Genial, aber falsch'

The TLue Path of Error

David A. Warburron

Introduction

Towards the end of his life, Landsberger' distanced himself slightly

from his Eigenbegrffichheit der babylnnischen \il'elt, bv without speci-

$'ing how he would change it. 'We

are thus unable to follow exactly

what he might have proposed in the way of revisions. Let us assume

rhat he wâs not aiming at his own work when making the remark

cited above. Regardless of all detailed revisions and criticisms, one

of those things which Landsberger will doubtless have continued to

view as frrndamental to his approach will have been his criticism of the

dominant attitude of modern scholars in searching in the cultures they

study for lden, die noch bei uns oder in uns nahesteltenden Kulturen

bedeutsam sind.r

There cân be no question but that this is the wrong way to approach the

Ancient Near East. Vhat is the point of devoting an enormous arnount

of energy and resources to demonstrating that they were, to quote Barry

Kemp, njust like us?,.+ Thus, the concepr is to find what was distinctive

in these cultures and to draw attention co this, rather than to those nu-

m€rous aspecs of any sociery that tend to be universal. Obviously, rhis

should be the tæk of the study of the ancient Near East.

H u t u r c i c ' K . r . l i " ! i t s \ : ; l . k s c r k . - ) i l t ! 8 l r ' . { . 1 3 '

David A. Warburton

Significantly, Landsberger's âpproâch to this question was bâsed on

two pillars: the principal one being linguistic forms of expression ex-

pressed in grammatical terms, and the other âttempting to distinguish

Alkadian from Semitic. In this fashion, Landsberger attempted to

distinguish the basic currents dominating Babylonian thought, the

unique elements of this culture.

However, we noted that Landsberger distanced himself from certain

aspects of his approach without specifying them. And thus if we are

to pursue the path which he opened, we must take account of what is

known today. One of the principal problems is, of course, that Al<ka-

dian was not only invented by AJ<kadians (rather than Babylonians),

but by Akkadians who were also masters of Sumerian. In fact, one

could probably argue that Enheduana wrote the best Sumerian ever

known. Furthermore, there is the grave dificulry that a Semitic lan-

guage with verbs at the end of a sentence cannot really correspond

to the spoken form betraying the thought patterns ofthe Akkadians,

as this fundamental element of syntax must have been influenced by

written Sumerian. Thus, Akkadian might not necessarily be the best

means of understanding the mears by which Babylonians expressed

thought so much as identiry. And finally, Akkadian was also used by

the Assyrians, and thus using the srructure ofAkkadian to specifr Ba-

bylonian thought is fraught with peril in more wâys than one - even if

one avoids das mehr oder weniger barbarisierte Minelbabyhnisch, das im

ry. und 14. Jahrhundert Wrhehrssprache d.er Diplomatie uon Babybn bis

nach Hanuia und Agypten war.t Thercfore, one of the pillars of Lands-

bergert ârgument stood on rather weak foundations.

Furthermore, one must face the fact chat the cultures of the Ancient

Near East not only influenced each other to the extent that Sumerian

poetical structures can be found in Egyptian,6 but also that there were

forms of exchange which ere not visible either as artefacts or linguistic

borrowings.T And finally, there is the difficulry pioneered by Gordon

that the cultures of the Ancient Near East also had an impact on those

cultures which gave rise to our own.8 Thus, one can in fact argue in

favour of continuiry and this opens the door to neglecting the Eign-

begrffiichkeit, as one is on the slippery slope to convergence.

However, one can approach the issue in a slighdy different fæhion,

conceding that there were shared characteristics in the cultures ofAn-

264

The True Path of Error

tiquiry - but seeking those which did not contribute to the develop-

ment of the mainstream cultures of northern Europe. Obviously, this

goal is quite distant from Landsberger's, but it remains rrue ro rhe

spirit of trying to separate whar was truly Ancienr Near Eastern from

what came later. And above all, it would relate ro that qualiry of niden-

drp, which was obviously what Landsberger was seeking to isolate,

by specifring modes of thought reflected in grammatical and lexical

constructions. Yet, as noted. we will seek this identiry on â differenr

level.P

The Economy

Evidently, the most important domain to which such claims have been

applied is the economy. It has been argued that the economies of rhe

ancient world were somehow embedded in social srructures which ren-

dered them quite different, and thus incomparable ro modern econ-

omies.'o Evidently, if the economies of rhe ancient world were truly

fundamentally different, it would demonstrate Eigenbegrffiichheit

in the most extraordinary and intellectually interesting fashion, as it

would have implications on social srrucrures as weii æ thought struc,

tures. However, it must be admitted that these claims are based on a

methodology which is effectively rhe exact opposite of that proposed

by Landsberger. Landsberger was drawing on a srring of grammatical

points rooted in Al<kadian, and from the rawest of data and evidence,

he drew very limited and srrictly correct conclusions: the model of

scien tifi c methodolo gy.

By contrast, these approaches to the economy are based upon a rheo-

retical structure which is applied to the economy, and rhe data is then

rwisted to correspond to the strucrure. This theoretical strucrure is re-

lated to the name of Polanyi. Polanyi specifred that what distinguished

the ancient economies was the absence of market competirion, as proÊ

its were guaranteed by the mere exisrence of trade." Furthermore, he

a.lso speci6ed that the ancient world was characterized by an absence

of wage labour and land-rent.''

Howevet texts from Babylonia clearly confirm proâts, losses & debts,']

which demonstrâte the realiw of competition and that hopes of proÂts

)I

I

L

I

265

David A. tVuburton

were accompanied by the chance and realiry of loss. As noted, Polanyi

stressed that profits in foreign trade were assured, and yet the docu-

mentation from Babylonia demonstrates that losses and debts were far

from unknown in Babylonia, and not conÊned to Assyria - as Renger

pretends to believe.'a

The fact that Babylonian merchants were killed in Syria in regions

under Eglptian" control and merchants from Carchemish were killed

while trying to make huge profits between the Assyrian and Hitdte

lines'6 likewise confirms that although profits could actually be made

in foreign ventures, such trading was far from nriskless, as Polanyi al-

leged. It is true that the Syrian vassal Benteshina claims that the Baby-

lonian merchants murdered in Syria under Hittite conrrol were elimi-

nated because they refused to pay a debt of three talents of silver,'7 but

if this was the reason for their murdet then it clearly reveals either

substantial business losses or blind avarice, neither of which is com-

patible with the <reciprocal, and uselfless> models advocated by the

adherents ofPolanyi.

