From: Subject: ASSURUBALLIT Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 17:32:29 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1255" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: http://localhost:8780/pubs/journals/kronos/vol1203/003assur.htm X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 ASSURUBALLIT

Assuruballit

IMMANUEL VELIKOVSKY

Copyright =A9 1987 by the Estate of Immanuel Velikovsky

See note (1)

There are two letters in the el-Amarna collection signed by = Assuruballit.=20 These letters, though rather unimportant, are given much attention by = the=20 chronologists, not for their content, but for the name of their author.=20 Assuruballit is not an unusual name, but the existence of an = Assuruballit in the=20 fourteenth century would link the Assyrian king lists with the Egyptian=20 dynasties of the New Kingdom. Thus, the letters play an important role = in=20 conventional chronology, being the sole link in the space of many = centuries=20 between the Egyptian and Assyrian histories.

In Assyria were found king lists in which the names of the kings and = the=20 number of years of their reigns are given, and nothing more. The extant = versions=20 of the lists are of a later origin, since they give the succession until = the end=20 period of the Assyrian Kingdom.

If in the Assyrian lists there is a king who wrote letters to a = pharaoh known=20 by name, then a first and single link in the space of many centuries = could be=20 established between Egypt and Assyria. And, actually, efforts were made = to=20 synchronize Egyptian and Assyrian histories starting with Assuruballit = I, who is=20 called upon to hold together the two histories which otherwise appear to = have no=20 contact and a great strain it is: This link was destined to carry the = load of=20 many centuries of disjointed histories, not only of these two lands but, = more=20 than that, of the entire history of the ancient East for the second half = of the=20 second millennium before the present era.

Probably such efforts would not have been made to accommodate this = matter if=20 it were not for the fact that in the period before Shalmaneser III, who = mentions=20 a tribute from Mizri (the name of the pharaoh is not mentioned), the = Assyrian=20 annals are silent on Egypt; and Egyptian annals, aside from the tribute = paid to=20 Thutmose III by Asswr, interpreted as Assur (the name of the king is not = mentioned), are silent on Assyria.

ASSURUBALLIT WAS NOT AN UNUSUAL NAME

I will offer here a few observations that may erode the link. In the = first=20 place, Assuruballit is not an unusual name among the Assyrian kings. = Actually,=20 the very last king of Assyria, who continued to resist the Chaldeans and = the=20 Medes from his hideout in Harran, upon the destruction of Nineveh in=20 ca. - 612, also bore the name of Assuruballit. His number in = the=20 succession of monarchs is 117, whereas that of Assuruballit of the = fourteenth=20 century is no. 73; Shalmaneser III (- 858 to - 824) has the 102nd = place.(2) A=20 linking of two histories, the Egyptian and the Assyrian, is rather = arbitrary if=20 it is founded on nothing else than on the provenance of one name.

ERIBA-ADAD VS. ASSUR-NADIN-AHE

In the list of Assyrian kings, Assuruballit is the son of Eriba-Adad. = But=20 Assuruballit of the letters was, as he himself attests in one of the = letters,=20 son of Assur-nadin-ahe.

The idea of Schnabel and Weber that Assur-nadin-ahe, called "Abu" by=20 Assuruballit, was "not father but forefather", is a strained argument, = because -=20 according to the king lists - Assuruballit was neither a son, nor a = grandson,=20 nor a descendant of Assur-nadin-ahe. Assur-nadin-ahe II was a cousin of=20 Assuruballit and he had no offspring on the throne.(3)

On this problem Luckenbill had wondered:

In the second of the two letters Assur-uballit . . . refers to "the = time=20 when Assur-nadin-ahe, his father, wrote to Egypt." The word "father" = may here=20 have the meaning "ancestor", as often in the Assyrian texts, but even = so our=20 difficulties are not all cleared up. In the texts given below, = Assur-uballit=20 does not include Assur-nadin-ahe among his ancestors, although he = carries his=20 line back six generations. . . .

On a clay table, having the common Assyrian amulet form, we have=20 Assur-uballit's account of the rebuilding of the palace in the new = city (text,=20 KAH, II, No. 27).

. . . Assur-uballit, priest of Assur, son of Eriba-Adad; = Eriba-Adad, priest=20 of Assur, son of Assur-bel-nisheshu; Assur-bel-nisheshu . . . son of=20 Assur-nirari; Assur-nirari . . . he is the son of Assur-rabi, = Assurrabi . . .=20 son of Enlil-nasir; Enlil-nasir . . . son of Puzur = Assur.(4)

And, in Section 60, Lukenbill brings another such list by = Assuruballit of his=20 ancestors where again there is no mention of Assurnadin-ahe.

