ATATURK SUPREME COUNCIL FOR CULTURE, LANGUAGE AND HISTORY PUBLICATIONS   OF   THE   TURKISH   HISTORICAL SOCIETY
Serial VI - No. 64
THE OLD ASSYRIAN LIST OF YEAR EPONYMS
FROM KARUM KANISH AND ITS CHRONOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS
KLAAS R. VEENHOF
PRINTED    AT    TURKISH    HISTORICAL SOCIETY
ankara 2003
56
THE OLD ASSYRIAN LIST OF YEAR EPONYMS
M ne" and late eponyms, to be inserted in the gap alongside e, i, j, and fc m t%oa is very unlikely, I prefer to reserve them (and they are necessary to ^vc at the total of 199 required by the 'Distanzangabe') for restoring MEC B *28-*30 This means three eponyms which we cannot expect to find in texts from level H of k&TUm Kanish, which had been deserted by then. I hence propose to equate MEC B *31 (and not *28) with the year of SamSi-Adad's conquest of Ekallatum. This is also attractive because the room available for the name of the eponym Ibni-Adad in MEC B *28 (after i-na and before dUTU-#-dI$KUR) is rather small,97 although the space after the king's name seems sufficient for the words "he captured Ekallatum".98
We reconstruct the sequence of eponyms of KEL A, before the end of level II of the karum, by placing four eponyms of § 7.3 in the gap before MEC B, numbered A-D because their sequence is unknown. They are followed by MEC B *l-*5, known in their correct order:
(130)	A	Šu-Rama	s. Uzua
(131)	B	Iddin-Suen	s. Iddin-abum
(132)	C	Sin-išmeanni	s. ?
(133)	D	Tab-Aššur	s. Uzua
(134)	*1	AšŠur-malik	s. Šu-Haniš
(135)	*2	Dan-Ea	s. Abu-(w)aqar
(136)	*3	Ennam-Suen	s. Iddin-abum
(137)		Aššur-balat	s. ?
(138)	*5	Ennam-Aššur	s. ?
This reconstruction of the chronology means that the end of level II of karum Kamsh came 138 years after the accession of Irišum I, in ca. 1836 B.C. Assyrian commercial presence in the karum, already attested under Irišum I (see § 6.3.a),
ÍSií?, T/T* " mUCH 35 120 ™S ÍS a lon^ Period which S fll devel<™ »d evolutions, both in the material culture, in
m sZLtS     m C°mmerCial PfaCtiCeS- Whkh «•»«**" - historia"S
Only ca. 13 rams., while in S 24-2 rev 4' th» .*
» *»2$5auSmS&>~,7 mms'
8. general chronological observations
8.1 Dating proposals
The results of the previous paragraph, within the terms of the 'middle chronology , can be summarized in the following table:
IriŠum I	KEL 1-40	40	years	ca. 1974-1935
Ikúnum	KEL 41-54	14	years	ca. 1934-1921
Šarrukin	KEL 55-94	40	years	ca. 1920-1881
Puzur-Aššur II	KEL 95-102	8	years	ca. 1880-1873
Naram-Suen	KEL 103-129	27	years	ca. 1872-1846
Naram-Suen	gap 1	4	years	ca. 1845-1842
Naram-Suen/Irišum II	MEC B *l-*27	27	years	ca. 1841-1815
Irišum II	MEC B 28*-*30	3	years	ca. 1814-1812
Šamši-Adad I	Ekallatum	3	years	ca. 1811-1809
Šamši-Adad I	Assur	33	years	ca. 1808-1776
The following chronological conclusions can be formulated:
a) the temporal distance between the accession of IriSum I and the death of SamSi-Adad I was 199 years, ca, 1974 - 1776 B.C.;
b) level II of karum Kanish came to an end around 1836 B.C., during the second half of Naram-Suen's reign;
c) Old Assyrian traders worked and lived in karum Kanish during its level II phase for a period of at least 110 years;
levels 0 and lb of karum Kanish probably lasted ca.
d) the interval between 35 years;
e) the *Mari Eponym Chronicle' covers a 1776 B.C.;
period of 97 years, from ca. 1872 to
THE OLD ASSYRIAN LIST OF YEAR EPONYMS
« SamS-Adad I was bom in ca. 1850 B.C., became king around 1833 B.C. aUhe°i:n«y-,andd1edin.776B.C.attheageof75.
8 2 A shorter chronology?
Ttee dates do not take into account the possibility of a shorter chronology than Middle one, defended by Gasche e.a. in MHEM IV Since the whole o the Old Assyrian period precedes the so-called 'Dark Age' (which in Assyna starts with the death of ISme-Dagan) and synchronisms with Babylonia are lacking, the reconstruction of the internal Old Assyrian chronology in itself cannot be used as an argument pro or contra a shorter chronology. But the Old Assyrian evidence is relevant for the chronological problem, because it provides the historical setting for the increasingly detailed evidence from ancient Anatolian dendrochronology. Old Assyrian texts are the only dated historical sources which can be connected with dated timber from public buildings (mainly palaces) of the Anatolian Middle Bronze Age. A recent date of ca. 2033 B.C. for the building of the so-called 'old palace' of Kanish,99 unfortunately is not helpful, because it is well before Assyrian commercial penetration there (and would even be more so with a shorter chronology). But the conclusion that the palatial building of Acemhoyuk, in which bullae with seals of SamSi-Adad I (and of Aplahanda of Karkemish) were found, was built in 1752 B.C.100 has serious implications. If correct, it shows that the middle chronology dates for that king are much (at least thirty years, probably more) too high. But this is not the place to enter this discussion, because a shorter chronology has no direct impact on the reconstruction of the internal chronology of the Old Assyrian period.
