Bulletin of the Society for Near Eastern Studies in Japan
Online ISSN : 1884-1406
Print ISSN : 0030-5219
ISSN-L : 0030-5219
Year Dates in the Emar Texts
Data and Preliminary Remarks
Masamichi YAMADA
Author information
JOURNAL FREE ACCESS

1995 Volume 38 Issue 1 Pages 96-112

Details
Abstract
In the Emar texts there are found two kinds of year dates, year names and eponymous years, which were used by the Emariotes during the period from the 13th to the early 12th centuries B. C. Based on the collected data, the following points can be made:
(1) Year Names—attested both in Syrian type texts (including several royal documents) and in Syro-Hittite type texts. In all but two cases (Emar VI 15: 35b-36 and possibly ASJ 13-T 30: 42b) they are the years of nukurtu and/or dannatu (see List 1), which denote a critical situation when Emar was in “war” and, as its result, suffered from “famine.” The Sumerogram MU (“year”) is sometimes omitted and the description is usually concise, but several examples are still found at the end of the texts, as in the cases of normal year dates. On the basis of the RNs and other PNs mentioned in the texts, it is possible to date some of these years to the reign of the king: Zu-Aštarti, Pilsu-Dagan (Hurrian siege of Emar), and Elli (siege of Emar by certain enemies and extraordinary inflation).
(2) Eponymous Years—attested only in Syrian type texts (always non-royal documents). At present fourteen Emariote, and non-Assyrian, year dates of this sort are known (see List 2). In principle they are referred to according to the formula MU PN1 (DUMU PN2) 1/2.KAM.MA, “the first/second year of PN1 (son of PN2), ” which always occurs at the end of the texts together with scribal names and month names. Taking into account that many texts are dated to the “second” year (and none to third or beyond) and that if a normal eponym lasted only one year there would be no need to specify the “first” year, it seems likely that two years were assigned to each eponym in Emar. Since unfortunately no eponym list has been found and there is no reference to RN in the texts, any attempt to date these years remains speculative. Nevertheless a comparative analysis of the scribal names and the witness lists shows that five out of the thirteen eponyms must have belonged to the period within one generation.
Content from these authors
© The Society for Near Eastern Studies in Japan
Previous article Next article
feedback
Top