From: owner-ane@ (ANE Digest) To: ane-digest Subject: ANE Digest V1999 #215 Reply-To: Sender: owner-ane@ Errors-To: owner-ane@ Precedence: bulk ANE Digest Monday, August 2 1999 Volume 1999 : Number 215 Re: ane ? Chronology Re: ane Liver ane Chronology Part I: Flood dates ane Chronology Part II: Varia Re: ane ? Chronology Re: ane ? Chronology -- addendum ane Chronology Re: ane Chronology ane Re: Th Deveria's hypothesis of a Common Origin for Osiris and Ashur in Syria ane The Origin of the Sothic Cycle; Origin of 365.25 day Egyptian Calendar; Mills Reply ane Dating the Fall of Babylon - glyptic -Reply ane Re: Ane Liver divination ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 12:13:41 +0300 (EET DST) From: Robert Whiting Subject: Re: ane ? Chronology On Sun, 1 Aug 1999, Don Mills wrote: >From donmil@voyager.co.nz Sun Aug 1 10:19:04 1999 Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 09:22:34 +1200 From: Don Mills To: ANE List Subject: Re: ane ? Chronology >The multiplication by 4 arises because of the supposition that >the solar year is 365¼ days long. Therefore, a correction of one >year per quarter day of calendar date must be made, to get a >correct year for the event (flood date or Sothic rising, as the >case may be). > >Almost from the first time I read about Sothic dating, this >bothered me, since I already knew that the solar year is not >365.25 days in length, but 365.25635 days long -- longer than a >quarter day by almost 10 minutes. The basis of Sothic dating is >that it takes 1460 quarter-days (one per solar year) to >accumulate a whole solar year, thereby bringing the civil >calendar back into line with the seasons after 1461 calendar >years. You are confusing two things here. What you are referring to as the length of the solar year is actually the length of the sidereal year. The sidereal year is the length of time that it takes for the earth to return to a certain point with respect to the fixed stars. The solar (or tropical) year is the length of time it takes for the earth to return to a fixed point (usually taken to be the vernal equinox) with respect to the sun. The lengths of the two years compare as follows (in 1994): Sidereal year: 365.256363 days Solar year: 365.242190 days You will see that a sidereal year is longer than 365.25 days by .006363 days and that a solar year is shorter than 365.25 days by .007810 days. These are compensating errors. They do not exactly cancel out, but it can be seen that the mean error generated by assuming a length of 365.25 days for both the sidereal and solar year is only -.0007235 days or slightly over one minute per year. Thus the cumulative error means that the *difference* between both the solar and sidereal years when compared to a nominal year of 365.25 days over 1460 years will be only about 146 minutes (let's call it 150) or about 2.5 hours, clearly too small to be noticed. The Sothic cycle is based on the assumption that the solar and the sidereal year are both the same length. This is not true, but the fact that the value chosen for the length of both (365.25 days) was almost exactly between the two eliminated most of the error arising from this assumption. This, I think, is the answer to your question. >But the extra fraction of a day means that a solar year will >accumulate in a much shorter time than 1460 solar years -- about >1424 years and ten months. Even the elapse of this period would >still leave the calendar over 30 days one way, or about 60 days >the other, out of phase with the seasons, which is why our modern >calendars have additional adjustments beyond four-yearly >leap-years. (Years 1700, 1800, and 1900 weren't leap years; 2000 >will be one; 4000 won't). Leap years are meant to keep the *solar* calendar in line with the seasons. Since the solar year is *shorter* than 365.25 years it takes a *longer* time to accumulate a full day than if it were 365.25 days long. If it took a shorter time to accumulate a day, you could never catch up by dropping leap years. If the actual length of the year is longer than you are allowing you have to intercalate more often, not less often (e.g., if the solar year were 365.5 days instead of 365.25 you would have to have a leap year every two years instead of every four). The idea of dropping three leap years every four centuries (Gregorian Calendar) is a compensation for the fact that the solar year is shorter (365.242190 days) than the 365.25 days allotted to it in the Julian Calendar. The Julian Calendar, of course, was based on the observation of the Sothic cycle because the assumed value of 365.25 days made the Sothic cycle come out right (within about 2.5 hours) and therefore looked like the right value. But this was because of compensating errors introduced by the assumptions. >Looking at it from the other direction: after 1460 solar years, >the civil calendar would still be out of step with the seasons by >about 10 days. My question, therefore, is: Do Sothic >computations of pharaonic reign-dates take these factors into >account? They don't have to. >As a side issue, I've read that both Censorinus, and Theon of >Alexandria, refer to the Sothic cycle, but assign different dates >to the start of the cycle current in their day. Is anyone able >to comment on this? Probably, but not me. Bob Whiting whiting@cc.helsinki.fi ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 01 Aug 1999 09:53:26 From: "Richard S. Ellis" Subject: Re: ane Liver Here's what I have under "divination:" Borghouts, J. F. 1995 Witchcraft, magic, and divination in ancient Egypt. In Sasson, Jack M., Baines, John, Beckman, Gary M. and Rubinson, Karen S., eds., Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, vol. 3., pp. 1775-85. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. Bottero, Jean 1987 M sopotamie: L' ecriture, la raison et les dieux. Paris: Gallimard. Eng. trans. [Mesop.:Writing, etc. 1992 Bottero, Jean 1992 Mesopotamia: Writing, Reasoning, and the Gods (Bahrani, Zainab and VanáDeáMieroop, Marc, trans.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Trans. of Mesop.:L' criture, etc. 1987 Fales, Frederick Mario and J. N. Postgate (eds.) 1992 Imperial Administrative Records, Part I: Palace and Temple Administration. State Archives of Assyria, 7, pp. fig. 19 on p. 83. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press. This is the sheep-guts image of Huwawa Foxvog, Daniel A. 1989 A manual of sacrificial procedure. In Behrens, Hermann, Loding, Darlene and Roth, Martha, eds., DUMU-E2-DUB-BA-A: Studies in Honor of A ke W. Sjoberg. Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund, 11, pp. 167-76. Philadelphia: The University Museum. Glassner, Jean-Jacques 1995 The use of knowledge in ancient Mesopotamia. In Sasson, Jack M., Baines, John, Beckman, Gary M. and Rubinson, Karen S., eds., Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, vol. 3., pp. 1815-23. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. Jeyes, Ulla 1989 Old Babylonian Extispicy: Omen Texts in the British Museum. Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul, 64. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. Oppenheim, A. Leo 1974 A Babylonian diviner's manual. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 33: 197-220. Reiner, Erica 1960 Fortune-telling in Mesopotamia. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 19: 23-35. Starr, Ivan (ed.) 1990 Queries to the Sungod: Divination and Politics in Sargonid Assyria. State Archives of Assyria, 4. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press. Richard S. Ellis tel. (610) 526-5343 Professor of Archaeology fax> (610) 526-7479 Department of Classical and rellis@brynmawr.edu Near Eastern Archaeology Bryn Mawr College 101 N. Merion Avenue Bryn Mawr, PA 19010-2899 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 10:11:57 -0700 From: "Chris Bennett" Subject: ane Chronology Part I: Flood dates Herewith a response to Jaap's latest. Like him, my initial attempt to send this to ANE appears to have failed, and like him I am assuming this is due to its length, so I have split it into two parts for this resend. This Part I deals with the use of flood dates to provide estimated ranges for absolute dates. I hope the interested audience for this discussion is more than the 2-3 people I am aware of -- to the rest of you, I apologise for tieing up your modems and disc space. -- Chris - ----- Original Message ----- From: Jaap Titulaer > For example the weird reference to 'a certain Sothic date wich utterly > destroys their/his case' has been used on and on, but then appear to be not > relevant and misleading. > The first one I heard of was a quote to a mysterious sighting of Sothis > somewhere in the Western desert, which later appeared nonsense and > irrelevant, because it doesn't even contain a reference to a king. > So misleading? Sure. I have never seen this Sothic sighting introduced into the CoD debate -- as you say, there is no king attached so how could it be useful? Do you have a reference for it being used in this context? > > The second one was another certainty, that absolutly destroys the case of > both James and Rohl. But what do we get? A floodlevel or receding flood. > Which, as you say, has a very high standard deviation (floodmaximum: > between 28.8 and 31.10 according to von Beckerath [97; p.51], two (2) > months!).. > That's apart from the deviation of the start of the flood to maximum, or > from the end of the maximum to the end of it. The deviations used are > apparently not based on a set of statistical samples, so we have to use > much broader estimates to get anything like a statistical liklyhood. > So when von Beckerath says: Merenptah (Y1-3) falls between 1345-1085 (var. > used is 260 years), we have to take even that with a piece of salt. Whether > he is correct or whether it's even greater, depends on the actual standard > deviation and observed average of the phenonemen. > > As I can't check what Kitchen actually said, let's check von Beckerath (see > below). > Using von Beck's Sothic tables, his Graffiti, and his data on floodmaxima, > what do we get? > It seems that he is still using Janssen's figures... > > The floodmaximum occurs between 28.8 and 30.10 (Julian), ergo average is > 29.9. > Observation is dated to month III, so we look in the table for 1.III and > Julian date 27.9, we get 1361 BC, we need to add 2*4 years because we need > 29.9, gives 1369 BC. > We correct for the day, which is 3.III, not 1.III, then we have 1361 as our > midpoint. > Then we use the variation given by vB (+/-130): 1491 BC - 1231 BC for this > inscription dated to year 1, 3.III of Merenptah. You see the difference > with 1345-1085? > > Conclusion: It would indeed seem that people now see it as a floodmaximum, > but at least one (vB.) is still using the wrong figures. > > By the way using your variance of +/- 140 years could almost work: > 1501-1221 and 1213 (or 1212) is year 1 of Merenptah (...). But we are now > beyond the absolute extreme of the range! > Is this perhaps an unique event? > We also (vB. says) have one in year 2, same date. They may be not unique, > they are certainly extreme. > Are we sure these are floodmaxima? Are we sure our average's & deviations > are correct? Can we trust these observations (apparently not made by > Egyptian officials). > > The conclusion would seem obvious: either these are extrema (twice), or the > events in question are not floodmaxima, but e.g. the end of the flood, or > the observers are less than accurate. > > And any 'flooddate' with a month II in it, how about that? > We have Rohl alledging that the inscription (for Merenptah) actually gives > that, and vB gives another inscription, belonging to Merenptah, which > Spiegelberg had as 'year 2, day 3, month II ?'. > Von Beck. assigns one other 'flooddate' to Ramesses II, but apparently he > is still using Janssens figures (R.II year 22, 5.II: between 1457-1158 > [p.53]) > Okay: > 1.II + 29.9 is in 1481+8; correct for four days(-16): 1473 as our > midpoint!; this gives a range of 1603-1343, clearly wrong for Ramesses II > (yet which other king of those days reign's that long, only R.II has a year > 22 in D19?). > To get to the days of Ramesses II we need a variation of at least +/-200 > years (1673-1273), or better we use a variation of +/- 240 days and we have > a range of 1713-1233 and year 22 of Ramesses II can indeed fall between > that. > Of course if any month 'II' inscription does belong to Merenptah, we have > no change in hell that that's possible, which may very well be what Rohl > was trying to proove. > > Conclusion: the variation used should be much larger, more in the range of > +/240 years or even more, not +/-130 or even +/-140. (And that's assuming > we the right event etc.) > First: Your calculations are all in error because you base yourself on a range of dates that represents the Julian dates in the 8th century BC reign of Osorkon II (Rohl makes the same error in his discussion of the flood stele of Sebekhotep VIII). Flooding is a solar phenomenon, therefore you have to make the Gregorian correction; using von Beckerath's figures again, the range is 21 August - 23 October Greogorian not 28 August - 30 October Julian, for a fixed midpoint of 22 September Gregorian, not 29 September Julian. By the 14th century BC, the difference is up to 12 days, making the equivalent Julian date 4 October. Using von Beckerath's tables, this makes the midpoint 1381 not 1361. Similar adjustments must be made in all your calculations. Second: the year 1 III.3 grafitto is the only one of this set to be explicitly associated with a given reign. The year 22 V.1 graffito could, e.g., be Ramses III -- Janssen considered both possibilities, decided Ramses II fit better, and von Beckerath has just followed him. Third: your final conclusion only follows if you accept (a) that conventional chronology is correct (!!) and (b) that the Kitchen/Rohl interpretation is also correct. Neither Kitchen nor Rohl did the calculations we are doing here. The fact that the results appear to be systematically high against the conventional chronology (OK, you only did two, but the pattern would repeat with all four, see below) says that this phenomenon is unlikely to be due to high statistical variance in flood duration -- though I also agree the sample set is rather small! So, we have two other possibilities to be considered. (a) Conventional chronology is too LOW (b) Janssen's interpretation (followed by von Beckerath) of the graffiti is, after all, right. For comparison, here are the dates as calculated by Janssen: 862: [1 III.3 of Merenptah] 23 August 1212 jul = 12 August greg. 881d: [22 II.5 (Ramses II?)] 6 August 1257 jul = 26 July greg 1158: [18 III.4 (Ramses III?)] 13 August 1165 jul = 2 August greg 856: [7 III.5 (Merenptah/Ramses III/VI)] 24/16/6 August 1207/1176/1135 jul = 13/5 August/26 July greg Just for kicks, I did the same calculation for Sebekhotep VIII. This is undoubtedly a flood maximum -- the inscription describes him wading in the waters inside the flooded temple of Karnak. Unfortunately it does not use the expression used in the graffiti, so we can't use