Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [ANE-2] Re: JILs and the Khoirine weight standard

Expand Messages
  • Raz Kletter
    Dear Rob, You seem to move in circles- earlier you did not want to waste time on publishing well-known facts ; now you declare that these were
    Message 1 of 6 , Jul 23, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Rob,
      You seem to move in circles- earlier you did not want to waste time on
      publishing "well-known facts"; now you declare that these were
      "putative-purported offerings".
      Typically (one does need to be much detained by it!), you ignore a clear
      inscription on a weight (without giving any reason why it should be
      ignored); and interpret this weight as something else (based only on a
      mathematical equation). Typically, you also assume that finding one sole
      item that (allegedly) fits your equation is - bingo - proof for
      interrelation of entire systems (never mind unlikely gaps that stand in the
      way, they don't bother you).
      The weight of Shalmanesser that you mention is not a "curiousity" at
      all. It is, as the inscription states, 2/3 of a Mina of c. 1 Kilo, so
      called double/heavy Mina. It does not indicate any unit around 11
      grams, which does not exist in the Neo Assyrian empire. It is the same
      Assyrian Shekel of c. 8.4 grams (8.4 x 60 x 2). Read Fales 1995,
      Festschrift Lipinski:33-55, if you don't believe me. I am sorry if he
      is not a 19th century historical metrologist, but nobody is perfect.
      Your assumed relation to a Persian period "Khoirine" goes up in smoke.
      Please take time to weigh it with an open mind. If you respond with more of
      the same, I will not want to waste time on your words.
      Best Regards,
      Raz Kletter
      University of Helsinki


      2013/7/23 robtyenow <robtyenow@...>

      > **
      >
      > Dear Raz
      > As a dyed in the wool fallibilist, I tend to take it for granted that all
      > purported facts are putative, not excluding my own offerings. Anyhow, I
      > certainly ought to correct my spelling of Aryandes!
      > Off group a member writes to throw doubt on the reality of a Persian
      > silver shekel standard. Since evidence seems rather strong in the coins and
      > textual metrology of the 6th century BCE, I presume the criticism concerns
      > earlier metrologies of the Assyrians etc
      >
      > I would urge caution with this. If, as many have suspected, this silver
      > standard was by definition 4/3 of the gold/normal standard, then no
      > additional weights were needed. A mina of 60 of these silver shekels (c.
      > 11.1g) would weigh c. 666g. It was already usual practice to include both a
      > mina and a 1/3 mina amongst the standard weights used from very early
      > times, and these could immediately be combined to comprise such a c. 666g
      > silver mina of 60 silver shekels, if anyone wished to do so. The same
      > principle seems to apply to other required putative silver units. The
      > standard seems to have been chosen as if to obviate the need for any new
      > weights to be constructed. Thus the lack of finds of dedicated silver
      > shekel standard weights from the Assyrians would not falsify the hypothesis
      > that the standard existed.
      >
      > And there is a curiosity amongst the weights Powell listed in his PhD. BM
      > 91230. Actually, you mention its reporting by Layard in 1853 (WSKJ p. 126)
      > but not its weight. It is an Assyrian Lion weight of 665.729g. Rather a
      > good fit for a silver mina of 60 silver shekels, (11.1g). And inscribed as
      > a palace weight of the King of Assur, Sulman-Asarid. (inscribed as 2/3 of a
      > Royal Mina, but that matter need not detain us much I think)
      >
      > Nothing conclusive here of course, but food for thought surely?
      >
      > All the Best
      >
      > Rob Tye, York, UK
      >
      > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
      >
      > --- In ANE-2@yahoogroups.com, Raz Kletter <kletterr@...> wrote:
      > >
      > > Dear Rob,
      > > Thanks for clarifying that you had no bad intentions.
      > > One cannot criticise facts, only interpretation of facts -
      > > ideas, theories.
      > > A claim "what I said is a fact" - therefore above criticism - is not a
      > > valid argument.
      > > I add one clarification, about my admitted sin of not reading a heap
      > > of 19th c. publications. I try first to fill some gaps from the 20th c.
      > > Then I want to read recent publications; each day I read and each day my
      > > sin accumulates... Even if I read 24/7 all life long, my fate is doomed.
      > > Like Tristam Shandy, your noble 19th c. publications would only become
      > less
      > > attainable.
      > > I could skip and jump right to it, but wouldn't it be cheating?
      > > Best wishes,
      > > Raz Kletter
      > > University of Helsinki
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > 2013/7/22 robtyenow <robtyenow@...>
      > >
      > > > **
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > Dear Raz,
      > > >
      > > > I am afraid you have read all sorts of unpleasant innuendoes into my
      > last
      > > > mail that, I assure you, are phantoms of your imagination.
      > > >
      > > > It would be a waste of everyones time for me to write a paper
      > re-stating
      > > > the facts in my mail. They are already clear enough, and indeed already
      > > > well know enough, not to require further effort.
      > > >
      > > > If anyone has substantive criticism to offer, I would welcome it
      > > >
      > > > You are correct of course about Lionel Holland, a charming man. I never
      > > > for a moment thought or suggested otherwise.
      > > >
      > > > All the Best
      > > >
      > > > Rob Tye, York, UK
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > >
      > >
      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > >
      >
      >
      >


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.