Tory Thorpe
Re: Šuli and Enna-Su'en
Thu Dec 6, 2012 09:35
112.198.83.61

Hi Joe,

On the contrary. I suggest that AKL limus Ibni-Adad and Atamar-Ištar were otherwise unknown Aššur limus, not unknown Ekallatum limus. Since the AKL was made in Aššur it follows that the ultimate source of these two limus was most likely an Aššur eponym-list for the reign of Erišum II.
Ibni-Ištar    1 Erišum II
Aššur-malki 2
Belanum 3
Sukkallum 4
Amur-Aššur 5
Aššur-nišu 6
Munawirum 7
Idnaya 8
Ibni-Adad 9 = 0 Šamši-Adad at Ekallatum Dadaya
limu x 10 = 1 Puzur-Nirah
limu x 11 = 2 Abiya
Atamar-Ištar 12 = 3 Edinum
Aššur-taklaku 4
Išim-Su'en 5
etc.
On the MEC and KEL. I do not think these are perfect lists. Neither are the Neo-Assyrian lists. My point is that KEL A to omit Suli might be the only correct list whereas others might accidentally have made a year of double eponymy to look like two consecutive years. This happens in a Neo-Assyrian list. So for the MEC we have two exemplars against one and it is the lone exemplar that is correct, not the two.

Regards Tory

  • Re: Šuli and Enna-Su'enJoe Baker, Thu Dec 6 06:30
    Hi Tory I was attempting to show that the MEC and KEL lists are not all perfect. Some lists do have scribal omissions - although I still hold that the two in the AKL were not limus. (I do not know... more
    • Re: Šuli and Enna-Su'en — Tory Thorpe, Thu Dec 6 09:35
      • Non-Aššur limusJoe Baker, Tue Dec 11 06:33
        Hi Tory If Šamši-Adad set up a series of limus at Ekallatum (his ancestral home) then one would probably expect to see some Amorite type names, but these are typical Assyrian type names. And why... more
        • Re: Non-Aššur limusTory Thorpe, Tue Dec 11 08:06
          Hi Joe The "capture" of Ekallatum must have been a significant event for the AKL to mention and date it by an Aššur eponym of Erišum II. Indeed the AKL's 33-year reign figure for Šamši-Adad begins... more
Click here to receive daily updates