Anonymous
Re: KEL G reconstructed
Mon May 14, 2018 10:42
50.50.240.62


Thanks Joe,

I get the point on what fits and does not fit. After quite a bit of reading, I have concluded that I should simply specify where the gap is and grey it out in the chronology. The eye skip suggestion does not look possible in this case. I noted that this author stated:

Time, Narrative, and the Old Assyrian Trade, by Edward Stratford:

But there is a small, key break in the eponym sequence (REL 178-192) [192-178 = 14.] between
Shamshi-Adad's birth and Hammurabi's death. At this point, the principle witness for the sequence
during this period (KEL G) is broken at the bottom edge. The editor of that tablet proposed that there
were at least nine years missing, drawn from a segment of the complementary Mari Eponym
Chronicle. The authors of REL suggests that there were five more years in the break.

endquote

UMC = Upper Middle Chronology
LMC = Lower Middle Chronology

Calibrated dendrochronology favors UMC

The author favors an 1845 BC eclipse.

Look again at your reconstruction, I am wondering how such a high date as targeting an 1845 eclipse can get enough names into the gap. A few questions:

How do we know that the Column I continues onto the bottom edge of KEL G and not rather return to the top of Column II and then the bottom edge left side followed by bottom edge right side?

If that is possible the two names you filled in for the left side of the bottom edge could really go at the bottom of column I on the front face of the tablet. This suggests to me the possibility of two or three more names on the right side of column II.


KEL 138 28 Enna-Suen 31 Attal-šarri KEL 177
KEL 139 29 Iṭur-Aššur 32 Dadaya KEL 178 REL 178
KEL 140 30 Šu-Belum ........-malik ....... REL 179
KEL 141 31 Šarrum-Adad ............................. REL 180
KEL 142 32 Šu-Laban ............................. REL 181
KEL 143 33 Aššur-imitti ............................. REL 182
KEL 144 34 Dadiya ............................. REL 183
K** 145 35 Dadiya ............................. REL 184
K** 146 36 Aḫ-šalim ............................. REL 185
............................. REL 186

--------------BOTTOM EDGE-----------------
1 ...................REL 187 1 Ris-Shamash
2 ...................REL 188 2 Ibni-Adad
3 Suen Maballit REL 189 3 Aššur-imitti

COLUMN III------------ COLUMN IV----------
1 Ili-ellat 1 .......
2 Rigmanum 2 .......


The next question is, I see the scribe does not seem to perfectly synchronize his lines going down the tablet across both columns. Right away an offset of 2 names occurs, and then it increases to 3. So it appears that after going for around 6 lines it is possible for one side or the other to get longer by a line, i.e. 5 lines on the left side to 6 lines on the right.

So I propose 7 lines at the bottom of column 2 parallel to six lines at the bottom of column 1. Then six names on the bottom edge, three on each side.

And then one extra name at the top of column III.

Invariably, I find my judgment skewed by not having seen all the evidence that must be considered. So what is it that I don't know that can be used to shoot down the new suggestion here.


  • KEL G reconstructedJoe Baker, Thu May 10 06:35
    Hi Anonymous A more parsimonious explanation occurs to me than the ad hoc line space argument of Barjamovic, and that is that the scribe's eyes went from the first occurrence of Ennam-Assur to the... more
    • Re: KEL G reconstructed — Anonymous, Mon May 14 10:42
      • Re: KEL G reconstructedJoe Baker, Wed May 16 06:57
        Hi Anonymouse Time, Narrative, and the Old Assyrian Trade, by Edward Stratford ... Calibrated dendrochronology favors UMC. The author favors an 1845 BC eclipse. Stratford gives as the source for him... more
        • Re: KEL G reconstructedAnonymous, Fri May 18 09:48
          Hi Joe, Fattening the space of 4 names does seem to be a bit excessive inviting ad hoc arguments for explanation. I see space in my theory to leave MEC E un-emmended, unless you know something about... more
          • Re: KEL G reconstructedJoe Baker, Sat May 19 05:12
            Hi Anonymouse unless you know something about equating Haya-malik to Ani-malik that I don't. Let me say from the start – I have little to no knowledge of Sumerian and Akkadian - only what I hear... more
            • Re: KEL G reconstructedAnonymous, Sat May 19 18:56
              //Not only do I omit this Šalim-Aššur but he is also omitted by all recent commentators. Šalim-Aššur son of Uṣranum has multiple attestations at Mari while Šalim-Aššur son of Šalimanum only... more
              • Re: KEL G reconstructedJoe Baker, Sun May 20 21:31
                Hi Anonymous //... while Šalim-Aššur son of Šalimanum only occurs once . This is taken to be a scribal error ...// So this is charged to a scribal error in MEC E. No. The initial lines of MEC E... more
                • Re: KEL G reconstructedAnonymous, Sun May 27 14:30
                  According to post http://disc.yourwebapps.com/discussion.cgi?id=177754;article=15335;search_term=Ebla #15335 MEC B ends with the same two eponyms as the AKL. Is this post not representing MEC B... more
                  • Re: KEL G reconstructedJoe Baker, Sun May 27 19:21
                    Hi Anonymous According to post … 15335 MEC B ends with the same two eponyms as the AKL. Is this post not representing MEC B correctly? Boris‘ post clearly places these last two within [parenthesis],... more
                    • Re: KEL G reconstructedAnonymous, Sun May 27 21:38
                      Yes, it appears I got screwed up by nested [ ]. For now it would be good if you just post an abstract and reference. I was looking all over for a MEC analysis. It seems you used to be able to get one ... more
Click here to receive daily updates