Furthermore, in any case, aside from risk, losses, and debt the earliest

evidence reveals prices for land sales, wages, and rent.'8 In this sense,

the application of Polanyi's model not only completely disregards the

facts as visible in the texts, but proposes â solurion which flies in the

face of the documentation. Polanyi's system not only throws no light

on the ancient economies, but also impedes our capacity to understand

them. Although there were clearly differences, Polanyit system cannot

address what distinguished the ancient economies from the modern

economies, and cannot thus support the clear difference beween rhe

ancient world and our own.

Colour Têrminology

In contrast to economics, one could iugue that in a very different and

much later article Landsberger himself had touched on one of the

unique features of the ancient world in his treatment of colour rermi-

nology. In this argument, Landsberger'e was working with lexicography

rather than grammar. He argued that Al<kadian was pardcularly poor

in colour terms, identifring ublacko, nwhiteo, (red) ând ngreeno, which

266

is rather startling in light ofthe highly developed thought structures in

Akkadian which Landsberger had identiÊed in grammar. In our view

rhis correctly described the situation, and as noted this lexicographical

approach was far more promising than the grammatical one.

However Lândsberger himself would have been dissatisfied with this

as being strictly Babylonian since he stressed that there were similarly

weak colour vocabularies in Hebrew and other Semitic languages. 'We

ourselves have also argued that the terminology ofAkkadian had an

impact on'Western colour rerminology as well, and thus that colours

are in fact part of our inheritance from Babylonia. And, we have also

argued that for similar reasons a similar structure of colour terminol-

ogy also edsted in Eglptian.'o

In one respect, however, Landsberger's observations are of extraordi-

nary scientific interest, as Landsberger's colour scheme for Akkadian

has become a paradigm for ancient languages, applied by both anthro-

pologists and philologists arguing that Landsberger was correct in his

analysis of the terms. tWhether Landsberger would himself have been

satis6ed with the idea of being viewed as the founder of a school of

academic dogmatism is perhaps an interesting question, but of little

interest here.

Continuiry

So although Landsberger's observations on colours were prescient and

far ahead of their time, rhey do not quite serve the purpose of distin-

guishing that which was specific, as they actually contributed to our

own world. And the same would be true of the importance of the mar-

kecs which dominated the Ancient Near East. Indeed, many features

of the Babylonian world can be linked to developmenrs in our own

civilization, whether in mathematics" and mathematical astronomy,"

or indeed markets.'r

Thus, we are effectively obliged to argue that there are certain shared

trairs which are common to and characterize diverse ancienr civiliza-

tions, and these a-re not usually restricted to a single civilizarion, but

represented part of a shared tradition, and that this tradition evenru-

ally led to our modern world. By contrast, Landsberger's interest was

III

t

)

t:

I

A

I

267

David A. Waburton

âvoiding ldeen, die noch bei uns oder in uns nahestehenden Kulturen

bedeutsam sind.

The unreliabiliry ofancient texrual sources

There are doubtless some featur€s which are speci6c to certain islands

of these civilizations, but our interest here in this particular study will

be a feature common to all of the cultures of the Near East, and yet one

which we would argue (at least according to personal experience) is not

appreciated among the cultures of Northern Europe: textual errors.

The usual response to errors can be seen in the remark by Lesko on the

profusion of errors in che texts of the Book of Tbo lYays of the Coffn

Ti:xts:

Ifa person could afford to buy such a guide, having ir was sup-

posed to be enough to guarânree his future life. This could still

make some sense if the deceased would have been able to read

the book or memorize its contents, but, since the copies were so

incomplete and replete with errors, it is questionable whether

many of the owners would have or could have read the texts.

The scribes who copied the texts were not too concerned with

the deceased reaching his goal ...'o

Hitherto therefore, errors in ancient texts have been viewed as obsta-

cles or cutiosities. Obviously, the errors in rhe Book of Two W'ays do

not represent more than a challenge to the serious philologist who can

rise to the occasion and save the Egyptian text in a fashion which was

beyond the Egyptians themselves (as Lesko did).

As obstacles for our own understalding, we have ùe Venus-tablet

where the number of errors has been viewed as catastrophic, even by

those who believe they can be used." This has now been compounded

by the fact that an observational (or recording, or copying) error in

the EAE assures that there is no reliable data for the construction ofa

chronology for ancient Mesopotamia.'6

It is assumed as a rule that these are <copying errorsD, i.e., accidental

pitfalls in transmission. Conceptually, it is assumed that at the origin

fhe True Path of Error

lay a correct observation or a correct conception, and that this was

garbled in transmission. Thus, Lesko assumes that the original text wâs

coherent and that the copies were deficient. Koch simply confirms that

the copy is deficient. Charpin has viewed errors as an interesting aspect

of scholarship, ancient and modern.'7 Regardless, errors in the wrirten

texts of Ancient Egypt and the Near East are among the most familiar

and common phenomena. And significantly, although Lesko suggests

that the copies alone were deficient, his observation touches all ofthe

known copies, and thus the entire corpus was frrll oferrors.

Thus, errors might actually form a firndamental aspect of the Eigen-

begrffichheit of Ancient Near Eastern civilisation, and one which de-

serves investigation. In order to do so we must turn to those rexts

which should be beyond such suspicions, and Leskot remarks about

the Cffin Texts have already answered that question. Like those scribes

copying the Venus tablets, the scribes composing and copying and

adding errors to the Cofin Tixts, belonged to the crème de la crème

of Ancient Near Eastern Sociery. These cannot possibly have been in-

comPetent.

Obviously, chis is worthy of investigation: there must be some content

behind this. Ancienr Near Eastern civilization cannot really have been

based upon error, or if it was, then one must follow this track.

