Tukulti-Ninurta I was first imprisoned in a house at Kar-Tukulti-Ninurta (not the palace), and then killed sometime after this. As Poebel has already explained, these two events are not likely to be one and the same -- some days must intervene between them -- since the reign of Aššur-nadin-apli commenced, according to the king-list statement, "during the lifetime of his father".
Since T 02-32 was written at Tell Sabi Abyad after the death of TN-I, it is not evidence of the situation at Aššur from the moment the king was arrested up to the moment he was actually assassinated. Those must have been turbulent days indeed, or was arresting the great king, locking him up in a room, and then killing him, just business as usual and only the normal course of royal succession at Aššur?
Those "ša arki PN" limu dated records in distant provinces can be (and have been) explained by communication breakdown -- news from Aššur (where limus were appointed) slow to reach the far-away places under Assyrian control (M. T. Larsen, RA 68 , 15-24). This explanation does not work for "ša arki" dates found at Aššur and in the heartland of Assyria. Only explanation that can suffice in these cases is a real delay in the nomination of the new annual magistrate caused by serious political disturbance at the capital Aššur.
As Freydank has already shown, these abnormal dates from Aššur cannot be placed within the reigns of the famous Middle Assyrian kings (BMCG 1991, p. 102). So it is hardly the case that both Ninu'ayu followed by "ša urki" Ninu'ayu can be placed within the reign of the great kings TN-I or TP-I. Since a Ninu'ayu is known within the reign of TN-I and TP-I, the "ša urki" Ninu'ayu either comes just after the imprisonment of TN-I, or (far less likely) in the middle of TP-I. If there is better evidence from the limu-dated material of an altogether different boundary line between the limus of TN-I and those of his successor Aššur-nadin-apli, I am willing to consider it.
Joe -- as you know I see evidence for more than one limu Aššur-rim-nišešu (not just the Aššur-bel-kala official). A tablet from the group Assur 21101 mentions the abarakku rabi'u Apliya (KAJ 298). I cannot see how this is a different Apliya from the one mentioned in VAT 10012, also from Assur 21101. Since Apliya finished his career mid-TP-I, I can see how the limu-year Aššur-rim-nišešu on VAT 10012 could be very early TP-I (his accession year?) and "ša urki Ninu'ayu" as early as the very end of TN-I.
Michael wrote: ... there is no overwriting of the cartouches of Sethos by Amenmesse (never-ever, while there is evidence of Merneptah cartouches overwritten by Amenmesse). Not to forget - Sethos wore regalia already during the reign of his father. Thus the tomb may have been defaced by Amenmesse while Sethos still officially a prince and throne heir. His cartouches were never overwritten by Amenmesse, because despite some regal attributes, he was in reality under the niveau of Amenmesse during his coup.
So the crown-prince Seti began his royal tomb and used full royal titulary in the tomb even before the death of Merenptah? I have no objection here except that I would disagree he is just an heir when he began such a tomb before Merenptah's death. You are talking about a co-regent not a prince with just some regal attributes.
Interesting ideas on the Manethonian legends and the prophecy of the lamb. I myself feel that if Merenptah did experience exile in Kush (no such thing as Ethiopia yet) he eventually repelled the invading Asiatics Hyksos and defeated Mes (Moses II). And perhaps this served as the literary archtype of the pre-royal Amenmesse, not the real Amenmesse.
Anyway, I fail to see the implied connection to the limu-year Ninu'ayu. Diplomats from Sidon (Egypt) and Hatti would probably not have had the luxury to come to Assyria at a time when their countries were steeped in the midst of some political turmoil at home, even to mourn the recently deceased Assyrian king. That leaves us with the choice that Ninu'ayu was before these countries had their internal problems, or that Ninu'ayu was limu after their problems were over.
How are you determining the time of the end of the Hittite Empire relative to Egyptian chronology? Bob Porter on another list reports that Jurgen Seeher, the excavator of Hattusa/Bogazkoy, has now concluded that Hattusa was never actually destroyed, only abandoned (article in Hawkins festschrift, 'After the Empire: Observations on the Early Iron Age in Central Anatolia', Singer (ed.) ipamati ... Luwian and Hittite Studies ..., Tel Aviv  220-9). According to Seeher, Hattusa was just an administrative and religious capital, not the royal capital.
Hi Tory and Michael B The thread is getting too long so I have started a new thread. The reference to the limu year “after Nin’ayu” is found in VAT 10012 = Assur 21101. The tablet is dated to 5... more
Hi Tory and Michael B I have been reading the on-line publication of the N.A.B.U. journal at http://sepoa.fr/?page_id=14 . (I was alerted to it by Michael Liebig and also the Agade mailing list).... more
Re: “ša urki” Ninu’ayu Tory Thorpe,Sun Jun 17 13:33
Hi Tory. Your question: >>was arresting the great king, locking him up in a room, and then killing him, just business as usual and only the normal course of royal succession at Aššur? Surely not -... more
Hello Michael, Of course by the time T 02-32 was written, Aššur-nadin-apli was secure on his throne, being greeted by visiting foreign kings as "the living one". But this letter says nothing about... more
Hello Tory, you don´t address Jakobs reasoning about the last letters in Tel Chuera - he writes that the most recent parts of an archive were hold as a general custom separately from the rest in a... more
Hello Michael and all, my preference for the TN eponyms after Assur-zera-iddina is based on the following arguments: - Abi-ili > Salmanu-šuma-usur is certain - Ina-Assur-šumi-asbat is earlier than... more
Dear Werner, your question : Is there an argument to disprove this order? Answer is: yes. It is in part object of my future paper in AoF. The new limu reconstruction was discussed with Llop, who at a ... more
Hi Michael & all, The Middle Assyrian archive at Tell Huwera is very inferior compared to the extensive one at Tell Seh Hamad. Not a single limu-year should be unrepresented at Tell Seh Hamad from... more
Jaume Llop has drwan my attention to the following: Freydank has proposed in SGKAO 21, 62 that Ninuaju should placed before Abi-ili son of Katiri. In a group of texts, dated with the years of Ninuaju ... more
Hi Michael L. Freydank has proposed in SGKAO 21, 62 that Ninuaju should placed before Abi-ili son of Katiri. That was Freydank way back in 1991. In Freydank's more recent paper "Kar-Tukulti-Ninurta... more
Hi Tory, The sequence in "Kar-Tukulti-Ninurta als Agrarprovinz" in Altoriental. Forsch., Akademie Verlag, 36 (2009) 1, p. 76, include only eponyms from Dur-Katlimmu! (see Freydank´s explanation on p. ... more
Hi Michael, On p. 76 then Freydank only noted (quite correctly) that Ninu'ayu belongs to the time after Ina-Assur-suma-asbat. I.e. Freydank does not revised his knowlwedge from 1991. Freydank has... more
Hi Tory, Based on this table of Freydank You're right. But now it is clear (and I think you know it) that Ina-Assur-suma-asbat must be placed earlier. Ina-Assur-suma-asbat should be placed before... more
Hi Michael But concerning the relationship between Ninu'ayu and Abi-ili my only intention was to show the reasons why Freydank put Ninu'ayu ahead - reasons, that apparently convinced other relevant... more
Hi Tory, 2009 is 3 years ago and the research has proceeded. Relevant scholars (they of course familiar with the work of Freydank) have own arguments there+after and the current agreement not depend... more
Hi Michael Even if you put Ina-Assur-suma-asbat before Sulmanu-suma-usur, so that the grand viziers are in the proper order (and yes I know this), that does not mean Freydank agrees to put Ninu'ayu... more
Hi Tory, Freydank wrote 3 years ago about Ina-Assur-suma-asbat as the "mutmaßlich" latest eponym of Dur-Katlimmu (p. 75) and than "Unter der Voraussetzung, daß Ina-Assur-suma-asbat tatsächlich als... more
Hi Tory and All, Today I received the answer of Helmut Freydank with his actual statement on this problem. In his 2009 paper he could not yet take in consideration the observation of Jakob regarding... more
Hi Michael Certainly doesn't sound like Freydank is sure. I have read, re-read, and re-re-read the 1991 argument, and all points of view added since then. I still do not see the validity of the... more
Hi Tory, The 1991 argument is secundary, but the observation of Jakob regarding the order of the Grand Viziers can not be ignored. Freydank is no more reserved than in 2009. Even then, he has not... more
Hi Michael, The order of the grand viziers only proves that the limu-year of Ina-Assur-suma-asbat was not the end of the Dur-Katlimmu archive. That's all. This is apples and oranges, as it really has ... more
Hi Tory, clearly there is no absolute security. There are only probabilities in this matter and different models are possible, more or less probalbly. Besides the order the Tille-documents should... more
Hi Michael, I still don't get it. First, the limu Ninu'ayu is not attested at Dur-Katlimmu, and this archive is far more extensive than the one at Tell Chuera. Putting even a one-year gap into the... more