it to resolve that issue. The wading happened in the epagomenal days of year 4, so we may assume a flood maximum of cIV Shomu 30. Conventional chronology places him some time in the mid 17th century BC, by which time the Gregorian correction has risen to 14 days, so we are looking for a Julian date of 6 October for our midpoint -- 1660 BC according to von Beckerath, dead bang on target. Which tends to support alternative (b), that Janssen was right. The confidence range (von Beckerath) is c1790-1530. But in no event do these flood graffiti allow us to lower conventional chronology by 250 or 350 years -- which is all that Kitchen was arguing after all. And that is why this graffito is an "atom bomb". The fact is that, even given the argued ambiguities of interpretation and the wide variation that exists in flooddates, there is no way to bring this graffito into line with the range of dates that we would expect to see for the period in question according to CoD or Rohl chronology. In fact, the closest you can get is by using the interpretation of the graffito given by Janssen -- and Rohl goes to great lengths to reject this interpretation in favour of one which hurts his case, apparently in order to "prove" that the sceptics are out to play dirty to get him! I do agree that it would be nice to get a larger sample of Nile readings than the few decades apparently recorded in Willcocks & Craig. I asked earlier whether anyone knows of any published studies of readings from medieval Nilometers, say at Cairo -- and I repeat the request. Such records should contain more than just the height for a given year -- given the lunar nature of the Muslim calendar I would expect at least a date for maxima. However, I think its reasonable to assume the Willcocks/Craig sample is representative until proven otherwise. Part II to follow ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 10:11:03 -0700 From: "Chris Bennett" Subject: ane Chronology Part II: Varia Herewith a response to Jaap's latest. Like him, my initial attempt to send this to ANE appears to have failed, and like him I am assuming this is due to its length, so I have split it into two parts for this resend. This Part II deals with the Shishak campaign, the timing of events in DB320, and the date of NRT VII relative to NRT I. I hope the interested audience for this discussion is more than the 2-3 people I am aware of -- to the rest of you, I apologise for tieing up your modems and disc space. -- Chris - ----- Original Message ----- From: Jaap Titulaer > > > > Well, the trouble with that is that you run right back into the Shishak > > issue. If this is all that you can lower the TIP by, then you certainly > > can't equate Shishak with any of the Ramessids. Leaving you back with > > Shoshenq I, which says that whatever chronological games you play D22-D25 > > have a net zero effect. At that point, if you really believe that post > D21 > > TIP chronology is too long you must proceed by attacking the Biblical > > framework upon which the invasion of Shishak is dated. > > I now quote from a post by me last year:"Shoshenk I's campaign in Palestine > is against the wrong Jewish kingdom, if one want to identify him with > Shishak. Shoshenk campaigns against the North, naming only one of the > fortified towns of the south, whereas Shishak is an ally of the North and > attacks the South" > A point which stands equally well against Rohl's attempt to identify this campaign with that of Ramses II's year 8. Kitchen's preface ends with a brief note pointing at N Naaman, Tel Aviv 19 (1992) 71. From memory: Naaman raises an interesting issue in this regard. Chronicles and Kings appears to have been composed in the 7th century BC. What evidence do we have that its account of the Shishak campaign accurately reflects some contemporary record, rather than a literary composition or a reflection of how some more recent campaign was conducted? IOW, the fact of a Shishak campaign in year 5 of Rehoboam which resulted in the capture of Jerusalem is one thing, but the detailed account of something that happened 250 years before is not necessarily reliable. Which brings us back to the phonetics. I'm not equipped to judge whether or not "Shishak" could represent "Sheshi" as a short form of Ramses, so FTSOA I'll grant the possibility that it can. Earlier you argued that D22-D25 should be compressed by c75 years, which I pointed out rules out any Rammesid -- you need at least (1069-925=) 144 years. Now you want a c150 year reduction. I agree that that is (barely) enough to allow Ramses XI, or possibly Ramses IX if one agrees to an overlap, and I have seen an argument that Ramses IX claimed to have undertaken some action in Palestine. But given the absence of evidence for a strong Egyptian presence after Ramses III, the story of Wenamun, and the general impression of a weakened central government dealing with massive corruption and civil war (the tomb robbery scandals, the HP Amenhotep affair, the Panehasy rebellion) neither king is an attractive candidate for sacking Jerusalem! Ramses III is the last good bet before Shoshenq, which takes you back into CoD territory. > > Now removing some more fat from D22-D25 is certainly possible, IMHO. However not too much! You still have to allow room for reasonable timescales for the attested genealogies and Apis bulls. The "highest recorded date" approach is very dangerous when used outside eras for which we have fairly continuous records. > > > > > > The evidence that y10 of Siamun falls after y10 or even y11 of Shoshenq > I > > > (Ia), would mean a further reduction by some 18 years (reign length of > > > Siamun). No evidence has been given against this point, unless one > > > discredits the archeologists that found the Royal cache or claims that > > > somehow the hard evidence is wrong. > > > > Somehow Reeves' discusson on DB320 keeps getting ignored on this point. > See > > chapter 10 of C N Reeves, Valley of the Kings: Decline of a Royal > > Necropolis (London/New York 1990). Reeves notes that the coffin of Rai, > > containing Inhapi's body, was the coffin second-closest to the entrance > -- > > which makes it the last, or nearly the last, removed from the previous > > location of the cache. Therefore DB320 cannot be the tomb of Inhapi, > which > > is where the dockets on the coffins of seti I and Ramses II record that > they > > were stored. That being the case, these coffins must have been removed > to > > DB320 at some time after year 10 of Siamun -- and the year 11 note on the > > mummy of Djedptahefankh sets a perfectly respectable terminus post quem. > > IOW there is no good case that year 10 of Siamun falls after year 11 of > > Shoshenq I, quite the reverse. > > No, #2 is Inhapi, #4 is Seti I, in the cluster at the entrance; then > further down the tomb some unidentified mumies, and in a side'room' are > most of the famous mumies (D18/19/20, among which Amenhotep I and Ramesses > II, + others like Pinudjem I), then at the very end we have the group of > D21 mumies, among which Pinudjem II (RIP Y10 of Siamun) and Djedptahefankh > (RIP Y10 of Hedjkheperre Shoshenq+ another piece of wrappings mentions a > year 11, king not given). > > Seti's coffin, and others (like R.II; also covered with texts) says that it > was first moved to "this High Track of Inhapi, which is a Great Place" on > day 17, 4 Peret, year 10. This text,actually from the lid of R.II, later > continues with: "...into this High track of Inhapi, which is a Great Place, > and in which king Amenhotep rests". > > Then we have a movement (again on the coffin of R.II, other text) on day > 20, 4th Peret, year 10 of king Siamun into another place ("in which King > Amenhotep is"). > On this same day the recently deceased HPA Pinudjem II is buried. > > Now as we know that P.II is buried in the Royal cache (DB230), we know that > R.II and the others were moved to that place, where Amenhotep was just > moved to, on day 20, 4th Peret, y10 Siamun. > Before that, on day 17, 4th Peret, year 10 Siamun, Ramesses II was moved to > another place, "the High Track of Inhapi". > (This is the case because else we would have moved R.II twice to the same > place). > > So: No, DB320 is not Inhapi's tomb, they first went to Inhapi's tomb on the > 17th, then they went on to DB320 on the day that Pinudjem II was buried on > the 20th. > > So my point remains: > The linen on Djedptahefankh (son-in-law of Pin.II) is dated Y10 of > Hedjkheperre Shoshenq, another piece of linen gives a year 11 (no king > given). > Pinudjem II, also deep in DB320, is buried in Y10 of Siamun. > Seti I blocks the entrance (and so does Inhapi by the way), brought there > in year 10 of Siamun. > There is really no other entrance, and it's extremely unlikely that someone > would open the cache at a later date , disturbing the rest of all these > revered kings, to remove all the blocking coffins and then burry the lowly > Djedptahefankh at the back of the tomb, replacing all the coffins, before > sealing it again, where it remained undisturbed until the late 19th > century. > > Ergo: I still think that year 10 of Siamun is after or equal to year 10 (or > 11) of Shoshenq (Ia). > This is the same argument presented by Rohl in Test of Time/Pharaohs & Kings. It accepts the SEQUENCE of events posited by Reeves: a) Seti I & Ramses II moved to the kai of Inhapi in which king Amenhotep rests b) Djedptahefankh is buried in DB320 in year 11 of Shoshenq c) Seti I & Ramses II [& Amenhotep I & Inhapi] are moved from the kai of Inhapi to DB320 The only disagreement is how to interpret the dockets on Seti I & Ramses II coffins relative to the timing of this sequence of events. The standard understanding, at least since Czerny's article in JEA 32 (1946) 24, is that the operation of moving Seti I & Ramses II into the kai of Inhapi took three days, and it is the start and end of this operation which is recorded on the dockets -- hence Reeves' conclusion that they are not relevant to the timing of event (c) relative to (b). Rohl's interpretation is that the first docket records a move into the kai of Inhapi and the second docket records a move out of the kai of Inhapi three days later, hence that year 10 of Siamun, from the dockets, is later than year 11 of Shoshenq I. Here is a fuller reading of the key portions of the dockets on the coffin of Ramses II, as presented by Rohl: Docket A: "Year 10, 4 Peret 17. Day of bringing king Usermaatre-setepenre the Great God out of this tomb of king Menmaatre Seti-merenptah, that he might be taken into this high track of Inhapi which is a Great Place......Afterwards, Mut... said: "That which was in good condition in my care, there has been no injury to it in the bringing out from the tomb in which they were, so as to take them into this High Track of Inhapi, which is a Great Place and in which king Amemhotep rests." Docket B: "Year 10, 4 Peret 20. Day of taking the god into his place in order to rest in the Mansion of Eternity in which king Amenhotep is...." Now, I don't know about you, but to me this translation reads exactly the way Czerny and every other Egyptologist before Rohl has interpreted it -- OUT of the tomb of Seti I on day 17 in preparation for a move into the tomb of Inhapi, containing Amenhotep I, and INTO the tomb containing Amenhotep I on day 20, which happens to be the day that Pinudjem II was buried in DB320 by the same group of people, hence the longstanding belief that DB320 was the High Place of Inhapi, despite the linen dates on Djedptahefankh. But, let us suppose for the sake of argument that Rohl is right, and that Ramses II & Seti I rested in the kai of Inhapi for only three days. In order for this to be true, as he himself says, the body of Amenhotep I himself must have been moved as part of the same process -- as must Inhapi and several other bodies. Then, one must explain why ONLY Ramses II was docketed, even though he must have been one of the earlier bodies to be moved into DB320 as part of this operation. Reeves' explanation has no such obstacle, because it does not require any bodies other than Ramses II (and possibly Seti I) to be moved on day 20. While I realise that Rohl's book was [semi-]popular, I have always found it disconcerting that he did not acknowledge or discuss Reeves' analysis, which he was well aware of since he had earlier published a paper attacking it, even in a footnote -- especially since he had earlier argued the issue in the same terms as CoD, and had had a major change of opinion on the matter, clearly in light of Reeves' proof that DB320 was not the kai of Inhapi. Nor did he hint that his interpretation was not the standard reading of the dockets. Instead we get a reprise of the point about the dimensions of the coffin of Seti I, which is relevant only if you think DB320 is the kai of Inhapi (Rohl's original view, which was also widely held before Reeves), but has nothing to do with the matter in Reeves' analysis. > But for even that (NRT VII is older than NRT I's antechamber) he has no > real proof, or has he dug under NRT I in the meantime? Implying that NRT > VII is older than NRT I. I agree that one acceptable proof of relative age is to find an element of NRT VII underlying NRT I. I do not understand why this should be the only acceptable standard of proof. Brissaud has his arguments based on structure depth given the nature of the site. OK, so you don't like them. I presented an alternative proof based on the pile of broken ushabtis of Osorkon II. These lay just outside the entrance to the antechamber to his tomb, and therefore in the area covered by NRT VII. Rohl uses these same ushabtis to argue that NRT VII was built after the antechamber -- but he misstates their condition. The fact that they are broken destroys his proposed motivation for the purpose of NRT VII. > Knowing know how Brissaud describes his finds, I wonder whether he dug > under NRT II to bolster that, largely irrelevant, claim. I agree its irrelevant to the point we are debating, but the observation wasn't made in that context. As I have noted earlier, he didn't have to dig under NRT II -- he could only expose that part of the lintel which did not go underneath NRT II. > > Yes, agreed. Shoshenq II takes over that spot. His people, (his son(?) > Harsiese who was dumped(?) by Osorkon II and replaced by Takeloth II ?) > dump the stuff of Osorkon II. > So? That family hardly had a reason to like Osorkon II, and besides so > what? > Osorkon II is buried, then Shoshenq II takes over his antechamber and dumps > his ushabti's on/in/under some other structure that is/has been already > there. > All this points to is that both NRT I and NRT VII existed before Shoshenq > II was buried, but that's it. > Huh?? What has Shoshenq II got to do with it?? Usermaatre Shoshenq is Shoshenq III. As for Harsiesi and Takeloth II, these are (at least if you agree with Aston on TII) Theban kings who never came near Tanis. But lets address your comment about the dump, which is the point of hard evidence. You present three possibilities. a) the dump was "on" an intact NRT VII. In that case it would have been disrupted when NRT VII was