Today Andrew George and Manfred Krebernik have presented content - albeit unprovenanced content. Davila offers a warning on account forgers are much better at imprinting Akkadian than they once were. Although - were forgers this good in the early AD 1990s / AG 2300s?
The tablet is in the cuneiform style of [Zimri-Lim and] Hammurabi; offering a phrase-list for speaking "Amorite" as they called westerners. The language here looks like preBiblical Hebrew as best cuneiform (designed famously for Sumerian) can handle it. DOI is 10.3917/assy.116.0113.
My first concern is that, between Canaan and upper Babylonia, was Ebla. Ebla was apparently being sidestepped - fine, Eblaite didn't survive the Late Bronze Age, we know that. Zimri-Lim and Hammurabi both should have enjoyed some direct contact with North West Semites. But to put a finer point on it all: there should be protoAramaic, nu? How much did George and Krebernik delve into what in their tablets looks like Canaanite and what looks like Aramaic? And where's Ugaritic in this?
Next question: the microscope, as Davila has foreseen. We can use this to get the lost provenance of the clay. Were these Amorites being met along the Ramadi / Tikrit southwest edge like the Chaldaeans; or were they being met along the northern Jazira between Nineveh and Nisibin? The 1991 Gulf War origin would suggest the former and lower region. So now I'm pondering Taymanitic.
No comments:
Post a Comment