Abnormal Interests

« A Little News on Those Little People
Main
A Coincidence of Carnivals »

January 31, 2007

How to Handle a Broken Text

I continue to make progress in my work on the Taanack letters. In fact, except for a couple small loose ends and a methodological decision, I've been done for three or four weeks. The other day I was able to get hold of an important paper by Anson Rainey who has likely studied these tablets more than any other single person. I'll have a lot to say about his paper when I post my translations. I'm still waiting for another Rainey paper to come via interlibrary loan. I am hoping it will help me explain one verb that is driving me crazy. It's not that I don't know how to translate the verb. The root and the context make that fairly clear. It's rather that I am somewhat confused by the form and, from what I've read so far, I may be the only one who is.

Anyway, today a question of methodology bothers me. How does one deal with a lacunose text where restoration is uncertain? The problem arises at three levels. First, what should one present as the reading itself? Second, what should one take into account in one's translation and "local" interpretation of the text? By local, I mean the understanding of the text in terms of its own contents. Third, how should one interpreter restored portions of the text or the whole text in terms of other related texts and tablets? The third problem becomes chronic when some restorations depend on exactly those other related tablets. Thus, a circular argument can quickly develop. I support my restoration based on another tablet and then I interpret the two tablets together in terms of that restoration. This sounds dangerous to me.

Taanach 6 is a case in point. With the exception of the first few signs in the first couple of lines, the obverse (front) of the tablet is very readable even from Horowitz and Oshima's, 237, picture. (It does help to look at their autograph now and then and an occasional look at Rainey's or their transliteration cannot be too big a sin.) Even the missing signs on the obverse are restorable with a very high level on confidence. But that sure isn't the case with the reverse (back) which is badly defaced from the ravages of the ages and where there is barely a line that can be read with complete confidence. Line 21 has one partially readable sign, while line 26 has only two. Two and a half signs are readable in line 27. However, I do think that Horowitz and Oshima, 143, are reasonable in their restoration of lines 15, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, and 28. (I've provided my own transliteration of the reverse below for your reference. It is virtually identical to theirs.) I think their restorations, which I plan to discuss in a PDF file that will accompany my own translation, are all very well founded and defensible. But as they correctly say (141) "our restorations are not as bold as those of Rainey, 1999." In addition to the lines restored by Horowitz and Oshima, Rainey, 159*, restores all of lines 16, 17, 21!, 26!, 27!, and 29. And he reads and restores a line 30 of which only traces of signs can be seen on the left edge. It's not that Rainey doesn't have some support for these restorations. He does. And some seem more secure in my view than others do but none of his unique restorations are completely convincing and a couple seem well beyond any evidence. I too have my own guesses on how to restore some of these broken lines.

So here is the problem. When I finally get around to posting my translation, what do I translate? Of course, I plan to discuss various options, but what do I really present as my formal translation? And as important, what do I use to explain the relationship between this tablet and the other one (TT 5) to which it is closely related and to the other two which are addressed to the same person at Taanach but come from different persons and places(?) and deal with different subjects. . My temptation is to attempt as full a restoration as I think probable, meaning I would adopt those restored reading of Rainey that I feel most comfortable with and, perhaps, others of my own that seem to have a high probability of reflecting the original text. Of course, I will make it clear what is restored and what is not. But I will go out of my way to make sure that next higher level of interpretation is in no way dependant on these restorations

Transliteration of the Reverse of TT 6

[If you see squares, rectangles or something else that is incorrect please install the Charis SIL font.]

How to read the transliteration: I have represented only the clearly readable signs plus those that can be restored with extremely high confidence based on traces and, on occasion, adjacent orthographic context. "x" is used as a place holder for completely unreadable signs or missing signs. When there is more than one such sign in a row, the number of "x"s is indicative of the approximate amount of space available for signs. [ ] demark broken or defaced unreadable portions of the tablet. A "[" or "]" within a sign indicates that either the right or left portion of the sign is missing but there is no reasonable doubt as to reading An ellipsis ( . . . ) is used to denote an unknown number of missing signs at the end of a line. I use "˹" and "˺" to denote the highly likely readings of signs that are partially defaced but not completely unreadable. Question marks are used when the sign is not readable but the tablet seems to be intact in this area. All this is completely conventional. To be sure, certain more complex restorations are highly likely. For example, the broken maḫ sign in line 28 yields maḫ-ri-ia with a very high degree of certainty.

15) a-nu-[m]a a-˹na˺-[ x x x -n]a
16) a-na nu-kur-t[i . . .
17) [i]-ba-ša-˹ta˺ [ x x x x -k]a
18) [š]a-ni-tam ˹ŠEŠ˺.M[EŠ x x x]. MEŠ
19) [ṣ]e?-eḫ-ru-t[i x x x ]-mi
20) [ x w]a-˹še˺-ru-u[š x x x x m]aḫ-ri-˹ia˺
21) [ . . . -k]a
22) [x x] maḫ-˹ri˺-ia u[š- x x x x]
23) [x x u]m-ma LÚ. MEŠ ḫu-ub-t[e]
24) [š]a ap-ta-aṭ-ru
25) [ x š]e-ra-šu-nu ˹ŠEŠ.MEŠ˺-ka ù
26) [ x x ] ? ? -šu-nu [ . . . . .
27) [ x x x š]a-ni-tam ? [ . . .
28) [ x x x ] a-na m[aḫ x x x x ]
29) [ x x x ḫ]a-ri ù ? [ . . .

References:

Posted by Duane Smith at January 31, 2007 7:32 PM | Read more on Archaeology |

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.telecomtally.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2011

Comments

Sorry, comments are closed for this post.
Send me an email if it is important.

Tags: