All

This have been subject have been going on in the past week on ANE 2 discussion board


Sat May 1, 2010 12:38 pm

BM 41536 (LBAT 1421)


Dear colleagues,

In the transliteration and translation of astronomical cuneiform
tablets we often find guesses and circular reasonings. But the
scholar who scrutinizes a tablet in order to make a transliteration,
usually faithfully tries to transliterate all the signs that he or
she sees.

BM 41536 is believed to list lunar eclipses and is applied to year 42
of Nebuchadnezzar II. I was very surprised when I compared the
transliteration and translation in H. Hunger et al. 2001.
"Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia" V, I pp. 30,
31 with the drawing of the tablet in A. J, Sachs. 1955. "Late
Babylonian Astronomical and Related Texts Copied by T. G. Pinches and
J. N. Strassmaier," p. 223. I have not collated the tablet, but I
assume that the beautiful hand of Pinches or Strassmaier faithfully
reproduces all the signs they saw on the tablet.

I found that of the 31 clear signs (I count each number as one sign),
8 (26%) were not transliterated. If these 8 signs are taken into
account, the interpretation of the tablet could be very different
from the one given by Hunger et al. So it seems to me that the
authors are misleading their readers. Because the authors are highly
qualified scholars who are experts on astronomical tablets, this
situation is strange indeed. So I would like to hear the opinion of
other list members regarding this situation.


Best regards,

Rolf Furuli Ph.D
University of Oslo



Sat May 1, 2010 12:38 pm


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Thu May 20, 2010 2:20 pm



Re: BM 41536 (LBAT 1421)


Dear colleagues,

there are not so many "transliterations and translations of stronomical
cunei9form tablets" available in print. I therefore would like a more precise
information on "we often find guesses and circular reasoning". What is "often"?
Are 10% of the transliterations guesses? Which translations contain "circular
reasoning"?

As for BM 41536, the copy by Pinches can be compared to the photo published by
me in the work quoted by Dr. Furuli. As usual, Pinches' copy is very good.
In my translteration, there are 6 signs marked by "x" which are broken so that I
could not read them. I counted the signs on the copy but I did not arrive at 31,
which is probably not important. I do not see which "8 clear signs" I did not
transliterate.
If I happen to read another scholar's transliteration and come to the conclusion
that there are errors in it that are important enough to be corrected, I publish
the corrections in an appropriate medium, e.g. on ANE-2 or in a journal. I do
not insinuate that a colleague is "misleading their readers", but rather say
what I think is the correct reading, interpretation etc.

So I expect to hear from Dr. Furuli what is wrong in my transliteration and
translation, and what he thinks is correct.

Hermann Hunger

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 22 May 2010 11:53:23 +0200
From: Rolf Furuli
Subject: Re: ANE-2 BM41536 (LBAT1421)



Dear Professor Hunger,

When I compared the transliterations and translations of LBAT 1421 with
the drawing of Pinches I was very surprised because of the differences I
saw. The reason for writing my post was to hear the opinion of my
colleagues regarding this situation. There is no doubt that I read the
signs of Pinches' drawing correctly, but still I made a fundamental error.
I studied the transliterations on the basis of a photocopy of From furuli@... Sat May 22 12:53:30 2010
the page,
and for one reason or another only II' was visible in the photocopy and
not the 'Flake'. I also used a photocopy of Pinches' drawing, and all the
signs of II' and the 'Flake' occur on the same 8 lines without any ruling
in between. So the additional signs of each line that I saw were on the
'Flake. I appreciate very much that you wrote your response. Because
after that I got hold of your book of 2001 and discovered my error. I have
learned a lesson -- to be careful with copies.

GUESSES AND CIRCULAR REASONINGSâ??PHILOSOPHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

My words regarding LBAT 1421 were formed as a question, while my words
regarding guesses and circular reasonings constituted a claim; so they
need to be elucidated. These words do not imply a conspiracy theory or
question the motives or qualifications of the scholars. But they relate to
methodology and what is possible to achieve today regarding ancient
history and chronology, which cannot be proven in the philosophical sense
of the word.

In order to show my high regard for modern astronomical works, I quote my
own words in a recent publication: "I also accept the high scholarly
quality of the publications of Strassmaier, Picnches, and Kugler a hundred
years ago, and of the modern works of Sachs, Hunger, Walker, Steele,
Aaaboe, Brack-Berntsen, and others. Their understanding of the cuneiform
signs for chronological purposes and their archaeo-astronomical knowledge
evidently are excellent, and their application of these to the cuneiform
material seems to be sound." While the scholarly standard is high, we
should realize that there are methodological problems as well.

In connection with my claim I used the adverbial "often." As a linguist I
realize that this is a strong word. However, the alternative is "some,"
and that is too weak. So when I take into consideration the works of
scholars with astronomical tablets from the middle of the 19th century
until today, I stick to my claim that "often" we have seen guesses and
circular reasonings. Because of the nature of the material, this is the
way it must be, and there is nothing unscholarly in guesses -- but we
should keep in mind that such exist when we consider the conclusions of
others. Because research both in the natural sciences and the humanistic
sciences build on axioms and assumptions, circular reasoning does exist,
but we should of course try to avoid it as much as possible.

GUESSES AND CIRCULAR REASONINGS IN PRACTICAL WORK

When we consider the names of the celestial bodies in the Hebrew Bible, we
find a lot of uncertainty regarding their references. But the opposite is
true regarding Babylonian signs, where we today have long lists of clear
identifications of the heavenly bodies. This was not the case 200 years
ago, so how have these lists come about? They are the result of 1) the
interplay of lists of the reigns of kings in ancient Babylonia and
Assyria, 2) the interpretation of the cuneiform signs on astronomical
tablets, and 3) the positions of the heavenly bodies represented by the
signs on these tablets. The approach that started in the middle of the
19th century was inductive, and therefore the Problem of Induction and
Duhem-Quine's problem were at work. Nontheless, I personally accept that
the modern identifications on the mentioned lists are correct and sound.
But on the way guesses and circular reasonings have played a role -- and
they still do.

One of the parameters is the chronology of kings, and this may be a weak
point, because the Persian chronology and the Babylonian chronology back
to Nabu-Nasir in the 8th century B.C.E. were fixed once and for all before
a single cuneiform tablet was unearthed. Thus, the very foundation of the
identification of Babylonian celestial bodies and their positions was
based on one basic assumption, namely, that the chronology of Claudius
Ptolemy was correct. And an assumption is a guess. When we study the works
of the fine scholars of the last part of the 19th century and the
beginning of the 20th century, particularly the works of F. X. Kugler, we
see how they, on the basis of induction were able to identify the
celestial bodies. Sometimes they changed their minds, and sometimes the
areas of the constellations were adjusted. This led eventually to the very
fine lists we have today. Circularity may also exist here when a sign is
used one hundred and more times with a uniform reference, but in one or
two contexts it is used with a different reference, because otherwise the
position would be wrong. The assumption is that the position is correct,
but that is not necessarily so.

I will now give a few examples of problems related to the scholarly
assumptions, and I start with Assyria. To the best of my knowledge, there
is only one datum that can be used to create an absolute Assyrian
chronology, namely the solar eclipse that is reported in the eponymate of
Bur-Sagale. This is applied to the solar eclipse of 15 June 763 B.C.E. yet
there are several other solar eclipses that can be connected with month
III and which are alternative candidates. Why was this particular solar
eclipse chosen? My understanding is that the basic reason is the
chronology of Ptolemy, which is assumed to be correct. There are several
Reports and Letters with astronomical contents from Assyria, and these
have been dated by competent scholars. However, D. Brown, "Mesopotamian
Planetary Astronomy-Astrology, 2000, p. 24 says: "I have reconsidered the
dating of all the Reports and Letters. those texts which I now feel can be
securely assigned a date accurate to within a year have been listed in
Table 1. They number many fewer than those considered datable by Parpola
and Hunger in SAAX and SAA8 respectively." Because different results were
obtained, there must be some uncertainties regarding the astronomical
material, and some assumptions (guesses) may be wrong. And -- if the
regnal years of one or more kings were were changed, the basic assumption
was changed, and that would create even more chronological problems.

My second example relates to Persia. The chronology of Parker and
Dubberstein was made on the assumption (guess) that the king lists and
chronology of Ptolemy were accurate and correct. The Saros Tablets were
their basic sources, and we see examples of circular reasonings, because
Ptolemy's chronology was confirmed by the Saros Tablets, and the
correctness of the Saros Tablets was confirmed by Ptolemy's chronology.
Yet the Saros Tablets may be artificial constructions, and their
chronological value is uncertain. We also see circularity in their scheme
of intercalary months. After tablets from the British Museum and other
institutions became searchable on-line, many "new" dates have appeared (I
hope to return to this). A very strong case against the chronology of
Ptolemy and of Parker and Dubberestein and an expansion of the years can
be made in connection with the reigns of Cambyses, Bardiya, Nebuchadnezzar
III, Nebuchadnezzar IV, and Darius I. If the assumption that Parker and
Dubbertein are correct falls, that may have some impact on Achaemenid
astronomical tablets before this time.

THE MODERN STUDY OF ASTRONOMICAL TABLETS

I have studied your excellent works regarding Astronomical Diaries and
other Astronomical Tablets. And I am convinced that your transliterations
and translations are accurate (that was the reason why I posed the
question regarding LBAT 1421 when it seemed that this was not the case
here). But also in these works we find a few guesses -- which of course is
legitimate. For example, the next last sign in line 8 i LBAT 1421 is
partially broken, and you interpret it as ABSIN, which corresponds with
what is seen in Pinches' drawing. The last sign of the line you transcribe
as á/d/. This sign can have between 4 and 10 wedges, and the only thing
we see is a small part of the head of one wedge. So this is a guess, and
you mark this by using brackets. I do not object to this, I just take not
of it.

In your work you primarily read cuneiform signs, transliterate and
translate them. In this you are a real expert with decades of experience!
The tablets are also set in a chronological setting, and that may
influence the interpretation of some signs, particularly broken tablets
with few signs. For example, in the Achaemenid chronology I use,
Artaxerxes I continued to reign in his year 42. LBAT 1421 refers to year
42, and interestingly, the lunar eclipses and the relation of the second
to Gamma Virginis fit this year just as well as in year 42 of
Nebuchadnezzar II. Normally in astronomical studies, it is assumed that
the traditional chronology is correct, but a different chronology could
give different results.

I would mention two final points where assumptions can influence
interpretation. An expert on astronomical tablets knows the different
shapes the same sign can have, and therefore he or she can identify a
somewhat atypical sign correctly, while a non-expert would not be able to
identify this sign. However, the bulk of the Diaries come from Seleucid
times, and we cannot exclude the possibility that particular signs were
written somewhat differently some hundred years before that, to the point
that "strange" signs in older astronomical tablets or copies of these
should not be identified in the light of Seleucid tablets. Another
assumption is that the positions on astronomical tablets are correct, and
some signs may be interpreted or some guesses made on this basis. But
perhaps the positions are wrong and the interpretations therefore are
wrong.

By way of conclusion I will say that I have great confidence in the work
of the scholars I have mentioned and others in relation to astronomical
tablets. But we must never forget that all research is based on some
axioms and assumptions. Therefore we should never express a categorical
certainty, but be open for the possibility of guesswork and circular
reasonings may be a part of some conclusions.


Best regards,

Rolf Furuli Ph.D
University of Oslo


This message was last edited at

Thanks, where's the "ANE 2 discussion board"?

Jim

It is at Yahoo board and put "ANE 2" in it. It should direct you to it.