5 The Illinois itinerary (principally the addition by Hallo, W. W., JCS 18 (1964), 72, 73, and 83Google Scholar) and ARM V, 43.Google Scholar Hallo's reconstruction of the relevant portion of the itinerary, as Mr. Oates first observed, is incompatible with the terrain west of Mosul. The expedition, after leaving its boats at Ekallatum, must have followed a more direct line towards Apku, along one side of Jebel Qaiyara; the key-site of Zanipa or Salipa, which seems to reappear on the return journey, must therefore have been somewhere south of Apku, definitely not at Eski Mosul. Coming back the expedition perhaps crossed the north of the Sinjar-Tell 'Afar plain; Adu, the stage after Zanipa, can still be near the Tigris, though some may fancy the large Old Babylonian site at Adayya marked on Pl. LXXVII. It is worth repeating that the Tigris route further south, between Assyria and Babylonia, was by no means as convenient as is widely imagined; it was used on this itinerary, but includes natural obstacles which made it, as Nabopolassar discovered in 615, very dangerous against opposition. Armies normally preferred the long way round by Kirkuk, from which Ekallatum is just as accessible as Ashur. ARM V, 43Google Scholar, lists Apku, Zanipa, and Sanduwatum (nearer Ashur) as territories threatened, after Shamshi-Adad's death, by what would seem to be the south-eastwards advance of a Zimri-lim adherent, perhaps the treacherous Bunu-Ishtar. As Apku and Zanipa were both in one province, the latter site was probably also north-east of the hills.