The conclusions drawn also ignore the possibility, assumed in MHEH IV,
mtttm* ad°Pted S°lar CalCndar °nly during the reign of Tiglath-Pileser I (1114-1076 B.C.). This would mean that earlier Assyrian data, based on a lunar
calender, require a solar correction by subtracting three years per century in order to
Shthtne WtChr°n0l0gy °f Babyl0nia- For the Period we are concerned with tins would mean that the date of 1974 B.C., suggested for the accession of
99 See
for ^SSSSS-^swCarolyn wicner Labara,ory
year of the most notable "major growth In J i - f, date rests on *e convincing equation of B.C Whether this latter ^^^^^u^ ^ miHennium B C with theVar 1628/7 "hich causes problems for the Egyptian New Fm!    u   erUpU°n °f ^ra/Santorini (a connection
feypuan New Emp.re chronology) is another matter.
8. GENEREAL CHRONOLOGICAL OBSERVATIONS
Irišum I, should be lowered to ca. 1948 B C and tw f *. káním Kanish would become ca. 1816 B.C Absence of reť 7 " "2 " °f make it is impossible to check this claim k ,7 diable synchronisms
direct evidenci Aé^J^^^^^ * ****** «* of
Íhe AS       "     e TlhS °f      ^ ^ *> ^tLS«
The likely assumption that dating by means of "successor eponyms'was d** the fact that the information on the new eponym (designated b cL^lo. autumn) had not reached Anatolia before the winter, implies that at least 'tne eponymy year was correlated with the seasons and hence a kind of solar year This is a difficult issue, which needs a special investigation, which does not fit in the framework of this text edition.101
8.3 Assur and its colonies
As for the history of Assur, this chronology implies that the temporal distance between the end of Ur III rule over Assur, presumably during the early years of Ibbi-Suen, shortly after ca. 2025 B.C., when also Eshnunna became indepedent, and the accession of Irišum I was only ca. 50 years. During this period Irišunťs three immediate predecessors (nos. XXX-XXXII in the Kinglist), Puzur-Aššur I, the presumed founder of the dynasty, his son Šalim-ahum, and his grandson Ilušuma102 must have ruled, whose years of reign the Kinglist, due to the absence of year-eponyms, is unable to give. Adding Irisum's forty years to this period of ca. fifty years, we obtain an average of ca. 22 years per generation, which is an acceptable figure. When and how long Salim-ahum's predecessors (according to the Kinglist) ruled, also in relation to Assur's governor Zariqum (ca. 2040 B.C., under Amar-Suen of Ur III),103 is unknown. If Sulili (no. XXVII of the Kinglist), usually identified with $i-lu-lu, son of Dakiki, en5.si A-ifir (impressions of his seal, reused by a namesake, were found on Kultepe tablets),104 indeed belongs in the period when Ur no longer controlled the north,105 the ume left for kings XXX-XXXII becomes rather short.
101 See for the time being M.T. Larsen, RA 68 (1974) 15-24, and Veenhof 1997, esp. 12ff.. and
now Veenhof 2001, §2. .    ... u- „ ana vntive inscriptions, cf. RIMA 1
102 The family relationship is confirmed by their bu.ld.ng and vot.ve insonp
A.0.33.1:l-3 and 14:1-13. „ , _ M„,i„ 1« 14 (1992) 149f.
W See for him R. Kutschcr, RA 79 (19885) «-£»SS£SS! *« *™ * *
104 See Balkan 1955, 54f. Sulili is mentioned in a p The man who reused this seal must be identical to <* '
10s As suggested by Gaiter 1998. 33, with notes 169-111.
60
THE OLD ASSYRIAN LIST OF YEAR EPONYMS
™ Assyrians lived and worked in level II of kärum Kanish for more than , »2tX means that we must expect certain developments over the me. ^Caffected the nature, the commercial and legal procedures,- and the
POHtical?) range of action of the trade. We probably must envJge a gradual growth of the number of kärums and wahMum, from the first Ldlt one at Kamsh, wh.cn was and remained its administrative center, to the later network of nearly forty different colonies and trading stations. This in turn meant the need of involving more and different persons for covering a larger area and performing various tasks (especially transport, agency and representation), which much have affected the social fabric of the growing merchant communities. Tracing and mapping such developments is now on the agenda of Old Assyrian research.
