Anonymous
Re: KEL G reconstructed
Sat May 19, 2018 18:56
50.50.240.62

//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).//

So this is charged to a scribal error in MEC E.

The end of MEC B agrees with the AKL

Ibni-adad
x
x
x
Atamar-Ishtar

So how do you explain the same fiction ending up in MEC B and the AKL if the eponyms are not genuine? Was this a fiction imposed on the Mari scribes after their conquest? And to what purpose would the AKL make up eponyms and rather not just use the existing ones. I cannot divine the political purpose of making up year names.


After making my revisions and deleting
Ikunu, son of Erishu I ca. REL 40, I have ended up with 199 again. To do this I used a spring year epoch against a fall epoch, to avoid counting 200 (or at least to show how it can be done with an endpoint arithmetic error of 1.) I find 126 adjacent to Puzur Ishtar, and 166/or 126 counting from the end of Erishim I to the 0 accession year of Shamshi Adad. (I gave Erishum II 11 years to keep Shamshi at 33). Also 159 counting from the end of Erishum I to the spring of the year Shamshi Adad died.


As an interesting aside, I noted that W.F. Albright wrote a paper showing that Zimri Lim and Neferhotep I were contemporary (dyn. XIII). I conclude that the low middle chronology works best with this.

I looked at Tory's 100 years, and it seems to me that the at the end of MEC E, and note that Assur-Emuqi in year 2 of Isme Dagan is in fact 100 years from Su suen. I looked all over the NET for MEC E to counter Tory's denial of Assur-Emuqi, and find it only in Boris' report. It is confirmed by KEL G, so why are we thinking it is not there?

Anyway, I feel from a pure historians point of view that all evidence is reasonably satisfied except for astronomical considerations.

  • 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 reconstructed — Anonymous, Sat May 19 18:56
      • 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