Assur-uballit, viceroy of Assur, son of Iriba-Adad; Iriba-Adad, = viceroy of=20 Assur, son of Assur-bel-nisheshu; Assur-bel-nisheshu, viceroy of = Assur, son of=20 Assur-nirari; Assur-nirari . . .(5)

DO ASSURUBALLIT'S AND AKHNATON'S DATES = COINCIDE?

Then the computations made on the king lists showed a discrepancy of = several=20 decades between the reign of Assuruballit and the time allotted to = Amenhotep III=20 and Akhnaton, his supposed correspondents.(6) When the el-Amarna letters = were=20 found in 1881 they were ascribed to the fourteenth century because they = were=20 partly addressed to Amenhotep III and Akhnaton. Since these kings, by = the=20 conventional chronology, were placed in the 14th century, the Assyrian = king=20 Assuruballit was looked for in the then available king lists. Thus, the = desire=20 to find the names mentioned in his letters in the king lists was already = there.=20 This required quite a bit of stretching. In 1917 Weidner admitted:

The dates we have established for the Assyrian and Babylonian kings = do not=20 fit those established by Egyptian historians for the dates of the = Egyptian=20 kings.(7)

In order to make the reign of Assuruballit and the time of these = pharaohs=20 contemporaneous, it was necessary to shift both chronologies, the = Egyptian and=20 the Assyrian. The Amarna Period, in order to meet the the earlier found = king=20 lists,(8) was moved back into the 15th century. For, as Professor Mahler = brought=20 out, the levelling of these histories required the placing of Amenhotep = III at=20 the end of the fifteenth century and Akhnaton in the years -1403 to = -1391 - far=20 too high by the standards of the next generation of chronologists. What = had=20 first led to raising the age of Amenhotep III and Akhnaton into the = fifteenth=20 century, then required lowering it. (Due to "Poebel's publication of the = contents of the Khorsabad List in 1942/43, which proved that all = previous=20 chronologies were too high", the age of the Assyrian kings of the period = had to=20 be reduced by 64 years.(9)) However, to lower the age of Akhnaton = enough, in=20 order to make him a contemporary of Assuruballit, was impossible because = conventional Egyptian chronology is built on the premise that Ramses I = started=20 to reign in -1322 and after Akhnaton and before Ramses I, Tutankhamen,=20 Smenkhkare, Aye, and Haremhab must have reigned. About this M. B. Rowton = wrote:

The Mesopotamian evidence discussed in this article indicates 1356 = for the=20 accession of Assuruballit I. . . . Egyptologists believe that the = lowest=20 possible date for the death of Akhnaton is 1358. . . a discrepancy of = only two=20 years may not seem very significant. But closer examination reveals = that the=20 discrepancy is considerably greater . . . Moreover if the Menophres = theory is=20 accepted that the Sothic cycle began in the first year of Seti I, the = date=20 1358 for the death of Akhnaton does not allow for a sufficient = interval=20 between Akhnaton and Seti.... But if this discrepancy is a matter of = ten years=20 or more we are no longer entitled to regard it as=20 insignificant.(10)

The difference in years would be greater if the reign of = Assuruballit, son of=20 Eriba-Adad were not already brought as close as possible to the reign of = Amenhotep IV, the incertitude in the duration of some reigns of later = Assyrian=20 kings being exploited to make the most of it, with all ruling years = being=20 regarded as full years - though kings, like other mortals, die on every = day of=20 the year - which in a long list may make a difference of a few decades. = Also, no=20 allowance was left for co-regencies or common occupation of the throne, = of=20 father and son, a possibility which is always taken into account by=20 chronologists.

Presently, Akhnaton is placed between 1375 and 1358 and Assuruballit = between=20 1362 and 1327. This enables the Assyrian king Assuruballit I to write = letters to=20 the Egyptian king Akhnaton.