The identification and dates of year eponyms provided by KEL show that a number of rare eponyms, thusfar considered either very early or very late (post level II) ones, have to be redated. To our surprise several of them prove to belong to the last phase of kämm level II. This raises the question (already touched upon in § 6.3.e, in connection with Naram-Suen) how to explain this scarcity of late records and also the fact that the archives of several prominent trading families stop ca. twenty-five years before the destruction and abandonment of the kärum. One of the results also is that the attestation of the eponymy of Hannanarum (115) in a text from Ali§ar/Amkuwa, shows that Assyrian commercial presence there preceded the level lb period, as we now know also kärum Bogazköy did.107 (although not yet confirmed by Bogazköy texts dated to level II ycar-eponyms). This raises the interesting possibility that these kärums survived the destruction of level II of kärum Kanish, if this was local event.
The eponym list also allows us to obtain a much better idea of the activities of the various traders and their families, when they first appeared, when they acquired their narugqu-capiul how long their active career was, when they officiated as week-eponyms for the kärum, when the next generation took over, 1,^'renewed study of ** chives, which is one of the issues to be
Zel k ° KrySZat ln hlS forthcominS book. Also more detailed observations become possible. To mention just one example, kt n/k/ 1429-13T108
I os
ääää säs s « ™e, in: JO.
Dcrcben (ed.), Trade andFhL Z °Dfrva,10ns * Silver and Credit in
-it. Han*. Tamnia ÄÄl^ 92/k ™> a^sed to i.a. the kämm
of Durhurait. HaUus. Tamnia (Tawinia) an<! ZU? * 92A 203' addressed »° «■•■ *e käru,,
m S. *cen. A^Sa^TlSrir 61/2M (1"7) 219'232-
a
8. GENEREAL CHRONOLOGICAL OBSERVATIONS
61
mentions "the hostilities (nukurätum) in Kanish" a* ft* < which .merest has t0 he paid on l^^^^^T memorandum also lists debts dated to eponymies 81 m T '• approximate date for this apparently memorable even and" can lEZT evidence of its impact on the trade. looklng for
8.4 Sams'i-Adad I
Damage of MEC makes it difficult to link the career of king Sam§i-Adad I (SA), as summarized in the Assyrian Kinglist (AKL), with the data preserved in MEC. AKL states: "In the time of Naram-Suen §A went to Babylonia f KarduniaS"). During the eponymy of Ibni-Adad §A came up from Babylonia and seized Ekallatum, three years he resided in Ekallatum. During the eponymy of Atamar-IStar § A came up from Ekallatum and removed IriSum, the son of Naram-Suen, from the throne and seized the throne. He ruled as king for 33 years".109
In § 7.4 we concluded that Ekallatum probably was conquered during eponymy MEC B *31, but the year of §A's departure for Babylonia is unkown, because "during the time of (ina tarsi) Naram-Suen" is too vague. The chronology proposed here implies that Naram-Suen and IriSum II of Assur together ruled for ca. 63 years, ca. 1872 - 1809 B.C., and Naram-Suen (see § 6.2) probably 44 or 54 years, hence until ca. 1828 or 1818 B.C. Because §A's departure for Babylonia occurred after the accession of IriSum II, the Naram-Suen linked with this event in AKL must be Naram-Suen of Eshnunna.110 Since a reference to a king of Eshnunna purely as a chronological indicator is unlikely, "in the time of Naram-Suen" may be understood as indicating that SamSi-Adad's departure was due to the military pressure exerted by Naram-Suen of Eshnunna. This synchronism fits the chronology, because Naram-Suen's reign of perhaps ten to fifteen years, as successor of IPiq-Adad II, apparently fell in the last two decades of the 19 h century B.C.- §A probably stayed a few years in Babylonia, before retur^g to conquer Ekallatum in ca. 1811 B.C. The new data, including the text of Naram-
......, chronology after ca. .818 ^.^^Zanea Babylonia Mhg.
nouvellcs sur la chronologic des souvera.ns J^nunna  „       fhril ium ^mmm (Mtmoires Maurice Birot (Paris 1985) 51-66. together w.th hu observ.OoDS de NABU I, Paris 1992) 37f.
62
THE OLD ASSYRIAN LIST OF YEAR EPONYMS
Suen-s official seal (see § 6.3.e). prove that AKL's "Naram-Suen son of Puzur-Assur" is indeed the native Assyrian ruler and not his namesake of Eshnunna, who ruled much later.
As for SamSi-Adad I himself, the chronology advocated here implies that he was bom in ca. 1850 B.C., became successor to the throne of his family (ana bet abiSu imb)m in ca. 1833 B.C., 18 years old, and after having ruled Assur and Upper Mesopotamia for 33 years, died in ca. 1776 B.C., 75 years old. His active career hence spanned a period of 58 years. It does not surprise that his sons, some years after 1800 B.C. were old enough to rule parts of his realm, but it makes it very unlikely that his eldest son, ISme-Dagan, occupied the throne as his father's successor for no less than forty years, as AKL states. This long reign, if at all correct (the evidence from Mari documents only twelve or thirteen years of independent reign, at the end of which he is severely ill), must include the years during his father's lifetime when he occupied the throne of Ekallatum.
