R: Re: R: Balaams Kittim ships

Ian Hutchesson mc2499 at mclink.it
Mon Dec 16 23:32:24 EST 2002


Michael writes:

>Ian we are as usually misunderstanding each other.

Unfortunately no.

>I never stated that Musri is Egypt in this stance. As usually you are
doing 
>this job for me and than try to convince me how wrong this idea (which
I 
>never had) is.

You are claiming that TP1's Musri/u etc is 
something that it is not. You threw in the 
red herring about Egypt and ducked out of it. 
You work on the assumption that the Musr of 
Sefire is the same as that of the Assyrian 
texts, which it isn't. 

>To put it plain. Musri is an identically named regional Levantine 
>coalition, which mainly filled the Syrian desert from the south of Bit-
>Agusi and Bit-Adini till to the Egyptian border.  

This may be the case from the Sefire stele, but 
not the Assyrian case. I have made it "plain" 
that you are in the wrong area.

>The Musri coalition coined its name on Egypt following its long 
>domination thereof, known as the Hyksos period.

The first part is possible in the context of the 
Sefire texts. I don't understand how the sentence 
is connected.

>Apes and so on is a present typical for Amurru, for Bit-Adini, 
>for Musri on the black obelisk (which is once more our petty 
>Arabian coalition) and for Musri in the Ashur-Bel-Kala text.

TP1 had the habit of representing the animals he 
killed or captured. ABK is so often a me-too, 
that I doubt a lot of his claims.

Naxiru, female ape, hunting hundreds of lions, 
goatskin rafts to cross the Euphrates...

>> Famous last words. You haven't even looked at the 
>> data, being convinced of your argument from 
>> linguistic appearances in transliteration. You 
>> will note as you seem to be using Grayson's ARI, 
>> that he uses the name "Egypt" when talking about 
>> ABK's gift. He doesn't use it when talking about 
>> Musri. He doesn't think that it is Egypt. What 
>> extra knowledge have you got? None.
>
>I am not intersted for what Grayson thinks Musri is this time a couple
of
>lines lower in the same inscription. 

I can see that. Grayson is a worthy scholar whose 
work stands up to your blase approach to it and 
will be used long into the future.

I gather you will not analyse the material I posted 
and cited, so yuou can make bald statements as you 
continue to do.

>You both, Grayson and you have fallen prey to the fault to identify 
>Uqumenu with Kumanu. 

You are misrepresenting Grayson. He doesn't make the 
claim at all.

>Uqumanu is near Mehru. Kumani / Komana is near Musri. But that´s 
>all and here stop the similarities.

You still haven't read the material. 

However, I must add a clarification to the Mehru 
argument regarding the parallels between the 
context of the Musri and Mehru being similar:

Grayson has reordered the relelvant paragraphs 
based on his understanding of the geography, as 
he is trying to avoid repeating material and 
combing the essential contents. I remain of the 
opinion that ARI 2, §71 with the Mehru-Qumanu-
Hunusu material has too close a parallel to ARI 2, 
§36-§39, making the equation between Musru and 
Mehru probable.

>This is the famous "Syrene des Gleichklangs". There are at least 2 
>different well known Kumanus in East-Anatolia only. One the famous
Komana 
>(our Kumani), part of Kizzuwadna lost by the Sunassura treaty, another
one, 
>Comana pontica, on the Iris river. They are not the same even if they
are 
>called identically. If the Assyrians make an orthographic difference 
>between Uqumanu and and Kumani, than they had a good reason to hold to
the 
>difference.

You are not looking at the track record. We have 
numerous examples where names, even royal names 
are written in numerous ways.

>Thank you for the needless quotes from Grayson. 

Grayson is a reference. You seem fixed on not 
supplying references for most of your claims, 
leaving a person to chase up the whims of your 
construction. 

The reason I cite and quote texts is to help any 
would-be reader of these posts. It would be nice 
if you did so as well.

>It would have been enough to read the list of cities pertaining 
>to Kumani to know which Kumani TP 1 meant:
>
>Kumani >>>>>>> Comana
>Hunusu >>>>>>> Kanish (identified also by Grayson as such in the
expression >Kanish-oaks)
>Kipushna >>>>> Hupishna
>
>battle by the mountain Tala = Tiliura/Atallura (probably is the -ura in
the 
>Hethite name of the muntain but a residual of a semitic hor=mountain)
by 
>Aleppo, thus not far from Arne/Arinu where the troops of Musri coalised

>with those of Kumani fled. 
>
>Should you need maps I can provide you with some.

Thanks, but no thanks.

If you notice, I haven't shown any problem with 
the identification of Qumanu with Kumani the holy 
city of Kizzuwatna. I am at loss to understand 
why you relate it to Syria. The city was halfway 
between Carchemish and Hattusa -- and Kanesh 
halfway between it and Hattusa --, so we are 
dealing with the north-eastern part of the land. 
This as I have said is consistent with a northern 
Musru, between Alzi & Paphu on the east and 
Qumanu on the west.

As to your suggestion that Tala was Atallura, 
you seem to fall back on vague linguistic 
appearances yet again. If TP1's Musri was where 
you want to put it, from Kumanni to Aleppo one 
would pass not through the Syrian Gates, as one 
following the coast would do. 

TP1 arrived at Musri via Mounts Elamuni, Tala 
and Harusa, would you care to hazard a guess at 
his trajectory to do so, seeing as you assume 
Musri is in Syria? If going east he would have 
ended up not in Syria but Asia Minor, if west, 
what an extraordinarily strange trajectory for 
an Assyrian to arrive in Syria!

I think you are still in the wrong place at the 
wrong time.

>> Whatever that means, thank you. As it was the 
>> Kittim which was my main interest in the 
>> original query, and you have abandoned your 
>> musing in that direction, the major basis of 
>> factual contention is over.
>
>Well, actually you have opened a new field for linguistics, with your 
>investigation of the prehistory of the name of Kition, before its first
>literal attestation in the 5-th century BC. 

As my interest in the Kittim is for the Dead 
Sea Scrolls, that is appropriate. I didn't 
imagine fanciful etymologies for the term or 
make anachronistic arguments about it. And 
I'm glad you've withdrawn those that you did 
make.

On the subject of anachronism, why are you 
insisting that TP1's Musri is the Musr 
mentioned in a text written 350 years after 
his time, based merely on that late text? 
Do you need TP1's campaign?

You need to deal with the Assyrian data, if 
you want to claim that TP1's Musri is 
Sefire's Musr. Please do so. I wait until 
you do.

If you are not using Grayson, the text is 
also in Luckenbill ARAB 1, §§317-322 and in 
Borger EAK 1, pp.109-134 ("Tontafel A"), 
according to Grayson. 


Ian


>We should call it phonetical archaeology. It opens infinite
possibilities, 
>since most Tells in the ANE are still circulating nameless in the 
>scientific literature.






More information about the b-hebrew mailing list