scholarly journals Angelika Berlejung & Judith E. Filitz (eds.). The Physicality of the Other. Masks from the Ancient Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean

Author(s):  
Astrid Nunn
2011 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 172-227 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter J. Huber

Abstract Egyptian dates are widely used for fixing the chronologies of surrounding countries in the Ancient Near East. But the astronomical basis of Egyptian chronology is shakier than generally assumed. The moon dates of the Middle and New Kingdom are here re-examined with the help of experiences gained from Babylonian astronomical observations. The astronomical basis of the chronology of the New Kingdom is at best ambiguous. The conventional date of Thutmose III’s year 1 in 1479 BC agrees with the raw moon dates, but it has been argued by several Egyptologists that those dates should be amended by one day, and then the unique match is 1504 BC. The widely accepted identification of a moon date in year 52 of Ramesses II, which leads to an accession of Ramesses II in 1279 BC, is by no means certain. In my opinion that accession year remains nothing more than one of several possibilities. If one opts for a shortened Horemhab reign, dating Ramesses II to 1290 BC gives a better compromise chronology. But the most convincing astronomical chronology is a long one: Ramesses II in 1315 BC, Thutmose III in 1504 BC. It is favored by Amarna-Hittite synchronisms and a solar eclipse in the time of Muršili II. The main counter-argument is that this chronology is at least 10–15 years higher than what one calculates from the Assyrian King List and the Kassite synchronisms. For the Middle Kingdom on the other hand, among the disputed dates of Sesostris III and Amenemhet III one combination turns out to be reasonably secure: Sesostris III’s year 1 in 1873/72 BC and Amenemhet III’s 30 years later.


2007 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 133-161 ◽  
Author(s):  
IAIN STANNARD

AbstractThe terms ‘arrest’ and ‘movement’, deployed by Tippett in his Third Symphony (1970–2) as part of what Kemp defines as a ‘dialectic of strong contrasts’, were in fact significant at an earlier stage of the composer’s output. Some ten years previously Arrest and Movement appears as a possible title for his Second Piano Sonata in the pencil manuscript of the work. Tippett’s notebooks further reveal how these two categories determined the formation of two distinct types of temporality in the piece: one halting or stuttering, the other flowing. Art critic Henriette Groenewegen-Frankfort’s book Arrest and Movement: an Essay on Space and Time in the Representational Art of the Ancient Near East, which was published in 1951 and which Tippett is known to have read, uses these terms to explore the relationship between spatial and temporal representation. This prompts investigation of the arrest–movement dialectic in Tippett’s Sonata along analogous lines, analysing structure, balance, and use of quasi-spatial proportions. The two threads converge by means of the criterion of ‘monumentality’, a term Groenewegen-Frankfort uses to describe works of particularly effective balance. While critical evaluation of the Sonata might suggest that this work itself falls short of ‘monumental’ stature, it is arguable that Tippett was able to carry forward lessons learned to works of his later œuvre (such as his Fourth Symphony), which do indeed approach this status.


2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ilan Peled

The ancient Near East is widely regarded as the “cradle of Western civilisation” and the birthplace of writing. As such, it was home to the earliest documented compendia we sometimes call “law collections”, and to some of the earliest records of institutionalised religion in human history. In the ancient Near East, these two major systems, official law and organised religion, did not usually intermingle. When they did, they compensated for one another, filling the gaps caused by the limitations of the other.


Author(s):  
William F. McCants

This chapter discusses the attempts to explain the origins of science, philosophy, and medicine. In classical Greece, medicine and philosophy were held to be Greek inventions, whereas the mathematical, or exact, sciences were believed to have originated in the ancient Near East, usually Egypt or Babylon. In the Hellenistic and Roman periods, the “barbarian” nations also laid claim to medicine and philosophy, with some Greek and Roman agreement. Jews in particular focused on philosophy when advancing their claims to civilizational priority rather than laying claim to the other sciences or civilization in general. This was for at least two reasons. First, soon after Alexander's conquests, Greeks promulgated the image of Jews as a philosophical race; when Greek and Roman authors later started to portray Jews as misanthropic outsiders, Jewish scholars sought to reinforce the earlier positive, transconfessional image. Second, once the Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek, Greek-speaking Jews could read their scriptures and note parallels with Greek philosophy.


2020 ◽  
pp. 93-112
Author(s):  
Su Fang Ng

In his treatise on romance, Traitté de l’origine des romans (1670), Pierre-Daniel Huet’s argument that the genre originated in the ancient Near East seems to reconfirm the idea of a western translatio studii. However, Huet also argues for a second origin of romance in the West. Examining Huet in conjunction with two of his representative romances—Heliodorus’ Aethiopika, and the fables of Bidpai, or Indian Panchatantra—this chapter considers how early modern translatio offers a choice of two paths to western relations to the East: the first imagined as the ancient ideal of a cosmopolis of universal brotherhood while the other led to modern Orientalism. Straddling the historical boundary between antique romance and modern novel, Huet occupies a critical transitional position. Despite his apparent cosmopolitanism, in the end, Huet’s polygenetic theory of romance suggests the beginnings of the divergence of classicism from Orientalism with a nascent imperial mentality.


Author(s):  
Susan Helft

Scholarship on the ancient Near East has not yet considered how the formation of a discrete set of objects and monuments has shaped our understanding of Anatolian civilizations. This chapter explores this issue by “testing” the canon of ancient Anatolian art and archaeology, with a focus on art. What is the canon, how was it formed, and does it meet the needs of today’s art historians and archaeologists? This exercise makes clear that the lists of Anatolian objects and sites chosen for modern consumption are the result of Mesopocentric viewpoints on the one hand, and of Turkish nationalist agendas on the other. For the canon of ancient Anatolia to more accurately represent the diversity of Anatolian cultures, the current canon needs to shed its Mesopotamian baggage and be more geographically and typologically inclusive. This chapter also advocates for a move away from comparisons between canons (which have contributed to a derivative view of ancient Anatolian art) and toward a thematic view. A case study on the topos of the hunt is meant to reset the relationship between the Anatolian and Mesopotamian canons and demonstrate the potential for more conceptual approaches to reinvigorate the canon for the future.


1980 ◽  
Vol 30 ◽  
pp. 189-195
Author(s):  
William W. Hallo

Much attention is currently lavished on the roles of the Mesopotamian core area relative to those of the periphery which surrounded it in a great arc. The periphery drew much of its cultural inspiration from the core, but not in any kind of monolithic way: present indications are that it was more often open to influence from what might be termed “Akkadian” than “Sumerian” traditions. In matters of script, language, calendar, legal terminology and numerous other features, it seems to have perpetuated innovations ultimately going back to Sargonic rule or inspiration. But it is equally clear that the direction of influence was not exclusively outward from the core to the periphery. As the example of the geographical atlas of the Ancient Near East attested at Ebla and at Abū Salābīk has already shown, it sometimes went the other way. The case of the royal titulary may provide a further example of the influence of the periphery on the Mesopotamian core.Twenty-five years ago, I studied the evolution of the royal titulary in essentially historical terms, as I attempted to date the first appearance of each royal title within Mesopotamia. Only occasional suggestions were offered for the possible prehistory of some titles outside Mesopotamia. These suggestions can now be followed up and expanded in the light of additional data.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document