He probably continued in office until the limu year of Ninuayu son of Aššur-iddin, when on 11 Ša-šarrate he was denounced in a decree by the king (MARV I 17 = VAT 16382). This is one reason why I disagree with Llop and Bloch when they place the limu year of Ninuayu before that of Abi-ili.
I also disagree with placing Ninuayu before Abi-ili. In my opinion this limmu is the last year of TN-I (year 37) and the burst of foreign diplomatic missions this year were the kings coming to "mourn the dead one" and "greet the living one". Does MARV I 17 give the name of the Assyrian king who denounced Uṣur-namkur-šarri?
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
Hallo Tory, I am reluctant to accept this evidence from the year of Ninu´ayu as demonstrating it was TN I last. In fact we have an identical edict of TN I, MARV IV 116 (VAT 20233), (I would have said ... more
Hallo Tory. Could have been so as you imagine it or otherwise else. This is still no hard evidence for anything. We should never confuse probabilities with evidence. According to my reconstruction... more
Hi Tory, >>What will you do with the "sa arki/urki" Ninu'ayu limu-year? Donno... This is no more evidence for a "coup d´etat" than for a rather normal year in these limu difficulties. Regime change... more
Hi Joe, I am still giving the last polish to a large chronology paper formally accepted for the AoF. Your argument concerning Usur-namkur-šarri is very interesting and fits my reconstruction of the... more
Thanks Tory, it seems however that the text is so ruined, that it is difficult to argue with its help. It is clearly an edict of TP I concerning the conduit of Usur-namkur-šarri but it is not so... more