The combination between KEL and MEC makes it possible (within the framework of the middle chronology) to provide more fixed dates for events and rulers mentioned in the historical information added to the eponymies in MEC. Here I only mention that Ipiq-Adad II of Eshnunna, the enemy of SamSi-Adad's dynasty, succeeded his father during the eponymy KEL 113 = MEC A 11, or in ca. 1862 B.C. Since he is last mentioned (his death?) in MEC B *25, or in ca. 1818 B.C., this means a political career of ca. 45 years. Around that time he must have been succeeded by his son Naram-Suen, which suits the reference in the Assynan Kinglist to the tatter's rule and the pressure he apparently exerted on bamsi-Adad I, a few years before 1812 B.C.
9. post-level ii year eponyms from kanish
bočazkóy and ali§ar '
For easy reference and for future studies of the chronology of the younger period of Assynan commercial involvment in Anatolia, I present here a list of all year-eponyms thusfar attested in texts from Kanish, Boěazkoy and Ali§ar which is an update and correction of Veenhof 1998, 447f. It can be used to estimate the minimal length of that period, but the series of eponyms obviously is not complete, because they are collected from a relatively small number of tablets113 and most thusfar are attested only once or twice. Note, for example, that of the by now twenty-one eponyms known from Mari114 during the period when also karum Kanish level lb flourished, only ten115 are thusfar attested at Kanish and that in a random distribution. Nevertheless, the three sites treated here already provide us with forty different year eponyms.
In the following lists q means a sa qátě or 'successor eponymy'; month Xa = ITI Sú-in, the new level lb name of the month called ITI TVinatim in level II texts. In the column "elsewhere" the following abbreviations are used: A = Ali§ar (§ 9.3), B = Bogazkoy (§ 9.2), K = Kultepe, L = Tell Leilan116, M = Mari,114 R = Tell ar-Rimah.117 Those attested on texts from Tell Bica and Chagar Bazar118 are not mentioned separately, since they all fall within the range of the series known from Mari.
See for a short survey of the various groups and little archives which yielded eponyms.
Veenhof 1998, 440f. _       A    , r %ww     rnnrinuous scries running
"* See Charpin 1985. 243ff, with note 84 •^.^'^^S^toae- to
from Assur-taklaku and Hayamalik until warU^miust 2 Zl^L. son 0f l-l.-
Ahiyaya and Pussanum (Charpin 250). Note ako MARIS(1987) 15£ Z.
™-| ,|j 3: *e name of the fathero<.Shwnua,   « I-*-115 There is some uncertainty in the case 01 vcij
bani and Ennam-ASSur). cc        , m AAA* 30/39 (1988) 110-127; idem RA 85
IM See Whiting 1990, 184ff. and 2151; J.Bden^Wg^
(1991) 109-135, esp.l 12ff.; M. van de M«f«^^w 63 ^ ^ „#.
W See Veenhof 1985, 196ff.; Whmng 1990^9ff- and 126 (1994) 33ff.,
»« Tell Bica: M. Krebernik, MDOG 122 (1990), 67ff. 125 u» Chagar Bazar: Veenhof 1985, 196:2.
64
*«aw ítsT OF YEAR EPONYMS THE OLD ASSYRIAN LIST ur
no.
1
2
3
9.1 Karum Kanish level lb
son of
name
A-ba-a-a
Ab-Sa-gi,-i5 dAdad-ba-ni
4 A-hi-a-a
5 'A-hi-a-a
6 A-hu-qar
Ká-rí-a Sál-ma-A-štir
í J Pu-zu-ur-^A-a1
Ta-ki-ki
A-du-na-a
DAM.GÁR
7 <A-Sur-mi-ti
8   A-sur-ká-Sí-id     ZI-lá-mu (Si-S )
9 A-$Dr-ni-5u
1-lí-ILLAT-tí
10 A-šĎr-AN.DÚL     [ J-A-šňr
11 A-šur-ták-lá-ku dEN.LÍL-na-da
12 "A-ta-a
13 A-tal-LUGAL
14 A-wi-li-a
15 Be-li-a-a
Ša-ma-a i-lř-a-LIM
E/I-na-Sú-in
16 Da-dí-a
I-din-Sú-in
17 E-na-a sE-na-a
18 E-nam-A-sur
19 'En-na-Sú-in
Hur-
ma-a
Hur-ma-a A-sur-ták-lá-ku A-sur-táb (dúg)
20 Ha-dí-ú
^Ha-dí-e-em
A-hi-a-a
119
Perhaps = A-aí-to and/or
month
Xa III
VI LX
XI
vn vn
ví ví
Xa
XI
XII Xa
xn ví vin
Xa IX IV
VII
elsewhere
source s/k l:16f. 98/k 123:17 98/k 115::3? A,B,M
n/k 1566:14" n/k 27:22f. 98/k 105:19ff. n/k 10:38 98/k 113:21 s/k 10:28f.
n/k 19:12f. f/k 190: llf. k/k 18:21 f.b
n/k 9:42f. kt n/k 22:17f. EL 276:21 n/k 6:22f. AKT 3, l:14f. n/k 7:20f. n/k 30:22f. g/k 6:10 f/k 181; 16f. f/k 1781 lf. n/k 33:15f. n/k 8:12f.; n/k 9:13f. O 3684:27 AKT 3, 2:17
C,M,R R?