Tèxts

[n order to structure our approach, we must discuss the relevant texts

and the methodology used in the treatment of texts. However, there

are simply too mâny texts (and thus too many errors) from 'Western

fuia; although the majoriry have never been published, even the abun-

dance of published sources precludes any kind of overview which can

be dealt with in a brief fashion. Thus for the moment, we will restrict

ourselves to the texts of Ancient Egypt where the quantities are far

more restrained.

in Eg'ptology, there are fundamentally three different approaches to

errors in texts. The simplest is r) the ordinary procedure whereby one

identifres â grammatical error or a spelling mistake, and corrects the

error to allow the sentence to gain meaning. This can be accomplished

,I

I

II

IL -

;

I\

I

r\

(

I

II

t

I

I

David A. lVarburton

where no parallel texts are available. However, there is a risk that the

original scribe actually intended to write what he wrote and that it is

the modern editor who has made an error.

More cenain is z) the procedure of relying on a ceftâin number of paral-

lel texts in order to verify whether one oftie variant readings appears to

be more prevalent or whether one particular version allows a compelling

interpretation. It is, however, evident that the method is highly subjec-

tive in and of itsell and ùar it depends upon rhis subjective analysis.

More usefully therefore, one cân 3) use internal or external methods to

verify mathematical, observational or logical errors. This meriod has the

advantage of being less subjective . Mathematical rotals which do not add

up demonstrate rhe presence of an error. Similarly, one can establish an

observational error in an astronomical observation, or confirm that one

pan of a record is incompatible with another. In this sense, the proce-

dure is objecrive and reliable. The disadvantage is that one has no idea of

knowing just how the error entered into the record since one can do no

more than confirm the presence of an error but is unable to determine

exactly what the error was or how it arose.

In mathematical texts, the toral could be correcr, and the error lie in one

of the items making up the total. In astronomical observations, the error

may have been an effoneous observation, or it may have been a copying

error. Or it may have been an erroneous prediction based on an errone-

ous observation.

However, there is little need to discuss this, as the fact tharAncient Near

Eastern texts brisde with errors is a familiar fact. Rather than arguing

about the presence of errors, we will rurn to the means by which scholars

establish texa.

Religious and Didactic Texrs

The most promising venue for our venture are those texts dealing with

the social sphere, for it is clearly the social sphere which is the only

realm in which the Ancient Near East can have any Eigenbegrffiichheit.

Here we have the corpus of hymns both engraved in stone and written

on papyrus; the corpus of the Book of the Dead,largely inscribed on pa-

pyrus; the teachings, largely inscribed on papyrus. Furthermore, there

270

The Tiue Path of Error

are the texts of the royal tombs which were recorded on papyrus but

inscribed in stone. In each case, there are a couple of texts for which

several variants are available.

In general in Egyptology scholars generally avoid establishing a stand-

ard text as is the standard practice in Classical and Biblical philology.

In Egyptology, one of the means of approaching the problem of mul-

tiple copies of the same text is to exploit parallel versions, and then to

choose the preferred version as rhe bâsis for a translation. In this fash-

ion, the translation betrays the exegetical method, whereas the editor

has not produced an original version ofa text. An alternative method

is to take one version of a specific portion of a text, and to base the

translation on that - with some slight emendations where necessary.

The Book of the Dead and the Amduat

There are rwo major variants to this method, that used by Naville in

his Todtenbuch and that used by Hornung for the Amduat.'8 For each

spell of the Book of the Deal, Naville selected what he considered to be

the most reliable version, and based his selection of textual variants on

that. By contrâst, Hornung took the entire tomb of Amenophis II as

his textual source for the rz hours of the Amduar, and based his vari-

ants on that.

Obviously, gaining access to all of the necessary variants of the Book

of the Dead was impossible, and thus Navillet venture was doomed

to censure from the start. However, it is highly probable that more

than two centuries will pass before his initial publication is replaced

by anything even remotely superior. The most that one cân hope is

that definitive versions of some select spells will continue to be pub-

lished (as represented in the valiant efForts of B. Lûscher, G. Lapp,

U. Rôssler-Kôhler, I. Munro, etc.).

However, without waiting for a final edition of the text, one can srill

refer to some of the problems. It is perfectly logical that in his version

of the text of Book of rhe DeadSpell r34, Hornung translates a Helio-

politan Ennead with Atum, Shu, Tèfnut, Geb, Nut, Osiris, Isis, Seth,

and Nephthys.'s Howevet Naville's preferred version of the Egyptian

text clearly has Horus and not Seth.ro Since it is absolutely impossible

271

David A. Warbuton

that Horus was in the Ennead and clear that Seth was, it follows *rat

the preferred text is in error. lJnder ordinary circumstances, one could

usually rely on the copyists responsible for the parallels, but here rhey

are of no help.l' One can only conclude thac the aurhor of the most

reliable version of the text wâs unawâre of the subtleties of Eglptian

theology.

However, a different exa-rnple suggesrs that thinç may be more subde.

In Spell I, most of the versions of the text seem ro imply that somehow

or another Thoth justified Horu.s against his enemies.r' However, rhe

theolory as inherited fiom the Pyramid Tims worid demand that ir wæ

Osiris who was justified against his enemies, and that the feeble Horus

unwittingly became King of Egryt and was acclaimed by all simply be-

cause his father was wrongfully killed by his devious brother. AJthough

this whole business sounds rather Êshy, it was the Egyptian rradirion.

It thus follows that whatever we think, one musr emend Horus to Osi-

ris, and in fact one rexr supporrs this view. This was the text chosen by

Naville for his best copy - even though it differed on rhis point from

most of the others.rr Thus in rhis case, one musr take the exceptional

but excellent version æ the preferred text, and assume rhat most of the

copyists were unaware of Egyptian theolory. The a.lternative is to sug-

gest that the accumulation ofcopying errors actually led to a change in

Egptian rheology, as clearly happened once the text was accepted. Thus

the author of the single coherenr rexr was isolated with an outmoded

theologr. In this case, we c:rn nore that the copying errors contributed

to the development of thought.

