From: owner-ane@ (ANE Digest) To: ane-digest Subject: ANE Digest V1998 #106 Reply-To: Sender: owner-ane@ Errors-To: owner-ane@ Precedence: bulk ANE Digest Saturday, April 18 1998 Volume 1998 : Number 106 Re: ane "my song"/ZMR ane: Neo-Babylonian chronology Re: ane "my song"/ZMR ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 18:23:40 +0300 From: Naccache Subject: Re: ane "my song"/ZMR There is one unsupported, albeit common, assumption in Peter Daniels recent postings of Thu, 16 Apr 1998: >The two roots are true homonyms: *z and *d_ merged in Hebrew as /z/; > homonymy *is* a >synchronic phenomenon. What possible use does the distinction between >"apparent" and "real" homonymy have? It's not accessible to any user of >a language except (maybe) a philologist who happens to know a >corresponding pair of words in some closely related language, or perhaps >the language contact history of the language in question. This assumption is that the graphic media in which the ancient Mashriqian linguistic instances were written represented the full phonemic set of the spoken languages at the time these were written. /z/ and /d_/ (or /`/ and /g`/, or /h./ and /h-/) have indeed merged in modern Israeli Hebrew (and also in some other modern instances). However, this does not mean that they had merged when "Eastern Canaanite," for example, was a spoken language, some 2,000 years ago (i.e, it does not mean that the phonetic difference was not accessible to the users of the vernaculars). A strong case can be made showing that the present-day merger has much to do with the fact that the present-day instances in which the merger occurs have been preserved for a long while only, or mainly, in a written form. In that perspective, Cohen's distinction between "apparent" and "real" homonymy does not violate Whiting's reminder that "homonymy has to do with sounds, not etymology," but serves to remind us that we should not confuse "writing" with "language." Without going into any details, let me just point out two line of argumentation that could be developed to support this view: - The coexistence of the long and short alphabet at Ugarit. - The recent recognition that Classical Arabic is not "Proto-Semitic," but a late development. Sincerely, Albert Naccache Lebanese University anaccash@dm.net.lb ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 23:39:50 +0200 From: Rolf Furuli Subject: ane: Neo-Babylonian chronology Dear list-members, After a halt of several years I have returned to chronology studies, and would like some input as to the state of the art. The pivotal points of the Neo-Babylonian chronology is created by two astronomical diaries: (1) Strm Kambyses 400, which has astronomical observations for the 7th year of Cyrus` son Cambyses. The obeservations fit the year 523/22, and on the basis of these observations the fall of Babylon can be dated to the year 539 BCE. (2) VAT 4956, which has astronomical observations that fit the year 567/566, and connects this year with the 37th year of king Nebukadnezzar. These two tablets accord well with Parker and Dubberstein`s chronology based upon Babylonian business tables which suggest the following reigns: Nebukadnezzar reigned until day 26, month 6, year 43. Amel-Marduk reigned until day 17, month 5, year 2. Nergal-shar-usur reigned until day 6, month 1, year 4. Labashi-Marduk reigned between day 23, month 1 and day 12, month 2, accession year. Nabunaid reigned until day 17, month 7, year 17. Some tablets published in the last two decades create some problems for this chronology (Catalogue of the Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum, Vol VI Tablets from Sippar 1, 1986 Erle Leichty, Vol VI Tablets from Sippar 2, 1987, Erle Leichty and A.K. Grayson, Vol VIII Tablets from Sippar 3, 1988, Erle Leichty, J.J. Finkelstein and C.B.F. Walker): Amel-Marduk , day ? , month 5, accession year, (BM 58872 ) Amel-Marduk, day 5, month 4 (possibly 6), accession year, (BM 65270) Amel-Marduk day 20, month 5, accession year, (BM 75322). Amel-Marduk, day 8, month 7, year 2, (BM 75106) Amel-Marduk, day 17?, month 10, year 2, (BM 61325) Nergal-shar-usur, day 4, month 2, accession year, (BM 75489 ) Nergal-shar-usur, day?, month 2, year 