KAV 21-24, Paqaha, etc.
Sat May 26, 2012 01:52
112.198.82.209
Hi Werner
Werner: I have a ruptured finger ligament, so please excuse the short answer.
Yes of course. I hope things improve.
TT: All Millard says is that Jakob-Rost checked his arrangement of the various fragments (shown on Plate 7) and that he disagreed with Millard's placement of VAT 11260B.
Werner: I assume that you refer to the statement that she (!) 'had reservations about the placement of the lower left piece'. This probably concerns VAT 11260A (lower left on Plate 7). I hope that VAT 11260B is still extant, but I doubt that Jakob-Rost saw it.
Lower left piece not lowest left piece. Last partially preserved name on VAT 11259B col. IX is [m.nergal-šarru]-usur. First partially preserved name on VAT 11260A col. IX is [m.]abi-ra-[m]e. As convention says these are the years 678 and 677 respectively it is impossible to question Millard's placement of VAT 11260A with respect to VAT 11259B (and KAV 21) unless one believes extra lines (i.e. years) should be inserted between the two aforementioned limmus in col. IX.
TT: Ungnad did see VAT 11260B.
Werner: No, he only used Schroeder's publication.
The copies do not reflect the true shape of the fragments (Reade, Finkel, Brinkman). For example, KAV 21 (four pieces that join) cannot have two completely different shapes and different measurements yet they do in Schroeder's hand drawn copies. Zawadzki is correct that the copy of VAT 11260B does not have enough room for "[54]2 years". How could Ungnad, using only Schroeder's publication, determine with that such a number would fit without any problem at all if he never collated VAT 11260B?
TT: Bel-tarsi-iluma in col. VII aligned with Nergal-ilaya in col. VI is not really possible unless you believe Nergal-nirka-da''in or Tab-belu should be omitted in col. VI.
Werner: The arrangement I got has all of VAT 11255 one line further down than what you have.
That arrangement would eliminate Nergal-alik-pani or Bur-Ramman from the limmu-list.
TT: The name Aššur-taklak ends with a vertical wedge. Traces of that wedge are visible on VAT 11256
Werner: I agree
TT: confirming that Bel-tarsi-iluma in col. VII aligns with Nergal-nirka-da''in in col. VI.
Werner: This argument uses your hypothetical rescaling of Schroeder's drawing. I assume Millard used Schroeder's scale and Jakob-Rost confirmed it.
Millard's Plate 7 aligns Bel-tarsi-iluma in col. VII with the missing line in col. VII where Tab-belu would have appeared. He does not align Bel-tarsi-iluma with Nergal-ilaya on VAT 11256, which I understand is your arrangement. He also does not line up Aššur-taklak with the trace of the vertical wedge on VAT 11256 which is on the same line as Dayan-Ninurta. Aššur-taklak is five lines (years) up from Ninurta-ilaya on KAV 21. Millard lines Ninurta-ilaya up with Ninurta-eteranni on VAT 11256. Ninurta-eteranni is six lines down from the vertical wedge on VAT 11256. So one cannot agree that the surviving veritcal wedge is the end of the name Aššur-taklak and at the same time agree with Millard's arrangement.
As for the rescaling, the drawings have to be rescaled as I pointed out from the example of the different shapes of KAV 21 seen in Schroeder's publication. It is physically impossible for one piece to have two different shapes. Another example is the photograph of eponym chronicle B1 (K51 = Ungnad Cd) compared to the drawings of B1 in Millard (Plates 11 and 12). The drawings are seriously distorted (elongated in this case), way off from the actual shape of the tablet.
TT: I don't think there is any problem here with Paqaha as a solution to the non-existent limmu "Adad-belu-KUR".
Werner: I'd like to see a graphical reconstruction. I myself could not make it work, though I liked the idea.
My pleasure...
http://postimage.org/image/shufd5vfh/
TT: How can space on the edge of col. X possibly be available for the "Assur-gim"..but there not be space..for.. 542 or 572?
Werner: The width of gimilli = SHU is preserved (the bracket in [gim]illi concerns the upper part),
The bracket concerns the missing lower part.
Werner: so one only needs extra space for 'Assur'.
And probably space also for "ša" and definitely the masculine determinative ... "[ša m.aš+šur-gim]illi-tirra.RA" (of Aššur-gimilli-tirra).
This is less than the space for 5 ME 40 or 5 ME 70.
What matters here is the width of col. X. Assuming this column was the same width as all the other columns on the tablet, and this has to be the case even without taking into consideration the width of names like "m.tukul-ti-d.ninurta" and "m.aš+šur-gimilli-tirra.RA", the shape of VAT 11260B is obviously incorrectly drawn and its left edge is further to the left of the first partially preserved wedge than the drawing shows. As it stands, the width of col. X on VAT 11260B is drawn to little more than half the width of all the other columns. This is not physically possible. It would mean col. I on the obverse (which corresponds with col. X on the reverse) was the same width.
As you say, Ungnad thought that 542 might fit.
His conviction appears stronger than "might", and clearly not because he was using only on the drawing of VAT 11260B in Schroeder's publication.