later destroyed. b) the dump was "in" an intact NRT VII. But (contra Rohl) the ushabtis were broken -- they were simply dumped. Why go to the trouble of going inside some other structure to do that? c) the dump was "under" NRT VII. There are two ways to do this (i) NRT VII did not yet exist. In that case the dump would have been disrupted when NRT VII was later built (ii) NRT VII did exist. See (b), only more so! Which leaves choice (d): They were dumped in an unused area above the already-destroyed structure of NRT VII which was never later disturbed -- my original argument. > You see I still can't believe Os.II is earlier than Psu.I, but I'am getting > a bit annoyed with all these assumptions by Brissaud, to try and proove > that the evidence that that is the case is wrong. Be fair: This argument on ushabtis is not Brissaud's, its mine. And its Rohl who incorrectly describes their state and who makes assumptions about the unusually low height of the NRT VII structure, not Brissaud. > Why doesn't he simply dig under those tombs and give us hard evidence? > Or has he already done that, but his description of that is a bit vague? > You really believe that Brissaud should destroy the tomb of an Egyptian king -- a major national monument -- to find out what lies beneath it? I doubt the SCA agrees with you! Cheers, Chris ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 10:51:27 -0700 From: "Chris Bennett" Subject: Re: ane ? Chronology - ----- Original Message ----- From: Don Mills > As a side issue, I've read that both Censorinus, and Theon of Alexandria, > refer to the Sothic cycle, but assign different dates to the start of the > cycle current in their day. Is anyone able to comment on this? Censorinus records that a rising of Sothis was recorded on the Egyptian New Years Day in AD 139, i.e. that that year corresponded to the start of a Sothic cycle -- making the previous cycle start in 1321 BC. Theon records that the "Era of Menophres" started 1605 years before the start of the Era of Diocletian (AD 283) -- i.e. 1322 BC. Close enough. Censorinus simply records an observation. There has been argument whether Theon was reflecting a real Egyptian "era" or just doing a back-calculation. The consensus today appears to be that it was a back-calculation. Chris ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 11:04:11 -0700 From: "Chris Bennett" Subject: Re: ane ? Chronology -- addendum It occurs to me that we can reconcile the one year difference between Theon and modern calculations based on Censorinus if Theon was counting in Egyptian civil years, not Julian. I do not have access to his text in any form to be able to test this. Chris > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Don Mills > first part of this post> > > > As a side issue, I've read that both Censorinus, and Theon of Alexandria, > > refer to the Sothic cycle, but assign different dates to the start of the > > cycle current in their day. Is anyone able to comment on this? > > Censorinus records that a rising of Sothis was recorded on the Egyptian New > Years Day in AD 139, i.e. that that year corresponded to the start of a > Sothic cycle -- making the previous cycle start in 1321 BC. Theon records > that the "Era of Menophres" started 1605 years before the start of the Era > of Diocletian (AD 283) -- i.e. 1322 BC. Close enough. Censorinus simply > records an observation. There has been argument whether Theon was > reflecting a real Egyptian "era" or just doing a back-calculation. The > consensus today appears to be that it was a back-calculation. > > Chris > > > ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 22:46:48 +0200 From: Banyai@t-online.de (Banyai) Subject: ane Chronology Dear Chris, I asked you which influence should the discovery of ushebtis in NRT II have upon my argument NRT VII is antedating the building of NRT II. Now that I have some idea what you meant, I am able to answer on your ushebti riddle. > I > presented an alternative proof based on the pile of broken ushabtis of > Osorkon II. These lay just outside the entrance to the antechamber to his > tomb, and therefore in the area covered by NRT VII. Rohl uses these same > ushabtis to argue that NRT VII was built after the antechamber -- but he > misstates their condition. The fact that they are broken destroys his > proposed motivation for the purpose of NRT VII. > I agree its irrelevant to the point we are debating, but the observation > wasn't made in that context. As I have noted earlier, he didn't have to dig > under NRT II -- he could only expose that part of the lintel which did not > go underneath NRT II. > a) the dump was "on" an intact NRT VII. In that case it would have been > disrupted when NRT VII was later destroyed. > b) the dump was "in" an intact NRT VII. But (contra Rohl) the ushabtis were > broken -- they were simply dumped. Why go to the trouble of going inside > some other structure to do that? > c) the dump was "under" NRT VII. There are two ways to do this > (i) NRT VII did not yet exist. In that case the dump would have > been disrupted when NRT VII was later built > (ii) NRT VII did exist. See (b), only more so! > > Which leaves choice (d): They were dumped in an unused area above the > already-destroyed structure of NRT VII which was never later disturbed -- my > original argument. You miss the point, that one at some given time point broke into the funeral chamber of NRT II- Osorkons II. The hole was made from the side of NRT VII, which was at the time point either already ruined other still constructively intact. Evidently anybody doing this would have dispensed himself from the useless part of the loot, and this would have happened, not outside, where one would have been observed by the guardians, but in the chamber of NRT VII. You assume the ushebtis were evacuated from the antechamber. In that case we should have also some Takeloth I ushebtis, presumably to be found in the same antechamber. This is not the case. According to my scenario NRT VII could as well followed the construction of NRT II. The ushebtis have nothing to contribute to clearing the chronology problem. However the retaining wall details, as we know them from Montets report, point on a different building sequence as yours. Also I don´t understand how you could still constantly ignore the antique testimonies, attesting the Nile-flood in the 1-st year Merneptahs was the highest one in the whole pharaonic history? Best regards, Banyai Michael Leonberg Banyai@t-online.de ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 15:04:31 -0700 From: "Chris Bennett" Subject: Re: ane Chronology - ----- Original Message ----- From: Banyai > > > a) the dump was "on" an intact NRT VII. In that case it would have been > > disrupted when NRT VII was later destroyed. > > b) the dump was "in" an intact NRT VII. But (contra Rohl) the ushabtis were > > broken -- they were simply dumped. Why go to the trouble of going inside > > some other structure to do that? > > c) the dump was "under" NRT VII. There are two ways to do this > > (i) NRT VII did not yet exist. In that case the dump would have > > been disrupted when NRT VII was later built > > (ii) NRT VII did exist. See (b), only more so! > > > > Which leaves choice (d): They were dumped in an unused area above the > > already-destroyed structure of NRT VII which was never later disturbed -- my > > original argument. > > You miss the point, that one at some given time point broke into the funeral > chamber of NRT II- Osorkons II. The hole was made from the side of NRT VII, > which was at the time