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 nothing to do with whether or not the mission of Ina-Assur-suma-asbat from Tille pre-dates the limu-year of Abi-ili.
Since there are zero texts linking the mission of Ina-Assur-suma-asbat to the limu-year of Ninu'ayu, there is no argument that justifies putting Ninu'ayu before Abi-ili even one assumes that the mission of Ina-Assur-suma-asbat was before Abi-ili.
Barley when properly stored has a shelf-life of 10 years. Even Bloch pointed this out (see Bloch, UF 40 , p. 168 and n.75 citing Barton). So even if the mission of Ina-Assur-suma-asbat from Tille was PRIOR to the limu-year of Abi-ili there can be several years intervening from the mission of Ina-Assur-suma-asbat and the shippment that took place in the limu-year of Ninu'ayu. Absolutely nothing in any of the documentation says that Ninu'ayu must be limu before Abi-ili.
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
Re: Freydank: actual statement Tory Thorpe,Wed Jun 27 06:16
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