Regards Tory
Werner: I have a ruptured finger ligament, so please excuse the short answer.
Yes of course. I hope things improve.
TT: All Millard says is that Jakob-Rost checked his arrangement of the various fragments (shown on Plate 7) and that he disagreed with Millard's placement of VAT 11260B.
Werner: I assume that you refer to the statement that she (!) 'had reservations about the placement of the lower left piece'. This probably concerns VAT 11260A (lower left on Plate 7). I hope that VAT 11260B is still extant, but I doubt that Jakob-Rost saw it.
Lower left piece not lowest left piece. Last partially preserved name on VAT 11259B col. IX is [m.nergal-šarru]-usur. First partially preserved name on VAT 11260A col. IX is [m.]abi-ra-[m]e. As convention says these are the years 678 and 677 respectively it is impossible to question Millard's placement of VAT 11260A with respect to VAT 11259B (and KAV 21) unless one believes extra lines (i.e. years) should be inserted between the two aforementioned limmus in col. IX.
TT: Ungnad did see VAT 11260B.
Werner: No, he only used Schroeder's publication.
The copies do not reflect the true shape of the fragments (Reade, Finkel, Brinkman). For example, KAV 21 (four pieces that join) cannot have two completely different shapes and different measurements yet they do in Schroeder's hand drawn copies. Zawadzki is correct that the copy of VAT 11260B does not have enough room for "[54]2 years". How could Ungnad, using only Schroeder's publication, determine with that such a number would fit without any problem at all if he never collated VAT 11260B?
TT: Bel-tarsi-iluma in col. VII aligned with Nergal-ilaya in col. VI is not really possible unless you believe Nergal-nirka-da''in or Tab-belu should be omitted in col. VI.
Werner: The arrangement I got has all of VAT 11255 one line further down than what you have.
That arrangement would eliminate Nergal-alik-pani or Bur-Ramman from the limmu-list.
TT: The name Aššur-taklak ends with a vertical wedge. Traces of that wedge are visible on VAT 11256
Werner: I agree
TT: confirming that Bel-tarsi-iluma in col. VII aligns with Nergal-nirka-da''in in col. VI.
Werner: This argument uses your hypothetical rescaling of Schroeder's drawing. I assume Millard used Schroeder's scale and Jakob-Rost confirmed it.
Millard's Plate 7 aligns Bel-tarsi-iluma in col. VII with the missing line in col. VII where Tab-belu would have appeared. He does not align Bel-tarsi-iluma with Nergal-ilaya on VAT 11256, which I understand is your arrangement. He also does not line up Aššur-taklak with the trace of the vertical wedge on VAT 11256 which is on the same line as Dayan-Ninurta. Aššur-taklak is five lines (years) up from Ninurta-ilaya on KAV 21. Millard lines Ninurta-ilaya up with Ninurta-eteranni on VAT 11256. Ninurta-eteranni is six lines down from the vertical wedge on VAT 11256. So one cannot agree that the surviving veritcal wedge is the end of the name Aššur-taklak and at the same time agree with Millard's arrangement.
As for the rescaling, the drawings have to be rescaled as I pointed out from the example of the different shapes of KAV 21 seen in Schroeder's publication. It is physically impossible for one piece to have two different shapes. Another example is the photograph of eponym chronicle B1 (K51 = Ungnad Cd) compared to the drawings of B1 in Millard (Plates 11 and 12). The drawings are seriously distorted (elongated in this case), way off from the actual shape of the tablet.
TT: I don't think there is any problem here with Paqaha as a solution to the non-existent limmu "Adad-belu-KUR".
Werner: I'd like to see a graphical reconstruction. I myself could not make it work, though I liked the idea.
My pleasure...
http://postimage.org/image/shufd5vfh/
TT: How can space on the edge of col. X possibly be available for the "Assur-gim"..but there not be space..for.. 542 or 572?
Werner: The width of gimilli = SHU is preserved (the bracket in [gim]illi concerns the upper part),
The bracket concerns the missing lower part.
Werner: so one only needs extra space for 'Assur'.
And probably space also for "ša" and definitely the masculine determinative ... "[ša m.aš+šur-gim]illi-tirra.RA" (of Aššur-gimilli-tirra).
This is less than the space for 5 ME 40 or 5 ME 70.
What matters here is the width of col. X. Assuming this column was the same width as all the other columns on the tablet, and this has to be the case even without taking into consideration the width of names like "m.tukul-ti-d.ninurta" and "m.aš+šur-gimilli-tirra.RA", the shape of VAT 11260B is obviously incorrectly drawn and its left edge is further to the left of the first partially preserved wedge than the drawing shows. As it stands, the width of col. X on VAT 11260B is drawn to little more than half the width of all the other columns. This is not physically possible. It would mean col. I on the obverse (which corresponds with col. X on the reverse) was the same width.
As you say, Ungnad thought that 542 might fit.
His conviction appears stronger than "might", and clearly not because he was using only on the drawing of VAT 11260B in Schroeder's publication.
Regards Tory
- KAV 21-24, Paqaha, etc. — Sat May 26 01:52