point either already ruined other still constructively > intact. Evidently anybody doing this would have dispensed himself from the > useless part of the loot, and this would have happened, not outside, where one > would have been observed by the guardians, but in the chamber of NRT VII. My argument doesn't depend on whether the dump was created by parties clearing the tomb to bury a later king (as Rohl supposes) or by robbers (as you suppose) -- only that the ushabtis were broken, indicating a lack of respect and hence a simple dump. But, supposing it to be robbers, and further supposing (as you do) that they were concerned about leaving visible traces of their activities, then surely it would be easier to remove only those items which were of value and leave the ushabtis behind, rather than move it all to the building next door, still part of the same complex under the same guardians, and then decide what to take. > > You assume the ushebtis were evacuated from the antechamber. In that case we > should have also some Takeloth I ushebtis, presumably to be found in the same > antechamber. This is not the case. Only if there were ushabtis of Takeloth I in the same antechamber. Of this there is no evidence. > > According to my scenario NRT VII could as well followed the construction of NRT > II. Even though the Psusennes lintel in the NRT VII wall lies partly underneath the foundations of NRT II???? With respect, is there anything that you would regard as acceptable evidence that NRT VII was built first? [And in any case the debate so far has agreed to accept that the relative date of NRT II is irrelevant.] > > The ushebtis have nothing to contribute to clearing the chronology problem. > However the retaining wall details, as we know them from Montets report, point > on a different building sequence as yours. > Since Montet was unaware of the existence of NRT VII, you must be referring to something else; I assume the join between NRT I and NRT III that James and Rohl have made so much of. Looks good from their initial diagrams, but from the more detailed diagram in Rohl's book it is obvious that this is at best ambiguous, and Brissaud says the same thing in his Loch Ness Monster article. Hence the importance of the Psusennes block. > Also I don´t understand how you could still constantly ignore the antique > testimonies, attesting the Nile-flood in the 1-st year Merneptahs was the > highest one in the whole pharaonic history? Because its irrelevant -- the issue is the date, not the height. If you have been following the calculations that Jaap and I have been doing, you know that this flood would have had to have reached its peak around 2-3 months early in order for it to match the date ranges on an ultra-low chronology, which is well outside the limits of variability given by Willcocks and Craig. Also, the Willcocks/Craig numbers show no correlation between height, date and duration -- and the Sebekhotep calculation I went through (which does relate to an extraordinary flood) supports this conclusion. So there is no reason to suppose, even if the Merenptah flood was extraordinarily high, that its height has any relevance. The only way to overturn this would be to assume a complete breakdown in the normal Nile flooding mechanism -- which would demand extraordinary evidence, almost as much as the evidence which would be needed to make Venus a comet. Incidentally, I have discovered that there IS a published work on medieval Nile readings: W. Popper, The Cairo Nilometer; Studies in Ibn Taghrî Birdî's chronicles of Egypt I. According to the description on Melvyl, Ibn Taghrî Birdî listed Nilometer readings at Cairo from 641 to 1470, and Popper's book carries the data forward to 1890. I will be trying to get hold of this. CHris ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 14:28:15 -1000 From: "Randall Larsen" Subject: ane Re: Th Deveria's hypothesis of a Common Origin for Osiris and Ashur in Syria Listmembers, In 1922 Th. Deveria proposed a common origin for Osiris myth and the Marduk Ashur myth in Syria [JEA 8 (1922): 41-44.] This was followed up by Sidney Smith, and Mercer. Griffiths dismisses etymological evidence of this common origin as coincidental (J. Griffiths, The Origins of Osiris and his Cult, 91.) Have there been any recent discoveries that suggest scholars should take another look at Deveira's hypothesis? Randall Larsen University of Hawaii at Manoa ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 16:51:39 -1000 From: "Randall Larsen" Subject: ane The Origin of the Sothic Cycle; Origin of 365.25 day Egyptian Calendar; Mills Reply Don Mills and Listmembers, Is the heliacal rising of Sothis (Sirius) always a harbinger for the rise of the Nile? What is the coincidence that indicates the start of a Sothic cycle? The recent discussion of Chronology by Mills, Chris Bennet, and others has caused me to ponder the origin of the Egyptian Calendar. There is a literature review in Griffiths_Origin_of_Osiris_and_his Cult, p. 115-116. Highlights include, 1) Winlock's claim that by about 3200 BCE the Egyptians "recognized the Heliacal rising of Sothis as the harbinger of the flood." 2) Winlock's uncovering of a First Dynansty ivory tablet from Abydos: "Sothis, Bringer of the New Year and the Inundation" Winlock supports the above reading with PT 965a-b "It is Sothis, thy (Osiris) daughter whom thou lovest, who has made thy fresh green plants (rnpwt.k) in this her name of Year (rnpt)." (Griffiths, 116).] This is all very interesting; however, it does not answer the question implicitly raised by Mills answer to my post: When DO the Egyptians come up with the concept of the Sothic Great year of 1460 years? Is the concept of the Great Year an invention of later greek commentators (as Mills apparently believes) or may we find textual evidence that it is an Egyptian invention? I hypothesize a Sed Festival cycle of 28 years--a Great WEEK of four year units (7 x 4 = 28) --on the late evidence of Plutarch (De Iside Chapter 42). This correlates with a hypothesized Great Sothic YEAR of 365.25 four year periods (365.25 x 4 =1461). According to Budge "Plutarch says that Osiris lived or reigned 28 years. and thinks the number 28 mainfestly alludes to the number of days in which the moon runs her course." Budge also refers to the ceremony at the funeral of Osiris "when a tree trunk is made in the shape of a crescent, and assumes this signifies the waning moon." (Budge, Osiris and the Egyptian Ressurection, 386). The mention of Osiris in the tree suggests that the Greek author associated the regnal years of the living Osiris with the Sed Festival. "Osiris in the tree" is a familiar motif at the Sed Festival. The connection between the Phoenix cycle and the Sed Festival can be inferred by the presence of the bennu bird above the ished tree. At the Sed festival the king as a "divine phoenix" releases himself from the ished tree after approximately 28 years of rule. In contrast, IMO the bennu bird is released from the Ished tree by the King at the end of the longer Phoenix/Sothic cycle of 1460 years. IMO one purpose of the Pyramid/Temple was to measure the great cycles by observing the Celestial events. IMO the rites of the Pyramid temple were intended to assist the King in orienting himself in both time and space. The Pyramid itself was intended to be a "scale model of the universe." (see Derchain, Pap. Salt, 825, I 39). The priests' ability to exactly predict astronomical events showed evidence of the order of the Universe. Kakosy mentions that there was quite a stir among the