Hi Michael and Joe,

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 [1974], 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 [2010] 220-9). According to Seeher, Hattusa was just an administrative and religious capital, not the royal capital.

Regards Tory