In aroùer insrance , we find a scandalous rradidon in Spell r57 of rhe Cof

fn Texts where it is alleged that Isis (the ovelprotective morher of Horus

and loyal wife of Osiris) was the moùer of her own son's children.ra All

copies seem to be coherent, but the concepr is not supported Êom other

sources. It is a fact that ùe mother of ùese children is not m€nrioned any-

where else, and *rus it could be argued ùar *re tradition might be rrue,

but was hushed up. However, it is evident that ùris soludon was probably

too much and thus scribes hesitated to copy it, with the result that an in-

coherency in the Eg,ptian traditions remained (since ùe children did noc

have a moùer), but at ùe expense of avoiding a greater heresy.

In the case of Spell r57 of the Cffin Tæt:, the few examples are gener-

ally in agreement, whereas the incoherencies in the Booh of Two Way

272

The Tiue Path of Error

and the Booh of the Dead arc of another order. These differences are

clearly visible in the parallel lines of the texts in the publications of

de Buck and Naville. Clearly, they indicate that there is a problem,

and clearly the publication of additional texts cannot change the facr

that a majoriry of the texts seem to reveal that the copyisrs of different

versions of one single text did not enjoy a consensual understanding

of Egyptian religion. Obviously, Navillet method of publication could

not resolve this issue. In fact the same theological difficulry arose when

lrsko studied the Booh of Two rYays and discovered that of the four ver-

sions he eventually identified, there was no consensus about the goal

of the book, the majoriry tending for Re and a minoriry tending for

Osiris. Thus incoherencies in the texts and religion led to theological

transformations, where copying errors could accommodate a wide va-

riery ofview points.

When studyingthe Amduat for the first time, Hornung was faced with

a very different problem. The copies of the text were not spread among

the museums of Europe and America, but rather on the walls of the

tombs of the greatest pharaohs. This meant that by definition, one

could hardly expect any errors attributed to carelessness or a mistaken

understanding of theolory. Thus, Hornung did not choose to simply

take the most reliable version of each hour of the Amduat from a suit-

able source, but rather to take the most reliable version, and use this as

his principal source.

Hornungt method in dealing with the Amduat fell victim to the fact

that although the Amenophis II version is doubtless one of the most

reliable versions preserved from the second millennium 8.C., in some

cases the original scribes recognized that their papyrus original was de-

fective, and in others they failed to respect their original. The result of

the various copies being defective',vas that in some cases, the nores on

the variations exceeded the entry from Amenophis II.rt Thus Hornung

was obliged to undertake the arduous venture of producing parallel

texts of all the known versions, which resulted in a series of parallel

versions similar to Naville's.r6 However, this in itself did not resolve the

problem that these should have been the most reliably preserved texts

from ancient Egypt, and yet the versions were not identical.

Each of these two texts - rhe Book of the Dead and the Amduat - was

viewed as a single corpus, and thus the method required was in principle

Lâ

III

i

a

)

t

I

273

David A. W'arburton

reladvely simple: establishing a comprehensible text. The surprise came

when discovering that *re texts ïvere not really sumcient in themselves to

provide the basis for a reliable translation. And it is impossible to relare

the different versions of the same texts to a single theological tradition.

Additional versions of the texts can only sow funher disorder.

Before moving on, we note that Êom the textual standpoint, there is one

slight methodological anomaly in rhe usual procedure, in that for both

the Amduat and the Booh of the Dead., the ureal, version identified by

Hornung is published neither in hieroglyphs nor in transliterarion, but

rather appears only in Hornungt translations. Thus, rhe German trans-

lation alone identifies what would appeâr ro be the origind text, withour

specifying the preferred Egyptian text throughout. However, as noted

given the numerous variations of the texts which can clearly be identi-

fied as different variations of what is fundamentally one single text, it is

clear that this procedure is ùe only reasonable solution until all of the

variants are published. Yet the difficulties will doubtless increase when

attempting to produce a single text. Thus, one has the suspicious feeling

that philology and exegesis will not really be able to solve a problem,

beyond confirming the inconsistencies and variations.

The Solar Hymns

By contrast, the situation was even more complicated for Assmann

when confronted with rhe Sokr Hymns: no one hâd any clear idea oÊ

whether there was an original text, and to what extenr the various texts

were actually related to one another. However, the number of possible

texts did not number in the thousands as in the case of rhe Book of the

Dead,but in well under 5oo possible texts.

Assmann's initia.l efforts consisted of rwo distinctly different pro-

cedures: one consisted of translating every single hymn, even where

there were repetitions and overlaps,rT whereas the other represented

an attempt to reduce dozens of inscriptions to 17 texts.rs However,

neither of these projects represented a comprehensive attempt at pre-

senting the texts. Inhis Solar Hymns, Assmannie moved a further step

beyond these methods, by providing (a) a number of nStandard Ver-

sions, (Standardfassungen) ofthe various texts in transliterations and

274

The True Path ofError

trenslations, and also (b) providing the corpus ofall the texts in hiero-

glyphs (where unpublished), transcriptions and translations. This was

a remarkable step forward for Egyptology.

His approach involved dividing the entire corpus of several hundred

different texts into a number of stand versions. However, (r) he only

published transcriptions and translations of Standardfassungen A-F,

leaving the reader in doubt about the state ofStandardfassungen G-K.

Secondly, (z) it transpires rhar in fact, there is only one single version

preserved of SF A, and this is mixed in another text; a further alleged

ncomplete text) is only preserved in traces.ao Furtlermore, (3) there

is only one version of SF 8,4'and the same is uue of SF D.a'For the

remaining versions of SF C and F, it is not entirely evident that a single

standard version is actually preserved or compellingly reconstructed.

Alone of all the texts, versions of SF E are apparendy preserved, but

not in tombs, but rather on statues or papyri.4r

It would thus appear that Assmann's Standardfassungen are not really

standard versions, but ideal versions, which in Assmannt views refect

the version from which the other variants then appeared. Given the

fact that Assmann has successfi.rlly applied discourse theory to these

texts, demonstrating that the various texts were copied from each orher

and from other originals, it would nevertheless appear to be legitimate

to propose that Assmanns Standardfassungen do in some sense cor-

respond to some reality. But they are not standard versions in the sense

that the other texts represent variâtions on the theme visible in the

Standardfassungen, for the simple reason that the Standardfassungen

are themselves exceptional texts, which are ef[ectively preserved only

in one single version.