M
L (warh)
kt 98/k 122:19  L, R
R?
119
M
B
B(</),L,M
(the successor * in OBTR 18, 215, and 263.
9. POST-LEVEL II YEAR EPONYMS
65
21 Ib-ni-dAdad
A-Síir-du-gul
vn
Ib-na-d[Adad]     A-Šur-du-gu5-ul vn
22 l-lí-am-gurl6(KUR)
23 4I-ší-im-Sú-in Id-na-ASiir
24 IStar-tú-li-id Ša-gi-iš-ke-nim
25 Ku-ur-ku-da-nim Šamaš-sipad
XI
XI
26 Ni-mar-Ku-be
"Ni-mar-Ku-be [Ú-sur]-pi-a
27 PÍ-lá-ah-Sú-in I-k[u-n]im
ldAdad-rabi]
II
28 Pu-sá-num
29 "Sí-in-mu-ba-lí-it A.ÁŠ.KI-i-dí-nam Vffl
30 $a-áb-ri-im
PuzuivSú-in
vn
XI
Puzur4-Sú-in(?)
31   Tab-sí-lá-A-Šur Be-lí-a-a
n/k 20:19f. M n/k 40:21f. k/k 19:16f. k/k 15:12f. s/k 9:13f. n/k 12:24f. UgFo7 no 2:19 L,M 98/k 111:9 L k/k 127:10' Q k/k ll:16f. n/k 12:8m n/k 15:19f. n/k 13:13f. n/k 4:45f. b/k 2l:22f. k/k 16:14f.
120
B,L M,Lf UM
M
3 2 Za-a-a
33 Za-za-bu-um
34 [x x]-ru-um
Be-li-a-a
A-šúr-ma-lik
A-za-a
89/k 362:19f. B
Xa [ ]
n/k 21:24f. 90/k 363 r.3'
B,L
a Difficult, coll. Gunbatti. b Different from A., son of Ennam-ASsur, attested at Leilan and Assur (A 1574:5'f., from Assur, Donbaz7CS 26 [1974] 86). cAlso at Man, but outside the series (MARI4, 250) and probably identical to Pussaya in Leilan. d Written Zabzabu and Zazzabu.
120 The limum warki Nimar-Kubi occurs on a single text found at Qal'at f™V^^ 1987/37), perhaps to be identified with the ancient town of Šumat, southeast of Tell Le.Un, sec tioem
The text deals with a debt of 6 shekels of silver at 20% interest due Pussanum. The creditor is quit by a payment of 24
Kurkudanum (no. 24 above). Debt and rate of interest (disregarding possible compo imply that it was paid after sixteen years!
66
THE OLD ASSYRIAN L.ST OF YEAR EPONYMS
9.2 Bogazköy
no. name
1 JAdad-ba-ni
2 Da-df-a
3 E-df-nim
4 «E-nam-A-Sur
5 Id?-x-[x]
6 Pi-lä-ah-Sü-in
month
VIII
XI
B/Ma-x-x-a-y
7   «NPf-lä-ah-Sü-in Ikünim
8 «Tü-ta-i-a
9 ^Za-a-a
10 Za-za-bu-um
son of
A-zu-mc-a' Iddin-Suin
Be-'x- y1
A-Sur-täk-la-ku IX
V IX Xa Xa
XI
XII XI VII
U-su-ur-pi-a
Be-ru?-[ 1 ASSur-mälik
source
KBo 28, 156:7 KBo 9, 20:26f.f KBo 9, 20:10 KBo 9, 40:17f. KBo 28, 173:9f. KBo 9, 5:28 KBo 9, 4:9f. KBo 9, 37: llf. KBo 9, 3:10'' KBo 28, 183: 27 KBo 9, 27: r.lOf. KBo 9, 35:l6f.
elsewhere
A,L,M K
K,M,L
R K
"Balkan 1955, 100; Veenhof 1985, 199f. * Difficult, not the same as § 9.1 no. 3, Tell Leilan's Adad-bani son of Pussaya (L 79-183, with seals of servants of SamSi-Adad), or Man's Adad-bani, son of Puzur-ili (see Whiting 1990, 184ff.).cIn lines 25f. the date of an agreement, in line 10 that of the earlier debt-note. d EL no. 34.
Eponyms 1, 7 and 9 are on texts from the archive of Day a, son of Ilbani. 9.3 Atifar*
no.	name	son of	month	source	elsewhere
1	"Adad-ba-ni		III	OIP 27, 29:x+3f.	L,M
2	[IJ-ku-pi-a	§alim-A§Sur	VI	OIP 27, 39:13	L,M
3	Ri-iS-[dSamaS]	A-nu-pi-5[al	[ ]	OIP 27, 20:14	M
4	Sf-sa-a-a	A-bi4-na-ra	III	OIP 27, 18a:23b	
"See Balkan, 1955, 101; Veenhof 1985, 199,5. Not included is Hanna-narum (OIP 27 no. 8), a level II eponym on a tablet discovered at the same spot (P 27) as (and hence part of?) the little archive of Iddin-Kubum, with texts dated to eponyms 1-3 above. b See MARI3 (1984) 265.
