Joe Baker
KEL G and Aḫiyaya
Fri May 4, 2018 04:03

Hi Anon

Comparing your reconstruction of KEL G, in the table below you can see it has 7 more limus than the reconstruction of Günbattı and myself and 2 more than that of Barjamovic et. al. The parts between the lines is the area under dispute.

ANONYMOUSE               BAKER              GÜNBATTI          BARJAMOVIC
Dadaya Dadaya Daday[a] Dadaya
Ani-m[alik] Ḫaya-malik Ani-[x ] Ennam-Aššur
Idna Ashur 1 1 1
Atanum 2 2 Atanum
Aššur-taklaku 3 3 Aššur-taklaku
Haya-malik 4 4 Haya-malik
Šalim-Aššur 5 5 2
Šalim-Aššur Šalim-Aššur Ennam-Aššur Šalim-Aššur
Ennam-Aššur 6 6 Ennam-Aššur
Su'en-muballiṭ Sin-mubaliṭ Sin-muballiṭ Suen-muballiṭ
Riš-Šamaš Riš-Šamaš Riš-Šamaš Riš-Šamaš
Ibni-Adad Ibni-Addu Ibni-Addu Ibni-Adad
Aššur-imitti Aššur-imitti Aššur-imitti Aššur-imitti
Ili-ellat Ili-ellati Ili-ellat Ili-elliti
Rigmanum Rigmanum Rigmanum Rigmanum
Ikuppiya Ikuppiya Ikuppiya Ikunpiya
Asqudum Asqudum Asqudum Asqudum
Aššur-malik Aššur-malik Aššur-malik Aššur-malik
Ahiyaya 7 7 Ahiyaya
Awiliya Awiliya Awiliya Awiliya
Nimar-Su'en Nimer-Sin Nimer-Suʾen Nimar-Suen
Adad-bani Addu-bani Adad-bani Adad-bani
Ṭab-ṣilla-Aššur Ṭab-ṣilli-Aššur Ṭab-ṣilla-Aššur Ṭab-ṣilli-Aššur

I have argued several times before that the reconstruction of Barjamovic is distorted. For example see post 17395 where I point out that in order to increase room for their 5 extra limus they, without justification, increase the line spacing for the last missing limus at the destroyed bottom of column I, which thereby increases the vertical height of the tablet, and thus they can add more limus at the destroyed bottom of Column II and top of column III - and you want to add another two lines to column II and/or column III.

Particularly telling is there own placement of Aḫiyaya, for whom even they admit their reconstruction of the name is not supported by the preserved signs on KEL G. As to the position of the limu year of Aḫiyaya, I know Ziegler still thinks his best position is the same limu year as Ili-ellati but Lacambre has shown, on evidence from Chagar Bazar (Ašnakkum), that he should be placed near Awiliya. However, as Charpin and Ziegler have shown, the chronology of events during the very well attested limu years of Aššur-malik and Awiliya show that there is no room for an intervening limu. So I now have a slightly different take.

In the following table, I give the distribution of documents dated by limus from Mari, Ašnakkum and Tuttul. Those rare documents dated to the limu year of warki X are credited to limu X.

Asqudum 26 11 -
Aššur-malik 58 1 3
Aḫiyaya 1 24 4
Awiliya 34 55 28
Nimer-Suen 44 70 16

The distribution of documents naming limus may provide an unconventional answer to the Aḫiyaya problem (even given that find spots can skew the attested frequencies). Putting aside for now the Tuttul documents (which have about the same number of documents for both Aššur-malik and Aḫiyaya), it is noticeable that at Mari, Aḫiyaya is attested by only one document (dated to the second month (16/Kinunum), the other two documents dated by an Aḫiyaya are from the later limu year of Aḫiyaya son of Takiki of the time of Zimri-Lim) whereas Aššur-malik has numerous attestations, yet at Ašnakkum this situation is the exact opposite (and significantly the sole dated Aššur-malik Ašnakkum text was written in the first month (Niqmum)). However if there is no room for Aḫiyaya in KEL G or in the chronology of the events of this period then a possible solution is that the limu year of Aššur-malik and the limu year of Aḫiyaya belong to the one and same year. So, for this particular year, for whatever reason, two different limus were named which resulted in different cities preferring to use one over the other.