Egyptian people as they awaited the predicted Phoenix year of 139 A.D. I will have to look at the article again to determine whether Kakosy presents any contemporaneous texts in evidence of the stir. In this year it was predicted that the Star Sirius, the Sun, and the Nile would rise together again after a period of 1460 years. (L. Kakosy, Religious en Egypte Hellenistique et Romaine (Colloque de Strasbourg, 1967) : 63) I am at a loss to explain why as Mills points out Ptolemy does not mention the stir in 139 CE in his works. Nonetheless here the period for renewal of the Benu bird seems to be 1460 years rather than the more familiar 500 years [Herodotus]. Interestingly, the "divine phoenix" goes to the highest point of the Ben-Ben stone to be renewed at Heliopolis, but at Philae the king goes to the tomb chamber for that purpose (L. Kakosy, Acta Antiqua, 16:41). The Bennu bird is often pictured with the noble Ished (Persea) tree. (See the illustration in Lanzone, lxx) this suggests a connection with the seven year throne period mentioned by Wainwright (The Sky Religion of Egypt, 78-83, 91, 106). A Seven year throne cycle would constitute "a week of years." The name of the King was written on the leaves of the Ished tree at his coronation. (Gardiner, JEA 32L50). In the Goyon book of breathings: I am the one before whom Atum has announced the Annals under the noble Ished tree of Heliopolis [Sun City] (Goyon, L 3279, 40-42). Some have speculated that the splitting of the Ished tree by the King in his role of wp ished [opener of the ished tree] (Or.(1951): 465). was intended to represent the release of the sun (and the dead) at the winter soltice. At the Sed festival I am told the King wore a menat collar of greenery as he officiated at a Shrine of Osiris named hri ib pa-ished "that which is enclosed by the ished tree." (P. Barguet, BIFAO, 52:111). The splitting of the tree by the King marks the beginning of a new cycle. My questions to the list: 1)When DO the Egyptians come up with the concept of the Sothic Great year of 1460 years? 2)Is the concept of the Great Year an invention of later greek commentators (as Mills apparently believes) or may we find textual evidence that it is an Egyptian invention? 3) Was the "confusion" of the symbolic Phoenix cycle of 500 years and the Sothic cycle a late aberration? 4) Does my hypothesis of a great Week of four year periods--the Sed Festival cycle have merit? Incidently I would be interested in doing a statistical study to determine how likely it would be for the Egyptians to come up with the 365.25 day year simply from averaging the number of days between the risings of the Nile. The uncovering of published tables of medieval data is encouraging. Randall Larsen University of Hawaii at Manoa larsenr@hawaii.edu Mills email reply is appended. From the text it is apparent that Mills intended to post this to the list; however, it was inadvertently sent only to me. - -----Original Message----- From: Don Mills To: Randall Larsen Date: Saturday, July 31, 1999 11:36 PM Subject: Re: ane ? Chronology >Randall Larsen wrote, > >« Kakosy mentions that there was quite a stir among the Egyptian people as >they awaited the predicted Phoenix year of 139 A.D. » > > >I suspect this represents an imaginative reconstruction on Kakosy's part. > >To the best of my (admittedly scant) knowledge, there is *no* native >Egyptian description, or even mention of the existence, of the Sothic cycle. >The first intimation of its existence that we know of is in the *De Die >Natali* of an obscure mid-3C CE Roman scholar, Censorinus, who described the >1460-year long Egyptian "Great Year", and wrote that a new Great Year had >begun in the year 139 CE. (At least, the notes I made a few years back say, >"began in 100th year before", meaning before the date of *De Die Natali*, >which is dated to 238 CE. Did Censorinus give an exact date, I wonder, or >is it *assumed* that his 100 years is exact? Given that it's so convenient >a number, there must be a suspicion that it's an approximation.) > >One thing notable about the date 139 A.D: it was right in the middle of the >career of Claudius Ptolemy, the Alexandrian astronomer ("floreat AD >127--145", according to Britannica). If there was indeed "a stir among the >Egyptian people as they awaited" such an important astronomical and >calendrical phenomenon as the revolution of great cycle, then it's >remarkable how it utterly escaped mention in any of Ptolemy's works. > >Theon of Alexandria, a 4C mathematician whom I mentioned in my prior posting >(father, I believe, of the famous Hypatia), wrote of the period by which, >through disregard of the true length of the year, the residual error will >accumulate to a full year. This looks like a description of the Sothic >cycle; if this surmise is correct, then Theon is the only "Egyptian" ever to >mention the Sothic cycle. (He was, of course, a Greek.) But according to >Theon, the most recent conclusion of such a cycle was in 26 BCE, which is >165 years earlier than the date given by (or computed from) Censorinus. >Hence the supplementary question in my previous posting. > >Does any list member know how this apparent discrepancy is reconciled? Is >Theon ignored, or is his statement interpreted to mean something different >from its face value? > > >Randall continued, > >« In this year it was predicted that the Star Sirius, the Sun, and the >Nile would rise together again after a period of 1460 years. (L. Kakosy, >Religious en Egypte Hellenistique et Romaine (Colloque de Strasbourg, 1967) >: 63). // I notice that 1460 years is exactly 365 four year periods while >the Sed festival cycle of 28 years is exactly 7 four year periods. > >« In the Sed Festival the king circumabulated the walls four times. >(Bleeker, Egyptian Festivals, 102-104). From this Four times >circumambulation I infer a four year unit for the measurement of great >cycles. > >« Does it take exactly 365 1/4 four year periods or 1461 years for the nile >maximum to coincide with the heliacal rising of Sirius? » > >Any comment from the list regarding Randall's surmise, and his final >question? > >Regards, > >Don Mills >Wellington >New Zealand > > Randall Larsen University of Hawaii at Manoa larsenr@hawaii.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 00:12:48 -0400 From: Rudolf Mayr Subject: ane Dating the Fall of Babylon - glyptic -Reply To E. Adams, and anyone else who might be following this.... first of all, thanks! I' enjoyed the chance to discuss aspects of glyptic, and its (often doubtful!) wider significance. Nice change from my usual Ur III turf! Like Adams, in an attempt to keep the reply short, I'll first address a specific remark and then move on to a bigger issue: E. Adams wrote: >>On Matthews and the theory of the 2nd Kassite seals as used by the >>official bureaucracy and the long inscription prayer LOB type seals as >>personal,I think that is in the section called Seal Use in his 1992 >>Kassite Glyptic from Nippur? I don't think it was what you assumed, >>that a given person used one seal for personal use and one for official >>use. I thought the idea was just that SK was at first confined to use by >>bureaucrats and that the population at large used the other types. Yep, quite right, I have now found it and read it while trying to get my son to settle down for his nap this afternoon. It's quite interesting and, like most of Matthews's work, strikes me as intelligent and reliable. I wish I had the time to go over all the data and see if I reach the same conclusions... but it's not an option. (E. Adams:) >>Now