Joe Baker
Re: KEL G reconstructed
Sat May 19, 2018 05:12
2001:8003:8817:5900:809b:ed8e:3e66:ac64

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 others say or if I read papers on specific words and grammar. Nahm, on page 369 of his paper (Werner Nahm, “The Case for the Lower Middle Chronology”, AoF 40/2 (2013) 350-372) says that on KEL G one can not exclude a reading of the name as ⸢Ḫa-NI⸣-m[a..]. Ḫaya-malik and ḪaNI-malik are the same name since the Sumerian sign NI has in Semitic the value iŕ. Semitic names with ḫa(y)ya are well known at Mari. Here it can mean “(is) alive” or is used for the god Ḫaya (in which case it is usually spelt with NI). See page 96 of Mark Weeden, “The Akkadian Words for “Grain” and the God Ḫaya”, WdO 39/1 (2009) 77-107 which can be downloaded from
http://eprints.soas.ac.uk/12375/1/WdO2009Barley.pdf

Also do I assume correctly that the spaces you left between names 5/6 in Col. II represent a space in the tablet? ... 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

Yes, as I said in my post, the lines do not align and XHTML is not the sort of coding that can easily reproduce the line spacings. So leaving a space on my representation only means that by this point, X lines of my reproduction equates to X±1 lines on the adjacent column of the tablet.

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.

I have a different view. During this time, I do not see the city of Aššur as having a strong military force or empire. Rather it used treatise to establish trading routes and trading emporiums. I see their kings as mostly co-operating with the rulers of Ekallatum, who like other Amorite sheikhs settled somewhat away from the main city. Although these Amorite rulers were the dominate military power they continued (for some indefinite period) to live in a symbiotic way with the native kings and people of the main city.

The idea that the AKL limus actually existed, is a fiction. I dismiss all that the AKL says about Samsi-Addu (other than his family relations and his reign length). The anachronistic Karduniaš story is obviously based on similar later Karduniaš accounts in the AKL and is only used to explain how a Semitic dynasty overthrew a native dynasty. I do not know where the AKL got its limu names from, but the fact that they are otherwise unattested shows they are probably spurious or invented. Besides it is more probable that Ekallatum, rather than being captured by Samsi-Addu 3 years before Aššur, had actually been the seat of Samsi-Addu’s power since his enthronement 20 years earlier.

4 Salim-Assur e3r          Baker: 1 Salim omitted
5 Ennam-Assur, e4r Baker: omitted

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 occurs once. This is taken to be a scribal error were a scribe has replaced the first element of the father’s name (Uṣr) by repeating the first element of the son’s name (Šalim).

Again a limu named Ennam-Aššur is only attested once at Mari. But he is not an early limu because the tablet with his name on it occurs only with late Mari limus. See Werner Nahm’s 7 Nov 2012 post on this forum at
http://disc.yourwebapps.com/discussion.cgi?id=177754;article=13612

This leaves the little problem of what to do with Ahiyaya.

As I said in a recent post, I have the limu year of Aḫiyaya and the limu year of Aššur-malik as being one and the same year.

Regards Joe


  • 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 reconstructed — Joe Baker, Sat May 19 05:12
      • 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