Thus, in fact, one must conclude that either (a) the Egrptiâns were

unable to write rwo copies of the same text, or (b) all of the texts

are unique. However, as noted, Assmannt extensive researches cannot

leave any doubt about the fact that there must have been some source

from which the copyists were working. Yet, this means rhar we are in

the almost incredible position of recognizing that the Egyptians were

incapable of making rwo identical copies of a single text, even a text

which must have been in some fashion familiar.

This is obviously far from being a question ofcopying errors in detail as

we saw in the Book of the Dead, the Amduat (where the situarion is quire

i

I

275

David A. \(arburton

similar in the stories and the didactic texts). However, the preserved cor-

pus indicates tiat there is a distinct difference between whar the Eg,p-

tians did wirh a text and what they actually might have found.

Initial Observations

-fhus, we note rhat in the Cofin Tèxts, rhe abundance of simple errors

left the philologist in despair. In rhe Book ofthe Dead,we Ê,nd rhat the

texts do not ref ect a mastery of the EgJptian religion, and in rhe Am-

duatwe find rhat the texts are still so inconsistenr rhar ir is effectively

impossible to be certain of the original rexr. In rhe Sohr Hymns, we

have the shocking conÊrmation that even there where a single original

text musc have existed and been partially copied for centuries, rhere are

not two copies of the text which are close enough ro one another ro

argue that they are the same text.

Considering rhat the cultures of theAncient Near Eâsr and Eg,pt belong

to those domains where writing was first invented and used, and where

writing was a highly regarded skill, ùese are striking confirmations.

Hitherto, we have dealt with texts belonging ro the upper regisrers of

the social hierarchy. And, of course, one of the reasons is the abun-

dance of errors in the ordinary texts, where mathematical errors in

calculation only slightly outweigh the number of errors made when

students were copying allegedly classic texts. \ù/hen faced with the re-

aliry of this situation in rhe documenrârion from the village at Deir

el-Medineh, the authoriry J. J. Janssen remarked:

There is, however, a more fundamental problem: why are there

so many mistakes of all kinds in these texts? Sheer incomperence

seems hardly to be a satisfâctory answer. I am rather inclined

to suggest: while the communiry of Deir el-Medîna as a whole

may have had a higher level of literacy than others [scil. in an-

cient Egyptl, it was not yer far removed from the oral tradirion

of recording. The format of the various rypes of osrraca may

have been somewhat s).stemarized, but the whole administra-

tion rested still on a predominandy oral prâcrice. The scribes,

therefore, did not worry about the details of what they wrote. To

The Tiue Path of Error

brand them as careless and slovenly means ro apply ro them the

criteria of a modern sociery which would be ahistorical, hence

unjust.4

The rJpes of error to which Janssens arrenrion were drawn consist of

errors in mathematical calculations, spelling, writing and grammatical

mistakes - the rypes oferrors that crop up in abundance in ordinary

texts from daily life, and thus represent a quite different category from

those texts we discussed above.

Janssen made his observations based on the material with which he was

familiar, and it follows that he endeavoured to split the communiry

of workman at Deir el-Medineh away from the rest of the Egyptian

literate classes. In this fashion, he could argue rhar the errors in thar

communiry could be explained by suggesting that the workmen were

closer to an oral tradition.

However, we have just noted that this problem effectively goes well

beyond the confines of this communiry. It effectively reaches up to the

highest levels of Egl,ptian sociery. And we have noted that the sâme ap-

plied to the Babylonian scribes responsible for copying the texts which

recorded the birth of nmathemarical astronomp' and thus the origins

of modern science, as Swerdlow pur it.4t Clearly this carelessness is

not an isolated phenomenon on the fringe or either illiteracy of high

literacy. It is one ofthe attributes ofthe grearesr scholars and scientists

of the Ancient Near East and Egypt.

Thus, likewise, there is no need to judge them severely, âs Janssenadmonishes. However, instead of being unhistorical, and instead of

excusing them from failing to respecr our own standards of spelling

and recording and copying, we cân be historical and still withhold

judgement in a subjective fashion. In fact, we are actually obliged to,

as we must recognize that it was these rare individuals who were the

guardiâns of culture in Antiquiry and ro conÊrm that they had a very

different attitude towards the writing and copying of texts.

Instead of choosing to exempt the authors of *rese errors from our mod-

ern judgement, we could respecr rhe errors and take them as part ofour

material. We must recognize ùat even ifwe do not share the same values

in this respect that we are neveftheless the heirs of the civilization that

they so brilliandy created and bequeathed to us. In this sense, we could

277

David A. 'Warburton

.ugue that this approach to error is not one of rhe ldzn' die noch bei uru

odtr in uns nahestehendzn lhlruren bedzutsam sind''We

must also recognize the rypes of errors to which we ourselves are

prone.'we tend to devise elaborate schemes, such as those of the econo-

mists trying to understand economic growth, or those of the physicists

who hope to unveil the mysteries of the universe' Both are based on the

concept of combining theory and data into a unifred whole'a6

The systematic errors of the ancients are of quite a different order' They

may hint at a higher degree of oPtimism about the capaciry of the

written word to dictate realicy. t' They could reflect a thought system

based on changing Patterns rather than fixed schemes ofreplication'a8

Regardless, rather rhan viewing these errors as obstacles to understand-

ing or evidence ofa lack ofculture, we should view them as evidence'

V4ratever it was, unravelling this approach to error might be the key

to understanding the lasting hallmark of the Ancient C\vllizations' die

Eigen b e grffi cb keit des Ahen Ori ents.