* POST-LEVEL II YEAR EPONYMS
9.4 Approximate dates for kämm Kanish level lb
67
Thusfar neither the year when kämm Kanish level IK U» to an end are known. It seems likely that it ÄT£ S** ™*       * °^ t since bullae with impressions of hiSS JT^1? ?^Adlld Acemhoyulc, together with bullae with the ^0^^^^ * Assur and addressed to kämm Kanish-But probably
i°hT I^^-«-^ P-umably after having *S»S ahdun-Lim o Man,- which means m{ ^ ca ^ ß*
lasted is equally uncertain, but at least beyond 1740 B.C., since the total number of post level II year-eponyms known (those listed in § 9.1-3 plus those known from Mari, Tell Rimah, Tell Leilan, MEC, Tell Taya'*), hardly a series without gaps, is now at least sixty-five. Such a date is supported by the iconographic analysis of level lb seals.125 It also agrees with the approximate dates of the few eponyms which can be placed in a historical context. The best evidence thusfar is the eponym Nimar-Kube (§ 9.1 no. 26), attested at Tell Leilan (as Niw/mer-Kubi) in association with Senna's last ruler Jakun-Asar.126 His reign ended in ca. 1728 B.C., in consequence of an attack on the city by Samsuiluna of Babylon, recorded in the name of the latter's 23rd year. This leaves a certain margin, since we do not know the length of his reign nor to which year of his reign the eponymy of Nimer-Kubi belongs, but it anyhow brings us further down than 1740 B.C.
As with the end of kämm Kanish level II, both a purely Anatolian cause and one connected with developments in Northern Mesopotamia is possible. The former is a matter of speculation, since the period between the end of kämm level lb and the beginning of the Hittite Old Empire, less than a century later, is badly known. We are not informed about the fate of the dynasty of Pithana and Anitta,
>22 See O. Tunca, in: Anatolia and the Ancient Near Eos, Studtes in «™'£T^$: (Ankara 1989) 481* and K.R. Veenhof, in: MX Mellink e.a; <'*j^^ Anatolia and its Neighbours. Studies in Honor ofNtmet Ozguc (Ankara 1993) o4Mt P
4- ,   -  w    k„f iqqk 439 with footnote 31. If the eponym
123 See for this conflict the remarks in Veenhof MSB. «^ ^ ^ note ^ ^
ASSur-taklaku of MEC D:8' is indeed the direct P[edccess^r"D%. , .x,{anum ?). might have taken final battle with Jahdun-Lim, dated to the precedmg eponymy (D.5,11 place around 1795 B.C.      - Mn -nele text from Tell Taya, with a seal ofa
- The eponym P-allel elsewhere, but might be
servant of SamSi-Adad I (see MARI 4, 201. 8.c), is } ^ 3.
identical to the eponymy [    hdA-Sur, listed in MEC D > Kanish (Ankara 1968).
™ See N. Ozguc, Seals and Seal ^sa^^Z&. 59ff., with conclusions to be adapted to the new /^-chronology
126 See Eidem 1991, 115, on room 2.
THE OLD ASSYRIAN LIST OF YEAR EPONYMS
68
,      . .   nf 'Wnt mlcr" (nibd^um rabium) of Central
texts from Man during Zimnlim's reign (ARM1 /o/i nos. j w m . 76 B C )1 by the treaty between one of the later rulers of Senna (Tel 1 1 Assur, dating from ca. 1750-1740 B.C.- Charpin's proposa (NABU 1988/20) to link the end of Assyrian trade with Samsu-ilunas conquest of Schna in ca 1728 B C. is possible, but perhaps makes too much of the king s raid into the Chabur region. We should not forget Jamchad (Aleppo), which extended its influence into Northen Mesopotamia after 1760 B.C. under king Hammurabi (since ca. 1765) and his son Abban, who is attested in documents from Tell Leilan.129 Finally, the breakdown of Assyrian trade has been attributed to the fact that tin no longer reached the Assyrian market, due to events in Iran and/or Northern Babylonia.
