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 der letzte in dem Archiv anzusehende Eponym ist" (p. 76). I.e. for him the position of Ina-Assur-suma-asbat was far from certain. So Freydank's "change of mind" appears less evident, particularly as he did not distance themselves explicitly from his statement of 1991. The contradiction remained unresolved. More security created after him the realization of the the importance of the order of the Grand Viziers in this matter.
In any case it is right to bring all considerations in the debate, especially recent research.
Without an actual statement of Freydank the debate is stalling. Unfortunately, he can not be reached by e-mail. That´s why I'll write him a letter. Thereafter we will see.
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
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... more
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
Re: expedition to Tille — Michael Liebig,Thu Jun 21 06:41
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