If these two limus belong to the same year then it would require a slight reinterpretation of the Charpin/Ziegler account of the early reign of Yasmaḫ-Addu. Using primarily the Mari data, they assume that the limu year of Aḫiyaya occurred in the early part of the reign of Yasmaḫ-Addu but, during his limu year, Aḫiyaya died and was succeeded in that office by Ili-ellati. Their main evidence was the poor attestation of Aḫiyaya at Mari (like some other limus from the early reign of Yasmaḫ-Addu) and that the sole document dated by him was located in the Oriental Palace (site A) which only contained documents dated by the earlier Mari limus from Riš-Šamaš to Ikkupiya.

I now turn to those Tuttul documents dated by Aḫiyaya and Aššur-malik. Now it is interesting (even thought the sample is way too low for real conclusions) that the four documents dated by Aḫiyaya were written within the first six months of the limu year - months 4 (Nabrium) and 6 (Mana) - and the three dated by Aššur-malik were written within the last six months of the limu year - months 7 (Ayyarum) and 8 (Niggallium).

Charpin and Ziegler note that the first dated document (1/Nabrium/Aḫiyaya) concerns expenditure for a “meal of Yasmaḫ-Addu in Tuttul”. They say this is evidence that by that time, Samsi-Addu had handed over Tuttul to Yasmaḫ-Addu (although no such document records this event). In their chronology, this year was also the same as the limu year of Ili-ellati, which fell 4 years before the limu year of Aššur-malik. However they do note that, if Yasmaḫ-Addu was actually the king of Tuttul at this time, then the expression about a meal for Yasmaḫ-Addu would be highly unusual since the required protocol would be to refer to such meals as the “king’s meal”.

In keeping with their idea that any later reference to a king in the Tuttul documents refer to Yasmaḫ-Addu and not to Samsi-Addu, including the reference to the “king” in a Tuttul document dated in summer 5/Niqmum/Rigmanum (Rigmanum was the limu after Ili-ellati). They also note that at Tuttul, four days later (9/Niqmum/Rigmanum), there is recorded the presence of messengers from Haššum and Karkemiš. This may have been the beginning of the formation of a coalition against Sumu-epuḫ of Yamhad for in this same year Samsi-Addu began negotiations with Išḫi-Addu of Qaṭna to supply him military assistance and to organise a marriage alliance between his son Yasmaḫ-Addu and the daughter of Išḫi-Addu. Given Samsi-Addu’s early disappointment in Yasmaḫ-Addu, it is likely he was in charge of the negotiations and that it was he who was at Tuttul rather than Yasmaḫ-Addu.

Thus the first reference to Yasmaḫ-addu being at Tuttul is in autumn month 4 (2/Nabrum/Aḫiyaya - now that he is placed alongside Aššur-malik) and the reference to his name and not title shows he was not yet king over Tuttul and that Tuttul still viewed Samsi-Addu as its king. The situation was probably still the same when the two Tuttul documents dated by winter month 6 (x/Mana/Aḫiyaya). However the later Tuttul dated documents for this year are dated by limu Aššur-malik in months 7 and 8 (with the first being in month 7, 28/Ayyarum/Aššur-malik). So maybe Samsi-Adddu entrusted Tuttul to Yasmaḫ-Addu in month 7 and Tuttul began to date documents by the limu year of Aššur-malik (the limu favoured at Mari) but still using the Samsi-Addu month names rather than changing to the Mari month names. Now events of that year may explain why this happened at this time.