We can draw some conclusions on the sequence and approximate dates of level lb eponyms which are also attested at Mari, where they occur in a fixed sequence which spans the period between ca. 1794 and 1776 B.C.130 But the fact that only two of the first six eponyms of the Mari series are attested at Kanish, reveals how limited our information from level lb still is and how urgent the full publication of all relevant texts from that period. Once this is done we also can try to assign better dates to (and fix the sequence of) the local rulers of Kanish on the basis of propographical studies, and find genealogical links between Assyrian and Anatolian traders attested during the end of level II and the beginning of level lb, as was already attempted in Hecker 1998. Discovery of additional eponyms at Kanish (note the recent discovery of § 9.1 nos. 2, 5 and 7 by Veysel Donbaz on tablets excavated in 1998) or Tell Leilan will certainly reduce our problems and provide indications for the length and the end of level lb
128 ^Wished and analysed by J. Eidem, in: D. Charpin - F. Joannes (cds ) Mar-chand, m^m^^' ^ h ChmSQti0n offers i Paul Zelli^t
are JT^t^J ca,lcd ^bbatum, which in his sources pose a military threat,
m:also mentioned in a late level lb text (see Dercksen en Donba? in JEOl is/l* ;„ u!       I T
buu of ^M^^LTf ^J?"*?,     kVel 'b ■"*»*» kt "* and kI     on .he
fW 8" to «* and
10. addendum
In August 2001 Professor M T Larwn ;„ a u
eponyms 1 to 95. He kmdly gave me a transliteration of the text, which he w 1 publish in due time, allowing me to list its main features here. The comply tablet lists the names on 44 lines, without introduction, summary and word dividers. Mistakes and omissions suggest a not too careful scribe but in some cases one hesitates between mistake or variant. The main features of KEL E are (numbers refer to the edition of KEL A on pp. 5ff.):
a) omission of eponyms: 4, 34a, 40B, and 43b-44a;
b) omission of patronyms etc., in addition to those of KEL A: 3, 6, 18, 21, 22, 31, 36, 38-40, 45, 47, 48, 52-54, 58-62, 65-72, and 75-95;
c) differences in names of eponyms and/or patronyms etc.: 6a: Bu-zu-ta-a; 21a: KI.MAS; 24b: DUMU RA (for SANG A?); 29: En-urn-A-fur; 41b: a-hu-su (as KEL D); 48a: Hi-lu-ga; 52b: sa a[t] ra; 56b: A-ta; 74b: as KEL B and D;
d) differences in spelling, apart from those already mentioned in §§ 2.3 and
4.2 (KEL E usually writes Su-in and A-sur): 10a: Za-ku-za; 12a: Qu-qu-dum; 13b:
Bi-ta-a; 15b: Kur-bi-lstar; 23b: A-ba-a; 26a: as 12a; 28a: I-riSum; 38a: En-na-
ZU; 43a: Da-we-er; 46a: Su-Hu-bur; 60a: Pi-sa-hi-lam; 65a: A-ku-a; 70a and 84a:
as KEL B. In some OA hands he signs BA, KU and MA can be very similar,
hence the variants of 23b and 65a could be real ones or less careful writings.
(October 2001)
76
TPK
VAR
Bibliography
Balkan 1955
Balkan 1957
Birot 1985
Charpin 1985
Eidcm 1991
Forlanini 1995
Frey dank 1975
Frey dank 1991
Garclli 1963
Gaiter 1998
Giinbatti 1995
Hecker 1998
THEOLDAS.SVmANL.STOF YEAR EPONYMS
C. Michel - P. Garclli. Tablettes palio-assyriemw de Kültepe,
vnL J (kt90/k) Istanbul 1997).
H Hirsch, Untersuchungen zur altassyriscken Religion {AfO Beiheft 13/142; Osnabrück 1972).
K Balkan, Observations on the Chronological Problems of
the kárům Kaniš (TTKY VII/28, Ankara 1955).
K Balkan, Letter of King Anum-Hirbi of Mama to King
Warshama ofKanish (TTKY VII/31, Ankara 1957).
Maurice Birot, Les chroniques "assyriennes" de Mari, MARI 4
(1985)219-242.
Dominique Charpin, Les archives ďépoque "assyrienne" dans le
palais de Mari, MARI 4 (1985) 243-268.
J. Eidcm, The Tell Leilan Archives 1987, RA 85 (1991) 109-
135
M. Forlanini, The Kings of Kanish, in: O. Carruba e.a. (eds.) Atti del II Congresso Internationale di Hittitologia, Studi Mediterranea 9 (Pavia 1995) 123-132
H. Freydank, Zur assyrischen Königsliste, AoF 3 (1975) 173-175.
H. Freydank, Beiträge zur mittelassyrischen Chronologie und Geschichte (Schriften zur Geschichte und Kultur des Alten Orients 21, Berlin 1991).
Paul Garelli, Les Assyriens en Cappadoce (Paris 1963), ch. I: Le probléme chronologique.
H.D.Galter, Textanalyse assyrischer Konigs-inschriften: die
Puzur-Aššur-Dynastie, SAA Bulletin 12 (1998) 1-38.
C. Giinbatti, More examples of correspondences between
kärunis, Archivům Anatolicum 1 (1995) 107-115.
K. Hecker, Zur Dauer des Intervalls zwischen den Schichten
kärum II und Ib am Kültepe, in: S. Alp - S. Süel (eds.),
Uluslararasi 3. Hititoloji Kongresi Bildirileri, (Jorum 1996
(Ankara 1998) 297-308.
11. ABBREVIATIONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY
77
Kuniholm 199
Landsberger 1954
Larsen 1976
Lewy 1957
Matouš 1978
Özkan 1993
Sever 1990
Teissier 1994
Veenhof 1985
Veenhof 1997
Veenhof 1998
and its
Kur.iho.rn 1996   P.I. Kuniho.m Anatolian Tree Rings and the Absolute
Chronology of the Fauem \/iaa-. ^uwjiuie
by      l,K- eastern Mediterranean, 22^0-718 ur Nature 381 (27 June 1996) 780-783. '
Kuniholm Aegean Dendrochronology Project December 1999 Progress Report (Cornell University 1999) B. Landsberger, Assyrische Konigsliste und "Dunkles Zeitalter", JCS 8 (1954) 31-45, 47-73, and 106-133. M. Trolle Larsen, The Old Assyrian City-State Colonies (Mesopotamia 4, Copenhagen 1976). J. Lewy, Apropos of a Recent Study in Old Assyrian Chronology, Orientalia 26 (1957) 12-36 (review of Balkan 1955).