However, as late as 1974, Ronald D. Long was making the same point as = Rowton:

Mesopotamian chronology . . . does not coordinate with the = eighteenth=20 dynasty chronology which is dependent on the era of Menophreos dating. = Assuruballit I and Akhnaton were contemporaries, yet if the era's = dating is=20 maintained their contemporaneity is non-existent.(11)

THE CIRCULAR EVIDENCE

Since great stress has been put on the reliance of the chronology of = the=20 ancient world on the Assyrian king lists, a lesson needs to be drawn. = The case=20 of Hammurabi and the entire First Babylonian dynasty being lowered in = age by=20 four hundred years, because of a correlation with Egyptian material of = the=20 Middle Kingdom,(12) exemplifies the dependence of cuneiform chronology = on the=20 Egyptian time-table.(13) This is appropriate to remember during any = effort to=20 fortify the accepted Egyptian chronology by evidence coming from the = Babylonian=20 or Assyrian king lists.

The following quotes emphasize the direct dependence of Assyrian and=20 Babylonian chronologies on that of Egypt:

Sidney Smith in Alalakh and Chronology wrote:

an approximate dating, subject to a very small margin of error, is = possible=20 for the period from 1450 on the basis of Egyptian chronology, = which=20 can be fixed within narrow limits.(14)

Or, as J. D. Weir wrote:

objects of Egyptian origin had been unearthed at various = levels of=20 the site. These discoveries made it possible to synchronise the = development of=20 the town of Alalak, with the main periods of Egyptian history. So = Egyptian=20 chronology could now be used as a guide to Babylonian = dating. The=20 result of this link-up was a provisional date of =B1 1600 for the end of = the First=20 Babylonian dynasty.(15)

In the chapter "Astronomy and Chronology",(16) I showed on what = unfirm=20 foundations the chronology of Egypt has been erected and how = chronologies of=20 countries that do not possess an absolute chronology of their own are = built on=20 the chronology of Egypt by the strength of archaeologically discovered=20 contacts.

A SHORT SUMMARY

ONE VS. MANY LINKS

But if it were only a matter of evaluating my dating of the el-Amarna = letters=20 contra the conventional dating, we would use names alone. The list of = identified=20 persons in the el-Amarna letters in chapters of the Scriptures of the = time of=20 the middle of the ninth century, as presented in Ages in Chaos, = is=20 imposing. Among those names mentioned in both the letters and in the = books of=20 Kings and Chronicles are such unusual ones as Jehozabad, Adaja, Ben = Zichri,=20 Biridri, and many more. And is it little that, from five generals of = king=20 Jehoshaphat named by the Scriptures, four of them signed their letter by = the=20 very same names and one is referred to by his name?

Captains of Jehoshaphat
el-Amarna correspondents
Adnah (II Chr. 17: 14) Addudani (EA 292)
Son of Zichri (II Chr. 17: 16) Son of Zuchru (EA 334,335)
Jehozabab (II Chr. 17: 18) Iahzibada (EA 275)
Adaia (II Chr. 23: 1) Addaia (EA 285, 287, 289)

Not only personal names, but dozens of parallels are found between = the texts=20 of those tablets and the scriptural narrative in the books of Kings and=20 Chronicles, and also between them and the Assyrian texts of the ninth = century.=20 Events - down to the smallest details - were illuminated in the chapters = dealing=20 with el-Amarna: actions, wars, sieges, a seven-year famine, and = geographical=20 names were compared.

Although the el-Amarna correspondence covers only a few decades at = the most,=20 the many details that could be and have been brought to comparison lend = an=20 unshakeable support to the reconstruction of the larger period covering = the time=20 from the end of the Middle Kingdom to the time of the Ptolemies in = Egypt, a span=20 of twelve hundred years. Therefore, a single name, even were it to = appear in the=20 king lists and in the letters, would not amount to much without any = support from=20 the entire sum of evidence.

WHO THEN WAS ASSURUBALLIT, THE CORRESPONDENT OF=20 AKHNATON?

Was Assuruballit I, son of Eriba-Adad of the 14th century, the king = who wrote=20 to Akhnaton?

In the Assyrian sources there is no reference to any contact of the = king=20 Assuruballit, son of Eriba-Adad, with Amenhotep III or Akhnaton, and = nothing=20 that would substantiate the claim that he was the author of two letters = in the=20 el-Amarna collection.

All her history long, Assyria was an important kingdom in the ancient = world.=20 Assuruballit, son of Eriba-Adad of the king list, is regarded as one of = the=20 greatest kings of ancient Assyria,(18) and his grandson Adad-Nirari was = proud to=20 be an offspring of this great king. The letters of Assuruballit in the = el-Amarna=20 collection do not convey the impression of their author being an = important=20 suzerain. It is worthwhile to compare the meek way of writing of = Assuruballit,=20 and the self-assured way of Burraburiash. And letters of other kings on = the Near=20 Eastern scene, extensive as they are, make it by contrast little = probable that=20 Assuruballit was an important king. But decisive is the fact that the = author of=20 very extensive letters, Burraburiash, clearly refers to his "Assyrian=20 subjects".