4, ( Evetts 1892, Inscriptions of the Reigns of Evil Merodak, Neriglissar and Laborosoarochod) Labashi-Marduk, day 9, month 3, accession year Labashi-Marduk, day 12, month 3, accession year Nabunaid, day 18, month 3, accession year, (BM 75214) Nabunaid, day?, month 9, year 17, (BM 74951). Between all these kings are there problems. Taken at face value, the tablets suggest that Amel-Marduk started to reign one or two months before Nebukadnezzar died and continued to reign 5 months longer than PD suggests. Nergal-shar-usur started to reign 3 months before Amel-Mardukīs death (traditionally fixed) and 8 months before the last dated tablet in Amel-Mardukīs reign. Nergal-shar-usur reigned a month longer than suggested by PD, and the two or three months of Labashi Marduk in the same year create problems because the first tablet of Nabonaid is dated to day 18, month 3. accession year. Nabonaid reigned two months longer than suggested by BD. How can we explain these discrepancies? One possibility is that one or more extra kings reigned between two of those mentioned on the list, to the effect that the Neo-Babylonian chronology must be extended. Do we have any candidates? BM 56709 is dated at Borsippa, day?, month 12, year 1 of a king with the name Marduk (the rest is broken). This tablet is probably Neo-Babylonian. There is no king from this period with Marduk first in his name. R.P. Dougherty, (1929, Nabonidus and Belshazzar) mentions a king with the name Marduk-shar-usur based on the reading of W.S.C. Boscawen ("Babylonian Dated Tablets and the Canon of Ptolemy" Transactions of the Society of biblical Archaeology, 1877, 1-79). It was suggested that Marduk-shar-usur was a misreading for Nergal-shar-usur. Boscaven reads AMAR-UTU and the closest candidates representing Nergal are GIR4-KU and U-GUR, but if a tablet is undamaged, it is difficult to confuse these with AMAR-UTU. Another candidate is Bel-shum-ishkum, Nergal-shar-usurīs father, who probably married the daughter of Nebukadnezzar and who is called shar babili. Bel-shar-usur, who actually reigned in Babylon for several years while his father Nabonaid was in Teima is for instance never called "king of Babylon". I realize that the Neo-Babylonian chronology is one of the most firmly established chronologies in the ancient world, and therefore I will be very happy for suggestions which can solve the problems mentioned above. Regards Rolf Furuli Lecturer in Semitic languages University of Oslo rolf.furuli@east.uio.no . ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 19:28:16 -0400 From: "Peter T. Daniels" Subject: Re: ane "my song"/ZMR Naccache wrote: > > There is one unsupported, albeit common, assumption in Peter Daniels recent > postings of Thu, 16 Apr 1998: > > >The two roots are true homonyms: *z and *d_ merged in Hebrew as /z/; > This assumption is that the graphic media in which the ancient Mashriqian > linguistic instances were written represented the full phonemic set of the > spoken languages at the time these were written. > > /z/ and /d_/ (or /`/ and /g`/, or /h./ and /h-/) have indeed merged in > modern Israeli Hebrew (and also in some other modern instances). However, > this does not mean that they had merged when "Eastern Canaanite," for > example, was a spoken language, some 2,000 years ago (i.e, it does not mean > that the phonetic difference was not accessible to the users of the > vernaculars). If *z and *d_ hadn't merged, why wouldn't the letters (which had been available in the Ur-alphabet that turned into Ugaritic in the north and ESA and ONA in the south) have been preserved as well? Why wouldn't there be evidence from transcriptions into other languages/scripts as there is for `ayin vs. ghain, or from spelling mistakes as for sin and samech? (I don't recall whether there's evidence about *h. vs. *x!) It really does seem safe to say that this was a true merger (and thus that there was a pair of homonyms here). - -- Peter T. Daniels grammatim@worldnet.att.net ------------------------------ End of ANE Digest V1998 #106 **************************** Back issues are available on the Oriental Institute World-Wide Web (WWW) site at: http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/ANE/OI_ANE.html