Conclusion

Thus, we have been able to isolate one speciÊc tendency which appears

ro sepârare us from the Ancient Near East. critics will doubtless dlege

that we have oversimplified on the one hand, and also omitted another

major domain entirely' 'We

freely admit to both, but allege that the

oversimplification is the lesser of the rwo shortcomings' as the arnount

of data from the ancient Near East testirying to systematic error would

fill entire encyclopaedias, and was thus beyond the scope ofthis brief

note. However, we do recognize the other criticism'

That domain of the Ancient Near East which has been hitherto ne-

glected in this discussion is that ofartistic representation' It can prob-

"bly b. .on,.nded that Ancienr Near Eastern ârtistic concePtions do in

fact represent one form of expression which is specifically Near Eastern'

Krahmer,+i S châfer,t' Groenewegen-Frankfo rtt' and others have drawn

errenrion ro rhe facr that the various sryles ofartistic representation of

the ancient Near East do not reflect mere idiosyncrasies, but actually

reveal different means of linking conceptions of time and space wirh

two dimensional representations. Brunner-Tlautt' has also endeav-

278

Ihe True Path of Error

oured to link Schâfert understanding of Egyptian ârtistic represente-

rion to grammatical expression, proceeding along precisely chose lines

which one could imagine would have intrigued Landsberger. Thus, a

porenriâl parh is open which could actually enable a glimpse into the

Eigen b egrffiic h k eit des Ori ents.

However, the fact of the matter is that the question of ancient Near

Eastern art still remains to be resolved. One will initially be obliged

to determine whether one can actually isolate tendencies which are

specific to individual cultures and acrually correspond to the criteria

ar hand. It is quite clear that Neo-Sumerian, Old Babylonian and Late

Babylonian art belong to very different traditions, and although closely

related are not the same; thus isolating the uBabylonian, would be

difficult, to take but one example. There is also the fundamental dis-

advantage that Eglprian and Babylonian art will have had an impact

on our own culture, and thus it would be difficult to distinguish the

mamer of continuiry from that of the speci6cally ancient.

More significant, however, is that such studies have hitherto concen-

trated on the masterpieces ofeach individual culture, or indeed on the

iconographic borrowings from one culture to another. Yet this route is

fraught with difficulties since to a remarkable extent, as contemporary

âuthorities as different as Bahraniti and RoaFo consciously stress the

fact that on occasion ancient Near Eastern art relied upon conscious

copying oforiginals from other cultures, quite aside from the fact that

rhere were also traditions maintained. In this fashion one can hardly

argue rhat art berrayed identiry. The copying was so obvious that we

must be sceptical about the extent to which we can actually reconstruct

the degree to which any art object was intended to convey conceptions

which we can identifr with certainry. Neither on the conscious ideo-

logical nor on the subconscious conceptual level could we be certain

rhar we had grasped irs rrue meaning.

By contrast, to resume our own argument, in the sense of copying er-

rors, we are in âct confident that our own reasoning can blend into art

history offering a promising approach to understanding the essence

of Ancient Near Eastern art, and thus bring us closer to our goal. We

refer to rwo specimens found in the northern periphery of che Babylo-

nian heartland. Concerning the remarkable piece from Tell Brak, the

excâvators observe:

David A. Warburton

The proportions of the figure seem to the modern eye unba-

lanced... \Thether this was a convendon of Mitanni sculpture

cannot be esrablished on the basis of a single piece. Its closest

parallel lies with the well-known statue of Idrimi ofAlalakh (69.

r) ... but the latter piece is much more finely carved.tt

Unhappily for art, but fortunately for art history there are more such

statues, of greater anriquity, as rhe current author must admit that he

unearthed them in what are probably Late Old Babylonian levels.t6

Thus, rather than suggesting that these statues should be used to un-

derstand Mitanni or Hurrian ârt, one can follow dre conceptua.l meth-

odology and artistic preferences of the beneficiary of this celebratory

volume and contend that one of the key elements in tle debate about

the understanding of ancient Near Eastern Art as a whole will doubt-

less be discovered in this art of the periphery.

As noted, our interesr is in seeking the overarching principles which

would distinguish this society and world from our own. These barbar-

ians from the periphery of the Near East were obliged to adopt Near

Eastern norms when trying to communicâre with their neighbours,

and the statues of Idrimi from Alalakh and the thankfully anonymous

examples from Têll Brak (fig. z) promise an opening in tlis respect.

Obviously, the authors were conceptually attempting to reproduce

what they saw, in order to express themselves in a fashion commensu-

rate with their environment.

As with Mitanni glyptic,tT it is evident that what they saw is not what

we see. Yet what they perceived as fundamental should nevertheless be

visible. Thus the spatial conceptions of the art ùey were reproducing

and cheir own spatial conceptions should be retrievable. In this case,

it is clear that both these statues result from an accumulation of error

on a monumental scale - yet though the errors result from uncom-

prehending imitation, they must betray the fundamental principles

governing Near Eastern art. Following all of the linguistic and artistic

nuances to their final end will obviously require firrther research. Yet it

would allow the ambitious scholar to achieve a somewhat difFerent vi-

sion than Landsberger!, but nevertheless within the same framework.

Thus, identifring the Eigenbegrffiichkeit der ahorientalischen W'eh in a

comprehensive fashion, taking account of artistic expression as well

' lhe'l l .uc Pirth of Flrror

' , , '"Ïtt!,,; i '' ' i ' . f ' . , . ' , r ' r i . \ r

Irll

ï ;i

l - i q . r : I . l r i n t i , ' l - A l . r l . r k h t H r , , r r . l . r t . ) 9 l i : t - u ) .

L).rviJ À. \X'.rrhurrt,n

Fig. r: St.rtue fron' lel l l l rak (Rouault er al. r99-3: 295).

as languâge would open the arvcnue to understxnding their thought

su 'uc tu rcs , r r r t l th . ' i r s ( )c ic ( i cs .' lhus,

err<lr c: ln lead to truth. 'W'hether rn()nttmentâl crrors as grrrvc as

tl tose conrpoundecl in the celebrated statue Frorr l ' l . l l l

Brak anci that

of lclrinri can âctuâlly be overcome is a different rnrttcr. Howcvcr, re-

gi lrdlcss of thc outconre of any prospective investigarion, the statttes

the rrrselves càn ccrtainly be unde rstoocl in the' se nsc of the EigenbegriJ:

flic/lkùt rler altorientnlischn l7rlr as rcpresentative , ttn<l ùrts-falscb, abo

gcttitt/."

l l t l

The Tiue Path ofError

Notes

t Attributed ro Benno ladsberger (M. \?liIler, pers. comm.)z In l^andsberger & von Soden r96y: 19.3 l,andsbergerryz6:357.