Assuruballit, son of Assur-nadin-ahe, could have been a provincial = prince, or=20 a pretender to the crown of Assyria. In a later age we find a prince=20 Assuruballit installed by his brother Assurbanipal as the governor of = the Harran=20 province. Assuruballit could have been a provincial pretender in the = days of=20 Burraburiash; and Burraburiash actually complained to the pharaoh = Akhnaton for=20 entering into direct relations with some Assyrian potentates, despite = the fact=20 that he, Burraburiash, is the lord of Assyria.

Letter 9: Burraburiash to Amenophis IV
31 - Now as to the = Assyrians, my=20 subjects
32 - have I not written thee? So is the situation!
33 - = Why=20 have they come into the land?
34 - If thou lovest me, they should = not carry=20 on any business.
35 - Let them accomplish = nothing.(19)

THE IVORY OF SHALMANESER

In Ages in Chaos, in chapters VI-VIII, it is claimed that=20 Shalmaneser III, was a contemporary of Kings Amenhotep III and Akhnaton, = and=20 that Burraburiash must have been the Babylonian name of Shalmaneser III, = who had=20 actually occupied Babylon. To the reader of these lines, if unfamiliar = with=20 Ages in Chaos (and he should judge the discussion only upon its = reading), it is not superfluous to report that the kings of Mesopotamia=20 regularly applied to themselves different names in Assyria and in = Babylonia. In=20 the el-Amarna correspondence, he signed his Babylonian name (used more = in the=20 sense of a title) also on the tablet in which he referred to his = Assyrian=20 subjects (letter no. 9).

Our identifying Shalmaneser III as Burraburiash of the letters and as = a=20 contemporary and correspondent of Akhnaton(20) could receive direct=20 archaeological verification. In the section "The Age of Ivory", I quoted = from=20 the letters of Burraburiash in which he demanded as presents, more in = the nature=20 of a tribute, ivory objects of art, "looking like plants and land and = water=20 animals", and from letters of Akhnaton in which he enumerated the very = many=20 objects of ivory art, vases, and carved likenesses of animals of land = and water=20 and of paints that were sent by him to Burraburiash.

Calakh (Nimrud) was the headquarters of Shalmaneser; what could we = wish for=20 more than that ivory objects made in Egypt in the time of Akhnaton = should be=20 found there.

This also happened.

The excavation project at Nimrud on the Tigris in Iraq was initiated = by M. E.=20 L. Mallowan (1959) and continued by David Oates. Recent excavations = there have=20 been carried on in Fort Shalmaneser III that served as headquarters from = the=20 ninth to the end of the eighth century before the present era.

The reader of The New York Times of November 26, 1961,(21) = must have=20 been surprised to find a news story titled "Ancient Swindle is Dug Up in = Iraq".=20 The report carried news of the finds of the British School of = Archaeology's=20 Nimrud Expedition:

When archaeologists dug into the ancient Assyrian city of Nimrud in = Iraq=20 earlier this year, they were surprised to find not Assyrian but = "Egyptian"=20 carvings. . . .

The explanation given . . . by David Oates, director of the British = School=20 of Archaeology's Nimrud Expedition, is that the archaeologists had dug = into an=20 ancient Assyrian antique shop. The "Egyptian" carvings had been cut by = local=20 craftsmen . . . to satisfy their rich clients' demands for foreign=20 "antiquities".

There could be no question that this was Shalmaneser's loot or = collection,=20 for in one of the storage rooms was found his statue and an inscription = attests=20 to the king's approval of the portrait as "a very good likeness of = himself".

Although the cut-away skirts worn by the bearers are typically = Assyrian,=20 the carvings are of a style that antedates by hundreds of years the = period in=20 which they were made. If found elsewhere, they would have been = identified as=20 Egyptian . . . they are considered to be "manufactured antiquities", = designed=20 to satisfy a rich man's taste for antiques.

The quantity of ivory found was so great that, in three seasons, the=20 excavating team did not empty the first of the three storage rooms. The=20 excavators strained their wits to understand why so much ivory work = reflecting=20 Egyptian styles of over five hundred years earlier should fill, of all = places,=20 the military headquarters of Shalmaneser III. Mallowan and his = representative=20 archaeologist on the site, David Oates, could not come up with anything = better=20 than the theory that, in the military headquarters of Shalmaneser, a = factory for=20 manufacturing fake antiques had been established.

