A Survey on the study of menologies between 1897-1987

by koot van wyk (DLitt et Phil; ThD)

Kyungpook National University

Sangju Campus

South Korea

Conjoint lecturer of Avondale College

Australia

11 May 2009

Many scholars commented on month-names that they found on this or that text in the Ancient Near East. Then they quote the pioneers of the past to substantiate their own idea without realizing that the debate on the interpretation of menologies was originally presented with two different schools.

Years 1896-1916

In 1897 F. Thureau-Dangin attempted an order for the  month names at Nippur starting the year on the month SÉ-IL-LA and ending at ŠE-KIN-KUD.

Three years later, H. Radau (1900), on the basis of a text EAH 134 started the year with ŠE-KIN-KUD and ended it with ME-KI-GAL. Radau's  textual evidence were so strong that he became one of the  two schools of interpretation mentioned above.

In the same year, F. Thureau-Dangin changed his mind and on the basis of a text CTV plate 44 no. 18258 from Nippur settled for the year to start with GAN-MAŠ and end with SÉ-IL-LA.

Not many scholars are aware of this debate during 1896-1916 on the position of the first month of the year at ancient Nippur during the III Dynasty of Ur (thus before 2004 BCE). 

The arguments of F. Thureau-Dangin on the one side and H. Radau on the other, were so strong that Ginzel in 1906 viewed  both as equally possible and kept an indecisive position. The issue was what the first and last month of Nippur were.

During 1906, R. Lau concurred rather with the ideas of Radau. He was followed by T. Pinches in 1908 who, on the  basis of Amh 85 and VR 43 R7 viewed ME-KI-GAL as the twelfth month, just like Radau.

When F. X. Kugler wrote in 1909, he admitted an uncertainty on the position. He felt that F. Thureau-Dangin's order of GAN-MAŠ to SÉ-IL-LA is not convincing enough. Despite this lack of evidence, Kugler did provide evidence in favor of the position of Thureau-Dangin by citing two texts: OBR 251 and CTX plate 20ff. no. 14308.

In 1910, D. W. Myhrman reflected on the Thureau-Dangin versus Radau debate and concluded that both are possible and that he beginning of the year cannot be absolutely determined with the material at hand. 

When S. Langdon entered the debate initially in 1911, he investigated the arguments of Kugler (following F. Thureau-Dangin) versus Radau. He concluded that both are possible. However, Langdon's uncertainty was dispelled by one tablet TAD 51 and this evidence helped him to support Thureau-Dangin.

In 1911 F. Thureau-Dangin wrote his third article on the order of the month names, but this time he seeked support in his references in Kugler at most places in the article.

This 1911 viewpoint of Thureau-Dangin was compared by H. de Genouillac to Radau's suggestions and they were found to be equally possible.

In 1914, W. M. Nesbit expressed his view that it seems as if Thureau-Dangin is correct. During 1915 B. Landsberger accepted Thureau-Dangin's point of view, yet, not without criticism, as he said "die zum Teile noch problematisch ist...." (Landsberger 1915: 17).

The debate between the two schools of interpretation of menologies at Nippur faded  out because of the absence of strong arguments from the Radau-school, and also the uspsurge of the popularity of Thureau-Dangin.

Years 1916-1936

For the next twenty years, the debate on the order of the monthnames subsided. No new arguments were brought in and the case was not reopened for fresh investigation. The scholars between 1916-1936 were only followers of the most popular approach on the subject and not investigators of the issues involved.

J. B. Nies (1920) plainly admitted that the order which he gave is that of Myhrman's revision, Langdon's and Thureau-Dangin's (Nies 1920: 7).

In 1936, N. Schneider gave the assumptions of Thureau-Dangin the image of popularity. He "canonized" the ideas of Thureau-Dangin. Schneider offered no evidence for the identity of these month names, he simply asserted them. His assertion was widely accepted as fact apparently by those who used the lists of month names without reading further. It is also difficult to displace in the face of evidence to the contrary (Whiting 1979: 14).

The canonized Thureau-Dangin view was unaltered and accepted by scholars beyond the seventies (see D. Calvot 1969; R. M. Whiting 1976; T. Gomi 1977; R. Whiting 1979).

Gezer Calendar

From the year 1908 to the present, the Gezer calendar received equal attention in each decade. This calendar has interesting aspects to offer in comparison with Joel 2; Joel 4:13; Amos 7:1-4 and Ruth 2:23.