At the beginning of the limu year of Aššur-malik, in summer month 1 (Niqmum), Yasmaḫ-Addu had past Ekallatum and joined his brother Išme-Dagan in the siege of Qabra (which fell in month 2 (Kinunum)). Yasmaḫ-Addu was back in Mari by winter month 5 (Belit-biri at Mari). So he could have first gone to Tuttul in month 4 (where he is attested) to assess the western front where the agents of Sumu-epuḫ of Yamḫad were fomenting discontent as a result of the ongoing military activities by the forces of Samsi-Addu in the Beqa’ valley in support of Išḫi-Addu of Qaṭna. Back in Mari Yasmaḫ-Addu began to raise more troops to continue the campaign to aid Išḫi-Addu of Qaṭna and this time he would lead his troops himself (the first time we know Yasmaḫ-Addu was to personally solely lead a campaign).

However trouble now broke out on the western front as Larim-Numaḫa of Aparḫa (undoubtedly backed by Sumu-epuḫ) caused Zalmaqum (the northern Baliḫ) to revolt. As a result Yasmaḫ-Addu had to march to Tuttul (instead of Qaṭna) where he arrived at the end of month 7 (28/Ayyarum/Aššur-malik - 18 days later a letter was written to him saying additional troops that were to be sent to meet him in Šubat-Šamaš had been delayed because of the [spring] harvest)). His father Samsi-Addu also began to march towards Zalmaqum while Išme-Dagan was left on the eastern front to finish off the conquest of several eastern centres and to put down revolts. This campaign would have been a good time for the transfer of Tuttul to Yasmaḫ-Addu. For the rest of that year (and into the beginning of the following limu year of Awiliya), Samsi-Addu and Yasmaḫ-Addu (and even later Išme-Dagan by summer month 12 (Tirum)) continued their operations against Zalmaqum.

Regards Joe

    • Re: KEL G and AḫiyayaAnonymous, Sun May 6 02:49
      Re: KEL G and Aḫiyaya Hi Joe, I have adjusted your chart a bit. Going over my notes, actually two different reconstructions I have, I saw I had omitted Ennam-Assur in its first occurrence. So I ... more
      • The positioning of MEC DJoe Baker, Thu May 10 06:32
        Hi Anonymous As for fragment MEC D and how it aligns with KEL G, I go with the Early alignment model of Günbattı (as followed by Kryszat and also Nahm) against the Late alignment model of Birot, ... more
        • KEL G reconstructedJoe Baker, Thu May 10 06:35
          Hi Anonymous A more parsimonious explanation occurs to me than the ad hoc line space argument of Barjamovic, and that is that the scribe's eyes went from the first occurrence of Ennam-Assur to the... more
          • Re: KEL G reconstructedAnonymous, Mon May 14 10:42
            Thanks Joe, I get the point on what fits and does not fit. After quite a bit of reading, I have concluded that I should simply specify where the gap is and grey it out in the chronology. The eye skip ... more
            • Re: KEL G reconstructedJoe Baker, Wed May 16 06:57
              Hi Anonymouse Time, Narrative, and the Old Assyrian Trade, by Edward Stratford ... Calibrated dendrochronology favors UMC. The author favors an 1845 BC eclipse. Stratford gives as the source for him... more
              • Re: KEL G reconstructedAnonymous, Fri May 18 09:48
                Hi Joe, Fattening the space of 4 names does seem to be a bit excessive inviting ad hoc arguments for explanation. I see space in my theory to leave MEC E un-emmended, unless you know something about... more
                • Re: KEL G reconstructedJoe Baker, Sat May 19 05:12
                  Hi Anonymouse unless you know something about equating Haya-malik to Ani-malik that I don't. Let me say from the start – I have little to no knowledge of Sumerian and Akkadian - only what I hear... more
                  • Re: KEL G reconstructedAnonymous, Sat May 19 18:56
                    //Not only do I omit this Šalim-Aššur but he is also omitted by all recent commentators. Šalim-Aššur son of Uṣranum has multiple attestations at Mari while Šalim-Aššur son of Šalimanum only... more
  • Click here to receive daily updates