L. Matouš, Zum System der Datierung in der Handelskolonie Kaneš, Archív Orientální46 (1978) 217-231. S. Ozkan, The Seal Impressions of Two Old Assyrian Kings, in: M.J. Mellink e.a. (eds.), Aspects of Art and Iconography: Anatolia and its Neighbours. Studies in Honor of Nimet Ózgiic (Ankara 1993) 501-502 + pi 90.
H. Sever, Yeni Belgelerin isjginda Asur Ticerat Kolonileri cagi kronolojisininyeniden degerlendirilmesi, in: Uluslararasi 1. Hititoloji Kongresi Bildirileri, ^orum 1990 (^orum 1991) 134-139.
Beatrice Teissier, Sealing and Seals on Texts from Kultepe Karum Level 2 (PIHANS 70, Istanbul 1994), 85-89, Appendix B: Eponym List.
k.R. Veenhof, Eponyms of the 'Later Old Assyrian Period' and Mari Chronology, MARI4 (1985) 191-218. k.R. Veenhof, The Old Assyrian hamuštum Period. A^Seven-day Week, Jaarbericht Ex Oriente Lux 34 (1995-1996, publ.
kt Veenhof, The Chronology of karum
•    vvyiv Uluslararasi Assirtyoloji Kongreu, Observations, in: XXXIV. uiusianuu.
1987-Istanbul (Ankara 1998) 421-450.
74
Su-Btar Su-Btar
Su-IStar Su-IStar Su-IStar
THE OLD
ASSYRIAN UST OF YEAR
EPONYMS
Am(m)aya
Ikunum
Sukutum
Enna(m)-Suen
Nab(i)-Suen
Su-Kubum	Ahu'ahi
Su-Kubum	Susaya
Subitum	Iguhum
Sukutum	Su-IStar
Su-Laban	Kurub-IStar
Suli	§almah
Sufi	Su-Hubur
Suli	Uphakum
Suli	A5§ur-idi
Suli	Buzutaya
23
74
72
114
17
53
69
72 15
40A
46
32
94
101
Su-Nirah	Az(z)uzaya	120
$u-Rama	Uzua	A
Su-Suen	Pap(p)ilum	103
Su-Suen	$illia	36
-jab-ASSur	Suharum	90
Jab-AS§ur	Uzua	D
(tamkärum)	= Abu-Salim	128
Uku	Be/ila	50
Uku	$ilulu	98
Uphakum	Soli	32
Uphakum	Ennanum	39
Uzua	Su -Rama	A
Uzua	Jab-ASSur	D
Zukua	Laqip	33
i >
12. abbreviations and bibliography
Abbreviations
References to editions of Old Assyrian cuneiform texts use the current abbreviations listed in the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary (CAD) Sigla for still unpublished texts excavated at Kiiltepe-Kanish are of the type kt aA and kt 73/k followed by a number, where kt stand for Kultepe, a (etc.) and 73 (etc) for the year of excavation (a-z = 1948-1972; 73-98 = 1973-98), and k means karum, the commercial quarter in the lower citv
AKL
AKT 1
AKT2
AÄT3
GKT
Kan is II
MEC
MHEM IV
POAT
RIMA 1
SAAB
The Assyrian Kinglist, according to the edition in Reallexikon
der Assyriologie 6 (Berlin 1980-1983) 101-116.
Emin Bilgic, e.a., Ankara Kultepe Tabletleri (Ankaraner Kul-
tepe-Tafeln) (TTKY VI/33, Ankara 1990).
Emin Bilgic - Sabahattin Bayram, Ankara Kultepe Tabletleri II
(TTKY VI/33a, Ankara 1995).
Emin Bilgic - Cahit Gunbatti, Ankaraner Kultepe-Texte III (FAOS Beiheft 3, Stuttgart 1995).
K. Hecker, Grammatik der Kultepe-Texte (AnOr. 44, Roma 1968).
Tahsin Ozguc, Kultepe-Kanis II. New Researches at the Trading Center of the Ancient Near East (TTKY V/41, Ankara
1986).
'Man Eponym Chronicle', the text published in Birot 1985. H. Gasche, e.a., Dating the Fall of Babylon, A Reappraisal of Second-Millennium Chronology (Mesopotamian History and Environment, Series U, Memoir IV, Ghent/Chicago 1998). W.C. Gwaltney, The Pennsylvania Old Assyrian Texts (HULA Supplement 3, Cincinnati 1983).
A.K. Grayson. Royal Inscriptions ^^Pf^^Z Periods, 1 Assyrian Rulers of ike Third and Second MdUnrua B C. (to 1115 B.C.) (Toronto 1987). State Archives of Assyria Bulletin (Padova).