Babylonian Calendar

In 1909 F. R. Weisbach and E. Mahler wrote on the Babylonian calendar.

S. Langdon on the Accadian Calendar

In 1935 S. Langdon published his 1933 Schweich Lectures and in this book he tried to proof the point that the Accadians got their Semitic calendar during the Amorite invasion (2300 BCE [his date]) and that the Accadians got their calendar from the Sumerian cults with its seat at Nippur. He felt that the Accadians passed their calendar on to the Assyrian and Babylonian temples and from there the Aramaeans and lastly to the Hebrews (Langdon 1935: 18). In 1987 S. Greengus said that the problem with the Accadian calendar is that we are "no further ahead in fact than were the earlier scholars at the beginning of this century!" (Greengus 1987: 211).

Nuzi Calendar

In 1934 C. H. Gordon wrote an article on the names of the months at Nuzi. Leo Oppenheim followed the discussion in 1936 with the identification of non-Semitic elements in the monthnames at Nuzi. In 1938 Gordon and E. R. Lachman took Nuzi menology under further revision.

Assyrian Calendar

In 1928/9 E. F. Weidner wrote his article on the old-Assyrian Calendar and in 1935/36 he discussed it again. J. Lewy also discussed aspects of the Assyrian Calendar in 1939.

Egyptian Calendar

The Egyptian Calendar received attention in an article by A. Pogo in 1936. In 1940 H. E. Winlock wrote an article on the Egyptian Calendar and in 1942 O. Neugebauer wrote on it.

Years 1950-1980

Elamite Calendar

The Elamite Calendar was discussed by R. T. Hallock in 1950; W. H. Hinz in 1963; again by Hallock in 1969 and E. Reiner in 1973. Reiner's position was against that of Hrozný, Scheil and Hinz.

Mari Calendar

The Mari Calendar was discussed firstly by J. Bottéro and A. Finet (1954) but afterwards by others also: Bottéro (1957); M. Birot (1960, 1964, 1974); H. Limet (1974);  O. Roualt (1977, 1979); D. Charpin (1982).

Phoenician Calendar

The Phoenician months were mentioned by G. A. Cooke in 1903. F. Vattioni brought it into discussion with his interpretation of Maleachi 3:20 in 1959. The full calendar was given by E. Koffmann in 1966.

Hittite Calendar

A discussion of the Hittite concepts of time was given by A. Goetze in 1951.

Ugaritic Calendar

E. Koffmann discussed the Ugaritic Calendar in 1966 and in 1967 J. P. J. Olivier considered them and discussed it further in two articles, one in 1971 and the other in 1972.

Ebla Calendar

The Ebla Calendar was first given by D. G. Pettinato in 1974 and again in 1977. It was reproduced from Pettinato by M. Weitzman. In 1980/81 W. Shea wrote three articles on the Ebla Calendars with a discussion on the camparison of the Old and New Calendars at Ebla. The Ebla calendars serves as the most valuable control as its positions of the months has a high degree of certainty. In 1981 M. Dahood also commented on the Ebla Calendar.

Alalakh Calendar

The Alalakh monthnames were given by D. J. Wiseman (1953, 1959). However, they were not ordered.

Anatolian Calendar

L. Matous published the Anatolian calendar in 1962.

Persian Calendar

A discussion of the Persian Calendar was given in 1909 by J. V. Prasch and again in 1941 by H. Lewy and G. Cardiscia in 1951. In 1963 W. L. Waerden wrote on the world-year of the Persians. A much quoted source on the Persian Calendar is the article by R. A. Parker dealing with Persian and Egyptian chronology.

Qumran Calendar

The discovery of the Dead Sea schrolls in 1947 opened a new discussion on the time concepts in the Old Testament and in the Qumran writings.

Biblical Calendars

In 1970, Siegfried Horn and L. H. Wood wrote a book on the Biblical Calendars in their pre-exilic; exilic and post-exilic phases. Later J. van Goudoever also wrote on Biblical Calendars.

Van Wyk has found in his studies of menologies, that hybridization took place at various sites, so that it is not always easy to determine one calendar for one site. Empires influence, trade-links, intermarriage, migrations, foreign cultic influences and many other factors were influencing the form and shape of the monthnames at a particular site. There are many calendars at Mari, at Ebla, at Ugarit, etc.

End item