No better explanation was in sight. Neither did the late Agatha = Christie (the=20 spouse of Mallowan), who took an intense interest in the archaeological = work of=20 her husband, know of a better solution to the mystery. Yet, the first = volume of=20 Ages in Chaos, with its el-Amarna chapters, had been on the = shelves=20 since 1952.

In complete accord with our historical scheme, Egyptian art of = Akhnaton was=20 found in the headquarters of Shalmaneser III. I could not say, "as we = expected",=20 because this was too much to expect.

From the point of view of the reconstruction, we could only wish that = these=20 objects would be found in Assyria, but we could hardly expect that they = would be=20 found almost intact in the fort of Shalmaneser III. Again it is too much = to=20 expect, but maybe there will still be found, in the same compound or in = a room=20 of archives to be discovered in Nimrud, original el-Amarna letters.

REFERENCES

1. This article was put together = from=20 several different versions written by I. Velikovsky at very different = times;=20 from a letter to Mercer written in 1946 and up to an unfinished drafted = answer=20 to Burgstahler's article in Pensée IVR V (1973) . Almost = all the quotes=20 were added, but at the locations that Velikovsky had indicated. = Combining such=20 different versions and adding quotes and their connecting sentences = probably=20 caused some shift in emphasis. Also, in combining such different = versions, some=20 changes seemed necessary; and I take the responsibility for such editing = pitfalls. - Shulamit F. Kogan
2. A. Poebel, "The Assyrian King List = from=20 Khorsabad", The Journal of Near Eastern Studies (1942-1943). = [In the=20 eponym list, as published by Daniel D Luckenbill, an Adad-uballit = appears as the=20 limmu in -786 (in the time of Adad-Nerari III), between = Shalmaneser II=20 and Shalmaneser IV. A Nergal-uballit appears in -731. Ancient = Records of=20 Assyria andBabylonia (1926), Vol. II, pp. 434,436.]
3. Though, = according=20 to Poebel in "The Assyrian King List from Khorsabad", Assur-nadinahe II = was a=20 cousin of Assuruballit's father, Eriba-Adad. I. J. Gelb in "Two Assyrian = King=20 Lists" brings the following list where Assur-nadin-ahe was a first = cousin of=20 Assuruballit:
JNES, Vol. XIII, no. 4, Oct. 1954, pp. 216-219:
69 Assur-bel-nisesu
son of Assur-nirari
70 Assur-rim-nisesu son of Assur-bel-nisesu
71 Assur-nadin-ahe son of Assur-rim-nisesu
72 Eriba-Adad (I) son of Assur-bel-nisesu
73 Assur-uballit son of Eriba-Adad
This = can be=20 tabulated as follows:
Assur-bel-nisesu
Assur-rim-nisesu
Eriba-Adad
Assur-nadin-ahe Assur-uballit
4. Daniel = D. Luckenbill,=20 Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia (1926), pp. = 21-22.
5.=20 Ibid, p.22.
6. Actually, after the el-Amarna tablets were = first=20 published, Weber and Knudtzon had disagreed where to place Assuruballit. = Weber=20 had him reigning not only in the days of Thutmose IV, but also of Seti, = because=20 Seti was the Egyptian king who waged war against Merosar son of = Subbiluliuma,=20 and Merosar simultaneously waged war against Assuruballit in Harran. But = nobody=20 could reign from the time of Thutmose IV through the reign of Seti. = Therefore,=20 Knudtzon sounded more acceptable having two kings by the name of = Assuruballit,=20 one grandson of the other; but the second was not found in the lists. It = was=20 also stressed by M. Muller and Breasted (Records) that Subbiluliuma of = the=20 el-Amarna letters could not have been the grandfather of Hattusilis, or = father=20 of Merosar, because of the same chronological difficulty: there must = have been a=20 minimum of 105 years from some point in the reign of his grandson, which = is=20 regarded as unusual.
7. Weidner, 1917, quoted in E. Mahler, = Scripta=20 Universitatis atque Universitatis Hierosolymitanarum, 1924.
8. = The=20 Khorsabad list was found in 1933 and the almost identical SDAS list was=20 published in 1953.
9. F. W. Albright, "An Indirect Synchronism = between Egypt=20 and Mesopotamia, circa
1730 B.C.", Bulletin of the = American=20 Schools of Oriental Research 99, Oct. 1945, p.10.
10. M. B. = Rowton,=20 "Mesopotamia Chronology and the 'Era of Menophres,' " Iraq 8=20
(1946), p.94.
11. Ronald W. Long, Orientalia, 43 (1974), = pp.=20 261-274; Ibid., KRONOS II:4 (Summer, 1977), pp. 89-101 (p. = 96).
12.=20 [See I. Velikovsky, "Hammurabi and the Revised Chronology", KRONOS = VIII:1=20 (1982), pp. 78-84. - SK]
13. Of this, Bickerman writes: "The fixing = in time=20 of the famous Babylonian legislator, Hammurabi, on whose dating many = others=20 depend . . . illustrates the inherent difficulty of working with = king-lists."=20 Chronology of the Ancient World, p. 84.
14. Alalakh and=20 Chronology (1940), p. 1 (emphasis added). (See also W. F. Albright, = "An=20 Indirect Synchronism Between Egypt and Mesopotamia", Basor, 99 (1945), = pp. 9-18,=20 where synchronism between prince Entin of Byblus and Nefer-hetep of the = Middle=20 Kingdom in Egypt helped date Hammurabi.)
15. John D. Weir, The = Venus=20 Tablets of Ammizaduga (1972), p. 6 (emphasis added).
16. Written = for=20 Ages in Chaos, Vol. II, and published as a supplement to = Peoples of=20 the Sea (New York, 19 77) .
17. Concerning the Kassite kings -=20 Burnaburiash (Burraburiash), Karaindash, Kadashman-Harbe, and Kurigalzu = - who=20 are listed in the synchronistic tables the following excerpts can be = cited:=20

