 (and perhaps a hand-copy of the cuneiform text), else he would not have been able to provide the transliteration of lines 14-17 in his 2003 book. He even knew to indicate where the damages are in the cuneiform text. I suspect from this that he had access to the entire text and not just a few lines only.
I dont know how you can conclude that for Röllig to say in 2004 that Assur-nadin-apli is mentioned in line 10 and for Jakob to say in 2003 that UBRU is the limmu in the date-line is a contradiciton. It is not a contradiction. Röllig does not say line 10 is the date of the letter. We know from Jakob that the text does not end at line 10 but continues more than seven additional lines. A simple deduction: since T 93-10 is probably more than 17 lines total, the date-line is not until after line 17 unless it already appeared at the beginning of the letter.
AND - now that Michael has received word from Wiggerman himself, I am happy to see I that was right and that neither Röllig nor Jakob misunderstood Wiggerman.
The document mentions two limmus and UBRU is the limmu date of the document. The limmu Assur-nadin-apli in T 93-10 is unquestionably the son of Tukulti-Ninurta I. He was limmu before and after UBRU and before and after his father Tukulti-Ninurta I. Since both times must fall within the reign of his father, UBRU could not have been the king's first official year. This agrees with KAV 21-24.
Hi Joe and Tory, Thanks for the link. Meanwhile I received a E-mail of Wiggermann, that reveals the "secret" of T 93-10. In fact, 2 eponyms are called, A-šur-SUM-DUMU.UŠ in the text and Ubru in the... more
Hi Michael Thank you for the two mails. So, T 93-10 concerns an allocation of ointment for the horses of Ili-pada (no title). The allocation was to last: > Fascinating. Clearly Aššur-nadin-apli (a... more
Hi Michael On this news it is time to reassess. Here is a possible sequence that might satisfy the data (assuming Tukulti-Ninurta was assassinated early in the limu year of Erib-Sin) - subject to... more
Hi Tory an Joe, now I've read Akkermans "West of Assur....". Page 19 contains the solution for T 93-10 and its eponyms. As I noted earlier: A great time distance of T 93-10 from the reign of Ili-pada ... more
An addendum: According to Wiggermans "West of Assur..." the dunnu of Tell Abi Abyad was built, when Assur-iddin was Grand Vizier and viceroy. Qibi-Assur was it before the dunnu existed and also the... more
Hi all, I have to agree with Röllig 2004. This Aššur-nadin-apli limmu in T 93-10:10 is presumably the son of Tukulti-Ninurta I, but he was not king at the time. There is not the expected šarru , and... more
Hi Tory Freydank, in his 1991 book, listed all the Middle Assyrian limu dated letters that he had access to in the Berlin Vorderasiatisches Museum. Amongst the royal limus, half the time they have no ... more
Hi Joe limmu Aššur-nadin-apli šarru/uklu ---- no question who this is. limmu Aššur-nadin-apli ----- is this the king without title? ----- is this the king before he became king? ----- is this an... more
Hi Joe and Michael, Creating a royal limmu date when it lacks royal title can lead to even more chaos in the documentation. Since Aššur-nadin-apli was limmu before he became king, it is probable... more
Hi Tory The war and the Assyrian assistance to the governors of Harran was the PREVIOUS year Not to sure why you place the campaign in the previous year. The text is dated in the month of Qarratu so... more
Hi Joe Mystery solvable. Jakob is wrong. Check out the original Wiggermann paper, delivered in 1999 and published in 2000. Agreed and corrected. I should have read Bloch more carefully. He caught... more
Hi Tory I wonder if Jakob is also wrong about Nabu-bela-usur being the mašennu at Aššur AND also limmu during the reign of Tukulti-Ninurta I Jacob is either wrong or misleading. Nabum-bela-uṣur ... more
Hi Joe, you wrote, that Adad-riba was the masennu already in the limu year of Ellil-kudurri-usur. Where did you get this information? To my knowledge, Adad-riba is attested at first in the limu year... more
Hi Michael You wrote, that Adad-riba was the masennu already in the limu year of Ellil-kudurri-usur. Where did you get this information? This is what I have inferred from Helmut Freydank in his 1991... more
Hi Joe and Tory, I also just found out in that paper og Wiggerman, that this mystery does not exist. In addition the important information that in this text (T 98-33) Tammitte is mentioned together... more
Hi Tory, I thought a context between T 93-12 (all news, among other about Hatti) and T 98-119 (war in Hatti) is not recognizable. The reasons I have named: "In the letter T 93-12 Ili-pada requested... more
Hi Michael That means it´s about the continuous communication and the general situation throughout the West, not to specific events. But this would precede the DIRECT involvement of Ili-pada in the... more
Hi Tory, I assume for Assur-nadin-apli only 4, not 5 years. A concrete arrangement of the limu year (not the office of masennu) of Udbu is currently not possible. Jakob in his "Mittelassyrische... more