4 Kemp zoor.

t Ed2ârd r97o: s7.6 Quack 1997.7 Kaelin zoo6.8 Cordon 196r.

9 For identiry c[ Jenkins 1996, where social identiw is bæed on ndifference, md*similuiqn; obviously rhe one to isolate the g.oup fro* neighbours, and theother ro draw rÀe group rogetier.

Io E.g., most recently, Renger zoo7.I I

I 2

1 1

r 4r i

I b

I J

r8r9202I

Polansr ry7r.Polaryr ry77: to.E.g. Stol r982, Veenhofzoo4.Renger zooT: r89.Moran r99z: t6-t7Cancik-Kirschbaum ry96: ugBryce zooT: 5rr.Celb et al. r99r; Srol etaJ. ry93-t994; powell et al. zoo3_zoo,Lmdsberçr r967.Wtrburton 2oo7.Englund r998.Swerdlow r998.Vuburton zoo3. It must be noted that one of the very few shortcomings oflandsberger's æuwe is revealed where he remk that rhe religon of the Babylo_nims appears tobe uiisterAbergbube, dzs recht pimrrrz (hnjsberger ry26,3,56).lX4rile it may be true that this obsenation m b. ,;e*ed * potentially justifiablewhen applied to a modern scholu comparing modern ,ci.n'd6. methodology tolabylonim

religion, it would be.romlly unjridfiable ,o rugg.r, that Babylonimbelie6 differed rhat much from drose ,t"r.d by

" t.rg. p.ffi,o, of rhe people

of the Western world, whose sptems of belief _ *h;;. éhri.tianiry or lstrol-ogy - owe â g:eâr deal to rhe intellectual accomplishments of the Babylonims. Infact rle Babylonim religion would have to be understood * ,+,, modern inthat it accommodated differed kin,s of data'd tradition, *h...* i, their fair-ure to evolve æ new dara becomcs available, modern religions are truly primitivby comparison - but rhis is mother discussion.

-

LesKô rg7zi 7.Huber zooo.Koch 1998.Chapin r995.Naville 1886; Hornung r961_6-l-tornung r99o: 26rNaville 1886, I: pl. CXIMI, lines r(*r7.Naviile 1886, II does not give any parallels for this.

I

i

I

i

tI

. !

)

!

z627z829

)o

283

David A. W'uburton

3z Naville 1886, II : 4.13 Naville 1886, I: pl. r vs. II:4.

)4 Faulkner 1978: r35. One could argue rhat the reference to (Horus the elder, refersto Osiris, and tlat there is nothing but a terminological problem (Horus Seniorand Horus Junior being presumably an acceptable mros of d.istinguishing therwo). Unfortunately t}ris does not cut ice, as the children are inwiably named asthe Children of Horu elsshere (and de6nitely not his siblings), md in any meHorus himself does not number among them. Thus the implications are clea.

)j As m be wn Êom a glmce at rhe botmm of e.g., Homung r96J, I: 98, ro5, r5z, etc.36 Hornung 1987-1994.

37 Assmann 1975.

l8 Assmmn 1983 : XII, referring to Assma n ry69.)9 Assmmn 1983.

40 Assmann r98l : )C(.

4r Assmmn 1983: )CûI.

42 Assmann 1983 : )O(VI.

43 Assmann 1983: )O(MI.

44 Jmssen zoo5: ry7.

4, Swerdlow 1998: t8r.

46 This is probably ùe gpe of error ro which Ladsberger referred in the quote citedat the start, a form of error wh.ich is tlpical of ou civiliatron.

47 Scholus looking for evidence of dissonmce in the ancient Near Eætern tstswould certainly be encouraçd to o<amine this field more closely.

48 The rariations in rhemselves may a.lso perhaps be one of the keln m understand-ing how culture develops. Cf Blackmore 1999 for erroneous replietion s ameans for the generadon ofcuhure.

49 Krahmer r93r.

to Schiifer 1968.

5r Gronwegen-Frankfortrg5r,jz Brunner-Traut 1992, but cf also Brunner-Taut in Schâfer rq68.

53 Bahrmi zoo7.

s4 Roafzooo.

55 Oates et al. ry971 25, Fig. 4t, ro5. For Idrimi, cf W'oolley 1955: pl. XI\4.,6 Oates et al. ry97: to6,Fig. ry6.j7 CC Salje r99o; t}re situation is obviouly simila in Cappadocim gllptic.t8 Es ist mit dem grôBten Vergniigen, dass wir diese Môglichkeit walunehmen, un-

serem Crossen Meister eine kleine Spende anzubieren. Die Grùnde ffir die Valilund Endaltung des Themas werden ihm wohl klar sein.

284

Ihe True Path of Error

Bibliography

Assurlu, J.rg\ Sonnenhlmnen in thebanischen Grjbern, Theben r.

Bennalqr, Z.2oo7 The BabylonimVisual Image, in: leickzooT, r55-r7o.

Br-ecloaone, S.1999 The Meme Machine, Oxford.

BnuNNrn-Tne.ur, E.rggz Friihformen des Erkennens. Aspekdve im alten Âgpten, Darmstadt.

Bnvce, T.zooT A Vim Êom Hatrusa, in: I eîck zoo7, 5o3-5t4.

Dr Bucr, A.

ry3tff. The Eg'ptian Coffin Têxa, 7 Vols, Oriental Insdtute Publications, Chica-go.

CeNcrr-Krnscneeulr, E. CH.

ry96 Die Minelæspischen Briefe au Tèll Seh Hamad, Berichte der AusgrabungTall Seh Hamad / Dur Katlimmu 4, Berlin.

CnmprN, D.rg95 nl-ies natiirlich ...u A propos des erreurs de scribes dans les lettres de Mri,,

in: Dieuich, M. I lnreo',, O. (Hgg.), Vom Alten Orient zum Alten tsta-ment, Alter Orient und Alts Tatament 24o, 43-j6.