for general stuff. To tell the truth I'm not terribly interested >>in the chronology question except as it relates to synchronisms with >>Egyptian, Anatolian, Elamite etc. history. And since synchronisms, >>when they do turn up, are the answer to answer all arguments, I wish >>we wouldn't tamper in the meantime, creating confusion with differing >>chronologies being used at the same time. If we could just admit >>our present construct is an artifical creation, useful for organizing >>information, then we could simply wait for the next indisputable proof >>of how to correct it to get it more in line with historical "reality". >>Perhaps this is what the authors of DFOB are in part doing, trying >>to accomodate all known synchronisms - i.e. that great fold out chart >>in the rear pocket... I agree with almost all of that. Chronology isn't interesting; in fact, much of it is quite tedioust. And I have to add, in honesty, that even synchronisms don't hold my interest for long, maybe because they are so rare.... I think a common, and sensible, response to the chronology question is something like, 'let's not worry about this now, it will all come out in the wash.' I agree, but the evidence is accumulating, and may have reached a point where it should be reexamined. I don't have a problem with using the Middle Chronology as a standard time line on which we can place specific events, and so simplify our thought processes. But I do have a problem with using it as a crutch, thus rendering further thought unnecessary. In this way, I think the Middle Chronology starts to have a negative affect. For an example, I think placing the Ur III period in the 'third millennium' has an effect of allowing us to ignore continuities between the time of the Ur III and Isin I dynasties. Obviously, it doesn't really matter whether they're in the same millennium or not. Just as obviously, it doesn't matter whether you lump the Isin I dynasty with the OB period or the Neo-Sumerian period, as long as you recognize it as transitional. But, even so, I think the current fashion, of counting the Isin I dynasty as the first part of the Old Babylonian period, is based in large part on the convenience of the year 2000 B.C. Kind of a proto-Y2K glitch. Jumping to a point you made at the end of your reply, (E. Adams:) >>We need to junk the use of OB as a chronological term- >>too restricted geographically, and with too many cultural connotations >>which are irrelevant to the southern, eastern,and northeastern >>"peripheries" - whose periphery? Babylon was peripheral to these >>areas! I disagree; OB is an okay term for a certain phenomenon that was clearly larger than the city of Babylon or, for that matter, than the whole First Dynasty of Babylon. In some ways (in glyptic, for example) the term 'Old Babylonian' is used parallel with 'Old Syrian' and 'Old Elamite,' which somehow makes it okay, I think. The connotations of terms need not be directly parallel; Old Assyrian, for example, is a very limited phenomenon, in contrast to Old Babylonian. Let's be sensible; we needn't discuss whether Shamshi-Adad (for example) is part of the OB phenomenon rather than the OA, but it is good to remember that most of the reign of Sargon of Akkad is/was 'Pre-Sargonic' in character. I ramble; I apologize. The point I want to make is: I think we have a pretty good idea about when the Ur III period was, and how it related to what came before and after. As much as we know about it, there are some uncertainties. I think it is a bad idea to try for precision where the real goal is accuracy, and so it bothers me that (for example) on the cover of the volume of the Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia that deals with the Ur III period, are the words "Ur III Period (2112-2004 B.C.)." I get a mild queasy feeling when I see specific, Julian calendar years being used for the Ur III period. The use of these dates clearly puts precision before accuracy. It bothers me because I think we just don't know THAT well when the Ur III period was. If the Middle Chronology is so commonly accepted that it has been 'carved in stone' as on the cover of RIME 3/2, then I think it has become an impediment to our understanding ancient Mesopotamia. And, so, IMO, it should be carefully reexamined and, if found wanting, it should be rejected ASAP. Gasche et al have reexamined it and rejected it; they have even gone so far as to offer an alternative! I applaud them. I don't really care whether the chronology they propose is perfect; but I am sure that they have done us all a favor by presenting a serious challenge, and a useable alternative, to the Middle Chronology. >>My problem is with the concept of "rates of change," when you have >>the traumatic intimacy of two or more very different cultural groups >>thrown together in situations of conquest, domination, caste systems, >>ethnic apartheid or coexistence, whatever. If we were judging a >>single culture and had some idea of the rate of change in a given set >>of artifacts over time, so that we could extrapolate forward - even >>that is full of pitfalls. But in a case where we have three or four >>unknown cultures in an largely unknown relationship to each other, as >>in this case, what can we say? Cultural and artifactual change >>speeds up enormously at times of interculturation [according to >>Ayoub's master chart, some 74 out of 159 different pottery types >>ceased with the end of the OB, a much higher figure than we find at >>earlier transitions such as Ur III/ I-L, when it is c. 20% ]. You make a good point, in general, and many good points specifically. I will address only one of your questions, namely the (rhetorical) 'what can we say?'... I am not about to study chronology for its own interest; but I have a goal to listen to every serious opinion, in hopes of coming to some sort of a synthetic conclusion about chronology. I think Gasche et al have supplied one such serious opinion. I think Cuniholm et al have supplied another. To this, as an exercise, I add my own opinion; I concede that it is logically vulnerable, but that's the best I can do with the evidence. I've been studying this stuff for several years, and I have looked at a lot of evidence and, IMO, the chronology offered by Gasche et al is more plausible than the popular favorite. What more can I say? Thanks again! Rudi Mayr Lawrenceville, NJ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 09:06:20 +0200 (MEST) From: Joachim Friedrich Quack Subject: ane Re: Ane Liver divination I would like to add one item to the list of works on divination: A. v. Lieven, Divination im Alten Ägypten, Altorientalische Forschungen 1999. Besides, there is no direct evidence for liver divination ever practiced in Ancient Egypt. As indirect evidence, we have an inscription of Assarhaddon wich seemingly states that he deported baru-priests (specialists for liver divination?) from ancient Egypt - but he might mean specilists in other kinds of ritual/divination. Further, we have a note in Diodor, book I, that when the egyptian king made offerings, a priest would declare the omina auspicious - that might imply some sort of extispy. Finally, Cicero, De divinatione mentions the Egyptians as people practicing liver omina. Joachim Quack Aegyptologisches Seminar Altensteinstr. 33 D-14195 Berlin ------------------------------ End of ANE Digest V1999 #215 **************************** Back issues are available on the Oriental Institute World-Wide Web (WWW) site at: http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/ANE/OI_ANE.html