Anonymous
Re: KEL G and Aḫiyaya
Sun May 6, 2018 02:49
50.50.248.16

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 have 3 over Barjamovic. I renumbered 1-8. Going over a post by Tory, I see that most of the lacuna in KEL G is covered by MEC D. 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 second leaving out 7 names by the skip, resulting in something close to your theory or Gunbatti.

I did reference your post 17395 and also the PDF cited there, which was quite useful. I noted the mistake of the fall of Babylon. I have 1587. I also note that Janssen does not seem to have a proper synchronism between the death of Shamshi Adad and the 18th year of Hammurabi. I guess he has to posit a scribe error in the later kings list. It occurs to be that the 720 years does not date Erishum I, but Ilu-shuma, so if we assign x years to Ilu-shuma, then the gap between Shamshi Adad and Shal I is 491 - x years. And the sum is: x + 199 + 491 - x + 30 = 720. The 580 years may be 59 for Shamshi, 491, and 30 for Shal. I. So if Shal. I commissioned the 580 figure, then someone else added his reign to it and assumed x = 0. The actual gap space, I believe is 467 years, but if you assume this dates year 1 of Shamshi to year 0 of Shal I then you subtract 33 years to get the gap: 434 years. What I perceive to be screwing things up is endpoint assumptions.

Thanks for your reply.





ANONYMOUSE BAKER GÜNBATTI BARJAMOVIC et.la.
Dadaya KEL G 68 Dadaya Daday[a] Dadaya
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ani-m[alik] KEL G 69 Ḫaya-malik Ani-[x ] 1
Ennam-Aššur MEC D 1 1 1 Ennam-Aššur
Idna Ashur MEC D 2 2 2 2
Atanum MEC D 3 3 3 Atanum
Aššur-taklaku MEC D 4 4 4 Aššur-taklaku
Haya-malik MEC D [] 5 5 Haya-malik
Šalim-Aššur MEC D [] 6 6 3
Šalim-Aššur MEC D [] 7 7 Šalim-Aššur
Ennam-Aššur MEC E 1 Šalim-Aššur Ennam-Aššur 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 8 8 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

  • KEL G and AḫiyayaJoe Baker, Fri May 4 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... more
    • Re: KEL G and Aḫiyaya — Anonymous, Sun May 6 02:49
      • 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
                    • Re: KEL G reconstructedJoe Baker, Sun May 20 21:31
                      Hi Anonymous //... while Šalim-Aššur son of Šalimanum only occurs once . This is taken to be a scribal error ...// So this is charged to a scribal error in MEC E. No. The initial lines of MEC E... more
Click here to receive daily updates