he sought support from Kadašman-Turgu complaining of the pharaoh's lack of complicity. Kadašman-Turgu was apparently sympathetic and willing to recognize the usurper as Hatti's legitimate king, motivated perhaps more by the need for a strong alliance with the Hittites to counter the threat of the Assyrians and maintain the uneasy peace. He promised to provide Ḫattušili with military support in any conflict with Egypt and “kept the messenger of the king of Egypt at bay”, i.e. terminated diplomatic links. According to Ḫattušili, they agreed that “the survivor shall protect the children of the one who goes first to his fate”. Relations must have warmed for at least a short time, before Kadašman-Turgu died, because Ḫattušili records in a letter to Kadašman-Enlil that his father loaned to the Hittite the services of a sculptor, who was subsequently returned. He had earlier loaned a physician named Rabâ-ša-Marduk and an exorcist to Ḫattušili’s brother Muwatalli II ("as for the exorcist about whom my brother wrote me, saying 'the exorcist whom my brother wrote me has arrived […] and has begun the ritual'”) but these experts were never returned ("perhaps the exorcist has died"). Domestic affairs His construction efforts are witnessed at the E’igi-kalama ziggurat of the tutelary deity Lugalmarada, in the city of Marad, and also in the ziggurat area at Nippur. A single lapis lazuli bead inscribed with the name of Kadašman-Turgu was found during the excavation of the Ekur temple at Nippur. A single tablet dated to year 4 of Kadašman-Turgu was found in the main palace area at Dur-Kurigalzu. The eighteen-year reign is confirmed by progression of date formulae appearing on more than a hundred economic texts, such as those of Irîmshu-Ninurta, a prominent official in Nippur, who recorded ten storehouse transactions, from Kadašman-Turgu’s reign, to that of his successor, his son Kadašman-Enlil II, in which he receives incoming taxes, he grants loans, and pays salaries to other officers. Chronological problems An economic text, first published in 1982 by Veysel Donbaz, has presented a chronological dilemma regarding the sequence of succession from Kadašman-Turgu to Kadašman-Enlil as it seems to place Kadašman-Enlil’s succession year in the past whilst describing events too recent to be explained by harking back to the earlier monarch, Kadašman-Enlil I, whose reign ended 90 years before the date (1270 BC) on this document. It describes the exchange of goods and real estate between Kidin-Gula and his son