Is the Ugarit notation the same system as the Mesopotamian theory texts describe, or a local adaptation?
Two answers, none aheadNone is ahead yet. See what would settle it.
Where it stands
Two answers have been proposed. None is ahead on the evidence yet. Two are still possible.
Why it matters
The h.6 terms are the Babylonian names in Hurrian spelling and the colophon uses the Babylonian tuning name, which is why the theory tablets are applied to it[1][2]. Bayer argued in 1978 that the Ugarit notation drew on the Mesopotamian mainstream but became a separate channel, pointing to the different language and people and to the absence of any Babylonian song written this way[3]. The Nippur music-instruction fragments use the same terms for singing and are the nearest Mesopotamian parallel, but they are broken and read differently by Kilmer and Civil and by Colburn[4][5].
Answers 2
History
- O. R. Gurney: every notation term in h.6 corresponds to one of the fourteen Babylonian interval names, and the colophon names nid…For: Same system as the Babylonian theory texts (Güterbock, Kilmer)
- Emmanuel Laroche: no Mesopotamian song survives in the Ugarit layout of words over a notation block, and the Ugarit terms appear in…For: A separate local channel (Bayer)
- Hans G. Güterbock: every notation term in h.6 corresponds to one of the fourteen Babylonian interval names, and the colophon names nid…For: Same system as the Babylonian theory texts (Güterbock, Kilmer)
- Anne Draffkorn Kilmer: every notation term in h.6 corresponds to one of the fourteen Babylonian interval names, and the colophon names nid…For: Same system as the Babylonian theory texts (Güterbock, Kilmer)
- Bathja Bayer: no Mesopotamian song survives in the Ugarit layout of words over a notation block, and the Ugarit terms appear in…For: A separate local channel (Bayer)
- Session 1: raised the question