Anonymous
Re: KEL G reconstructed
Fri May 18, 2018 09:48
50.50.240.62

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 equating Haya-malik to Ani-malik that I don't.

Also do I assume correctly that the spaces you left between names 5/6 in Col. II represent a space in the tablet? and the space before Rigmanum, and the two spaces adjacent to Samaya in Col. I, and the assumed space after Ris-Shamash in your reconstruction? Or rather it might seem more likely as having the same effect, the scribe did not write perfectly evenly his lines matched to adjacent columns. As long as the ratios don't become excissive as it appears in Barjamovic et. al. .

This new theory is based on postuating a irruption in KEL G caused by Shamshi Adads conquest of Assyria from his base in Ekallutum 4 or 5 years. Seems like he laid seige to Ashur by interdicting the trade routes and bringing city by city under his control. So who was appointed did not get out of Asshur to the Kultepe frontier.

It appears that the MEC scribes knew what the Asshur scribes did as the AKL and MEC both have the same two Eponyms with a gap of 2 or 3 years between them. But the Kultepe scribe who did KEL G apparently did not get the news of what to do with the blank years. So they got omitted.

I propose then restoring MEC D into the gap:


Amur-Aššur, b29, c1, KEL G
Aššur-nišu b30, c2, KEL G (just before omitted years)
Ibni-Adad AKL. B31, c3 -------KEL G GAP----- [Makes Ekallutum his base]
Idna-Ashur d1r, b32 -------KEL G GAP-----
Atanum d2r, b33 -------KEL G GAP----- (12 kings ....[Is this a conquest political consolidation?]
Assur-taklaku, d3r, b34 -------KEL G GAP-----
Atamar-Ishtar AKL b35, -------KEL G GAP----- [Final capture of Asshur]
Munawiru, KEL G (after omitted years)
Idnaya, KEL G


There is room for adjusting this some per how many years one assumes KEL G leaves out, 4 at least, most probably 5.
More years become less probable as Shamshi-Adad's number of years have to be changed to accomplish it.



Column I, right side front face of tablet going down:

1 [Šu-B]elum b7
2 [Šarrum-Adad] b8
3 [Šu-Laban] b9
4 [Aššur-imitti] b10
5 [Dadiya] b11

Column I, bottom edge

1 [Dadiya] b12
2 [Ah-šalim] b13

Column II, left side front face of tablet going down:
(back to back with Col. II broken section)
(Adjacent to Col I, six names to five names).

1 Ani-m[alik] KLG Baker: replaced by 1 below
2 Haya-ma[lik. e1r Baker: moved up
3 Salim-Assur, e2r
4 Salim-Assur e3r Baker: 1 Salim omitted
5 Ennam-Assur, e4r Baker: omitted
6 Su'en-muballiṭ e5r

Column II bottom edge

1 Riš-Šamaš e6r
2 Ibni-Adad e7
3 Aššur-imitti e8

Column III, left side back face going down
(back to back with Col. II broken section)
(adjacent to Col IV. 6 names and 2 spaces to 9-11? unknowns)

1 Ili-ellat e9
2 Rigmanum e10
3 Ikuppiya e11
4 Asqudum e12
5 Aššur-malik e13 KG
6 Awiliya e14, KG

Col IV
space for 9-11 unknowns before Puzur-Suen


This leaves the little problem of what to do with Ahiyaya.
I should think he is to be equated to one of the eponyms before Asqudum as an alternate name.

Your observations on Barjamovic and colleages line heights have caused me to head in your direction considerably here.
Please remark if my feedback misinterpreted what you said about the KEL G tablet orientation.

Thanks again.

  • 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 reconstructed — Anonymous, Fri May 18 09:48
      • 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
            • Re: KEL G reconstructedAnonymous, Sun May 27 14:30
              According to post http://disc.yourwebapps.com/discussion.cgi?id=177754;article=15335;search_term=Ebla #15335 MEC B ends with the same two eponyms as the AKL. Is this post not representing MEC B... more
              • Re: KEL G reconstructedJoe Baker, Sun May 27 19:21
                Hi Anonymous According to post … 15335 MEC B ends with the same two eponyms as the AKL. Is this post not representing MEC B correctly? Boris‘ post clearly places these last two within [parenthesis],... more
                • Re: KEL G reconstructedAnonymous, Sun May 27 21:38
                  Yes, it appears I got screwed up by nested [ ]. For now it would be good if you just post an abstract and reference. I was looking all over for a MEC analysis. It seems you used to be able to get one ... more
Click here to receive daily updates