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 before Abi-ili. I have read the literature up to-date and Bloch, Jakob, Llop all rely on Freydank 1991 for putting Ninu'ayu before Abi-ili --- and they continue to cite the 1991 paper without mentioning Freydank's evident change of mind.
The reasons Freydank put Ninu'ayu before Abi-ili in 1991 are not reasons he considers valid anymore. The other scholars have not added anything substantial, certainly nothing that could change Freydank's mind since his 2005 contribution (else it would be in the 2009 article). Thus the 1991 position regardless of its "lingering" adherents has lost credibility.
Now you have said: In a group of texts, dated with the years of Ninuaju and Abi-ili son of Katiri, distributed barley comes from the city of Tille by an expedition undertaken during the year of Ninuaju by the official Ina-Assur-sumi-asbat. According to Freydank, one of the earliest documents should be MARV 4, 33 from the year of Ninuaju, which contains the longest version of the passage mentioning Tille.
MARV 4, 33 is VAT 18105 (dated limu Ninu'ayu). In regards to this text Freydank has told us "the mission of Ina-Aur-uma-aṣbat can not definitely be dated to the limu year of Ninu'ayu" (1991, p. 62). This is because the name of the leader responsible for the barley shippment from Tille in the limu-year of Ninu'ayu is UNMENTIONED in this and other texts dated to this limu-year.
There is no problem to put the mission of Ina-Aur-uma-aṣbat before the limu-year of Abi-ili, but there is no reason whatever to put the limu-year of Ninu'ayu before Abi-ili.
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 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