Edward F. Campbell writes:=20

The synchronistic histories and king lists cannot establish the dates = of=20 Burnaburias' reign, nor those of his predecessors. But information from = the=20 letters written by them can give some clear information as to the spread = of the=20 letters in the reigns of the contemporary Egyptian kings.=20

It is to be remembered that this particular period lies just before = the time=20 when specific information about the Kassites begins to appear in the = king lists.=20
(Edward F. Campbell, Jr., The Chronology of the Amarna = Letters=20 (Johns Hopkins Press, 1963), pp. 44-47.)=20

Or as A. Goetze writes:=20

The names of the [Kassite] kings 16-23 have securely been recovered = from the=20 chronicles and contemporaneous sources like the Armarna letters . . . = This=20 leaves the places 10-15 still . . . open. To fill the gap attention = should be=20 called to three groups of Kassite kings of whom we have record but whose = place=20 in the dynasty still remains to be determined:=20

(a) Firstly, there is Burna-burias who, according to the=20 "Synchronistic History" . . . concluded a treaty with Puzur-Assur of = Assyria .=20 . .
(b) Secondly, the available material forces us to posit another = group=20 of Kassite kings in which again a Burna-burias figures. . .=20 .
(A. Goetze, "The Kassites and Near Eastern = Chronology",=20 The Journal of Cuneiform Studies, 18 (1964), pp. 97-98.)=20

Obviously these names are not independent evidence. In the = synchronistic=20 table published by Van der Meer, the sequence of the four kings = Burraburiash,=20 Karaindash, Kadashman-Harbe, and Kurigalzu, is exactly repeated twice in = succession, besides appearing separately in the list repeatedly. See Van = der=20 Meer, Chronology (1963), pp. 35-36. See also D. Courville on = Kurigalzu,=20 The Exodus Problem and its Ramifications, Vol.II (1971), pp.=20 316-317.
18. "Assuruballit was really the first of those great men = who=20 created the Assyrian empire." S. A. Mercer, The Tel El Amarna = Tablets,=20 p. 820.
19. Mercer, op. cit., p. 31. See Mercer's note to = the letter=20 (no. 15) of Assuruballit: "As we learn from no. 9, Burraburiash II = reminded=20 Amenophis IV that the Assyrians, his subjects, had against his will = intercourse=20 with Egypt "
20. [See I. Velikovsky, "Hammurabi and the Revised = Chronolgy",=20 op. cit., p. 78-79, about the inscription found by Nabonidus, = according=20 to which Hammurabi reigned a few years before Burraburiash. Since the = time of=20 Hammurabi was reduced from the 21st to the 17th century, the time of=20 Burraburiash should also be reduced by the same amount of time. - SK] =
21.=20 The same story can be found in Science Digest of March, = 1962.

\cdrom\pubs\journals\kronos\vol1203\003assur.htm=20