Eozeno, D. O., er Ar.r97o Kâmid el-lôz - Kumidi: Schriftdokumente, Kânid el-loz - Kumidi 7,

Bonn.

EucruNo, R. K.1998 Texts from the late Uruk Period, in: Attinger, P / \J?âfler, M. (Hgg.), Me-

sopotamien: Spâturuk-Zeit und Frùhdynætische Zeit, Orbis Biblicus etOrientalis r6o.r / Annâherunçn r, Fribourg, I5-zll.

Feurrole& R. O.1978 The Ancient Egyptim Coffin Tèxts, Volume I: Spells r-3y4. W'arminster.

Cen, I. J et aJ.rggr Esliest Lmd Tènue Slntems in the Ner Ect, Oriental Instirute Publie-

uons ro4.

GonooN, C. H.rg6j The Common Origins of the Greek and Hebrs Civilizations, New York.

GnosNewcrN-Fn.lNxronr, H. A.rgjr furest md Movement, london.

Honr.rur.rc, E.19g-67 Dm Amdrrat, 3 Vols., Àglptologische Abhmdlungen 7, r3.

1987-1994 Gxte zunr Amduat, I Vols., Ag,?tiae Helvetie 3-ry.

r99o Das Totenbuch der Àgypter, Zurich.

Hnouoe, B. (Hg.)

r9g8 Der alte Orient: Geschichte und Kultur des a.lten Vorderæien, Mûnchen.

I

l q <

David A. W'rburton

HueeR, Pzooo Asuonomy md Ancient Ctuonology, Akkadica l9-rzo, t59-r76.

JersseN, J. J.2oo i Accountancy at Deir el-Medina, Srudien zur Ahig,ptirhe n Kilrw 33, r47-t5z .

JexrrNs, R.

ry96 Social Identiry london.

KeruN, O.zoo6 "Modell -A€ruren, Adoption von Innovationen im Mesopotamien des 3.

Jahrtausends v. Chr., Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis Series Archaeologie 26,Fribourg.

K;vn, B. J.2oor "Just Like Us?,, [= Review of McDowell 1999] Cambridç Archaeological

Journal rr, rz3-r3o.

KocH, J.1998 Neuc von den Ur Ill-Mondeklipsen, NABU 1998 N 4, nÇr29.

Kr.,tnMe& G.r9)r Figur und Raum in der iigrydschen und griechisch-archaischen Kunst,

Hdle, \f/inkelmanns Programm 28.

Laxosnencen, B.

ryzG Die Eigenbegriffiichkeit der babylonischen W'elt, Islamia z, 155-372.

rg67 Ûb.t F-be. im Sumerisch-Akkadischen, Journal ofCuneiform Studia zI,139-17 ).

Le.xosnrncer, B. / Soor,rq, W: voNt96t Die Eigenbegriffiichkeit der Babylonischen \7elt. lristung und Grenæ su-

merischer und babylonischer rVissenschaft, Darmstadt.

Lsrcx, G.zooT The Babylonim Vorld, london.

Lnsxo, L.t97z The Ancient Egptian Book ofTwo Wap, Berkeley

McDoveu-, A. G.1999 Village Life in Ancient Eg,pt, Ordord.

Nalrlu, E.1886 Dæ Todtenbuch der Âg,pter, 3 Vols., Berlin.

O,ues, D., er er.1997, Fxcawcions at Têll Brah Vol. r: The Mitanni and Old Babylonim periods,

Cmbridge.

PoLe^-vr, K.r97r Marketless Tiading in Hmmurabit Time, in: Polanyi, K. et al. (eds.),

Tiade and Mrket in the Early Empires, Chicago, rz 26.

rg77 The Livelihood of Man, New York.

PowuL M. 4., er er.zoo3-zoo5 Preise, Reallodkon der fusgiologie rc,6o9-616.

Quecr, J. F.1997 Die K.lagen ùber die Zerstôrung Âgyptens. Versuch einer Neudeutung

der uAdmonitions, im Vergleich zu den altorienta.lischen Stâdteklagen, in:

286

lhe Lrue t'atn oI r,Itot

Pongraz-kisten, B. et al. (eds.), Ana 5adî Labnmi lu allik Beiuiiç zualtorienta.lischen und Mittelmeerischen Kulturen, A.lter Orient und AltesTèstament 247,34j154.

R-eNcsR, J.zoo7 Economy of Ancient Mesopotamia: A general outline, in: I:ick zoo7,

r87-t97.

Ro,rr, M.2ooo Survivals and Revivais in the Art of Ancient Maopotmiar,, in Matthiae, P

et al. (eds.), Proceedings ofthe First Internationa.l Congress on the Archae-ology of the Ancient Na Eat, Rome,447-1462.

Roulurr, O., er er. (ro.)rggj LEuÊate e il tempo: le civilta del medio Eufrate e della Gezira sirima, Aus-

stellung: funini, SaJa dell'Arengo ePdazm del Podestà, 28.o3.-3t.o8.t993,Milano.

Serye, B.19go Der,Common Style' der Mitanni-Glyptik, Baghdader Forschungen rr.

Scniren" H.

ry68 Principla of Eg,ptian fut, Oford.

Sror, M.t98z State md Prirate Business in the land oflarsa, Journal ofCuneiform Stud-

ic a4, o7-23o.

SroL M., pr er.r99J-r994 Miete, Reallsikon der Assyriologie 8, 156-187.

Swenorow, N. M.1998 The Babylonian Theory ofthe Planets. Princeton.

VeeNFror, K. R.zoo4 Silver md Credit in Old Asspim lade, in Dercftsen, J. G. (ed.), Asspia

and Beyond, Leiden, yy-83.

\TenrunroN, D. A.zoo3 Macræconomics Êom the Beginning, Neuchâtel.

zooT Bæic Color Tèrm Evolution in Light of Ancient Evidence Êom the NeaEast, in: Maclaury, R. E. / Parmei, G. V & Dedrick, D. (eds.), Antluo-pology of C-olor: Interdisciplinry Multilevel Modelling, Amsterdm, zz9-246.

\Voorr-gv, L.rgtt Alalakh, Oxford.

tI

287