This book is a welcome update to its author's earlier work on the Assyrian yearly eponyms of the late second millennium bce (H. Freydank, Beiträge zur mittelassyrischen Chronologie und Geschichte [SGKAO 21], Berlin, 1991; hereafter BMCG). The present book is concerned with the eponyms of the period from Tukultī-Ninurta I to Tiglath-pileser I. Those eponyms are discussed mostly on the basis of administrative tablets from the Aššur temple archive (archive M4 in O. Pedersén, Archives and Libraries in the City of Assur I, Uppsala, 1985, pp. 43–53).
The book comprises an introduction, seven chapters of discussion, alphabetical lists of eponym names with citations of cuneiform tablets mentioning them, a table presenting the absolute chronology of the Assyrian kings, concordances listing the tablets discussed in the book and indexes.
Freydank (p. 4) declines to adopt a definite position on whether the Assyrian calendar in the thirteenth–twelfth centuries bce was purely lunar (without intercalation) or luni-solar. Listing the eponyms of the reign of Tukultī-Ninurta I, Freydank specifies (pp. 8–10) his regnal years as 1233–1196 bce, which means that he considers the average length of the Assyrian calendar year as equal to that of the Julian year (365.25 days). Also, the dating of the beginning of the reign of Tukultī-Ninurta I to 1233 bce is based on the low chronology of the Middle Assyrian period, assuming only 36 years of reign for Aššur-dān I – a number which is actually not mentioned in any manuscript of the Assyrian King List (AKL), and whose restoration in the Nassouhi manuscript is problematic. In his discussion of the problem (p. 1), Freydank leaves open the possibility that Aššur-dān I reigned for 46 years.
The sequence of the first sixteen eponyms in the reign of Tukultī-Ninurta I is commonly agreed. Freydank's discussion centres on the eponyms of the subsequent period. Most of the discussion is dedicated to Llop's proposal (Time and History in the Ancient Near East [CRRAI 56], Winona Lake, IN, 2013, pp. 549–59) to place the eponyms Bēr-nādin-apli and Ninuʾāyu before Abī-ilī son of Katiri, hence in the late second decade of Tukultī-Ninurta's reign. Freydank is sceptical of Llop's proposal, observing that only the eponym Bēr-nādin-apli, but not Ninuʾāyu, is attested in the archive from Tell Šēḫ Ḥamad. This objection would be valid if one could assume that the chronological coverage of the archive from Tell Šēḫ Ḥamad is complete. Yet it is possible that tablets belonging to some eponym years are simply missing from the archive.
More importantly, the recent publication of ration lists from Tell Šēḫ Ḥamad by Salah has demonstrated that several girls born no later than the eponym year of Abattu son of Adad-šamšī (the tenth regnal year of Tukultī-Ninurta I) were still considered to belong to the age-category tārītu – the penultimate pre-adult age-category, before talmittu “apprentice” – in the eponym year of Salmānu-šuma-uṣur, which Salah places 12 years later (S. Salah, BATSH 18, pp. 53–4). This time span is too large. Some of the eponyms placed by Salah between Abattu son of Adad-šamšī and Salmānu-šuma-uṣur should be omitted from the sequence. Moreover, since the eponym Abī-ilī immediately preceded Salmānu-šuma-uṣur, it is difficult to place either Ninuʾāyu or Bēr-nādin-apli before Abī-ilī. These considerations are not mentioned by Freydank.
Freydank's discussion of the eponyms of the reigns of the descendants of Tukultī-Ninurta I before Ninurta-apil-Ekur (pp. 15–28) is based, to a large extent, on the presentation of the chronology of the archive from Tell Ṣābī Abyaḍ, given by Frans Wiggermann at the 60th RAI (Warsaw, July 2014). This is important, as the archive from Tell Ṣābī Abyaḍ unfortunately remains unpublished. Another source of eponyms for this period is the Aššur temple archive M4 – more precisely, the tablets dating to the period of activity of Aba-lā-īde as the administrator of regular offerings during the reigns of Aššur-nērārī III and Ellil-kudurrī-uṣur.
In this regard it should be noted that Freydank (p. 17, n. 40) reads the name of the eponym dating the tablet MARV III 28, from the period of the activity of Aba-lā-īde, as Ibašši-ilī (mÌ.GÁL-DINGIR). In the published hand-copy of the tablet, the eponym name (in the last line on the upper edge) is shown as badly damaged, but the final sign is drawn as Ú rather than DINGIR. However, the photograph of the tablet now available on the CDLI website (http://cdli.ucla.edu/dl/photo/P281972.jpg) allows the reading DINGIR for the final sign. In total, 16 eponyms are attested for the reigns of the descendants of Tukultī-Ninurta I, which indicates that his son Aššur-nādin-apli must have reigned for four years rather than three (pp. 16, 22–3).
With regard to the reign of Ninurta-apil-Ekur (pp. 29–32), the eponyms belonging to this period are attested in the archive M4, in the periods of the activity of Sîn-uballiṭ and Sîn-nādin-apli as the administrators of regular offerings. Freydank reverses his earlier reconstruction in BMCG (pp. 69–70), and now places Sîn-nādin-apli before Sîn-uballiṭ.
Most of the discussion in the book (pp. 33–101) is dedicated to the period of the reigns of Aššur-dān I, his two sons (Ninurta-tukilti-Aššur and Mutakkil-Nusku), and his grandson Aššur-rēša-iši I. It is still impossible to reconstruct any extensive sequence of eponyms in this period, but Freydank has managed to assemble a large number of individual eponyms, covering the majority of the reign of Aššur-dān I even if he reigned for 46 years (Freydank, pp. 50–51, lists the eponyms assuming a 36-year reign).
The AKL mentions the term ṭuppišu as the duration of the reigns of Ninurta-tukilti-Aššur and Mutakkil-Nusku. This term has been recently interpreted by H.D. Baker (RA 104, 2010, pp. 131–62) as meaning “one year”, based mostly on Neo-Babylonian house rental documents. Freydank (pp. 33, 38–42) does not accept this interpretation, arguing instead for a long regency period of Ninurta-tukilti-Aššur (at least), subsumed under the nominal reign of his father Aššur-dān I. It is true that Ninurta-tukilti-Aššur is attested in a prominent position during several eponym years, but this does not rule out the possibility that he spent most of his career as a prince in the service of his royal father, and formally reigned for one year only.
The final chapter of the discussion (pp. 102–29) deals with the eponyms of the reign of Tiglath-pileser I (1114–1076 bce). The eponyms of the final eleven years of his reign are attested in the eponym list KAV 21–4 (see pp. 124–9). For the preceding three decades, individual eponyms are known, and their distance from the eponym year of the king himself – his first regnal year – can be estimated based on the shifts of the Assyrian calendar months with regard to the months of the Babylonian calendar (BMCG, pp. 82–7). Interestingly, for one of those eponyms – Taklāk-ana-Aššur, in the early third decade of the reign of Tiglath-pileser I – a namesake should now be postulated around the beginning of that king's reign (pp. 74–8).
Freydank has offered his readers a meticulous study, whether or not one agrees with all of his conclusions. It will be indispensable for further research on Middle Assyrian chronology.
