Gibson Ancient 2021

A RE-EXAMINATION OF ANCIENT NEAR-EASTERN MUSIC-THEORETICAL
TABLETS AND NOTATION; CONCERNING A TABLATURISATION FOR THE

HURRIAN H6 CUNEIFORM TABLET
by
Dylan Lawrence Gibson
Thesis presented in fulfilment (100%) of the requirements for the degree of Master of Music
(Musicology) in the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences at Stellenbosch University
Supervisor: Dr. Louis van der Watt

Co-supervisor: Prof. Dr. Izak Cornelius
December 2021
1
Stellenbosch University https://scholar.sun.ac.za
Declaration
By submitting this thesis electronically, I declare that the entirety of the work contained
therein is my own, original work, that I am the sole author thereof (save to the extent
explicitly otherwise stated), that reproduction and publication thereof by Stellenbosch
University will not infringe any third party rights and that I have not previously in its entirety
or in part submitted it for obtaining any qualification.
Dylan Lawrence Gibson

Date: December 2021
Copyright © 2021 Stellenbosch University

All rights reserved
2
Dedicated to my parents,
Stuart John Gibson and Lizette Gibson(Maritz)
3
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisor, Dr. Louis van der Watt, and my co-
supervisor, Prof. Dr. Izak Cornelius, for providing insightful advice and feedback. Your
willingness to take over the supervision and co-supervision of my research at such short
notice is greatly appreciated. I am also grateful for the assistance Dr. Barry Ross provided
during the initial stages of my research.
A special thanks is owed to Marianne Feenstra for her editorial assistance and advice. Your
expertise has helped improve the quality and readability of my work substantially.
I would also like to thank Daniel Sánchez Muñoz for assisting me with some Assyriological
matters and for bringing many important texts to my attention.
To my wife, San-Mari Van Wyk-Gibson and our children, thank you for your continued
support and for dealing with my stress. Gratitude is also extended to the Gibson, Maritz, Van
Wyk and Badenhorst family. Your constant support and sacrifices have not gone unnoticed.
Thanks is owed to each and every member of my extended and immediate family.
Finally, I would like to thank Richard J. Dumbrill for sparking my interest in ancient Near-
Eastern Musicology/Archaeomusicology. Gratitude is also extended to Leandré(Lala) Le Roux
for introducing me to Ancient Near-Eastern Studies.
Abstract
The most complete and oldest illustration of an ancient Near-Eastern music notation system
discovered thus far can be found inscribed on the Hurrian H6 cuneiform tablet. This three-
thousand-year-old tablet has been dated to circa 1400 BCE and was excavated at Ras
Shamra, ancient Ugarit in modern day Syria. It is believed to be intended for a stringed
instrument, presumed to be an ancient lyre/harp, with possibly seven, nine, or more strings.
Whether the system was devised for a harp/lyre tuned to a diatonic, chromatic, or another
type of microtonal/quartertonal system is not known at present. Current consensus assumes it
is a diatonic system based on tones and semitones.
The process of decoding this notation involves the use of closely related ancient music
theoretical-lexical tablets, namely the UET VII 126 (string naming/order tablet), CBS 10996
(string pair/set tablet) and UET VII 74 with its duplicate UET VI/3 899 (re-tuning/modulation
tablet). Efforts to translate the instructional notation are divided into two perspectives, with
no single definitive approach to its translation. Westernalist or Occidental scholars such as
Anne Draffkorn Kilmer (1971) and Martin Lichfield West (1994) use Western intervals to
interpret the tablet. In strong opposition, Orientalist scholars like David Wulstan (1971),
Marcelle Duchesne-Guillemin (1975, 1980, 1984) and Richard Jean Dumbrill (2005, 2014b,
2017-2020) advocate for the use of single melodic sequence/pitch set interpretations which
are influenced by modern/traditional Middle-Eastern music practices. Both perspectives
render their interpretations using modern Western music notation.
The main issue regarding the existing Hurrian H6 tablet interpretations is that scholars
generally focus on providing performance-ready interpretations (“sheet music”) that reflect
the presumed overall characteristic sound the notation is believed to represent. These
interpretations, which vary depending on the choice of a Westernalist or Orientalist
perspective, also include suppositions that are intended to provide or supplement information
that is unknown or damaged. Theorists therefore recreate information that does not appear on
the physical evidence of the tablet. In doing this, they arrange certain aspects according to
their own compositional biases to subjectively reflect how they believe ancient music would
have been performed and sounded.
i
This thesis will argue and propose the need for a tablature-based interpretation of the Hurrian
H6 tablet because we may only be able to translate and/or decode the ancient notation, as
with most other notations, approximately and not accurately.
The most recent theory comes from Dumbrill (2005, 2014b, 2017-2020). He suggests the
standard scales/modes of ancient Near-Eastern music follow an enneatonic-descending
system, based on nine descending notes/pitches. Dumbrill also urges that scholars should
abandon using heptatonic scales/modes (based on seven ascending notes/pitches) when
interpreting the Hurrian H6 tablet.
This research will endeavor to show that the scale/mode, for lack of better terminology, is in
fact an ambiguous extended seven note/pitch system which is essentially heptatonic. It will
also be demonstrated that the intended scale/mode direction, believed to be hinted at on the
UET VII 126 and UET VII 74 tablet, can be perceived as an interchangeable “free standing”
system capable of being both ascending and descending.
The insistence on the use of a diatonic based scale/modal system in ancient music is
purportedly deduced because of the use of the ancient Akkadian/Accadian term lā zakû. This
term is found inscribed on the UET VII 74 (re-tuning/modulation) tablet and can be roughly
translated to mean “not clear”. Scholarly consensus presumes that the translation “not clear”
refers to an interval that is comparable to a tritone. The term zakû, which can be translated to
mean “clear”, can also be found on this same tablet.
Reading through the re-tuning/modulation procedure and interpreting it, scholars have
constructed seven diatonic ancient scales/modes by looking at the relationships between “not
clear” and “clear” string pairs. In their interpretation, scholars have assumed that an interval
equivalent to a modern tritone is formed between “not clear” string pairs. The theory is that
these tritones can then be “cleared” to devise a new scale/mode which has its own unique
“not clear” tritone.
In opposing this argument, this thesis seeks to reveal that the standard modern Western
conceptions of tritones and intervals of thirds and sixths (and by extension seconds and
sevenths), which seem to be hinted at on the CBS 10996 tablet, may be microtonally different
to ancient conceptions. This renders current interpretations of the Hurrian H6 and the other
ii
~68 Hurrian tablets fallible since one cannot be sure about the scale/mode type, direction, or
the relative note/pitch relationships.
This thesis arguers that hasty generalisations have been made, and it seems improbable that
this ancient instructional notation can be accurately translated into modern Western notation.
The above reservations justify a thorough re-examination of the most important and related
ancient music theory-based tablets. Re-examinations, specifically of the fundamental tablets
UET VII 126, CBS 10996 and UET VII 74, serve as the focus of this research.
Keywords
Musicology
Assyriology
Archaeomusicology
Ethnoarchaeomusicology
Ancient Culture Studies
Mesopotamian Music
Ancient Near-Eastern Music
Ancient Music Theory
Tablaturisation
Cuneiform Tablets
Ancient Music Notation
Hurrian H6
UET VII 126
UET VII 74
CBS 10996
Orientalist Theory
Westernalist Theory
Africanist Perspective
Grounded Theory
Historical-Comparative Research
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
LIST OF FIGURES………………………………………………………………............... vi
LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………………………....…. xiii
LIST OF APPENDICES……………………………………………………………............ xvi
CHAPTER 1: ANCIENT NEAR-EASTERN INSTRUCTIONAL NOTATION AND

MUSIC
1.1. An Introduction……………………………………………………...…….…….…. 1
1.2. Hurrian H6 Tablet Layout and Contents…………...……………………………… 4
1.2.1. H6 lyrical section…………………………………………………….….…. 8
1.2.2. H6 music instructional notation section…………………………………… 9
1.2.3. H6 music theoretical considerations……………………………………...... 11
1.2.4. The importance of the CBS 10996 tablet…………………………………... 15
1.2.5. H6 colophon………………………………………………………………... 19
1.3. Research Problems and Delimitations……………………………………………... 20
1.4. Research Questions and Aims……………………………………………………... 21
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Westernalist and Orientalist Approaches to Ancient Music Decipherment……….. 23
2.2. Existing Research on Ancient Near-Eastern Music Notation and Theory………… 27
2.2.1. Existing Westernalist and Orientalist interpretations…………………...…. 29
2.2.2. Interpreting the undisclosed instructional notation numbers………………. 32
2.2.3. Future considerations for a tablaturisation interpretation………...…... 35
2.3. Purpose and Value of Study……………………………………………………….. 37
2.4. An Africanist Inspired Perspective…………………………………………….…... 38
2.5. Concluding Summary……………………………………………………………… 43
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH TO THE RESEARCH

3.1. Methodology and Framework…………………………………………………….... 44
3.1.1. Information type…………………………………………………………… 45
3.1.2. Process of information collection……………………………………….…. 46
3.1.3. Approach to data analysis of primary sources………………………….….. 47
3.1.4. Approach to analysis of secondary sources…………………………….….. 48
3.2. Motivations and Justification for Chosen Methodology…………………………... 49
3.2.1. The importance of direct translations……………………………………… 51
3.2.2. State of existing research……………………………………………….….. 55
3.3. Research Design…………………………………………………………………… 55
CHAPTER 4: UET VII 126 - THE STRING NAMING AND ORDER TABLET
4.1. UET VII 126 Tablet General Contextual Information………………………….….. 58
4.2. UET VII 126 Layout, Contents and Approach to Decipherment…………….…….. 69
4.3. Ancient Lyre and Harp Excavations………………………………………….……. 78
4.3.1. Sacred/religious significance………………………………………….…… 82
4.3.2. The strings of the excavated instruments…………………..………….…… 84
4.3.3. The ancient lyre versus the ancient harp…………………………….……... 87
4.4. Musicological Importance of the String Order……………………………….……. 89
4.4.1. YBC 11381 alternate string naming system………………………….…….. 92
4.5. True Enneatonicism and Extended-Heptatonic Inversional Qualities………….….. 98
4.5.1. Implied cultural notions of octaves……………………………………….... 105
iv
4.6. Concerning the Presumed Scale/Mode Direction…………………………….……. 109

4.6.1. Determining the front and the back of the presumed instrument………….. 111
4.6.2. An ambiguous scale/mode direction………………………………….……. 124
4.7. Closing Remarks concerning the UET VII 126 Tablet……………………….……. 127
CHAPTER 5: CBS 10996 – THE STRING PAIRS/SETS TABLET

5.1. CBS 10996 Tablet General Contextual Information………………………….……. 128
5.1.1. CBS 10996 overall layout and contents……………………………….…… 132
5.2. Music Specific Contents and an Approach to Decipherment……………….……... 134
5.3. A Direct Tablaturisation…………………………………………………………… 145
5.4. A Hypothetical Greater Babylonian Music System………………………….…….. 147
5.5. An Additional Musicological Effort……………………………………….………. 151
5.6. Numerical Patterns and the Process of Extrapolation……………………….……... 153
5.7. Just Intonation Versus Modern Equal Temperament……………………………… 157
5.8. Musicological Significance and the Possibility of Inversions……………….…….. 162
5.9. A Theory Regarding Normal and Inverted Positions……………………………… 168
5.10. Elementary Music-Mathematical Proof…………………………………….…….. 173
5.10.1. Two special terms………………………………………………….………. 177
5.11. Evidence of a Joint Palindromic and Straight Numbering System………….…….. 178
5.12. Closing Remarks Concerning the CBS 10996 Tablet……………………………... 182
CHAPTER 6: UET VII 74 – RE-TUNING/MODULATION TABLET

6.1. UET VII 74 Tablet General Contextual Information and Decipherment…….…….. 185
6.1.1. Primary terms……………………………………………………….……… 190
6.2. UET VI/3 899 General Contextual Information and Decipherment…………….…. 195
6.3. The Possibility of Ancient Tritones Being Equivalent to Western Tritones…...….. 198
6.4. UET VII 74 Musicological Interpretation……………………………………….…. 204
6.4.1. Considering a theory of modes and modal inversions………………….….. 207
6.4.2. Further problems and ambiguities…………………………………………. 212
6.5. CBS 1766 Seven-Sided Star Figure Tuning Diagram………………………….…... 217
6.5.1. Hidden heptagrams and heptagons…………………………………….…... 228
6.5.2. Pentagrams, heptagrams and dodecagrams indicating tones and
semitones………………………………………………………………….….. 232
6.6. Closing Remarks Concerning the UET VII 74 Tablet………………………….….. 239
CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND LIMITATIONS

7.1. Concluding Synopsis………………………………………….…………………… 241
7.2. Restatement of Aims………………………………………………………………. 243
7.3. Major Conclusions and Findings……………………………………………….….. 244
7.3.1. Chapter 4 – UET VII 126……………………………………………….….. 244
7.3.2. Chapter 5 – CBS 10996……………………………………………….……. 247
7.3.3. Chapter 6 – UET VII 74……………………………………………….….... 250
7.4. Critical Discussion…………………………………………………………….…… 252
7.4.1. Research limitations………………………………………………….…….. 253
7.4.2. Implications and future recommendations……………………………….… 253
REFERENCE LIST…………………………….………..…………………………..…….. 256
APPENDICES……………………………………………………………………….…….. 274
v
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: A generalised map of ancient Mesopotamia illustrating the approximate

excavation locations……………………………………………………...….... 2
Figure 2: Illustrating the common terms – kitmu (green) and embubu (red) – from the
UET VII 126, CBS 10996, UET VII 74 and Hurrian H6
tablet…………………………………………………….…………..……..….. 3
Figure 3: Photograph of the Hurrian H6 = R.Š15.30 + 15.49 + 17.387 cuneiform

tablet (obverse)……………………………………….…………………..…… 5
Figure 4: Photograph of the Hurrian H6 = R.Š15.30 + 15.49 + 17.387 cuneiform

tablet (reverse)…………………………………………………………..…….. 5
Figure 5: Photograph of the Hurrian H6 tablet fragments (obverse and

reverse)……………………...........…………………………………………… 6
Figure 6: Sketch of the Hurrian H6 = R.Š15.30 + 15.49 + 17.387 cuneiform tablet

(obverse)………………………………………………………………………. 7
Figure 7: Sketch of the Hurrian H6 = R.Š15.30 + 15.49 + 17.387 cuneiform tablet

(reverse)……………………………………………………………………….. 7
Figure 8: Hurrian H6 tablet lyrical section (obverse and reverse)………………………. 8
Figure 9: Hurrian H6 tablet music instructional notation section (obverse)…………….. 9
Figure 10: Modern Western notation for the descending enneatonic

scale/mode of “E” (nīd qabli)………….…………………………….…….….. 12
Figure 11: Illustration indicating the three possible octave species for the enneatonic
scale/mode of “E”………………………………………................................... 13
Figure 12: The term qablītu as an ascending fourth (Orientalist

pitch set sequence)………………………………………………………….... 16
Figure 13: The term qablītu as an ascending fifth (Orientalist

pitch set sequence)………………...………………………………………….. 16
Figure 14: The four possibilities for the term qablītu (Orientalist pitch set
sequences)…………………………………………………………………….. 17
Figure 15: Two Westernalist pitch pair/interval possibilities for the term MURUB4-tu /
qablītu ………………………………………………………………………. 18
Figure 16: The term nīš tuḫri as a descending fifth (Orientalist pitch
set sequence)……………………………………………………………..…… 18
Figure 17: Hurrian H6 colophon (reverse)……………………………………………..… 20
vi
Figure 18: External Criticism and Internal Criticism diagram………………………........ 46
Figure 19: Research process schematic diagram…………………………………………. 57
Figure 20: Sketch of the UET VII 126 cuneiform tablet (obverse)……………………….. 58
Figure 21: Line drawing (top) and preliminary transliteration sketch of the UET VII 126
cuneiform tablet (reverse)…………………………………………………... 60
Figure 22: Relation between the tablets UET VII 126 and N.4782……………………….. 62
Figure 23: Transliteration of the UET VII 126 cuneiform tablet (obverse)……..………... 63
Figure 24: Archaic stringed instrument (harp) pictographs…………………………….… 64
Figure 25: Photograph of the obverse side of the tablet ATU 1, 532
(VAT No. 15061)……………………………..………………………………. 65
(VAT No. 15138)……………………………..………………………………. 66
(VAT No. 15350)………………………..……………………………………. 66
Figure 28: Annotated sketch of the UET VII 126 cuneiform tablet (obverse)……….…… 76
Figure 29: Annotated old transliteration sketch (left) and updated full transliteration
(right) of the UET VII 126 tablet (obverse)………………………………...…. 76
Figure 30: Sketch of the contents of the “Grave of Queen Pu-Abi” (PG/800)…................ 81
Figure 31: Sketch of the contents of “The Great Death Pit” (PG/1237)…………………. 81
Figure 32: Side profile of the “Gold Lyre” (U.12353/B.8694)…………………................ 83
Figure 33: “Plaster Lyre” original excavation photograph (field number

U.12351/B.8695)……………..……………………………………………….. 85
Figure 34: “Plaster Lyre” string impressions (field number U.12351/B.8695)…………... 85
Figure 35: Eleven string impressions from the “Silver (Bovine) Lyre”
(U.12354/BM.121199)………………………………………………………... 85
Figure 36: Front plaque and bull head fragment of the “Great Lyre” (U.10556/CBS
17694)………………………………………………........................................ 87
Figure 37: Inlay panel/plaque depicting mythological animals playing a lyre from the
“Great Lyre” (U.10556/CBS 17694)………………………………………….. 87
vii
Figure 38: Superimposition of numbering systems with assumed octave string

repeats…………………………………………………………………….....… 91
Figure 39: Photograph of the YBC 11381 cuneiform tablet (obverse)…………………… 92
Figure 40: Sketch of the obverse (top) and reverse (bottom) of the YBC 11381
cuneiform tablet………………………………………………………………. 93
Figure 41: Sketch of the obverse of BM 65217 with accompanying transliterations and
translations…………………………….……………………………………… 96
Figure 42: Sketch of the reverse of BM 66616 with accompanying transliterations and
translations………………………………………….………………………… 97
Figure 43: A proposed ambiguous ascending and descending enneatonic

system…………………………………………………………………………. 104
Figure 44: Representation of octaves in standard Western notation……………............... 106
Figure 45: Graphic representation of the natural structure of octaves, fifths and
fourths that form the harmonic/overtone series starting at “C” (Just
Intonation)…..………………………………………………………………… 107
Figure 46: Microtonal-quartertones and their corresponding octaves……………………. 108
Figure 47: Cylinder seal IM 14597 depicting a bull-headed lyre’s plying

position………………………………………………………………………... 111
Figure 48: Sketch of the cylinder seal IM 14597 depicting a bull-headed lyre’s playing
position………………………………………………………………………... 111
Figure 49: Illustration of the assumed arrangement of strings to produce a descending

scale/mode…………………………………………………………………….. 112
Figure 50: Enneatonic descending scale/mode of “E”……………………………………. 112
Figure 51: A graphic representation of guitar strings (head-on-perspective)…………….. 114
Figure 52: Guitar strings pitches in standard Western notation…………………………... 114
Figure 53: A graphic representation of guitar strings (performer’s ascending

perspective)…………………………………………………………………… 114
Figure 54: Neo-Assyrian horizontal forearm harp (c. 880-650 BCE)……………………. 116
Figure 55: Neo-Assyrian vertical harp (c. 880-650 BCE)………………………………... 116
Figure 56: Neo-Assyrian horizontal harp sketch……….………………………………… 116
Figure 57: Neo-Assyrian vertical harp sketch……………………………………………. 116
viii
Figure 58: Cylinder seal impression showing parallel lyre strings……….………………. 118
Figure 59: Large standing lyre without a bull-headed feature……….…………………… 119
Figure 60: Four ascending and descending lyre variations with implied front
designation……………………………………………………………………. 120
Figure 61: Four ascending and descending lyre variations with ambiguous
front designations……….……...……………………………………………... 121
Figure 62: Four Ascending and descending vertical harp variations with
string lengths and alternate front designations……….…………………..…… 122
Figure 63: Four ascending and descending horizontal harp variations with
string lengths and alternate front designations……….………………..……… 123
Figure 64: Descending “C” major/Ionian extended-heptatonic perspective……….…….. 124
Figure 65: Ascending “B” Locrian extended-heptatonic perspective……….…………… 124
Figure 66: Physical orientation and alternate perspectives of the UET VII 126
tablet……….………………………………………………………………….. 126
Figure 67: Photograph of the CBS 10996 cuneiform tablet (reverse)……….……………. 128
Figure 68: Photograph of the CBS 10996 cuneiform tablet (obverse)……….…………… 129
Figure 69: Sketch of the obverse fragment (left) and reverse side (right) of the
CBS 10996 tablet……….……………………………………………………... 130
Figure 70: Transliteration sketch of the obverse fragment (left) and reverse side
(right) of the CBS 10996 cuneiform tablet……….…………………………… 131
Figure 71: Translated content summarisation sketch obverse fragment (left)

and reverse side (right) of the CBS 10996 tablet………..…………………….. 134
Figure 72: Sketch of the reverse side of the CBS 10996 tablet highlighting the sixth
(vi) column music theory related contents……………………………………. 135
Figure 73: Sketch of the music related section of the CBS 10996 tablet
(reverse)……….................................................................................................. 136
Figure 74: Trasliteration of the music related section of the CBS 10996 tablet
(reverse)……….………………………………………………………………. 136
Figure 75: Photograph of the music related section of the CBS 10996 tablet
(reverse)……….………………………………………………………………. 137
Figure 76: Highlighting the SA/sa = string indicators on the CBS 10996 tablet
(sketch and transliteration)………….…………………………………..…….. 138
ix
Figure 77: Highlighting string numbers on the CBS 10996 tablet (sketch and
transcription)………………………………………………………………….. 139
Figure 78: Highlighting term names on the CBS 10996 tablet (sketch and
transcription)………………………………………………………………….. 140
Figure 79: Tablaturisation interpretation of the CBS 10996 tablet information……….…. 145
Figure 80: Note arrangements with ascending and descending perspectives……….……. 146
Figure 81: Hypothetical “Greater Babylonian System”………………………………….. 143
Figure 82: Sequential relationships………………………………………………………. 150
Figure 83: Numerical cuneiform sketch of the obverse of the mathematical tablet
CBS 2756……………….………………………………………………………. 151
Figure 84: CBS 2756 tablet joint numbering system (annotated translation)……….……. 152
Figure 85: CBS 2756 tablet separate ‘set’ numbering system (annotated
translation)……….……………………………………………………………. 152
Figure 86: CBS 10996 number pattern…………………………………………………… 153
Figure 87: CBS 10996 tablet full extrapolated number pattern (transcription)…………... 154
Figure 88: CBS 10996 ambiguous primary and secondary (joint ascending and
descending) tablaturisation……….…………………………………………… 165
Figure 89: Western pitch-numeric system……….……………………………………….. 167
Figure 90: Sketch and transcriptions of the obverse (left) and reverse (right) of the
N.4782 tablet…………..……………………………………………………… 169
Figure 91: Specialised inversional terms – Westernalist perspective……….……………. 171
Figure 92: Specialised inversional terms – Orientalist perspective……….……………… 172
Figure 93: A mathematical system of eight with thirds that can be inverted into sixths
and vice versa…………………...…………………………………………….. 174
Figure 94: Mathematical self-reflections………………………………….……………… 177
Figure 95: Akkadian cuneiform illustrating the palindromic string numbering system
versus the straight numbering system CBS 10996 tablet………………….….. 179
Figure 96: Direct tablaturisation of the information from the CBS 10996 tablet with
implied tensions and directions (“polarity”)…………………………….……. 183
Figure 97: Photograph of the UET VII 74 cuneiform tablet (reverse)……………………. 185
x
Figure 98: Cuneiform sketch (left) and transliteration sketch (right) of the
UET VII 74 tablet…………………………………………………...............… 186
Figure 99: Cuneiform sketch (left) and transcription sketch (right)

highlighting the left column of the UET VII 74 tablet………………………... 186
Figure 100: Cuneiform sketch (left) and transcription sketch (right) highlighting the
right column of the UET VII 74 tablet (musicological focus)………............... 187
Figure 101: Photograph of the UET VI/3 899 cuneiform tablet (obverse)………………… 195
Figure 102: Cuneiform sketch of the UET VI/3 899 cuneiform tablet (obverse)………….. 196
Figure 103: Transcription of the UET VI/3 899 tablet with extrapolations………………... 197
Figure 104: Photograph of the YBC 7280 tablet (obverse)………………………….……... 199
Figure 105: Cuneiform Sketch (left) and numerical translation (right) of the
YBC 7280 tablet showing knowledge of the square root of two…………….... 199
Figure 106: Piano diagram showing a tritone interval (A-D#/Bb)……………………….... 200
Figure 107: Piano diagram showcasing a tritone with a numerical value of

1.414213……………………………………………………………………… 201
Figure 108: YBC 7280 tablet base-sixty numerical translation……………………………. 203
Figure 109: Visualisation of the re-tuning/modulatory procedure described by

the UET VII 74 tablet….……………………………………………………… 204
Figure 110: Thetic/static system visualisation……………………………………………... 206
Figure 111: Fully realised (extrapolated) thetic/static descending interpretation…………. 206
Figure 112: Rearranged dynamic system interpretation…………………………............... 211
Figure 113: Fully realised (extrapolated) thetic/static ascending interpretation….............. 213
Figure 114: Twelve descending (top) and twelve ascending (bottom)

possibilities for the scale/mode of nīd qabli…………………………………. 216
Figure 115: Photograph of the CBS 1766 cuneiform tablet (obverse)…………………….. 217
Figure 116: Sketch of the CBS 1766 tablet (obverse)……………………………................ 218
Figure 117: Transcription and numerical translation sketch of the CBS 1766 tablet
(obverse)………………………………………………………………………. 218
Figure 118: CBS 1766 heptagram diagram with English and numerical
translations……………………………………………………………………. 219
xi
Figure 119: CBS 1766 and CBS 10996 intertextual comparison……………..………….… 219
Figure 120: CBS 1766 tablet “spans”………………………………………......………….. 220
Figure 121: CBS 1766 tablet re-tuning 7/3 heptagram diagram procedure….………….…. 221
Figure 122: Descending based system capable of being “loosened” and

“tightened”……………………………………………….…………………… 223
Figure 123: Ascending based system capable of being “tightened” and

“loosened”……………………………………………………………………. 224
Figure 124: Invertible directions for “tightening” and “loosening”………………………. 226
Figure 125: CBS 1766 tablet “tightening” and “loosening” orientation…………………... 227
Figure 126: Spans of one on the CBS 1766 tablet…………………………………………. 228
Figure 127: Unknown terms on the CBS 1766 tablet……………………………………… 229
Figure 128: CBS 1766 tablet diagram with a parallel relations constructing
both a heptagon and a heptagram………………………………………….….. 230
Figure 129: Constructing a 7/2 heptagram from information on the CBS 1766
tablet…………………………………………………………………………... 231
Figure 130: The three different heptagram diagrams……………………………………… 232
Figure 131: CS 1766 heptagram engraving (right) compared to Dumbrill’s theoretical

diagram (left)………………………………………………………………….. 233
Figure 132: Modern music theoretical chromatic-dodecagram………………………….… 233
Figure 133: Modern music theoretical circle of fifths pentagram……………………….… 233
Figure 134: Photograph of the O.176 tablet (obverse)…………………………………….. 234
Figure 135: O.176 tablet dodecagram figure with transliterations and

translations……………………………………………………………………. 235
Figure 136: Diagram from the Medieval Islamic music theory treatise Kitāb al-
Adwār…………………………………………………………………………. 236
Figure 137: Average pixel distances of the points on the CBS 1766 tablet
heptagram……………………………………………………………………... 237
Figure 138: Shifting tones and semitones cycle while “tightening”…………….………… 238
Figure 139: Shifting tones and semitones cycle while “loosening”……………………….. 238
xii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Cuneiform progression for stringed musical instruments………………..…… 67
Table 2: Cuneiform progression used to indicate instruments made of wood…………. 68
Table 3: Cuneiform progression that refers to a harp instrument and its strings………. 68
Table 4: Related Sumerian and Akkadian terms……………………………………….. 71
Table 5: Cuneiform number symbols and names………………………………............. 72
Table 6: Tabulated transliterations and translations for the UET VII 126 tablet……..… 73
Table 7: Summary of the string names and order from the UET VII 126 tablet…..…… 77
Table 8: Additional cuneiform number names from the tablet MMA 86.11.61……..…. 78
Table 9: Ancient harp and lyre excavation photographs and information…………..…. 80
Table 10: YBC 11381 tablet transliteration………………..…………………………... 94
Table 11: YBC 11381 English translations………………………..……………………... 95
Table 12: Possible string numbering systems…………………………….……………... 98
Table 13: Heptatonic ascending “C” major scale (with an added 9th note)…………..….. 100
Table 14: Descending ‘false’ enneatonic scale/mode of “E”………………………….... 102
Table 15: Player orientation with a descending perspective……………………………. 110
Table 16: Summarised contents of the full CBS 10996 tablet………………………….... 133
Table 17: Akkadian-Hurrianised music terms………………………………………….... 141
Table 18: CBS 10996 music section transcription and translation………………. ……. 142
Table 19: CBS 10996 music section number pattern…………………………………….. 155
Table 20: CBS 10996 corrected number pattern…………………………………............. 156
Table 21: Comparison between Just Intonation and Equal Temperament in

cents…………………………………………………………………………… 159
Table 22: Primary and secondary terms…………………………………………............. 163
Table 23: Configuration possibilities for the term nīš tuḫri (1,/-5)……………..……….. 167
xiii
Table 24: Evidence of the palindromic and “straight” numbering system on the
CBS 10996 tablet………………………………………………………..…….. 180
Table 25: Akkadian string position prefix terms……………………………………..….. 182
Table 26: Stanza-like structural form of each section of the UET VII 74……………….. 187
Table 27: Translation of the overall structure of the UET VII 74 tablet……..…………... 188
Table 28: UET VII 74 string pair/set numbers intertextually derived from the
CBS 10996 tablet……..……………………………….………………………. 191
Table 29: Numeric translation of the terms from the UET VII 74 tablet……..………….. 193
Table 30: Twelve-Tone Equal Tempered system with “A” = 44Hz with
corresponding frequency and decimal values……………………..………….. 201
Table 31: Tone and semitone structures of the seven ancient scales/modes………..…… 208
Table 32: Heptatonic scale/mode that is Dorian when ascending and

descending…………………………………………………………………….. 209
Table 33: Extended-heptatonic scale/mode with an added 9th note……………………... 210
Table 34: “C” Ionian ascending while “D” Dorian descending…………………............ 212
Table 35: “E” Ionian/Phrygian ascending while “D” Dorian descending………............ 215
Table 36: Normal and inverted states……………………………………………………. 226
xiv
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix I: Descending thetic/static and dynamic system in the key of “C”

major……………………………………………..………………….. 272
Appendix II: Descending thetic/static and dynamic system in the key of “G”
major………………………………………………………………… 273
Appendix III: Descending thetic/static and dynamic system in the key of “D”
major………………………………………………………………… 274
Appendix IV: Descending thetic/static and dynamic system in the key of “A”
major………………………………………………...………………. 275
Appendix V: Descending thetic/static and dynamic system in the key of “E”

major………………………………………………………………… 276
Appendix VI: Descending thetic/static and dynamic system in the key of “Cb”
major………………………………………………………………… 277
Appendix VII: Descending thetic/static and dynamic system in the key of “Gb”
major………………………………………………………………… 278
Appendix VIII: Descending thetic/static and dynamic system in the key of “Db”
major……………………………………………………………….... 279
Appendix IX: Descending thetic/static and dynamic system in the key of “F”
major……………………………………………………………..….. 280
Appendix X: Descending thetic/static and dynamic system in the key of “Bb”

major……………………………………………………………...…. 281
Appendix XI: Descending thetic/static and dynamic system in the key of “Eb”
major………………………………………………………………. 282
Appendix XII: Descending thetic/static and dynamic system in the key of “Ab”
major………………………………………………………………. 283
xvi
CHAPTER 1
ANCIENT NEAR-EASTERN INSTRUCTIONAL NOTATION AND THEORY
1.1. An Introduction
The oldest form of music notation with accompanying lyrics in the form of a ‘hymn’, that has
been discovered thus far, can be found inscribed on the Hurrian1 H6 (= fragment R.Š15.30 +
15.49 + 17.387)2 cuneiform tablet.3 More specifically, this form of ancient Near-Eastern
music notation can be more accurately described as “instructional notation”. This tablet also
serves as one of the foremost examples, most often cited, to offer modern readers a unique
perspective into the music of the ancient Near-East.4
The contents of the tablet, which consist of the instructional music notation together with the
contents of the related “theoretical”5 tablets (specifically UET VII 126, CBS 10996 and UET
VII 74),6 provide a deeper understanding of the musical culture of ancient Mesopotamia. In
combination, these tablets provide an understanding of the Hurrian musical culture that
extends well beyond the general information that is often provided about ancient
Mesopotamian music (Wellesz 1957; Koitabsi 1998; Mirelman 2009; Kutzer 2017). The
seminal contributors in the field of ancient Near-Eastern music include Carl Engel (1864),
1 The reader should note that the word Hurrian appears to be a short hand term used to easily identify these ancient notation
tablets. The tablets are simply cuneiform tablets found in Ugarit which are mostly written in Hurrian. This thesis will retain
the short hand naming convention because this is how most scholarly literature identifies the tablets.
2 R.Š is a common abbreviation used to indicate that the fragments were excavated at the site of Ras Shamra.
3 The Hurrian H6 tablet is the most complete, but not necessarily the oldest, from a set of ~68 other tablet fragments. 30 of
these fragments contain the designation of H and the rest are named using another alphabetical convention (Güterbock
1970:51).
4 Mesopotamia is literally translated to mean “between or in the middle of the two rivers” Euphrates and Tigris. This
includes modern Iraq with parts of Syria and Turkey. Modern borders are different compared to ancient ones and Ugarit is
another geographical location in the Levant. This means that the Near-East is a region that has undergone many changes, and
various different cultures have left their influence there.
5 Bathja Bayer (2014:17) discusses the criteria concerning what type of ancient documents could be considered as music
theory texts, offering insight into the “science of doing” music. In brief, the minimalist flexible definition offered by Bayer
(2014:17) holds that a music theoretical text must reveal a system that (a) names and lists abstract pitch/note values (CBS
10996 and UET VII 126); (b) reveals a relationship between these pitch values and a scale/mode system (UET VII 74); and
lastly, (c) reveals a clear relation that shows (a) and (b) are from the same system and share related terms. All three of the
tablets (UET VII 126, CBS 10996 and UET VII 74) conform to this definition. Dumbrill (2005) compiled an entire book,
discussed in the literature review, concerned with these and the supplementary ancient Near-Eastern music theoretical
tablets.
6 Other citation styles for the tablets include OrNS29, 273 (for CBS 10996), IM - / U 3011 (for UET VII 126) and U. 7/80
(for UET VII 74). This thesis will retain the use of CBS 10996, UET VII 126 and UET VII 74. These labels will be italicised
to emphasise that they are of another language and that English translations of them may be rough and not accurate.
Additionally, it is important to note that this thesis does not list the tablets in a chronological order because they appear in
the order in which they will be revealed to the reader. UET VII 126 will be discussed in Chapter 4, CBS 10996 in Chapter 5
and UET VII 74 in Chapter 6. The chronological order of the tablets is: first, UET VII 74 from the Old Babylonian period.
Second, the UET VII 126 tablet from the Middle Babylonian period. Last, the CBS 10996 tablet is from the Middle
Babylonian/Neo-Babylonian period (the prefix “Neo” indicates the establishment of the second Babylonian Empire).
1
Francis W. Galpin (1937) and Curt Sachs (1941b). The Hurrian H6 tablet, also referred to as
“The Hurrian Hymn to Nikkal” or “The Hurrian Cult Hymn”7, is currently on display at the
National Museum of Damascus in Syria (Duchesne-Guillemin 1984:14; Dumbrill 2005:117).
The tablet is rectangular in shape and fits the length of the hand. It was excavated close to the
entrance of the royal palace of Ugarit in Ras Šamra (Ras Shamra) by Claude Frédéric-
Armand Schaeffer during the pre-World War II archaeological missions of c. 1929.
(Schaeffer 1939).
The cuneiform inscriptions on the tablet, as with most other ancient tablets, are believed to
have been inscribed on wet clay using a specialised type of stylus (Cammarosano 2014:56).
The clay was either left to dry, was fired in a kiln or was burned when cities were sacked.8
The type of stylus is unknown but a common belief is that they were made of reed taken from
the banks of the Euphrates and Tigris Rivers. A map of the region adapted from Paul
Kriwaczek (2010:iix) illustrates where each of the tablets (Hurrian H6, UET VII 126, CBS
10996 and UET VII 74) were found in relation to one another (figure 1):
Figure 1: A generalised map of ancient Mesopotamia illustrating the approximate excavation

locations.
(Edited by Author 2021).
(Kriwaczek 2010:iix).
7 For those interested in the topic of ancient hymnody/liturgical texts, refer to the work of Stephen Langdon (1913, 1917,
1919, 1923a, 1923b) and to the work of Mark Cohen (1981).
8 The right side of the Hurrian H6 tablet has a glassy finish that occurs when this type of clay is expose to extreme heat. The
city of Ugarit was destroyed, sacked and possibly burnt down sometime around 1200BCE. Dumbrill believes that the
Egyptians were the cause of the destruction but one could also argue that the “Sea Peoples”, the more likely culprit, were the
cause of the destruction (Music in Mesopotamia, 2020).
2
These ancient music theoretical tablets discovered in the same geographical region9 are
important because they are currently our only means of deciphering the Hurrian H6
cuneiform instructional notation. Sam Mirelman (2013:43-44) indicates that our sources on
ancient Near-Eastern music theory are limited and these tablets were not all written at the
same time. They have been “approximately dated” and are “separated by hundreds of years.”
The following sketches provided in figure 2 reveal how some of the music instructional terms
appear on all four tablets, confirming that these tablets are somewhat related to each other
and, by extension, to music.10
Figure 2: Illustrating the common terms – kitmu (green) and embubu (red) – from the UET
VII 126, CBS 10996, UET VII 74 and Hurrian H6 tablet.
(Compiled and Edited by Author 2021).
9 Bayer (2014:28) recommends that one should be hesitant to compare the theoretical tablets with the Hurrian H6 tablet,
since they were written by different cultures. The Hurrians may have lived in the same geographical region (Mesopotamia)
but might have developed a different Hurrianised concept of music and theory when compared to the systems used by the
Sumerians, Assyrians and Babylonians living in other parts of the same region. They may also have had a unique innovative
way of notating their music that varied to the Akkadian and Babylonian forms. Hagel (2005:293) suggests that this may have
been a musical notational “innovation” perfected by the Hurrian culture.
10 A histography concerning earlier attempts at deciphering ancient music notation from a non-music content cuneiform
tablet is provided by Sam Mirelman (2010b). The most famous example from the 1920s-1940s is that of Curt Sachs and
Francis Gulpin’s mistaken attempt to translate reparative syllables into music notation from a literary text.
3
It is important to note that this research will only focus on these three theory-based lexical
tablets, namely UET VII 126, CBS 10996 and UET VII 74 with its copy UET VI/3 899, as
they can be considered to be the fundamental and most important11 ancient music theoretical
tablets (Dumbrill 2005:23; Bayer 2014:16). They were among the first to aid our
understanding of the theoretical foundational basis of ancient Near-Eastern instructional
notation and they offer some of the most detailed contributions that presently aid our
understanding of ancient Near-Eastern music theory.
In the course of analysing these “major” theory tablets, other supplementary “minor” tablets12
will be mentioned and discussed briefly as necessary. The supplementary tablets can be
considered as “minor” because they primarily assisted with clarifying information and add a
certain nuance which the other three “major” tablets do not reveal. It should be noted that the
focus on ancient Near-Eastern music theory and notation is just one of the major concerns of
this field.13 There are many other musical terms and aspects of the Mesopotamian musical
world to be studied.
1.2. Hurrian H6 Tablet Layout and Contents
The H6 tablet is written with cuneiform script14 using the Akkadian language which had been
Hurrianised by ancient scribes. This is often referred to as an Akkadian-Hurianised language.
Hurrianisation15 in this context means that some syllables from the Hurrian language are used
over Akkadian.16 In other words, Akkadian was partially used and adapted to accommodate
and write the Hurrian language (Hagel 2005:293).
11 The author gives these tablets the designation of “major” because they are amongst some of the first tablets readers would
be introduced to when engaging with the topic of ancient Near-Eastern music theory and notation. This designation is not
intended to suggest that the other tablets are less important.
12 The “minor” tablets that will be dealt with are N.4782, N.3354, YBC 11381, YBC 7280, BM 65217 + 66616, and CBS
1766.
13 See Sánchez Muñoz (2019/2020), Mirelman (2009, 2010c, 2010d), Mirelman and Sallaberger (2010), and Gabbay and
Mirelman (2011) for other aspects that can be studied concerning ancient Mesopotamian music.
14 Most of the H6 tablet is written in Hurrian. The colophon is written in Akkadian.
15 Stefan Hagel (2005:293) suggests that the term “Hurrianised” should be used with caution.
16 Cuneiform can be used to write many different languages including Hittite, Elamite, old Persian and Ugaritic. This is one
of the reasons why scholars are able to translate and decipher cuneiform inscriptions. The most important inscriptions that
aided in the decipherment of cuneiform comes from the trilingual (Old Persian, Elamite and Babylonian) cuneiform XV
inscriptions of Xerxes I found at Van Fortress (Turkey) and the Behistun inscription (Iran) of Darius I. The only reason why
scholars were able to decipher cuneiform is because there is a link between sematic languages. To clarify, old Persian
cuneiform was easily translatable because it is not a dead language. Therefore, the fact that language remained relatively
constant with subtle linguistic changes could imply a “conservative” culture. Although, this may not have been the case for
music.
4
With regard to layout, the tablet consists of three fractional components. Dumbrill (2020:88)
provides two high-resolution photographs (figures 3 and 4) of the H6 tablet.17
Figure 3: Photograph of the Hurrian H6 = R.Š15.30 + 15.49 + 17.387 cuneiform tablet

(obverse).
(Dumbrill 2020:88).
Figure 4: Photograph of the Hurrian H6 = R.Š15.30 + 15.49 + 17.387 cuneiform tablet

(reverse).
(Dumbrill 2020:88).
17The photograph was initially provided by Françoise Ernst-Pradal in 2016 (online in colour) and again in 2017 (in black
and white). The 2016 article is entitled “Paléographie des tablettes musicales hourrites de Ras Shamra-ougarit” (Ernst-Pradal
2016:77).
5
The three different segments, highlighted below (figure 5), were effectively joined by
Emmanuel Laroche18 (1914-1991).
Hurrian H6 tablet Hurrian H6 tablet

fragments 2 and 3 fragments 1
H6 = R.Š15.30 + 15.49 + 17.387 H6 = R.Š15.30 + 15.49 + 17.387
(obverse) (reverse)
Figure 5: Photograph of the Hurrian H6 tablet fragments (obverse and reverse).

(Dumbrill 2020:88).
A detailed line drawing/sketch of the obverse (front) and reverse (back) of the Hurrian H6
tablet (figures 6 and 7) are useful when analysing the notational inscriptions because it is
difficult to see most of the cuneiform signs clearly on the partially damaged parts on the
photograph of the tablet (see figures 3 and 4). Sketches are usually produced by scholars who
analyse physical tablets so that those who do not have direct access to the tablets can study
and check the proposed transliterations and transcriptions19. Caution needs to be exercised
since errors may have been made by the sketcher (Kilmer 2001:486; Kilmer Crocker &
Brown 1096:12).
18 Refer specifically to Laroche (1968).

19 Transcriptions are also sometimes referred to as “normalisations”.
6
Figure 6: Sketch of the Hurrian H6 = R.Š15.30 + 15.49 + 17.387 cuneiform tablet (obverse).
Sketch by Anne Draffkorn Kilmer
(Kilmer, Crocker and Brown 1976:12).
Figure 7: Sketch of the Hurrian H6 = R.Š15.30 + 15.49 + 17.387 cuneiform tablet (reverse).
Sketch by Anne Draffkorn Kilmer
(Kilmer, Crocker and Brown 1976:12)
Transliterations, transcriptions20 and a translation of the contents of this tablet and the other
~68 Hurrian fragments, alongside a tablaturisation, will be provided in the current author’s
future research.
20For general information concerning what is meant by “transliterations” and “transcriptions” refer to Aleksi Sahala, Miikka
Silfverberg, Antti Arppe and Kirster Lindén (2020:3528-3529).
7
1.2.1. H6 lyrical section
The first section of text (figure 8) on the obverse of the tablet is situated above the
instructional notation and includes what appears to be the accompanying text written
predominantly in the Hurrian language. It is partially difficult to decipher21 (Dumbrill
2005:24). The main reason for assuming this section to contain lyrics is because there are
clearly identifiable repeated refrains. Another reason is because text is placed above the
instructional notation section (Kilmer 1974:77; Duchesne-Guillemin 1984:16-17):
Hurrian H6 tablet Hurrian H6 tablet

lyrical section lyrical section
H6 = R.Š15.30 + 15.49 + 17.387 H6 = R.Š15.30 + 15.49 + 17.387
(obverse) (reverse)
Figure 8: Hurrian H6 tablet lyrical section (obverse and reverse).

(Dumbrill 2020:88).
The subject matter of the textual inscriptions, so far as they can be accurately deciphered, is
of religious and ritualistic significance. The inscriptions seem to be a lament to the goddess
Nikkal, whose name is one of a few of the Hurrianised cuneiform inscriptions that scholars
are easily able to translate and identify. Emmanuel Laroche (1968) initially attempted to
translate the lyrical text. Manfried Dietrich and Oswald Loretz collated the tablet in 1975 –
providing revisions – which led to Hans-Jochen Thiel (1977) and Theo Krispijn (2008)
offering additional rough translations22 for the lyrics. One should note that these translations
are speculative. This is because the Hurrian language is difficult to decipher since it does not
belong to the group of Semitic languages that most scholars and assyriologists are
comfortable and familiar with23 (Dumbrill 2005:15,24).
21 Future research can attempt to decipher the Hurrian language through the use of machine learning developed at MIT
CSAIL (refer to the work of S.R.K Branavan).
22 Dennis Campbell (2016) and Jerome Colburn (2018a) have offered noteworthy re-examinations of the lyrical contents.
23 Assyriologists normally study Sumerian (an unclassified language isolate), Akkadian (East Semitic language) and Hittite
(Indo-European language). The small quantity of Hurrian texts and the different variations of Hurrian makes it a difficult
language. Hurrian is not Indo-European and is also an unclassified language.
8
1.2.2. H6 music instructional notation section
The second section holds the instructional music notation inscriptions. Each of these
notational terms are followed, in most cases, by clearly identifiable cuneiform number
signs.24 This entire section is separated from the lyrical text by a ruled line with double
wedges or Winkelhaken’s («) at both ends. These symbols can be interpreted to mean “to do
twice” or “double” (Kilmer 1974:81). A visualisation of how one of the terms, with its
undisclosed accompanying number indications (appearing from left to right on the tablet) is
given at figure 9.
Figure 9: Hurrian H6 tablet music instructional notation section (obverse).

(Dumbrill 2020:88).
These specialised Akkadian-Hurrianised shorthand instructional terms are relatively easy to

transcribe, transliterate and translate because they are loosely based on and related to the
Akkadian language which scholars are able to decipher. To specify, the Hurrian H6 tablet’s
abstract instructional notational terms appear in two forms: (1) “normal” Akkadian,
sometimes in Old-Babylonian form, and (2) Akkadian-Hurrianised versions. For example, the
24The way in which cuneiform number indications are represented, and an overview of how this system works, will be
discussed in Chapter 4, §4.2.
9
syllabic transliteration kab-li-te ( )25 can also be written as MURUB4-tu (“middle”).26

This in turn is normalised in Akkadian to qablītu. The reason behind this is because the
logographic form MURUB4 (qablī) has the phonetic compliment “-tu” resulting in the
reading qablī-tu. This corrected reading of qablītu(m) is offered by Theo Krispijn
(2002/2003, 2008). An example of an Akkadian-Hurrianised term form is ni-id-kib-li
( ) and it can be read (attested intertextually from CBS 10996) in Akkadian as nīd
qabli.27
These terms, that appear on the Hurrian H6 tablet (amongst others), are related to music
because there is a strong relationship between the term names and how they can be
interpreted to correspond to the string numbers of an unknown nine-stringed instrument,
presumed to be a lyre/harp tuned to a specific scale/mode.28
Regarding the numbers that follow each term, it is important to note that scholars do not
know what these numbers refer to in a musical context. Scholars do, however, offer
subjective hypotheses.29 Proposals include that the cuneiform number signs appearing after
the terms may indicate (1) the number of times a term can be repeated (Kilmer 1974, West
1994); or (2) may indicate the number of notes that can be added/used to embellish the
melody (Duchesne-Guillemin 1975, 1980, 1984); or (3) may indicate the number of notes
that can be used/chosen from within a given sequence by the musician/performer (Wulstan
1971). The most recent hypothesis from Dumbrill (2005, 2014b, 2017-2020) postulates that
the sequenced terms follow a constant rhythm and that the numbers may represent a rhythmic
formula that dictates how long the last note of the sequence is to be held (Dumbrill 2019:64;
2020:90-91). This thesis proposes that these numbers remain abstract for the scope of this
25
This early transliteration is cited from Laroche (1968) who was the first to collate the Hurrian tablets and fragments.
26 MURUB4-tu is a Sumerian logogram with a phonetic compliment. In short, a Sumerogram is a symbol used as a logogram
which can be described as a symbol representing a word (e.g., $ = money). It is convention to write Sumerograms using
uppercase letters (unitalicised) and to supply the “normalized” Akkadian forms. The subscript number “4” that comes after
MURUB indicates the symbol type. The cuneiform symbols for MURUB1, MURUB2 and MURUB3 would all look different
but will mean/be pronounced the same.
27 Mirelman and Krispijn (2009:48-49) provide the revised reading of nīd(i) qabli(m).
28 A relation to modern Western or Medieval church scales/modes is not intended (Wulstan 1971:370; Černý 1994:18;
Mirelman 2010a:46).
29 Refer to the literature review in Chapter 2, §2.2. for an in-depth discussion.
10
research as any attempt to construct a ‘performable’30 version of the tablet by imposing one’s
own biases/preferences, as will be shown during the course of this research, is problematic.31
In short, the theory is that if one knows what scale/mode is used and its intended direction
(either ascending or descending), then one can apply the string numbers to the individual
notes/pitches, ultimately allowing one to be able to decipher the instructional notation. This
methodological approach will be briefly provided below.
1.2.3. H6 music theoretical considerations
According to the revised interpretations by Vitale (1982) and Krispijn (1990) the order of the
strings and their corresponding pitches, as revealed by the UET VII 126 tablet, are presumed
to hint at a descending32 diatonic scale/mode. Miroslav Černý (2004) attempted to disprove
these claims and proposes that an ascending scale/mode was implied.
Influenced by Vitale (1982) and Krispijn (1990), Dumbrill (2005, 2014b, 2017-2020) has
reached the conclusion, made possible by re-interpretations of the UET VII 74 and UET VI/3
899 tablet, that the intended scale/mode to be used to interpret the notation on the H6 tablet,
is the descending enneatonic33 scale/mode of “E” comprised of the notes “E-D-C-B-A-G-F-
[E]-[D]” (This scale/mode is called nīd qabli and can be found on the colophon of the H6
tablet discussed in §1.2.5).
John Curtis Franklin (2002:669) has argued that diatonicism and some form of Pythagorean
tuning processes were cultivated in the ancient Near-East.34 He suggests that it is likely that
these practices were then passed down to the ancient Greeks and then to Western culture.
However, in his early research he offers no supportive evidence other than citing the work of
Henry George Farmer (1931) whose work was published before the discovery of the
30 Dumbrill (2019:64) has recently acknowledged that his interpretation is a “tonal interpretation” and is not necessarily
intended to be performed.
31 The problems concerned with providing a subjective musical interpretation for the cuneiform number signs will be
elaborated upon in Chapter 2, §2.2.2.

32 A re-examination of the proposed scale direction as inferred from the UET VII 126 tablet will be provided in Chapter 4,
§4.6.2.
33 Enneatonic refers to a scale/modal system based on 9 different pitches. Commentary on the correct use of the term
enneatonic will be provided in Chapter 4, §4.5.

34 The harmonic/overtone series is a naturally discoverable phenomenon and results in a Just Intonation (JI) system. It is
therefore highly probable that the ancients made use of this or a similar type of system (Crickmore 2007:36, 44, 45). The
natural properties of this acoustic phenomena will be discussed further in Chapter 4, §4.5.1 and Chapter 5, §5.8.
11
cuneiform music theory tablets discussed in this thesis. Farmer (1931) only refers to
traditional Arabic music treatises, theorists and practices from the first century onwards.
The assumptions that Farmer made about ancient music was, at the time, speculative with no
supporting evidence. This thesis holds that it would be difficult to argue that ancient Near-
Eastern music made use of diatonicism only because there is no way to verify or disprove
such a claim. We cannot hear ancient music and there are few sources/ancient tablets dealing
with the subject of ancient Near-Eastern music theory. There is not much information that we
can draw from cuneiform descriptions about music. To raise just one of several challenges:
We also cannot be sure whether the ancient term lā zakû ( )35, that is translated to mean
“not clear”, is similar or even related to our modern tritone.
According to Dumbrill (2005, 2014b, 2017-2020) the descending enneatonic scale/mode of

“E” is believed to have been one of the scales/modes used by the ancients. This scale/mode
can be notated in Western notation as follows (figure 10):
Figure 10: Modern Western notation for the descending enneatonic scale/mode of
“E” (nīd qabli).
(Illustration by Author 2021).
Jerome Colburn (2009a:109) indicates that the use of modern Western staff notation:
[…] remains misleading in that we do not know what the actual pitches of
the strings were, but the representation is valid for the relationships
between the pitches. Under this representation the instrument [according
to the UET VII 74 tablet] is a transposing instrument, with the amount of
transposition unknown.
Curt Sachs (1943:26) importantly notes that our modern Western music notational system:
[…] is in the same position as our alphabet: it serves those familiar with
the language, but fails when it tries to convey pronunciation and speech
35From the UET VII 74 tablet the transliterated form is la-za-ku. In order to be more accurate in terms of philological
conventions and musicology it is transcribed as lā, zakû. The ancient Akkadian word lā can be translated to “not” and zakû
as “clear/pure” (Dumbrill 2019:9).
12
melody of any other language. Our musical script, exclusively created for
modern Occidental music, is unable to record [microtonal] distances
different from standardized tones and semitones […]
In short, it is commonly accepted that the approximate pitches of the strings and the relations
between these pitches and strings, but not the exact pitch frequencies of each string, is
deducible.36 These conclusions are reached due to deductions made from the UET VII 74 and
UET VI/3 899 retuning/modulation tablet (Güterbock 1970:50; Franklin 2001:137-139;
Mirelman 2010a:46). Another immediate problem that arises is that the proposed scale/mode
can be within any octave (figure 11).
Upper octave species
Normal octave species
Lower octave species
Figure 11: Illustration indicating the three possible octave species for the enneatonic
scale/mode of “E”.
Dumbrill (2017:3; 2020:12) argues that the strings and tensions would have been tuned to
just below “breaking point”. For this reason, he uses the middle octave range using a treble
clef with a tenor-alto range (as illustrated in figure 10). How accurately one can discern this
is perplexing because we can only hypothesise about what material the strings were made of
and the tensions they were able to withstand. None of this information is readily available. It
is assumed the strings may have been made from some sort of animal intestines/catgut
(Music in Mesopotamia, 2020).
Dumbrill (2005:21) appeals to the theory of centiémes (cents), developed by mathematician

and musicologist Alexander John Ellis (1814-1890), to validate the specific scale/mode and
36 The plausibility of using approximate note values to construct scale/modes will be discussed in Chapter 6, §6.2.3.
13
the octave range he uses in his interpretation. He also attempts to relate the ratios of the
strings with the theory of ancient god-numbers37 (Dumbrill 2005:35). In brief, a cent is a
modern mathematical way of expressing a unit of measurement between musical pitches. By
way of explanation the Equal Divided Octave system (EDO)38 is the most commonly used
tuning system in modern Western music. This system divides the octave into 12 equal parts
(12-EDO) or semitones39 and because of these divisions it is referred to as the Twelve-Tone
Equal Tempered system (12-TET). The measurement between each successive semitone is
expressed as 100 cents and there are 1100 cents in each octave. The cents between the
successive pitches of other tuning systems, like the Pythagorean Tuning (PT) system and Just
Intonation (JI) system, are not equal to 100 cents because the octave of these systems are not
divided into 12 equal parts and arises from the ‘natural’40 overtone/harmonic series.
To clarify: Instruments capable of playing microtones (e.g. the many stringed and some wind
instruments that do not have fixed frets or mechanisms) are capable of playing within and
using any tuning system. Musicians may opt to follow Western conventions and play within a
Twelve-Tone Equal Tempered system. The chief advantage of this is that they are then able
to play in any scale/mode or key, a choice which other tuning systems do not offer. By
contrast, an instrument like a harp or lyre needs to be tuned using a specific tuning system.
Modern diatonic harps are capable of altering pitch (sharpening and flattening certain notes)
by means of a set of pedals (Hagel 2005:337-338).
37 This is a speculative theory since there is no supportive evidence that might indicate that the ancients related god-numbers
to musical strings. Some of the ancient deities do have relations to numbers but an ancient text that explains how this
conception was used and applied to music has not yet been discovered. The third column (iii) of the reverse of the tablet
MMA 86.11.364 relates numbers to the major deities of the Babylonian pantheon. These numbers have a
planetary/astronomical relation and not a musical one (Pearce 2005:222, 225). According to Henry George Farmer (cited in,
Belhassen 2014:2) some Arabic theorists/philosophers often equate music with observable planets which make use of the
number 7 and the 12 signs of the zodiac (this suggests a heptatonic scale). The god-number relations can be summarised as
follows: Šamaš = 20, Sîn = 30, Ea = 40 or 120 + 40, Enlil = 50 or 120 + 30, Ištar = 15 and Anu = 120. Dumbrill applies
these numbers to a modern ruler fixed on a reconstructed ancient lyre with strings at 80% tension to produce a diatonic
major scale (Music in Mesopotamia, 2020). The error he makes here is that he assumes these numbers are related to
centimetres. The more probable measurement would be the ancient measurement of a cubit (Akkadian = kuš). To elaborate,
1 cubit is approximately equal to 45.72cm). Additionally, some gods are associated with two different numbers. For his
theory to work out this would mean that the different numbers associated with one god would need to be octave
equivalences. Further research is required. Crickmore (2008:16) also makes a similar hypothesis and cites the tablet MLC
1670 which lists reciprocals. He speculates that these reciprocals (fractions), in the order presented, could have been used on
a single string (monochord) to define musical notes/pitches resulting in a Just intonation system.
38 The reader should note that there are different types of EDO systems that artificially divide the octave in many different
ways. Some of these include 19-EDO, 22-EDO and 31-EDO. The different numbers indicate how many divisions there are
per octave. For instance, a 22-EDO system has 22 equal divisions within an octave.
39 For example, a semitone in the Twelve-Tone Equal Tempered (12-TET) system is the difference between the pitches “C”
and “C#/Db”. A whole tone would be the difference between “C” and “D”.
40 The label of ‘natural’ in this context is not to be perceived as a logical “naturalistic fallacy”. The intent is to illustrate that
Pythagorean Tuning and Just Intonation are derived at using observable acoustic phenomena which can be expressed in
mathematics using rational numbers and ratios (Barbour 1938).
14
This research holds that it would be difficult to determine what specific tuning an ancient
harp/lyre used by referring only to textual inscriptions/instructions that reveal arbitrary
relationships.41
1.2.4. The importance of the CBS 10996 tablet
In the process of decipherment the information that can be gathered from the CBS 10996
tablet logically follows on the previous discussion. This tablet is important because it
contains fourteen terms, of which nine appear on the Hurrian H6 tablet, albeit in a slightly
altered Hurrianised form.42 Hans Gustav Güterbock (1970:47) was the first to notice the
relation between the CBS 10996 and Hurrian H6 terms. The importance of this is that the
CBS 10996 tablet informs us that a given term has a corresponding set of string numbers. For
example, when one sees the term kablite / qablītu ( ) then one will know it refers to
strings 5-2 (five “to” two) or 5, 2 (five “and” two). Whether the strings are played
sequentially (“to”) or together (“and”) has and continues to be extensively debated
(Güterbock 1970:50). Dumbrill (2005), amongst other Orientalist theorists, has attempted to
silence this debate (Chapter 5, §5.11 will offer insight).
The distinction between “to” and “and”, despite not knowing which was used or implied by
the ancient musicians and scribes, is fundamental to the Westernalist43 versus Orientalist
debate.44 The general consensus is that these string numbers can then be applied to the
specific scale/mode intended to be used consisting of nine pitches numbered from 1 to 9 with
8 and 9 representing higher octaves, or possibly unisons, of 1 and 2 (Mirelman 2013:47). A
discussion regarding whether it is representative of a descending-enneatonic or a
simultaneous ascending and descending extended-heptatonic system will be provided in
Chapter 4 and Chapter 6.
The descending enneatonic scale/mode of “E”, as theorised by Dumbrill (2005, 2014, 2017-
2020), is used in the forthcoming examples to illustrate the current pitfalls in recent
interpretations. If one considers the term qablītu ( ) as intertextually inferred from the
41 A more detailed discussion regarding these arbitrary relationships for generating tuning systems will be provided in
Chapter 6.
42 These Hurrianised term name forms will be revealed in Chapter 5, §5.3.
43 The term Occident can be used in place of Westernalist. The term Westernalist will be retained throughout the course of
this research since it is the term often used within the field of ancient Near-Eastern Musicology/Archaeomusicology.
44 The debate between the use of “to” or “and” will be discussed further in the literature review in Chapter 2, §2.1.
15
CBS 10996 tablet, then one will notice that the string number 5 is placed before string 2. The
expected interpretational result, if a descending scale/mode is used, is given in figure 12.
Figure 12: The term qablītu as an ascending fourth (Orientalist pitch set sequence).
Dumbrill (2005:125-126; 2019:30,65) maintains that this term should be interpreted as a span
of an ascending fifth.45 He assumes that string 9(2), a supposed octave, is used in place of the
obvious and straightforward designation of 2 (figure 13):
Figure 13: The term qablītu as an ascending fifth (Orientalist pitch set sequence).
The main reasoning is that he believes this system (as provided on the CBS 10996 tablet),
what he terms the “Greater Babylonian System”, makes use only of ascending fifths and
descending thirds (Dumbrill 2017:12; 2020:20). It should be stated that he seems to overlook
the physical evidence and takes liberties to change information to fit his preconceived ideas.46
Dumbrill (2005:45) theorises that this system was possibly used because complimentary
triads could be formed. He provides no further evidence to support his claims.
Additionally, there is an error in translation and interpretation. The term clearly indicates that
the movement is from string 5 and then to string 2, which would make it a descending span of
45 He continues to assert the use of a span of an ascending fifth in his most recent work (Dumbrill 2020:93-94).
46The subjective conception of the “Greater Babylonian System” will be discussed and discredited in Chapter 5, §5.5.
16
a fifth. This does not fit or follow his initial reasoning and theory (Dumbrill 2005:125-126,
2019:30,65). Why this mistake was made is not clear because Dumbrill (2017:10; 2020:21)
does acknowledge that one number is usually stated in front of the other for a reason: he
refers to this as the “polarity”. The “polarity” of the number 5 that is placed before the
number 2 is specifically seen for the term qablītu on the CBS 10996 tablet.
If one considers that sequences were implied, as Dumbrill (2005, 2014b, 2017-2020) asserts,
then one will notice that there are actually four possibilities: a descending fourth, an
ascending fourth, a descending fifth, or an ascending fifth. This brings further problems to the
interpretational process (figure 14).
Figure 14: The four possibilities for the term qablītu (Orientalist pitch set sequences).
One solution and a way to approach and to perceive the ambiguities of having four possible
states of each term will be revealed when discussing the CBS 10996 tablet in more detail.47 It
becomes apparent that there are far too many possible variations to generate a performable
interpretation in standard Western notation, yet many scholars still attempt to do this.
In purely statistical terms there would be a lower margin of error if one assumes that the
pitches were played simultaneously as harmonic48 intervals. This eradicates the need to know
whether the intervals are ascending or descending. Take, for example, the term qablītu
expressing strings 5 “and” 2 or 5 “and” 9(2): there would be only two possibilities instead of
four (figure 15).
47A theory regarding the ambiguous ascending and descending states of each term will be revealed in Chapter 5, §5.9.
48Even if they are melodic intervals the string that is stated first may possibly have been played first, in this case string 5
followed by string 2.
17
Figure 15: Two Westernalist pitch pair/interval possibilities for the term qablītu.
If one assumes that string 1-4 is the “front” of the instrument, with 5 being the “middle” and
6-9 being the “back” – commonly read from left to right – then one will notice (referring to
figure 12) that the term qablītu seems to hint at the fact that the strings move from string
5(5-šú = middle) [,/-] 2(šá- ge6 = front). The use of these two embedded numbering systems is inscribed
on the CBS 10996 tablet.49 This results in a span of a fourth instead of Dumbrill’s assumed
fifth (Dumbrill 2005:124-125; 2019:30,65).
The span will remain the same no matter the direction of the scale/mode.50 A clearer example
to illustrate the failure of Dumbrill’s theory of the explicit use of ascending fifths and
descending thirds can be seen in the term nīš GABA.RI51, or more accurately normalized to
nīš tuḫri, which moves from string 1(qud-mu-ú = front) [,/-] 5( 5-šú = middle) (figure 16). The result is a
descending fifth and not an ascending fifth.
Figure 16: The term nīš tuḫri as a descending fifth (Orientalist pitch set sequence).
(Illustration by Author 2021)
The CBS 10996 and UET VII 126 tablets confirm that there is only one place where the
number indication of 1(qud-mu-ú = first front) can occur, namely at the “front”. The alternative to
this, with no evidence appearing on the CBS 10996 tablet, would need the number 1 to be
49 A table illustrating how both numbering systems are used on the CBS 10996 tablet is provided in Chapter 5, §5.13.
50 Commentary on the ambiguity that arises when attempting to determine which end of the instrument was/is the “front”
and “back” will be discussed in Chapter 4, §4.6.1.
51 The cuneiform sign “GABA”, a Sumerogram, can be read as “tuḫ” which results in the corrected reading of nīš tuḫri
(Mirelman and Krispijn 2009:43,48).
18
followed by the identifier of uḫri which is the term used to designate the “back” of the
instrument.52
The terms on the CBS 10996 tablet are specific in that they indicate which string number is
placed before another one. The CBS 10996 tablet indicates that the term nīš tuḫri can only be
a descending span of a fifth and not an ascending fifth as Dumbrill (2005:125-126;
2019:30,65) would hope it to be for his theory to be plausible. To recall, his theory advocates
for an assumed “Greater Babylonian System” that makes use of only ascending fifths and
descending thirds. The physical evidence at hand does not support Dumbrill’s claims.
1.2.5. H6 colophon
The third and final segment of the Hurrian H6 tablet is the colophon. It is slightly damaged
near the middle of the tablet and runs upside-down along the bottom edge of the reverse
(back). It indicates that the tablet is a “a hymn or song” – zaluzi, ( ) for/to the “gods” –
DINĜIR ( ).53 The suffix/plural marker of .MEŠ ( ), forming DINĜIR.MEŠ is added
to indicate the plural tense of god (gods). The Akkadian plural normalisation would be the
ilâni (singular ilum). In this specific case the Hurrian H6 tablet is dedicated to the goddess
Nikala. The colophon also provides the name of the scribe54 Ammurabi. Another
characteristic feature of most of the tablets that contain music notation is that they provide the
name of the person to whom the “collection”/tablet belonged (i.e. the composer’s/musician’s
name). In the case of the Hurrian H6 tablet, the name of the composer/musician is damaged.55
Lastly, the colophon also reveals the scale/mode which the tablet is thought to reflect (see
figure 17).
The intended scale/mode of the piece is ni-id-kib-li ( ) in Hurrianised-Akkadian

or ŠUB.MURB4 in logographic form which is normalised as nīd qabli. (Güterbock 1970:51;
Kilmer 1971:142; Dumbrill 2005:117,130).
52 Refer to Chapter 5, §5.13 for a discussion concerning the unique instrument position identifiers (“front” and “back”) that
can be found on the CBS 10996 tablet.
53 This Sumerogram cuneiform symbol can also be interpreted, in other contexts, to mean “an”, translated to “heaven”, “sky”
or “god” (Akkadian = ilum). It can be used either as a syllable “an” or as a symbol that can be used to refer to something
divine (it usually precedes the name of a god). The meaning is dependent on the context in which the symbol is used.
Matahisa Kotiabashi (1992:106; 1998:374) reveals that this symbol can also be “attached” to instruments used in rituals.
54 The colophon includes the Sumerogram ŠU (Akkadian = qāt) which can be translated to mean “by the hand of”.
55 Some of the ~68 Hurrian fragments indicate the names of the composers Ammiya, Tapšiḫun, Urhiya and Puḫiyanna. It is
possible that the Hurrian H6 tablet may have been ‘composed’ by any of the above ancient musicians (Güterbock 1970:51;
Dumbrill 2005:117). An attempt to deduce who the composer is, by looking at certain characteristic compositional features,
can form part of future research.
19
Figure 17: Hurrian H6 colophon (reverse).

(Edited by Author 2021)
(Dumbrill 2020:88)
1.3. Research Problem and Delimitations
In this chapter it has been demonstrated that one of the major concerns regarding the music
instruction notational terms on the H6 as well as the other ~68 Hurrian tablets, is that these
cuneiform inscriptions are ambiguous and open to interpretation. One of the reasons for this
ambiguity is that the tablet does not specifically indicate how the pitches are to be played.
They could be played either at the same time (harmonically) or one after the other
(melodically).
Another factor is that the exact pitches used within the ancient scale/mode, as hinted by the
UET VIII 74 tablet, may be difficult to infer accurately. The inability to admit that the exact
pitches are not known has resulted in scholars, even while providing a disclaimer, publishing
performable versions56 of their own interpretations in standard Western notation in the form
of sheet music or scores57 that are intended to be performed. Using this Western notation
system, the possible use of microtones/quartertones in ancient music is often omitted by
scholars. There is a need to attempt to compensate for this by means of a graphic, abstract
tablature or a system that provides undefined ambiguous pitch names/letters, but one which
still clearly shows the relationships between the string spans. It should be noted that brief
tablatures have been offered by some scholars, but they are outdated (by 21 years) and an
updated tablature for all of the ~68 Hurrian tablets and fragments is still needed (see Hagel
2005:320-321; Smith and Kilmer 2000:130).
56 Curt Sachs (1941a:65) provided a similar warning against attempting to perform “The World’s Oldest Music”. Černý
(1994) also suggests that there are limitations with regard to interpreting ancient music tablets.
57 Stefan Hagel (2005:297) urges that it should be made clear to the reader that “no implication about absolute pitch is
intended” when using staff notation or modern note names. The current author suggests removing the Western frame
altogether.
20
Between the years 1960-2021 scholars appeared to be solely concerned with providing
rebuttals to interpretations of the H6 tablet advanced by others. The focal aim often becomes
fixated on providing a performance-ready version of the notation (Hagel 2005:35). This is in
itself problematic because the sound of ancient music is notoriously difficult to resurrect
(Carroll 1955: iii-vi,1; Michalowski 2008:117; Pilch 2011:94). Hagel (2005:287) suggests
that the “auditory implications” should not be the focus and that there are other aspects about
the instructional notation that can be studied. The various scholarly methodologies that exist
deal with how the tablet could subjectively be interpreted. However, a more reasonable test in
determining the validity of a successful interpretation would be to see if the music theoretical
tablets have been interpreted correctly and as directly as possible.
In order to do this effectively one needs to possess a deeper understanding of the theory
behind the decipherment process. This means that an in-depth analysis of the music-
theoretical tablets (UET VII 126, CBS 10996, UET VII 74) is required and should be
undertaken with utmost caution. There has been no attempt to challenge and to determine
how valid the most recent claims, that have been accepted through consensus, are. Scholars
have accepted that the three most important music theory-based tablets, specifically UET VII
126, CBS 10996 and UET VII 74, have been interpreted without error – the aspect that this
thesis seeks to investigate. Additionally, a judgement that claims that an interpretation can be
deemed as plausible “if it sounds like music” is not a viable argument. This is because any
arrangement of a series of ascending and descending sets of pitches or intervals with spans of
thirds, fourths, fifths and sixths have the potential to “sound like music”.
1.4. Research Question and Aims
The general aims of the research question can be summarised as follows:
(1) To systematically re-examine, re-interpret, and critically discuss the contents of the
existing music theoretical tablets in order to determine the accuracy and validity of
current claims held under consensus. This includes a study of the major theoretical
tablets, namely the UET VII 126, CBS 10996 and UET VII 74, as well as the other
‘minor’ related tablets.
21
(2) An attempt will be made to justify a proposed updated tablature-based approach by

briefly appealing to literature on the interpretation of African music and tuning
practices. Throughout this research this will be referred to as the “Africanist”
perspective. This perspective will augment the argument that microtones/quartertones
and an ambiguous tablature-based interpretation may well form an important part of
accurately interpreting the musical information from the ~68 Hurrian music
instructional tablets and fragments.
(3) To bring attention to the idea that it may be more probable that the ancients would have
discovered the natural properties of the Just Intonation system and used it as a basis for
their music. It should be stressed that this is different to the Twelve-Tone Equal
Tempered system used in the modern period and may mean that ancient cultures may
have perceived certain intervals differently to modern Western cultural standards. This
would account for the existence of possible microtonal inflections/corrections and
means that interpretations rendered in modern staff notation are inaccurate.
These aims arise from a consideration of the literature and will therefore be clarified in the
next chapter.
22
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Westernalist and Orientalist Approaches to Ancient Music Decipherment
Interpretations of the instructional notation that can be found on the Hurrian H6 tablet can
generally be divided into two ‘simplified’ categories.58 The first is the Westernalist
perspective, which adopts the Western art music-theoretical practice of two pitches played
simultaneously as dyads/dichords, in other words: X “together with” Z, or X “and” Z.
For instance, when using a Westernalist perspective, the term qablītu ( ) could be
interpreted to mean that string 5 “and” 2 should be played. This would then form a harmonic
interval ( ). Proponents for the use of harmonic intervals include Kilmer (1965, 1971,
1974) and West (1994). They were among the first to offer a ‘Westernalist’ perspective.
According to Dumbrill’s interpretations, these harmonic intervals could also potentially be
interpreted as a melodic ascending interval ( ) or a melodic descending interval ( ).
This brings rise to the second category of interpretation which will be discussed below
(Dumbrill 2019:17).
The more recent Orientalist59 theoretical paradigm, differs fundamentally to the first. The
Orientalist perspective refers to modern/traditional Middle-Eastern theoretical music
58 The two categorisations are Westernalist and Orientalist. One should differentiate these labels from “Westernocentric” and
“Orientalocentric”. The first label according to the author implies a perspective, the latter is an ethnocentric position
implying connotations of superiority against other cultures. For the purposes of this thesis the designation of Westernalist
and Orientalist is not intended to divide good scholarship with bad scholarship (they are just perspectives). The terms
Westernalist and Orientalist are cited from Dumbrill (2005). He uses these labels to discuss the work of other scholars. It is
important to note that these classifications are problematic and simplistic but the current author will retain them only to open
up the argument for why an Africanist perspective is necessary and required in this filed. Within this research, these labels
are used to show that there are two interpretational possibilities/perspectives and they are used as a simplified system to
easily categories interpretational types. It is the view of the author that some scholars may have used a Westernalist approach
but this does not necessarily mean they were not respectful to the ancient culture they were analysing. The Westernalist label
is often applied to theorists who were producing work in the 1900s (their work reflected the academic cultures and
paradigms of the period). In either case both the Westernalist and Orientalist perspectives are using Western conceptions
when interpreting the ancient notation in modern Western staff notation and this thesis argues that this should be avoided
altogether.
59 The term “Orient” usually refers to the whole of Asia and can also mean many different things, most notably as an outlook
towards the ‘other’ different Arabian culture. Refer to the work of Edward W. Said (1978) and Steven W. Holloway (2006)
for dealings on this topic. A more accurate term would be to refer to a “Near-Eastern theoretical paradigm”. However, the
term “Orientalist” will be retained since this is the term that appears to be commonly used to separate the two paradigms by
current scholarship that deals with ancient Near-Eastern music. The reader should also note that the term “Near-
East”/“Middle-East” is usually considered to be Eurocentric because it refers the geographical location in proximity to
Europe and also sometimes excludes Egypt and other cultures (Snell 2004:xviii). A more neutral term, according to Daniel
Snell (2004:xviii) would be “Western Asia” – the proximity to Asia. The concepts of “singularism” and “pluralism” is used
in African music to denote a similar issue. To clarify, African “singularism” implies that there is only one Universal
characteristic African ‘sound’ (Nketia 1974). African “Pluralism” suggests that there are many different cultural variations
23
ideologies and practices to argue that ancient Near-Eastern practices would, in all likelihood,
have been similar (the underlying Eurocentrism of this claim will be discussed below).
Using this Orientalist paradigm, the pitches are interpreted to be played or sung one after the
other to form short stepwise series of pitches from X “to” Z (X-[Y]-Z). The emphasis is on the
preposition “to”. Orientalist scholars interpret the term qablītu ( ) to mean that the
strings should be played from string 5 “to” 2 ( ), forming a descending series of
pitches. This is specifically if one bases the system on a descending enneatonic scale/mode.
Ascending variants are also possible. Scholars who support the Orientalist theory include
Wulstan (1971), Duchesne-Guillemin (1975, 1980, 1984), and Dumbrill (2005, 2014b, 2017-
2020).
The reader should note that the idea that modern/traditional Middle-Eastern and Near-Eastern
musical practices are similar is a Eurocentric view since it assumes that Middle/Near-Eastern
music and practices remained stagnant without influences or a history of its own. On the
other hand, Mirelman (2013:44) suggests that the fragmented information from the
Mesopotamian music theory and notational texts we have available were potentially in use
for approximately 1000 years (Mirelman 2013:48).
From internal [intertextual] evidence, I have attempted to show that due to

differences in language, style, and handwriting, the two manuscripts [(UET
VII 74 and UET VI/3 899)] were written by different scribes. This evidence is
significant because it suggests that the tuning text was not the isolated
invention of a single scribe, but that it was a text which must have been known
in the city of Ur during the Old Babylonian period, at least among a certain
group of specialists.
To paraphrase, this might imply a “conservative” musical culture and scribal tradition. This
thesis, with its Africanist inspired approach (discussed in §2.4.), suggests scholars should
side with caution because it would be difficult to prove that the ancient practices remained
constant. We would need more contextual evidence since this information may have been
copied by scribes as a means of preservation and does not necessarily imply it was still in
practice. The current evidence we have available is mostly circumstantial (Crickmore
2008:19).
and therefore different sounds (Agawu 2003a). The music of Egypt can be viewed as either part of the African sound
(“singularist” perspective) or as its own distinctive musical style (“pluralsit” perspective). Notions of “singularism” and
“pluralism” should be kept in mind when discussing and analysing ancient music.
24
The Westernalist perspective favors using intervals and evidently desires them to be present
in ancient music to show that some form of a ‘rule’60 or elementary ‘harmony’61 was
practiced by the ancients and that this was possibly incorporated into or influenced Western
culture (Hagel 2005:291; Maurey 2014:365-366). One reservation is that there might have
been some kind of a drone62 which would accompany a melody and this does not imply
harmony. Additionally, parallel fourths and fifths were used not as a form of harmony but
rather as a way to accommodate different voice ranges. The two voices would move parallel
(as in organum) but be experienced as a single voice, not as harmony. That is the
fundamental assumption in organum: the two voices were not separate voices but a
duplication by another voice at a different perfect consonant pitch.63 The ancients may have
used more than just two notes and we may simply be unaware of this fact because the
evidence we have is only a small fraction of the knowledge that has been discovered (Hagel
2016:134).
Egon Wellesz (1957:5) points out that the European (Eurocentric) theory considers that the
origin64 of Western/European music usually begins when one can find traces of clearly
distinguishable intervals that follow some kind of theoretically predefined rules. To
paraphrase Wellesz (1957:5): the origin of music is a difficult topic because we are not able
to clearly observe/hear it and this means that the subject remains open for debate.
60 A statistical analysis by Hagle (2005:322) asks whether there may have been some form of a rule that “avoids” or was
“against parallel fifths”.
61 The term harmony is used to refer to the unique type of polyphony that was developed in the West. Polyphony is a
difficult term because it can mean/imply different things to many cultures: homophony (parallel voices), counterpoint
(independent voices) and accompanied melody (one voice emerging among others). Additionally, the ancients may have
defined harmony differently to how we currently do in the modern period. One should always consider the problems that
may arise from using and applying modern Western definitions to ancient music. Richard L. Crocker (2011) has attempted to
reinforce the Westernalist perspective, especially Kilmer’s interpretation, by stating that there may have been some form of
polyphony in ancient music (he refers to ancient Greek traditions). His intention is to reveal that Kilmer’s interpretation may
be correct because it may be a form of ‘diphony’ (a melody and accompaniment). The interpretation by Krispijn (2002/2003)
suggests that the upper note from the dyad may have been sung while the lower note was the accompaniment.
62 To support the argument of the idea of the presence of a drone note in ancient music one can refer to the ancient Greek
auloi, a double pipe woodwind type instrument where the one pipe plays a drone while the other produces a melody (Hagel
2016:143-144; Hagel [forthcoming]:2). A similar double piped instrument, made from silver, has been excavated at Ur c.
2450 BCE (Lawergren 2000:123). One reservation with regards to the tablets discussed in this thesis is that we are
presumably dealing with stringed instruments and not necessarily a wind instrument.
63 This was what gave rise to the “rule” that there should be no successive fifths or octaves in a harmonisation: the
independence of the voices was compromised and a third-voice rather than a fourth-voice texture was briefly created. Later,
in the classical period, thirds were used in the same way. Successive thirds added to the texture without creating harmony or
a separate voice. This may have also been the case in ancient Near-Eastern music.
64 Gregorian chant, which has its origins from Jewish chant, is usually perceived as the starting point of Western music. The
foundations set by ancient Greek music treatises are also considered to have influenced Western music (Maurey 2014:368-
369, 372).
25
The most often cited example of a clear development of Western harmony with theoretical
rules comes from the Notre-Dame School (c.1160 – c.1250) in Paris (Dumbrill 2019:18).
Leoninus and Perotinus are regarded as the foremost composers of this early polyphonic
compositional style. With this outlook some Westernalist scholars are attempting to rewrite
history by arguing that elementary concepts of harmony may have begun much earlier in
Western Europe than initially thought, and occurred through the influences of practices in
ancient Mesopotamia.
The Orientalist view, in contrast to this, insists that the ancients had no real interest in
harmony as it is understood in modern Western culture (Dumbrill 2019:18). The Orientalists
often draw parallels with traditional and modern Arabic, Turkish and Jewish cultural music
practices since these Middle-Eastern cultures, according to Wulstan (1974:125), have no
strict “taste for harmony”.
Dumbrill (2005:32) further suggests that there is no evidence that harmony as we perceive it
today was practiced in ancient times. However, because the UET VII 74 tablet and the
duplicate UET VI/3 899 seems to provide ‘rules’ or guidelines for constructing scales/modes
based on “not clear” and “clear” relationships between two pitches/strings, this could mean
that there was some elementary65 notion of harmony. One can ask the question of whether the
concept of “harmony” is exclusively Western? Musicologists and ethnomusicologists,
however, may argue that the comparison between two pitches, as is often done in tuning
procedures, does not necessarily imply harmony but rather relates to the requirements of
tuning using the harmonic/overtone series.
One should also be careful to assume that the absence of what is regarded as harmony in the
Western tradition means that music is ‘simple’. One issue that often plagues the study of
music is the debate between whether music “evolved” like an organism from ‘simple’ music
and cultural ideas appearing earlier to ‘complex’ music and cultural ideas appearing later.
There is no conclusive evidence for this stance since the distinction between what is simple
and what is complex or more “evolved” is always based on subjective opinion.66
65 The UET VII 74 tablet reveals that there was some form of a ‘rule’ which was not random, and determined what sounded
“clear” or “not clear”.
66 Within the context of Western music, this “evolutionary” Darwinist approach could then lead to the conclusion that the
music of Johann Sebastian Bach, for example, because it was written in the 18th century, is of necessity more “simple” than
contemporary popular “technical/progressive” music. This is an opinion which is open to debate.
26
The attempt to ascribe more value to music that has been written down or notated, compared
to music that has not, is also a problem that often arises within the study of the music of
different cultures, especially African music (Gurney and West 1998:227; Crocker 1997:201).
The purpose of this section is to reveal that one of the main hinderances in this field is that
readers interested in ancient Near-Eastern music notation need to familiarise themselves with
varying interpretational types. This is why the simplified categorizations of Westernalist and
Orientalist67 are used. This division also allows one to add the new Africanist perspective
(refer to §2.4.). It should be noted that some scholars do not ascribe to the classification of
“Westernalist” or “Orientalist” and avoid providing performable interpretations. Some of
these scholars68 include, Sam Mirelman, Stefan Hagel, John C. Franklin, Jerome Colburg and
Leon Crickmore. As mentioned, these terms (Westernalist and Orientalist) will be retained to
categorise interpretational types.
2.2. Existing Research on Ancient Near-Eastern Music Notation and Theory
The publications by Dumbrill (2005, 2014b, 2017-2020) are the most recent sources
regarding the construction, layout, and contextual associations concerning the Hurrian H6,
UET VII 126, CBS 10996, UET VII 74 and other closely related music theory tablets.
Some of these publications appear to be revised reiterations of his earlier works. According to
the literature reviewed in this thesis his work can be considered as important since it appears
as if his work has “widespread/public appeal”.69 His most recent (2020) interpretation is also
widely disseminated, easily accessible, and has not been officially disproven.
67 Dumbrill (2005, 2014b, 2017-2020) claims that there are Arabic connections, but other authors have already exposed other
South-western Asian possibilities. For example, Duchesne-Guillemin (1984) and Koitabashi (1998) have identified relations
between Mesopotamian and Jewish music. Arastoo Mihandoust (2021) analyses Mesopotamian musical evidence from a
Persian (Iranian) perspective considering the Dastgah system. John C. Franklin (2018) considers a connection between
India, Greece and Mesopotamia. Additionally, Véronique Alexandre Journeau (2007) draws a connection between Chinese
notation and the Hurrian hymns.
68 Future research can be conducted to determine if scholars ascribe to the “Westernalist” and “Orientalist” classifications.
This can be done through interviews and by analysing their approach to the study of ancient Near-Eastern music.
69 According to the literature reviewed in this thesis it appears as if Dumbrill’s claims have generated public interest.
Although, it should be pointed out that his work may not reflect consensus and this needs to be investigated further. To the
current authors knowledge there are no recent publications that criticise or disprove the theories advanced by Dumbrill
(2019-2020). His work has received minimal scholarly engagement. Kilmer (2014:94-95,98) recently acknowledged some of
Dumbrill’s claims in an article that sums up scholarly contributions from the 1977 until 2014. This is why it appears as if his
claims may be accepted. His claims have not been challenged in publications thus far. Initially Kilmer (1965, 1971, 1974)
was the lead scholar in this field and was mostly unchallenged before her retirement. It is difficult to determine what the
current consensus actually is because there appears to be constant debate that has continued over from the 1960s. Usually
musicologists do not understand Assyriology and Philology, and Assyriologists are not well versed in
Musicology/Ethnomusicology. This means that some musicological claims are often ignored by Assyriologists and vice
versa. According to Miroslav Černý (1994) there needs to be constant collaboration between these two disciplines and Leon
Crickmore (2008:16) also recommends an interdisciplinary approach between mathematicians, musicologists and
assyriologists. If Dumbrill’s claims are invalid then it is a problem that there have been no recent publications that disproves
his claims since many of his works are easily accessible. One reservation is that there may be some aspects which do not
27
Dumbrill’s first70 major contribution, written in 2005, was published as four interconnected
‘books’. The first book is concerned with analysing the music theory related tablets (pages
11-110). The second book deals specifically with the Hurrian H6 and the ~68 H tablets71
(pages 111-174). The third book engages with the subject of ancient organology, the study of
ancient instruments (pages 175-386). The fourth and final book provides a list of – or, more
accurately, a guide to – some of the known ancient music related terms with accompanying
English translations (pages 337-454).
Dumbrill’s more recent work, done in 2019 and 202072, are important texts that corrects,
builds on and expands on some of the information presented in his 2005 text73, while also
providing additional information on newly discovered music theory related tablets. This is
why focus is often placed on his 2005 text. In it he provides the reader with a brief overview
of the different scholarly theories and interpretations surrounding the important music theory-
based tablets. He also supplies some contextual information, and occasionally lists and
briefly explains other scholars’ interpretations of the H6 tablet74 (Dumbrill 2005:118-120).
He provides the interpretations of the foremost published theorists, namely Wulstan (1971),
Duchesne-Guillemin (1975, 1980, 1984), West (1994), and Kilmer (1965, 1971, 1974).
The reader should note that there are other interpretations75 but this thesis will focus on only
the interpretations from the above authors because some of the other interpretations have not
been officially published and critically reviewed. Additionally, the interpretations by Wulstan
(1971), Duchesne-Guillemin (1975, 1980, 1984), West (1994), and Kilmer (1965, 1971,
merit discussion and that this dismissal in engagement does not imply an acceptation of that work. One of the aims of this
thesis is to critically examine the most recent claims. A future study could conduct interviews with leading figures within the
field (Assyriology and Musicology/Archaeomusicology) to determine what claims are currently held under consensus.
Additionally, Dumbrill claims that his performance interpretation of the “world’s oldest melody” has been plagiarized many
times and suggests that this naturally implies his theories are valid or the most believable/correct (Music in Mesopotamia,
2020). This is a problematic claim because plagiarism does not imply credibility.
70 This publication is based on and adapted from Dumbrill's earlier research: The Musicology and Organology of the Ancient
Near East published by Green Press, London in 1998.

71
Laroche (1968) was the first to provided sketches, transcriptions and photographs of these ~68 Hurrian tablets before they
were known to be music notation tablets (refer to pages 462-483).
72 It could be argued that both of these texts are too short to be considered books.
73 The book published by Dumbrill in 2005 is still the most detailed and is one of the official published sources on the topic
of ancient Near-Eastern music notation. It is also the only full book length publication on the topic.
74 The section of Dumbrills book that deals with the ~68 Hurrian tables is important since it is the most recent text that
provides sketches and translations of these tablets. Providing tablaturisations for these tablets will form part of the current
authors future work (a possible doctoral study).
75 The other interpretations come from Hans-Jochen Thiel (1977), Roul Vitale (1979-1980, 1982), Miroslav Karel Černý
(1988), Joseph L. Monzo (2000) and Theo J. H. Krispijn (2002/2003). These scholars build upon the Westernalist and
Orientalist ideas that were advanced by the foremost scholars in the field. An in-depth re-examination, analysis and
histography of these interpretations will form part of a future study by the current author.
28
1974) are important because they were the first to advance ideas that laid the foundation for
what can be termed the Westernalist and Orientalist perspectives. The other additional
interpretations appear to simply reiterate and extend upon some of the ideas offered by the
above-mentioned foremost scholars.
In addition to offering brief descriptions of each tablet Dumbrill (2005:118-122) also supplies
sheet music, in Western staff notation, for the various competing published and officially
recognised interpretations from those listed above. However, the information supplied
regarding the theorists listed is not detailed and has not been analysed in order to determine if
there are some statistical similarities or differences between each of the existing
interpretations. In-depth analyses of the length of each interpretation could also serve as
useful to determine if there are any major similarities. More in-depth discussions and
analyses concerning each of the existing interpretations will be provided in the current
author’s future research.
This proposed research will deal specifically with exploring whether a tabularisation
interpretation of the Hurrian H6 tablet and the ~68 other fragments will be a viable future
doctoral undertaking.
2.2.1. Existing Westernalist and Orientalist interpretations
Kilmer (1965, 1971, 1974) provides one of the first attempts at a Westernalist interpretation
and translation of the Hurrian H6 tablet. Her work deals predominantly with the Western art
music practice of perceiving the Akkadian music terms as simultaneous intervals ( ). She
was the first scholar to suggest this approach. To elucidate, her interpretation makes use of a
series of different intervals with spans of thirds, fourths, fifths and sixths (Kilmer 1971,
1974). To bring validity to her intervallic interpretation she attempts to synchronise the
number of intervals used with the syllables of the lyrical text.76 In other words, she links the
notation with the lyrical section (refer also to Crocker 1975 and Thiel 1978).
This research holds that any attempt to fit the lyrical text syllables to the notation, according
to the speech-tones, leads to subjective interpretations. This is because scholars attempt to
76This approach of determining the approximate count of the words or syllables in relation to the notation was first theorised
by Hans Güterbock (1970:50).
29
manipulate the syllables to fit a Westernalist notational framework which in itself is

subjectively generated.77
Some parts of the tablet are also damaged, leaving scholars with the task of attempting to fill
in musical information according to their own personal preferences (Gurney 1970:50).
Dumbrill (2005:123-124) draws attention to the fact that we cannot be sure whether the
music was written first, with the lyrical text added later, or vice versa. This point makes it
difficult to determine how the lyrical text matches the notation because we simply cannot
know with certainty which came first.78 Additionally, the musical notation is on one side,
while the lyrics extends around onto the back of the tablet as well (see Campbell 2016). This
means that when one reads the lyrics then one cannot always read the music, and vice versa.
If one diligently reads/follows the lyrics the one will eventually miss the notation at some
point. This is why it is likely that the instructional notation could have been a form of
performance suggestions. Černý (1998:49) and Hagel (2005:292) indicates that it may be that
the tablets were not intended to be used as scores to play from.79 The melody of the lyrics
was also not written as part of the notation and was possibly learnt from memory (Hagel
[forthcoming]:7).
West (1994) similarly uses Westernalist intervals within his interpretation but also adds
single melodic notes ( ). The result of his interpretation is similar to what one would
expect to see in Medieval chant, which uses conjunct and disjunct intervals (Dumbrill
2020:21). The interpretation provided by Wulstan (1971) serves as one of the first Orientalist
perspectives concerning the notation. Wulstan (1971) suggests that each Akkadian notational
term represents a unique ascending or descending melodic pitch set ( ), instead of
intervals. The ascending pitch sets are constructed using five notes moving stepwise up
(ascending fifths), while the descending pitch sets consist of three notes moving stepwise
down (descending thirds).
77 Andrew-John Bethke (2017) suggests that certain languages are difficult to fit within a Western notation framework. Some
syllables will need to be altered, moved or compressed – sometimes changing the meaning - to fit within a notational
framework. He specifically analyses the isiXhosa language set to music written in Western standard notation. The same
logic concerned with the issues of “framing music” can also be applied to ancient music.
78 The notation and the lyrical text were not written parallel to each other. The same is true of early Western notation of the
1300s: the staves and the texts were not aligned because the performers knew (having been taught) which syllables were
placed where. With the ancient notation we may be dealing with an oral tradition rather than a written record, and that is
what makes the task of accurate interpretations so difficult. We do not know because we have not been taught the ancient
conventions.
79 Julian Reade (2003:105) has pointed out that there may be iconographical evidence on instrument inlays that suggests
musicians may have used some form of performance instructions (refer to Chapter 4, §4.3.2.).
30
The interpretation by Duchesne-Guillemin (1975, 1980, 1984) follows an Orientalist pitch set
melodic idea similar to the interpretation presented by Wulstan (1971). The major difference
is that she attempts to place her melodic pitch sets melismatically with the text. She uses
descending pitch sets with stepwise note groupings of four and five (descending fourths and
fifths) along with ascending pitch sets that contain three and six notes (ascending thirds and
sixths). Duchesne-Guillemin (1975, 1980, 1984) extensively cites ancient Greek80 music
theory to support her interpretation and she also attempts to draw a connection between
Jewish liturgical tradition and ancient Mesopotamia. However, we cannot be certain that
there was a direct influence or a link because such inter-cultural comparisons should,
according to the current author, be treated with caution (Mirelman 2013:1; Hagel 2016:133).
Mirelman (2013:43) can be quoted saying that “there are no predecessors and no obvious
successors.”
John Curtis Franklin (2018) encourages establishing connections between Mesopotamia and
Indian music. A brief attempt to draw a connection between ancient Mesopotamian music
and Indian music has also been made by Josef Kuckertz (1993). A possible link between
ancient Near-Eastern and Chinese music has been made by Véronique Journeau (2007).
Nonetheless this research will approach this topic of inter-cultural music relations with
caution because even if there is a link it was probably not as widespread and only secluded to
some regions and peoples. The extent of these types of influences will be difficult to track.
Dumbrill’s Orientalist interpretation is the most recent and currently appears to be

unchallenged. His interpretation makes use of ascending and descending melodic pitch sets
which have also been arranged with the Hurrianised-Akkadian lyrical text in a melismatic
fashion. As mentioned in the previous chapter, Dumbrill (2005, 2014b, 2017-2020) uses
stepwise descending five note pitch sets and ascending three note pitch sets.
In recent interpretations Dumbrill suggests that the notation was intended for voice only
(Dumbrill 2017-2020; Music in Mesopotamia, 2020; The Oldest Song in the World, 2021).
This is somewhat problematic because the terms on the CBS 10996 tablet refer to strings and
these same terms are used on the H6 notation. The only deduction that can be made is that the
notation could be for either voice, stringed or other instruments, or a combination of both
80Some of the history behind the tradition of drawing parallels with ancient Mesopotamian and Greek music is discussed by
François Lasserre (1988).
31
voice and instruments. However, Dumbrill (2020:89) indicates that the colophon of the H6
tablet does not mention an instrument and this is why he suspects it is to be sung vocally.
Dumbrill (2020:89) notes that the colophon of the H6 tablet includes the transliteration za-
am-ma-aš-ša which could share a relation to za-am-mā-ru(m) (“a song” or “to sing”). More
research is required and this will form part of the current authors future research when
analysing the other ~68 Hurrian tablets.
On the other hand, the CBS 10996 tablet does also not list or identify an instrument but it
does state string numbers. It is difficult to generalize and assume whether a stringed
instrument or only the voice was intended. More evidence is needed and this is why this
research will consider the possibility of a vocal and stringed-instrumental tablaturisation.
The difference between Dumbrill and Duchesne-Guillemin’s interpretation is that Duchesne-

Guillemin subjectively selects and adds notes she believes could have been improvised by the
ancient musicians. The reader should note that scholars add in extra pitches and accidentals,
or repeat certain ideas and intervals, because they think it musically/compositionally “works”
and is subjectively preferable. The issue here is that they are approaching ancient music using
modern idiosyncrasies and compositional biases. As one would expect, each of the various
scholarly interpretations discussed above result in music that differs in length/duration.
2.2.2. Interpreting the undisclosed instructional notation numbers
The above Westernalist and Orientalist paradigms can be subdivided into four different
theories. These theories differ because one cannot be sure what the undisclosed numbers after
the Hurrianised-Akkadian terms on the Hurrian H6 tablet represent.
The first theory holds that the Akkadian (Assyro-Chaldean Babylonian) numerical
indications supplied after the terms may indicate the number of times the sequenced pitch set
notes, from the Akkadian-Hurrianised notational terms, are to be repeated. If the cuneiform
number “3” is presented after the term then one would naturally assume it means that the
term/sequence of notes is to be repeated three times ( ). This view is reflected in
the work of Orientalist Wulstan (1971). The Westernalist interpretation by Kilmer (1965,
1971, 1974) is similar, suggesting that the number after the term indicates the number of
times the interval is to be repeated ( ).
32
Dumbrill (2005:120) offers a criticism towards this theory by stating that the result may be
“dull”.81 He reaches this conclusion because most of the terms are expected to be repeated
between 1 and 4 times, while another single occurring term (uštamari) is expected to be
repeated 10 times. This is if one assumes that the number should be read in base-10 as
opposed to the more standard ancient base-60 system.82
The role of the number 10 and the term (uštamari) associated with it is not known from a
musical standpoint. One should be cautious in making such value judgements: it would be
difficult to prove that repeats are necessarily perceived as “dull”, regardless of the period in
which they are encountered. These repeats could have triggered trance-like states and may
have been a necessary feature of certain types of ritualistic music. Hagel (2005:310) suggests
this use of 10, according to his statistical analysis, should not be viewed as a music-numerical
value and may have implied something different.
The second theory holds that the cuneiform number indications could also possibly represent
how many notes are to be used from the pitch set ( ). This theory comes from the
work of Orientalist scholar West (1994). Dumbrill (2005:97-110) rejects this theory but then
paradoxically extends and uses a variation of this theory when attempting to translate the O.B
Anonymous/MS 5105 tablet. This tablet is assumed to be ancient lute notation83 and is
believed to be the oldest form of notation that has been discovered thus far.84
81 Repetition also often has to do with links to oratory: something is said and repeated, growing or diminishing in volume
each time, to make a specific point. Repetition also serves to extend the length of a piece of music and sequences performs
this function as well.
82 Dumbrill (20012:90) suggests that some numbers were read in base-10 especially in a musical context because the string
indication of 1-5 or 1,5 (qablītu) in a base-60 system (1[+60] + 5 = 65) would be difficult to understand when applied to
strings of a musical instrument unless one considers string lengths as some scholars have done (refer to Chapter 5, §5.6).
This is why he suggest that both base systems (base-10 and base-60) were used in the ancient Near-East. Additionally, if the
ancients intended to imply that the string length was 15 then they would have used the symbol for 10 and 5 next to each
other to imply an addition that equates to 15 instead of using the symbols for 1 and 5, with a space or separation term u3, as
is done on the CBS 10996 tablet.
83
The assumed lute notation on the O.B Anonymous/MS 5105 tablet, from the Schøyen Collection, is comprised of various
pairs of numbers ranging from 1 to 14 arranged in columns. The theory according to Dumbrill (2005:97-110) is that a
descending two-octave scale/mode can be applied to these numbers (“1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10-11-12-13-14”). To translate the
notation, one would then apply the number pairs to the corresponding presupposed scale/mode degree numbers. To clarify,
Dumbrill (2005:97-110) believes that the numbers can be used to select notes from a two-octave scale. For instance, in the
tablet’s first column (second line) the numbers 12 and 13 are present. Dumbrill (2005:97) then interprets this to mean that
the 12th and 13th note of a two-octave scale/mode was intended to be used by the lute musician (he uses an extended-
heptatonic scale). According to Dumbrill this means that the heptatonic system (an extended-heptatonic) system existed
before the enneatonic system. It is not clear how one can concluded that the H6 tablets made use of an enneatonic system
without supporting evidence. Additionally, the UET VII 74 tablet seems to be making use of an extended-heptatonic system
(refer to Chapter 6).
84 The Hurrian H6 tablet (c. 1400 BCE) is considered to be the oldest complete form of notation. The O.B Anonymous/MS
5105 lute notation is older (2000-1700 BCE) but is fragmentary and not complete.
33
Kilmer (1974:75) has contemplated applying a similar theory to the H6 tablet. She postulates
that the numbers after the Akkadian terms could also possibly represent the notes to be
selected by the musician. In this case any of the first three notes, instead of only the outer
voices, can be used to construct the interval ( ).
The third theory states that the numbers after the Akkadian-Hurrianised terms may be used to
represent how many pitches between each term may be improvised by the performer as
embellishments. This premise was fully realised by Orientalist theorist Duchesne-Guillemin
(1975, 1980, 1984).
The fourth and final interpretation by Orientalist and musicologist Dumbrill (2005, 2014b,
2017-2020), is based on the idea that the numbers following the Akkadian terms may
possibly represent a complex rhythmical formula that can be applied to the notes of the pitch
set ( ). He theorises that a constant rhythm is used (such as quavers = 1/2 beat). The
last note of the series is then doubled (a crotchet = 1 beat) which is then multiplied by the
number following the term (a dotted minim: 1 x 3 = 3 beats).
The current author has not come across recent publications or books challenging this
interpretation. The reader should note that there is no ancient textual proof to support this
interpretation by Dumbrill (2005, 2014b, 2017-2020), or any of the other claims, regarding
what the numbers may represent. We simply do not know what the numbers signify in a
musical context (Hagel 2005). There are no recent publications of Westernalist
interpretations that support a similar theory that applies a mathematical formula to the
numbers that appear after the Akkadian terms.
One could further extend on this idea to suggest that each term could have had a specific
rhythm that accompanied it, which was known by the ancient musician and scribe but would
be unknown to modern theorists due to a lack of textual explanation (Hagel 2005:290-291).
This would be similar to how some Medieval neumes function. This serves as further
evidence for why a tablaturisation interpretation, capable of representing musical ambiguity,
will be a viable future undertaking.
Most new research on this topic appears to perpetuate the same Westernalist and Orientalist
perspectives/ideas or attempts to prove/disprove Dumbrill’s most recent claims. This is why
34
this thesis seeks to offer an Africanist perspective that aims to eventually remove the
Westernalist-Orientalist debate and labels to show to ancient Near-Eastern music notation is
ambiguous in nature.
2.2.3. Future considerations for a tablaturisation interpretation
As can be inferred from the above Westernalist-Orientalist debate, current research on the
topic is divided with a leaning towards the Orientalist perspective (Bayer 2014:18-19).
No new interpretations which explore the possibility of a vocal/instrumental tablaturisation85
of the Hurrian H6 tablet’s instructional notation have been presented by scholars. One
reservation may be that, if the H6 and the other ~68 Hurrian texts were intended for voice
and not an instrument, then a tablaturisation interpretation would be problematic because it
could not represent vocal information. The problem with this objection is that scholars
(specifically Dumbrill) are already applying information from the CBS 10996 tablet that
mentions strings to the supposed ‘vocal’ Hurrian notation. To clarify, the music theoretical
cuneiform texts are intended for stringed instruments and mention string numbers. This is
similar to what a tablature is. In other words, If the theoretical tablets indicate that a certain
term (nīš tuḫri) makes use of specific strings (1-/,5) and scholars are able to apply this
information to a scale/mode and translate it to the voice then a tablaturisation-vocalisation
translation would also be possible. More specifically, a tablaturisation that shows what is
physically expressed on the tablet itself, while avoiding the addition of unprovable
suppositions, is required.
Updated tablaturisations for the ~68 Hurrian tablets will be the focus of the current author’s
future research (an interdisciplinary study between ancient culture studies, Assyriology and
85 It is important to note that this research is not implying that the ~68 Hurrian tablets are ancient forms of tablatures.
Instead, this research is proposing that these tablets can possibly be interpreted and translated into a tablaturised format. In
other words, an unspecific musical system - a tablaturisation - may be more beneficial in displaying the ancient ambiguous
information. Kilmer and Tinney (1996:54) have hypothesised that the ~68 Hurrian tablets may be an ancient form of
tablature (see also Smith and Kilmer 2000; Kilmer and Mirelman 2001:486). Dumbrill (2005:120) defines a tablature as
“[…] a graphic aid for the positioning of the fingers on the strings of some fretted instruments”. He uses this limited modern
definition to criticise Kilmer and Tinney (1996:54) by arguing that the Hurrian tablets do not fit this definition. In actuality,
the Hurrian tablets fail only one of the above criteria in that the tablets do not seem to indicate exactly where to position the
fingers. Another reservation is that this definition of a tablature is assuming a fretted instrument. If a harp/lyre tablature was
implied by the tablet then there would not be finger placement indications (the entire string produces the sound). As with
modern guitar tablature the musician can choose which fingers may be used. Focused research is needed to decide whether
the Hurrian tablets can be considered as a tablature or not. Dumbrill (2005:120) suggests that if the ancient notation was a
tablature then it would have “looked like one”. To criticise this, how would one know what an ancient tablature would have
looked like if we have no evidence of its existence. This could be the first occurrence of an ancient form of
vocal/instrumental tablature.
35
Musicology). Furthermore, no attempts have been made to combine baseline Westernalist

and Orientalist interpretations to form a “Universalist” perspective. Such an interpretation
would possibly reveal related occurrences which stem from the two separate perspectives.86
Finding common ground and relationships between the Westernalist and Orientalist
perspectives may prove beneficial to generate a more plausible interpretation that can
represent opposing information within one system. It is important to indicate that an
ambiguous tablaturisation would be able to provide both Western intervals or Orientalist
pitch sets and would not dogmatically impose one theory over the other. This will be ideal as
a basis/foundation for a “Universalist” approach that uses Westernalist, Orientalist and
Africanist ideas/perspectives.
This thesis holds the view that neither the Westernalist nor the Orientalist interpretation
paradigms should be viewed as more “correct” than the other. The crucial difference between
the more successful interpretation lies within the accuracy of the facts on which those
interpretations are based (Rahn 1984:228-229). Similarities that can be found in both schools
of thought, as part of a statistical analysis, may also reveal important underlining patterns.87
One benefit of using a tablaturisation is that instrumental tablature is neither an exclusively

Western or Orientalist conception. There are many examples of tablatures from different
cultures. For example, the traditional Japanese Shakuhachi bamboo flute, with its origins
from ancient China, makes use of a type of finger placement tablature similar to modern
recorder tablatures. The piece Tanteki Hiden-fu, written by Ōmori Sōkun in c. 1608, is one
example of an early88 Shakuhachi tablature (Stanfield 1977:87). By comparison, the oldest
Western Medieval lute and organ/harpsichord tablatures date from the 14th century (Apel
2003:865; Bragard and De Hen 1968:80).
86 Dumbrill (2020:9-10) classifies himself as a “Cultural Relativist” and opposes ideas associated with finding objective
universalities in music. As will be discussed Dumbrill problematically uses Universalist and Westernalist ideas despite his
expressed reservations against such ideologies. One example is the manner in which he assumes there is a relation between
how Western diatonic scales/modes and tritones are used in ancient music (refer specifically to Chapter 6). It also appears as
if Dumbrill is unaware of the philosophical problem that arises when one claims some form of cultural relativism. In short,
by disregarding and not engaging with Universalist ideas – and assuming they are all Western-centric – he is not holding a
relativist stance because he is making an objective judgement claim and not respecting, tolerating or critically engaging with
other theories. The lack of references in his 2020 ‘book’ also shows his disinterestedness to engage with competing theories.
87 Stefan Hagel (2005) does partially attempt to tabulate the average number of times certain terms and numbers appear (see
also Rahn 2011a and 2011b).

88 It is difficult to pinpoint the oldest example of this type of Shakuhachi tablature (refer to Stanfield 1977:87).
36
2.3. Purpose and Value of Study
This research will critically re-examine the ancient cuneiform music theory tablets that are
used in the deciphering process of the notation on the Hurrian H6 tablet. This is necessary in
order to determine whether an updated tabularisation interpretation will, in fact, be viable to
undertake. Reinterpretations of the tablets UET VII 126, CBS 10996 and UET VII 74,
amongst other closely related and supplementary tablets, form the basis of this research. At
present, the major shortcoming in research related to ancient Near-Eastern music is that the
contents of these existing music theory tablets have not been questioned, reanalysed, or
reinterpreted.
One of the main reasons for the need for re-examinations is that it appears that hasty
generalisations have been made concerning the proposed direction of ancient Near-Eastern
scales/modes. Current consensus appears to support Dumbrill (2005, 2014b, 2017-2020) in
his belief of a descending scale/mode as a standard direction of the ancient scales/modes.
Some interpretations have also not taken the possibility of the use of smaller intervals such as
quartertones into consideration. It is apparent that the foremost scholars, like Dumbrill (2005,
2014b, 2017-2019), base their interpretations on diatonic descending enneatonic
scales/modes, using nine pitches.
In his most recent re-interpretation, Dumbrill (2017-2020) only applies accidentals to some of
the pitches. The problem is that the pitches that were chosen to be altered were based on
suggestions derived from input from professional modern/traditional Middle-Eastern
maqam89 musicians. The issue here is that they are not ancient musicians. Lastly, Dumbrill
(2005, 2014b, 2017-2020) does not use the term enneatonic correctly (refer to Chapter 4,
§4.5).
The new insights that this research will bring to the field of ancient Near-Eastern musicology
include:
89It is compelling that there are certain similarities between the ancient Near-Eastern pitch sets and traditional Middle-
Eastern maqam practices. These Middle-Eastern practices may have been influenced by this ancient knowledge having been
passed on through an oral tradition. There is, however, no sufficient evidence to directly show this influence. The major
concern with Dumbrill’s interpretations is that he initially made use of a diatonic Twelve-Tone Equal Tempered Western
system (Dumbrill 2005, 2014b, 2017-2020). He only adds microtones, according to subjective preferences, in his later
research. This is problematic because traditional Middle-Eastern music has microtones/quartertones imbedded within its
system and does not start from a Twelve-Tone Equal Tempered frame. Hagel (2005:300-301) also argues that some form of
diatonicism must be present before microtonality can fully develop.
37
(1) Introducing an Africanist inspired perspective to the field of ancient Near-Eastern

Musicology/Archaeomusicology.
(2) Providing evidence for why ancient Near-Eastern scales/modes have the
capability of being within a “free standing” system that can be perceived as both
ascending and descending.
(3) Challenging the conception that diatonic scales/mode were used in the ancient
Near-East. This will be achieved by showing that scholars have no evidence to
support the claim that ancient intervals of tritones, thirds and sixths (and by
extension seconds and sevenths) were perceived the same as we currently do in
modern Western society. This opens the discussion to include and consider
smaller intervals such as quartertones.
(4) Bringing attention to the fact that scholars have no evidence to validate the claim
that the ancient Near-Eastern term lā zakû, loosely translated to “not clear”, is the
equivalent to a modern dissonant tritone.
2.4. An Africanist Inspired Perspective
The idea that current scholars may be approaching the study of ancient Near-Eastern music
with the unsuitable terminology is largely inspired by the theories advanced by some
prominent and leading African music scholars, namely Klaus Wachsmann (1953),90 John
Blacking (1959,91 1982)92, Hugh Tracey (1969),93 and Gerhard Kubik (1985).94
90 Wachsmann (1953), similar to Blacking (1959), brings up an important point by stating that one should avoid applying
external ideas (external to the culture analysed) like using the measurement of cents when analysing “exotic” music from
other cultures. To specify, the problem of using cents as a measurement for intervals in music is that this measurement
would be inaccurate since different cultures are capable of hearing different, sometimes smaller incremental, cent
relationships.
91 Blacking (1959) warns that one should not place music of other cultures into a Western harmonic framework. To clarify,
when reference is made to approximate intervals, one must first establish intervallic norms before precise definitions and
relationships are assumed. If one believes that intervals of a sixth were implied by other cultures then one should still be
cautious to relate it to a major or minor sixth as found in Western music, because it could be microtonally different.
92 Blacking (1982) brings an important idea to mind when one is engaged in the analysis of deceased composers’ works. For
the purpose of this research this can also be extended to ancient music and musicians. The idea is that when one looks at the
findings of an analysis, we can often infer more information about the analyst than about the song/composer. In other words,
if one claims that it is possible to use Western European standards and ideologies to generate a performable version of
ancient music notation to recover its sound, then one runs the risk of limiting the analysis within a Western framework.
Similarly, when Orientalist scholars use modern Western notation and conceptions, such as a tritone, they also limit
themselves within Western tradition. To paraphrase Blacking (1982), what would happen if a Japanese or Indian music
theorist was to analyse European Classical Art music using their own traditional concepts methodologies and theories?
38
These theories, which this research terms Africanist,95 are predominantly concerned with
African music but that they can also effectively be applied96 to other forms of music,
including ancient Near-Eastern music. The importance of this Africanist approach is to
emphasise that we may be able to translate or decode ancient Near-Eastern notation, as with
most other notation, only approximately and not accurately (Pearce and Eerola 2015:100).
This is because standard Western concepts, such as tritones and ‘intervals’97 of seconds,
thirds, sixths and sevenths, used by other cultures may be perceived differently, possibly
microtonally98 different, to our modern-day Western conceptions (Wachsmann 1953;
Blacking 1959; Kubik 1985; Tracey 1996).
The verbal language used may also be approximate because we cannot be sure that another
culture’s view or use of the word such as “not clear”, as found in the UET VII 74 tablet, is the
same as our modern-day conception of the interval of a tritone (Agawu 2001:10). John Rahn
(1983:216-217) also warns against these types of comparisons. To be more precise, the term
that is mentioned together with lā zakû is considered to form a tritone relationship between
two strings because it may have resulted in a sound that was perceived as “not clear”;
dissonant.99 The assumption that “not clear” implies or translates unequivocally to a tritone
93 Tracey (1969) suggests that one should avoid using the modern Western alphabetical naming system (“A-B-C-D-E-F-G”)
when attempting to label pitches from other cultures. The main reasoning is that the pitch/note names of other cultures will
most probably be different to that of Western standards, specifically those cultures using microtonal/quartertonal traditions.
One can also opt to use a number system (“1-2-3-4-5-6-7”) or an alternative alphabetical system (“I-J-K-L-M-N-O”) to
reflect the ambiguity one may experience when naming notes/pitches of other cultures.
94 Kubik (1985) reveals that one should be aware of the fact that another culture’s tuning procedures or scales would be
different to the familiar ones of one’s own culture. People educated in Western musical traditions often “correct”
microtonal/quartertonal scales to fit Western expectations. If it sounds or appears as if it could be a major scale, then it is
often hastily labelled as such.
95 This research is not ascribed to any particular African perspective. Other Africanist perspectives could include, amongst
many others, Nguni, North African (Egyptian) or West African perspectives. Instead, this thesis is focused on an attempt to
notate/tablaturise ancient and other music using an ambiguous system that does not impose Western ideologies. Future
research can consider examining whether this ancient Near-Eastern notation may have had a relation to a music notation
system from the Far-East (Asian and Indian tablatures).
96 As argued by Agawu (2003a, 2003b) this can be done by anybody around the world regardless of their place of
origin/residence. One does not need to be an African or reside in Africa to be able to use the Africanist perspective.
According to this article the Africanist inspired perspective and methodology is important.
97 Quarter tonal intervals are common in most Middle Eastern, Turkish and Asian music (Omigie, Delacherie and Samson
2014:17).
98 The idea of using quartertones, translating to 50 cents, was explored first by Charles Ives at the beginning of the 1900s,
and in the 1950s more extensively by Pierre Boulez, Stockhausen, Penderecki and others. These are audible differences, but
smaller divisions, like 8th tones, are not considered successful because they are perceived as being “out of tune” (specifically
from a Western perspective). The capability of the human ear to differentiate between these microtonal pitches and generate
meaningful categorisations with regard to “Just Noticeable Difference” (JND) and “thresholds” of listening will be discussed
in Chapter 4, §4.5.1 and Chapter 5, §5.8.
99 The dissonance could be an interval sounding deconstructive oscillations; the “beating” of notes being out of sync
(Omigie, Delacherie and Samson 2014:12). It should be noted that a tritone is not the only dissonant interval. Even in a
“limited” scale consisting of only a few notes any major or minor 2nd (or their inversions; minor and major 7ths) are also
dissonant. If these intervals are not accepted to be dissonant enough then why would one accept that only the augmented 4th
(inversion: diminished 5th) which forms a tritone, would be something that needs to be “cleared”. The need to avoid or
resolve the tritone is a Western construct. The question of whether the conceptions of consonance and dissonance are
39
interval is made extensively by current theorists (Gurney 1968:232; Wulstan 1968:215,220;

1971:369; Kilmer 1971:141; 1974:77; Crocker 1978:99; Duchesne-Guillemin 1984:11,13,19;
West 1994:163-164; Dumbrill 2005:24,36,49; 2020:80).
The manner in which consonant and dissonant sounds are defined in modern discourse should
not be hastily applied to ancient music or terms. Mirelman (2013:49), indicates that this
dissonant quality could have been perceived “unclear” or “impure” to the ancients. The direct
translation of “not clear” will be used throughout this thesis since it is considered to be the
more appropriate philological and musicological usage. Kofi Agawu (2004:278) clarifies on
the issue of music and language in the following manner:
If music is a form of language, then we might expect analysis to speak that

language. To speak music as a language requires that one be in a position to
make statements in music using the appropriate idiolect. An analyst who is
detached from the nature of the musical language and lacks recreative ability
within it may well promote views of musical structure that are at variance with
the conventions upon which the repertoire in question was composed in the
first place.
In short, the UET VII 74 retuning instruction (discussed fully in Chapter 6) indicates that if
the tuning of the instrument is “X” then the term “Y”100 (that refers to string pair “A-B”) was
perceived as “not clear”. If a certain string from this pair (“A” or “B”) was “tightened” or
“loosened” then the sound between string “A” “B” becomes “clear”. The strings that are
considered as “not clear” in sound are often five or four strings apart and it is assumed that
they encompass a tritone relationship. The common mode of reasoning is that these strings
(fourths and fifths apart) are diminished fifths or augmented fourths (a tritone) and needs to
be “cleared” (Mirelman 2013:49). Dumbrill (2019:9,35) has recently suggested that this
tritone interval is more accurately described as an “atypical acute tritone” which is
microtonally different to the Western Twelve-Tone Equal Temperament tritone. This appears
to be a logical presupposition but it should be noted that scholars assume the strings were
tuned diatonically; each string was assigned a note from a diatonic scale/mode. Questioning
this diatonic base assumption forms part of the current authors future research.
“natural” or learned and defined “culturally” is important to ask when studying ancient music (Hage 2005:289; Parncutt and
Hair 2011:140, 158, Omigie, Delacherie and Samson 2014:21-23; Pearce and Eerola 2015:92).
100 According to Mirelman (2013:49) the “cause then effect”, “action then result”, “offence then punishment” or “if X then
Y” format is commonly used in other Mesopotamian texts, such as law codes and omens.
40
An additional motivation for the use of an Africanist perspective is that scholars who are
engaged in African music studies predominantly use limited101 resources to generate
interpretations. Attention is often referred to other external and archived sources in order to
understand oral102 African traditional music at a deeper level (Agawu 2003b). This is
beneficial because scholars who are focused on ancient instructional music notation can also
look to, and make use of, the types of questions that are often asked by more experienced
scholars who engage with the topic of African music and African tuning systems (see Kubik
1985). The intent is not to suggest that current scholars are inexperienced or have flawed
methodologies,103 instead the aim is to reveal that an Africanist inspired perspective may
supplement future research endeavors and help strengthen or possibly deconstruct some
arguments/claims.
The following questions, adapted from Meki Nzewi (2003:24-28,30-31), are concerned with
African music but can be altered to appeal to ancient Near-Eastern music/instructional
notation:
- If a basic outline (a reduction) structure of a musical work is provided, will that

structure be considered to be true/authentic even if the original artistic-aesthetic is
unknown?
- Can ancient instructional notation, or any music written down, allow for the addition
of creative spontaneity and imagination?
- Was the form of every performance intended to be the same or does the instructional
notation allow for interpretational improvisation?
- Does the notation reveal a fixed order of musical events or musical cues?
- Does the inscribed notation allow for audience reception and participation that has a
wider symbolic meaning?
101 Most of the sources stem from knowledge that has been passed down through oral traditions. There is a scarcity of textual
sources.
102 Ancient African music notation is non-existent because the music was passed down/transmitted orally. A comparison
between ancient African and ancient Near-Eastern music notation is therefore difficult to make. The questions asked about
orality might be useful for the study of other aspects of music (teaching, performance and terminological tradition), but not
necessarily for written theory. Although, the same caution that is used in orality is needed with ancient languages, even if it
is written down. Mirelman (2013:54) terms this “orality in written form”. This is because there could be errors in translation
and one would need to keep a certain level of skepticism when translating languages, especially ancient languages.
103 Philological translations try to respect the content of the original text in vocabulary and syntax. Sometimes terms can be
understood both literally and contextually, others just literally, and others just contextually.
41
- Is there evidence present that suggests that the musician or scribe (or both) have
changed the contents of the original, due to critical feedback by audiences, musicians
or scribes themselves?
- Does the text, or do the instructional terms, provide insight into the stylistic features
or type of song genre104 (the extra-musical connotations)?
The arguments advanced by Agawu (2003a, 2003b) suggest that an Africanist perspective
can be used and be of relevance in the analysis of ancient music. The intention here is not to
suggest that some African music is also ancient. It should be noted that ancient African music
does exist and there are instrumental finds in the archeological record, but there is no ancient
African notation that has been discovered thus far to be able to make a comparison to ancient
Near-Eastern notation. The consensus is that ancient African music was passed down orally
changing from generation to generation. The purpose of the proposed Africanist perspective
is rather to reveal that scholars invested in the study of African music have a longer track
record of working with a wider range of theoretical frameworks in analysing ambiguous
musical materials and systems. Some of these frameworks can be adopted and applied to the
study of ancient Near-Eastern music.
It is important to point out that the Africanist perspective will also allow one to ask more
critical questions, especially if one seeks to ‘decolonise’ ancient Near-Eastern music studies.
The study of ancient Near-Eastern music is a relatively new field of study and could benefit
from these established African music practices and theories (Grupe 2005;105 Maurey
2014:367). The field of ancient Near-Eastern Musicology remerged 60 years ago, in the
1960s, by Kilmer when ancient tablets were translated and identified as music and music
theory tablets. The main benefit of the Africanist perspective is to reveal that current
scholarly interpretations and associated theories have not considered that ancient Near-
Eastern concepts may differ from modern Western conventions.
104Refer to the cuneiform tablet KAR 158 for a list of known ancient Near-Eastern song genres/types.
105There have been discussions since the 1970s concerning the correct, most accurate, way to notate African music. At
present, this same discussion has not been entered into by ancient Near-Eastern musicologists. Most ancient Near-Eastern
music scholars are still using Western notation and concepts. One immediate reservation is that the ancient Near-East is not
Africa but the intent of this thesis is not to compare ancient Near-Eastern music with African music but rather to question the
Western frameworks and models that are applied to another culture’s music. This forms part of a “post-colonial” outlook.
42
Lastly, it should be noted that there are two minor contradictions that arise within the
proposed Africanist inspired perspective. The first issue is that we are using a Western
language (English) to understand and interpreted ancient Near-Eastern musical language.
This is one of the areas where the reader and author need to compromise on a knowledge and
language system to exchange information. The reader and the author have to agree on
allowing English to be used as the mode of information exchange. This is why the focus
should be placed on direct translations, especially if we are translating them to English. The
second contradiction is that some Western musical jargon is used, but it is only used to
illustrate what problems arise from the use of these specialised Western terms and
conceptions when analysing and describing ancient music.
2.5. Concluding Summary
Readers interested in ancient Near-Eastern music notation need to familiarise themselves

with varying Westernalist and Orientalist interpretations to understand what the notation on
the Hurrian H6 tablet directly expresses. This is why the simplified categorisations of
Westernalist and Orientalist are provided; to make information retrieval more accessible.
Established scholarly interpretations often take liberties by adding subjective ideas based on
personal preferences. This means that a new/updated form of tablaturisation interpretation
that limits subjective interjections is needed.
The first step in determining whether a tablaturisation interpretation for the H6 tablet would
be valid would be to re-examine the related music theoretical tablets that are used to decipher
the H6 notation. The tablets that need to be reinterpreted and reanalysed from an Africanist
perspective are UET VII 126 (string naming/order tablet), CBS 10996 (string pair/set tablet)
and UET VII 74 (retuning/modulation tablet). Finally, there are also other
supplementary/minor accompanying tablets that need to be analysed alongside the major
tablets.
43
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH TO THE RESEARCH
3.1. Methodology and Framework
This research will be conducted using grounded theory106 and will incorporate some aspects
associated with the historical-comparative methodology107 (Neuman 2011:467-505). These
theories are used in order to answer the primary research question: (1) are recent
interpretations and translations of the ancient music theoretically based cuneiform tablets
accurate?
The reason for this research question is because it appears that modern Western conceptions
and subjective inferences have been imposed on ancient Near-Eastern music theory. The
grounded theory approach will also assist in providing clarity to the secondary question: (2)
is an updated tablaturisation, for the instructional notation contained on the H6 and other ~68
Hurrian tablets, a viable future undertaking?
The relationship between the historical-comparative methodology and grounded theory is that
both involve engagement with collated data/information before comparisons, causations,
generalisations or hypothesis can be formulated (Neuman 2011:472). In other words, both
historical-comparative and grounded theory research deal with the reconstruction of
fragments, the integration of related literary/textual sources (tablets), and the evaluation and
organisation of these seminal sources in order to attempt to generate generalised information
from limited comparisons about ancient music.
106 There are different types of grounded theory, including but not limited to “classical Glaserian” (Glaser and Strauss 1967),
“Straussian” (Corbin and Strauss 2015) and constructivist or Charmazian (2014) grounded theory. By way of a brief
description, grounded theory in general means that the theory is “grounded” in the data. By looking at the data one can
formulate a working theory. This is in line with the aims of this research, to re-analyse the data/information from the ancient
cuneiform tablets to determine whether a tablaturisation interpretation will be a viable future undertaking. This thesis will
focus on the definition of grounded theory as provided by Charmaz (2014). This is because in this style of grounded theory
the focus is placed on context and it often arrives at different multiple theories. In this case Charmaz’s grounded theory
allows for one to consider Westernalist, Orientalist and an Africanist inspired perspective. In other words, if the ancient
information is viewed from a Western perspective, one will be more inclined to see similarities with Western music. The
same is also applicable form an Orientalist perspective. The Africanist perspective within the grounded theory has the
advantage of revealing the ambiguous nature of this ancient notation and this means that the music should not be perceived
as related to only Westernalist or Orientalist ideologies (it can be both or neither). It should be stressed that the Africanist
perspective is not implying a relation to African music. The focus is on the Africanist outlook on ancient music and notation.
107 The historical-comparative methodology is a social research method that focuses on comparing historical events or
cultural contexts to broaden or generate new understanding. In terms of music this would be a comparison of music from
different related cultures and periods to theories about possible influences. Using specific features from the historical-
comparative research methodology one will notice that a certain degree of caution is needed when making certain inter-
cultural comparisons without sufficient evidence (Neuman 2011:472-473).
44
3.1.1. Information type
The kind of information that will be analysed is qualitative in nature since it involves the
systematic re-examination, re-interpretation and analysis of ancient primary source
documents, in this instance cuneiform clay tablets. The historical-comparative research
methodology and, by extension, the qualitative approach to information is related in that they
are both focused on collecting, describing, directly observing and engaging with primary and
secondary sources (Verwey 2005:162-163; Neuman 2011:468,470).
The information that will be analysed comes from the three major primary source music
theory-based tablets. These tablets are UET VII 126, CBS 10996 and UET VII 74 together
with its copy UET VI/3 899. The accompanying minor primary source tablets, which also
offer supportive context on ancient music theory, will be analysed regarding how they relate
to and enhance our knowledge of the major tablets.
The minor primary source tablets include N.4782, N.3354, YBC 11381, YBC 7280, BM 65217
+ 66616, and CBS 1766. Reference will also be made to mathematical tablets CBS 7265 and
YBC 7280 to provide further insights. The tablets listed have been selected specifically
because they are some of the only sources currently available that deal with the topic of
ancient Near-Eastern music theory (other tablets are yet to be discovered).
In line with qualitative research, the primary source information will also be analysed using
Internal Criticisms (IC) and External Criticisms (EC). These sub-theories attempt to discuss
the authenticity and meaning of primary sources in context (figure 18):
45
Figure 18: External Criticism and Internal Criticism diagram

(Edited by Author 2021)
(Neuman 2011:485)
The latter (External Criticism) is more beneficial to this study as the focus will be placed on
determining “direct text immanent meanings”. This is also referred to as a Text Immanent
Method (TIM) and means that the information from the tablets can be understood without
needing to know its explicit origins or the external contents of the texts. Future research can
consider examining and exploring some of these External Criticism contexts, as well as
further Internal Criticisms, in more detail (Neuman 2011:485).
3.1.2. Process of information collection
Access to the ancient cuneiform tablet archaeological remains is made possible through
secondary sources such as published journal articles and books. These sources provide
photographs, line drawings/sketches, transliterations, transcriptions, and translations of the
tablets. The secondary sources and interpretations come from the works of the foremost
scholars within the field108, namely Gurney (1968, 1973/1974), Shaffer (1981), Kilmer (1974,
1984), Wulstan (1971), Duchesne-Guillemin (1975, 1980, 1984), West (1994), and recently
108It should be noted that the listed scholars are not the only researches within this field. They can, however, be considered
as seminal scholars who have published interpretations of the Hurrian H6 notation. Their interpretations have been widely
disseminated and debated. Some other notable scholars include Stefan Hagel, Sam Mirelman, Theo Krispijn, John Franklin,
Leon Crickmore and Jerome Colburn.
46
Dumbrill (2005, 2014b, 2017-2020). Additionally, Payne (2010) and Friberg (2011), amongst
others, also provide helpful summaries, additional information and illustrations.
These tablets can also be viewed in museum displays and archives. Alternatively, some of the
tablets can be accessed through the Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative (CDLI) 109 which
offers high-resolution photographs. In some instances, the Cuneiform Digital Library
Initiative also provides transliterations, transcriptions, and translations.
3.1.3. Approach to data analysis of primary sources
The initial step in applying an historical-comparative framework is to compile and sort the
available primary source information present in the ancient tablets according to content. The
resultant information will then be presented visually/graphically with accompanying
translations.
The next step involves an intertextual analysis that critically analyses and examines these
documents and materials in an attempt to identify potential limited low-level generalisations
(Verwey 2005:162; Neuman 2011:472). In short, intertextual analyses aim to determine the
relationships between similar texts. An example of one of these low-level intertextual
generalisations would be to reveal how each tablet adds to the understanding of the others
when attempting to decipher the instructional based notation inscribed on the Hurrian H6
tablet.
The historical-comparative research methodology is also reliant on the field of semiology,

which involves the study of a system of signs and symbols, referred to as the language codes,
representing information (Verwey 2005:163). It is crucial that the music theory-based tablets
are approached using a surface-structure synchronic approach110 (Saussure 1906-1911;
Sechehaye, Riedlinger & Baskin 1961:101-102). This synchronic approach deals with the
text in its final form - the surface-structure - placing emphasis on the textual information,
109 https://cdli.ucla.edu/ (Accessed 20 May 2019).

110 The synchronic approach was developed by Ferdinant de Saussure (1857-1913). He suggests that a text should first be
analysed synchronically, looking at the words and sentence construction, and then diachronically, in an attempt to identify
certain imposed possible external meanings. By way of a brief description: “diachronic” entails the study of a concept as it
developed over a period of time (for instance, the etymology of a word), whereas “synchronic” studies the concept “as it
stands” in the “here and now” or in the past (“then” and “there”) as if it was perceived of as “here and now”. For example,
we cannot be certain that the term “not clear”, as found on the ancient tuning tablet, is making reference to or is related to
tritones as we understand/perceive them today.
47
specifically, the letters, words, sentences, and terms used within the text/tablet as a whole.
This will involve analysing the physical cuneiform inscriptions while also displaying the
information graphically/visually. This is occasionally referred to as an intr[a]textual analysis.
It is important to note that if one is able to read cuneiform inscriptions then the information
can be observed directly on the tablets and from sketches and photographs. If one cannot read
it, one would need to rely on other secondary source interpretations and translations. This can
be problematic, since these secondary source works could be making certain biased and
subjective inferences (Neuman 2011:481-482; Smith and Peregrine 2012:12). In other words,
secondary source information usually engages with extratextual analyses, which means that
the focus is placed on an attempt to draw out and impose theorised external meanings which
are not directly stated by the text. These external meanings could include political, religious,
or other imposed cultural connotations, such as Western constructs. There are also some
assyriological and philological conventions that may be unfamiliar to some readers.
To paraphrase Lawrence Neuman (2011:470-473): a modern researcher’s broader awareness

of historical events and conceptions may create an illusion that specific knowledge or events
would have been apparent to other past cultures too. Generalisations therefore become
difficult to make because we cannot always know how certain cultures perceived past events,
objects, or conceptions. Jerzy Topolski (1976) terms this “nonsource-based knowledge”;
knowledge that does not originate from ancient primary documents but is applied onto it by
modern researchers (Neuman 2011:486). To offer an example, one should be careful to
compare ancient Greek or modern/traditional Middle-Eastern conceptions with ancient Near-
Eastern conceptions with the assumption that they are related simply because they reside in a
related geographical region.
3.1.4. Approach to analysis of secondary sources
Caution will be used when looking to the secondary source scholarly transliterations,
transcriptions/normalisations, and translations. Once analysed, the scholarly interpretations
will be related back to the primary sources to see how the translations may differ to what the
tablets are directly presenting. In other words, the secondary source works will be utilised,
analysed, and critiqued in relation to the information that is supplied by the primary source
48
tablets. The purpose of this is to see if any subjective inferences have been placed over
ancient information. This will form part of the exploratory part of this research.
Another aspect of the historical-comparative methodology that is used within this research is
to identify and explore the possible underlining motivations of the published secondary
source scholarly interpretations of the major and other minor tablets. These interpretations
will be examined, critiqued, and compared in relation to how current scholars subjectively
consider the subject of ancient Near-Eastern music theory and instructional notation. This
will be done in order to determine if any hasty generalisations have been made and whether
these ideas have persisted, spanning from the 1960s to the present (this also serves as a
micro-level historical-comparative analysis).
3.2. Motivations and Justification for Chosen Methodology
The historical-comparative research methodology and comparative-musicology appears to be

the standard methodological approach used by principal scholars engaged within the field of
ancient Musicology, or Archaeomusicology111 (Both 2009:4; Mirelman 2010b:138-140).
These scholars, including but not limited to Kilmer (1974), Wulstan (1971), Duchesne-
Guillemin (1975, 1980, 1984), West (1994), and Dumbrill (2005, 2014b, 2017-2020) do not
specifically mention what methodological approach they engaged with, but it is clear that
they use some form of a historical-comparative methodology with a cross-disciplinary
approach between Musicology, Archaeology, Philology and Assyriology112 (Both 2009:2).
In early research on this topic one can notice the lack of a clear research methodology and
this often resulted in Eurocentric interpretations. It should be noted that some scholarly
interpretations (like Dumbrill’s) appear to be more in line with Ethnoarchaeomusicology
because there is an attempt to make comparisons to “living music cultures” with the
reasoning that ‘traces’ of ancient musical knowledge can be seen therein (Both 2009:3-4).
The main reasoning behind this conclusion concerning current methodological approaches is
because these scholars continuously attempt to draw comparisons between ancient Near-
111 Archaeomusicology can be described as the process of using archaeological finds in conjuncture with musicological
sources to inform ancient music theory and interpretations.
112 Assyriology is a misleading term since the focus is not only on ancient Assyria (refer to Oppenheim 1960).
49
Eastern conceptions with modern/traditional Middle-Eastern113 (see Dumbrill 2005, 2014b,

2017-2020), and ancient Greek conceptions (see Kilmer 1974; Duchesne-Guillemin 1975,
1980, 1984) in an attempt to make sense of the theoretical underworking’s of ancient Near-
Eastern music. Most of these theorists also use Western114 ideas, conventions and
frameworks to support their arguments. This can be referred to as a “general comparative
approach” because there are no direct cultural relations as one would need there to be in order
to be classified as a “direct historical approach” (see Both 2009:6).
Another reason why scholars use these comparisons is because they are attempting to
generate performable versions that aim to emulate the sound of ancient music. This is often
referred to as “sound scholarship” (Crickmore 2008:19). Scholars therefore perceive ancient
Near-Eastern music theory and instructional notation in terms of other cultures they believe
the ancient concepts are comparable, related to or may have influenced. The current author
has noticed that the aforementioned scholars are not attempting to provide interpretations that
shows directly what the theory and notation holds. The attempt to draw out comparisons with
other cultures music is referred to as a “direct approach”; directly comparing cultures music
(Both 2009:6). The focus for these scholars is problematically placed on the performance;
how the music is believed to have sounded and was played with regard to technique.
The absence of a mention of a clear research methodology within current scholarly writings
means that they may overlook important features that come attached with the historical-
comparative research methodology (Neuman 2011:472-473). One of the most important
features of this methodology is “control distortion”. This means that researchers should be
careful not to “distort” cultural ideas by applying outside knowledge. The types of
“distortions” which are regularly made by current scholars in this field, for example, compare
ancient Near-Eastern music with modern/traditional Middle-Eastern, and ancient Greek
traditions alongside modern Western conceptions and frameworks.
113 The terms Middle-Eastern and Near-Eastern are not intended to be used interchangeably. The Middle-East is a larger
region, from Sudan to Afghanistan (the old Ottoman empire). The term Near-Eastern is used to refer to the ancient
conceptions influenced from the Sumerians, Akkadians and Babylonians. The term Middle-Eastern is used to refer to
modern and traditional Middle-Eastern concepts and ideas. We cannot be certain how closely related they were, especially in
terms of music. There is no definitive way to compare the sound of ancient Near-Eastern music with modern or traditional
Middle-Eastern music because we have no direct ancient auditory evidence. In short, the term “Near-East” is applied to
‘Eastern Europe’ and ‘Middle East’ for the ‘South-Western Asian’ region.
114 The insistence for the use of a “tritone” is a modern Western conception applied to ancient Near-Eastern music.
50
This “control distortion” feature, however, has an important advantage by bringing clarity
since it advises that one should be cautious in comparing modern practices and knowledge
with ancient practices and knowledge when there is no sufficient evidence to warrant such a
comparison. The current research is not concerned with drawing such direct cultural
parallels115 as the focus is placed on what can be directly translated from the tablets in a
general sence. Dumbrill (2020) states that he also attempts to analyse the physical evidence
but, as will be demonstrated in this thesis, he still manages to “distort” some cultural ideas by
applying modern/traditional knowledge to ancient music.
One of the safer non-direct intertextual generalisations that can be made within this research
is a cross-regional comparison between the contents of the different music theory related
tablets UET VII 126, CBS 10996, UET VII 74 and UET VI/3 899 (Neuman 2011:474). To
elucidate: the information drawn from the CBS 10996 tablet allows one to associate and
translate term names to string numbers. For instance, when one sees the term qablītu one can
either directly translate it to mean “of the middle” or through intertextual relation to mean
string 5 “to” 2 or 5 “and” 2. The meaning depends on the context in which the term is used.
These translations, especially the latter ones, can then be intertextually applied to the other
ancient music theoretical and notation tablets. However, one should still be cautious in
making these types of intertextual inferences. For example, the CBS 10996 tablet does not
indicate which string had a higher tension. Assuming that string 1 in the CBS 10996 tablet
had a high tension is often intertextually derived from the UET VII 126 tablet.
3.2.1. The importance of direct translations
In line with the historical-comparative methodology’s advice to be aware of “control

distortion”, the current research opts to provide the way in which the ancient inscriptions can
roughly and directly be translated instead of applying subjective modern ideas and meanings
to them. The supposition that the term lā zakû can be translated to imply a relationship of a
“tritone” is an example of one of the translations that will be avoided because the term is
loosely translated to mean “not clear”. The word that the researcher believes to be equivalent
in meaning to “not clear” is subjectively apply after the rough translation is made.
115The reader should note that some cross-cultural examinations can be made, if there is sufficient evidence, but this is not
the purpose or intent of this thesis.
51
In this thesis the translations of ancient words or ideas will be kept as direct and ambiguous
as possible according to some assyrological and philological conventions. Neuman
(2011:472) notes that, within the historical-comparative paradigm, there may be errors in
translation. This links to the proposed Africanist perspective of this research because scholars
focused on the study of African music are aware of the problems with musical language and
comparing musical languages and terms from different cultures.
Content analysis within a qualitative research methodology is usually focused on

hypothesising about what a “sender” of information intentions could theoretically have meant
(Verwey 2005:160-162). To clarify, the qualitative methodology often attempts to reason
both inductively and subjectively about what the meaning of a certain word or message
within a text may have been (Verwey 2005:163). The problem is that modern concepts may
not be in line with what was intended by ancient cultures. An example of an attempt to
impose meaning within the ancient cuneiform texts is when scholars apply Western musical
concepts, such as a tritone, over ambiguous ancient music terms. This is known as “Western
cultural bias” (Neuman 2011:498).
One problem with the historical-comparative research methodology is that scholars often
subjectively alter translations to make them more relevant to specialised fields targeted at
certain audiences (in this case musicologists). The standard reasoning is that one should
avoid using ambiguous translations since one needs to make as much sense of the text as
possible to place it into a specific context. This mode of thought is influenced by classical
comparative archaeological research and Philology, in which one needs to compare and draw
relations from other primary or secondary sources (either ancient or modern) in order to
provide a deeper level of understanding (Smith and Peregrine 2012:5,14-15).
For this research, these highly specific ancient-modern contextualisation translations are not
necessary because some terms are easily understandable when they have been translated both
roughly and directly. For example, the term qablītu can be either directly translated to mean
“of the middle” or translated intertextually to mean string 5 “to”/“and” 2. In both instances
the meaning is easily understandable. These terms are currently overcomplicated by
translating them directly into Western staff notation.
52
The attempt to translate ancient words or terms using Western music jargon further hinders
readers who are not familiar with music theory. Additionally, excessive Western music
terminology may hinder the accuracy of the translations because we are not dealing with
Western music. The focus is on ancient Near-Eastern music which we may never be able to
hear or read from Western notation (the same can be said for ancient Greek music and some
Medieval neumes).
A specific example can be seen when scrutinising how Wulstan (1968) and Gurney (1968)
initially proposed that “tritones”, a Western construct, was evident in ancient re-
tuning/modulation procedures (refer also to Kümmel 1970). In this case scholars regarded the
existence of Western tritones in ancient music as an axiom. They offered no supporting
evidence that proves that ancient tritones are equivalent to our Western tritones. They
assumed that the ancient word lā zakû, which is directly translated to mean “not clear”, could
be equated to or imply a modern tritone. In initial interpretations Dumbrill (2005, 2014b)
further perpetuated these same modern Western concepts despite having favored an
Orientalist Middle-Eastern inspired perspective that rejects certain Western theories. An
attempt to correct this has been done in his later work (Dumbrill 2017,2019-2020)
In the present study, the direct translation of “not clear” will be retained since it can be
understood without difficulty. The word “not clear” simply means that the resultant sound
between two strings was perceived to be “not clear” to the ancients. One cannot be certain
that a tritone was implied since we cannot know what the string tensions were or by how
much they were “tightened”/“loosened” in the retuning/modulation process. Interpreting the
word to imply tritones is a subjective Western ancient-modern contextualisation. It is
apparent that scholars have not considered other interpretations such as the perception of
microtones/quarter tones. By using a historical-comparative methodology, the hasty
generalisations and comparisons made between ancient music, modern/traditional Middle-
Eastern music, ancient Greek, and Western music conceptions can be questioned and
criticised.
This research will engage with these Western concepts and will at times make use of the
same Western music jargon but only to criticise their use. The focus is primarily on the
information that is directly observable from the tablets and how this ambiguous information
can be interpreted into a musical context, in the form of a tablaturisation system. The intent
53
of this proposed updated tablaturisation is to be as musically ambiguous as possible while

also avoiding excessive use of subjective inferences and specialised Western music terms
(jargon).
There appear to be no critical indicators since most of the information presented on the music
theoretical tablets are ambiguous because an ancient language is involved. The topic at hand
deals with ancient music and we cannot be entirely certain about the influences these ancient
practices may have had on modern/traditional Middle-Eastern, Greek, Indian, Asian,
Egyptian, Western and possibly also some African or Western traditions. Likewise, the
question of “who influenced who and on what scale or degree” is beyond the scope of this
research. Different cultures may have discovered similar ideas independently of one another
and the fact that the ideas are similar does not mean the one influenced the other, unless there
is a chain of textual evidence to acknowledge that certain ideas were connected.
The existence of Pythagoras’s theorem of the square root of (√2) on the tablet YBC 7289 does
not necessarily mean that Pythagoras was influenced by this tablet or that the knowledge
remained ‘stagnant’. The earlier idea may have been lost and discovered by Pythagoras
independently which means that Pythagoras was possibly not influenced by this knowledge
but that this knowledge is embedded within a natural order that can be discovered by any
culture at any given point in time. This research holds that this unique form of Africanist
skepticism, as outlined above, is needed when dealing with ambiguous ancient
information116.
Additionally, in terms of music the harmonic series and by extention the Just Intonation
turning system are imbedded in nature and can be easily discovered. It is therefore plausible
that the ancients would have made use of these ‘natural’ properties of acoustics opposed to
generating ‘artificial’ and altered tuning systems comparable to modern Western standards.
Current scholarly consensus also suggests the use of a Just Intonation scale. The intent here is
not to suggest that the ancients were not advanced nor capable, but rather to emphasise the
point that they would have discovered the eloquent natural properties of acoustics first before
alterations/expansions were added in later periods. Moreover, the music theoretical tablets we
116Jay Rahn (1984:223-224) cautions against “unhealthy skepticism” that casts aside theories without sufficient
consideration. This is why this thesis will look to both the Westernalist and Orientalist perspectives as an initial “jumping off
point”. Both perspectives need to be considered when providing an updated tablature interpretation.
54
have available hint at the fact that the ancients were aware of this knowledge of natural
acoustics (this will be illustrated throughout this thesis).
3.2.2. State of existing research
The leading Westernalist and Orientalist scholars within the field, namely Kilmer (1974,
1984), Wulstan (1971), Duchesne-Guillemin (1984), West (1994) and Dumbrill (2005,
2014b, 2017-2020), all presuppose that the contextual history of the tablets has been dealt
with. As a result, most scholars do not offer detailed systematic studies of each tablet,
individually (isolated), and in detail. Recently, it has become evident that there have been no
systematic re-interpretations of any of the existing music theory-based tablets. The most
recent re-interpretation117, done during 1980-1990, was concerned with only the UET VII 126
tablet. This re-interpretation resulted in a hasty generalisation that assumes that descending
scales/modes were the ‘standard’ of ancient Near-Eastern music (Dumbrill 2005, 2014b,
2017-2020). This claim will also be questioned since this research views that the musical
concept of “descending” cannot be excluded from “ascending”: the one implies the existence
of the other.
3.3. Research Design
As acknowledged above, this research is largely dependent on literature studies, articles and
book publications which provide illustrations, transliterations, transcriptions, translations and
interpretations of the major ancient music theory tablets, specifically of UET VII 126, CBS
10996 and UET VII 74 (and its copy UET VI/3 899). The retrieval of information, as
contained on each of the tablets, will be approached in the order of identifying and isolating
the Sumerian and Akkadian cuneiform inscriptions from sketches and photographs. Each
tablet will then be re-examined/re-interpreted with accompanying annotations, some of which
will highlight important information.
The overall process will be to provide transliterations (the syllabic) equivalents of the
Sumerian, Akkadian, and Hurrianised-Akkadian cuneiform as well as the numerical symbols.
Next, the transcriptions of the cuneiform script/numerical symbols will be supplied. Lastly,
117Other partial re-examinations and corrections were done for the CBS 1776 tablet (see Waerzeggers and Siebes 2007) and
the UEV VI/3 899 tablet (see Mirelman and Krispijn 2009). Refer to Chapter 6, §6.2. and §6.5. for more details.
55
English translations, as far as the original text can be accurately and directly translated, will
be revealed. These translations will remain as direct as possible to prevent the imposition of
too many subjective suppositions. The problems concerning current scholarly interpretations,
including information that scholars appear to have misunderstood or ignored, will also be
highlighted.
As the Diachronic - deep-structure - approach suggests, one should also consider Internal
Criticisms of the tablets since the meaning of the terms could have changed over time and
could have been influenced by other factors. One reason is that the terms may not have been
used within a closed system and could have had other associated meanings and variations
(Neuman 2011:485). This is because the terms are in a Hurrianised form of Akkadian and
that the theory tablets and notation are dated differently.
Each major tablet, UET VII 126, CBS 10996 and UET VII 74, will be discussed in a separate
chapter with accompanying supporting contextual information. More specifically, the type of
supporting information that will be provided includes the current location; original excavated
location; layout; textual contents; and lastly, revealing how the musical theoretical
information functions. Tablaturisations, a visual/graphic representation of the ancient musical
information, will also be supplied where appropriate (specifically a tablaturisation of the
contents of the CBS 10996 tablet).
The minor tablets that accompany the subject matter of the major tablets will be provided in
the relative chapters as required. The chapters and tablets discussed are outlined as follows:
- Chapter 4: UET VII 126, with the accompanying tablets YBC 11381 and BM 65217 +
66616.
- Chapter 5: CBS 10996, with the accompanying tablets N.4782, N.3354 and the
mathematical tablet CBS 7265.
- Chapter 6: UET VII 74 and its copy UET VI/3 899, with the accompanying tablets
CBS 1776 and the mathematics tablet YBC 7280.
A schematic diagram of the proposed research process is provided in figure 19 (on the next
page).
56
Figure 19: Research process schematic diagram

The final purpose of this research is to reveal that the formalisation of how the ancient music
instructional terms are combined, rhythmically calculated, and played (whether vocally,
instrumentally or technically) is undecipherable when it comes to allocating approximate
pitch or pitch relationships. Instead, the primary focus is placed on providing evidence to
demonstrate why an updated tablaturisation for the Hurrian H6 tablet (and ~68 Hurrian
tablets) may be a necessary future undertaking for visualising and understanding how ancient
Hurrian instructional notation functioned. This research is opposed to offering another
“performable” version in standard Western notation.
57
CHAPTER 4
UET VII 126 – THE STRING NAMING AND ORDER TABLET
4.1. UET VII 126 Tablet General Contextual Information
The UET VII 126 tablet has been dated to approximately the Neo-Babylonian period (800
BCE). The cuneiform signs are thought to be stylistically and compositionally characteristic
of the type of inscriptions usually found around this period.118 The tablet was excavated at the
site of Dublamaḫ at the south main courtyard room in the city of Ur, Mesopotamia (Dumbrill
2005:28). A copy of a sketch of the tablet by Professor Oliver Robert Gurney (1973/1974),
cited by Richard J. Dumbrill (2005:27) and Jöran Friberg (2011:133), is provided in figure
20.
Figure 20: Sketch of the of the UET VII 126 cuneiform tablet (obverse).
Sketch by Oliver Gurney (1973/1974).
(Cited in Dumbrill 2005:27 and Friberg 2011:133).
To add further context, the tablet was excavated during a joint expedition carried out by the
British Museum, Baghdad Museum and the Pennsylvania Museum (Philadelphia) between
the years 1922-1934 (Woolley 1934:vii-viii). This expedition was headed by British
Archaeologist Sir Charles Leonard Woolley (1880-1960).
118This form of dating is not always exact because scholars often provide general broad date ranges (Dumbrill 2005:15-16).
Dating the style of handwriting or the script type with other samples, believed to be from the same period, will not always
yield accurate results. Dating texts according to the context in which it was found and to other excavated materials is also
only partially accurate. Additionally, some texts may be copies of older documents which means that the knowledge
predates the text.
58
The tablet was originally filed under the field number U.3011119 and was given the name
Nabnītu120 XXXII. The Roman numerals indicate that it is the 32nd tablet from a series of
bilingual – Akkadian and Sumerian121 – lexical tablets (Michalowski 2010:210; Dumbrill
2019:1). The initial name Nabnitu XXXII was changed by Gurney – affiliated with Oxford
University – when it was formally published in 1973/1974 as UET VII 126.122
Kilmer (1971:132) elaborates by stating that the tablet forms part of an encyclopaedic
compilation of Nabnītu works that deals specifically with the topic of human actions and
activities. The reader should note that Gurney’s publication Ur Excavation Texts (1973/1974)
importantly presented the tablet in a hand drawn facsimile format (figure 20) and that this
outdated illustration is still used today.
A sketch of the reverse of the tablet (figure 21) is provided by the Cuneiform Digital Library
Initiative (CDLI). A preliminary transliteration sketch is offered on the next page and a
comprehensive transcription and translation of the tablet will form part of the current author’s
future work. A partial transliteration, in need of an update123, is provided by Miguel Civil and
Irving Finkel (1982:251-254).
119 The abbreviation U. denotes the excavation site of Ur.

120 Nabnītu according to Dumbrill (2019:1) can be translated to mean “creation”, “offspring”, “progeny” or “product”.
121 It is possible that Sumerian script was interjected into later Akkadian tablets as a means to display intellectual prowess.
This would be similar to how modern academics use Latin. It is also likely that the ancients may have interjected earlier
script types to uphold historic ties and traditions.
122 As the name of the tablet suggests, it is the 126th text of volume VII from Gurney’s publication, Ur Excavation Texts.
This is why the abbreviation UET is used.

123 Refer also to the Digital Corpus of Cuneiform Lexical Texts (DCCLI):
http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/dcclt/intro/lexical_intro.html
59
Figure 21: Line drawing (top) and preliminary transliteration sketch (bottom) of the UET
VII 126 cuneiform tablet (reverse).
(Illustration Edited by Author 2021)
Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative (CDLI No. P347085)
60
The sketch of the reverse of the tablet does not seem to match the proportions of the obverse
one. The obverse probably had extensive damage on it that the sketcher felt was unnecessary
to document. A similar omission occurs with the sketch of the obverse of the CBS 10996
tablet (provided in Chapter 5). The sketcher only copied a small portion of the obverse of the
tablet because the rest of the tablet is heavily damaged and contains no recognisable
information. Sketching the broken/damaged sections would have been redundant.
More research concerning both sketches of the UET VII 126 tablet is needed as they may
possibly contain errors. There is a need for an updated version, specifically a translation
interpretation of the reverse of the tablet. Most scholars do not mention the reverse of the
UET VII 126 tablet and future research should endeavor to obtain a high-resolution
photograph of both sides of the tablet. The UET VII 126 tablet was briefly mentioned by
Anne Kilmer124 in 1960 and Marcelle Duchesne-Guillemin in 1963. They did not, and could
not, provide a sketch, transliterations or translations because the sketch by Gurney
(1973/1974) was then still unpublished.
The tablet is believed to be an older copy of a much earlier version because of the existence
of an Old-Babylonian period tablet that has been dated to c.1750 BCE. This older tablet with
the fragment number N.4782125 was published by Aaron Shaffer in 1981. It is also important
because it similarly contains music theory related material and specialised terms (Shaffer
1981:80). The tablets are related in that the N.4782 tablet appears to be a copy of lines 13-17
from the UET VII 126 tablet (see figure 22).
124 Kilmer was supervised by Professor Benno Landsberger (1890-1968). He is considered to be an important figure in
Assyriology and this explains why Kilmer’s hypothesis and suppositions were previously unquestioned, widely disseminated
and respected during the 1960s.
125 The indication N. denotes the excavation site Nippur. This tablet will be discussed in more detail and a sketch will be
offered in Chapter 5, §5.10.
61
Figure 22: Relationship between the tablets UET VII 126 and N.4782.
(Illustration compiled by Author 2021)
The N.4782 tablet is effectively part of the same Nabnītu catalogue of texts but it seems to be
written in the earlier, much older, Sumerian script type. This suggests that there could
possibly also be older renditions/copies of many of the other ancient Near-Eastern music
tablets (Michalowski 2010:210; Dumbrill 2005:28; Crocker and Kilmer 1984:81).
The UET VII 126 tablet was first presented in full syllabic transcription and English
translated formats by Kilmer in her 1965 publication. Efforts to determine when the
sketch/photograph of UET VII 126 was initially made available proved to be difficult. As
mentioned previously, the tablet was only formally published in 1973/1974 by Gurney.
Dumbrill (2005:28) indicates that the condition and location of the UET VII 126 tablet on
which the sketch is based is currently unknown. He also points out that the tablet has been
returned to Baghdad.126 It was initially held in the British Museum before its transfer
(Dumbrill 2005:28, 2019:2).
A portion of the tablet, in a syllabic transliteration format127 showing extrapolated

information, is illustrated in figure 23.
126The recent looting and conflict in Iraq within this decade have further complicated attempts to locate the tablet.
127The article by Friberg (2011) serves as a useful catalogue source that provides detailed sketches, transliterations and
transcriptions of numerous ancient music theory related tablets.
62
Figure 23: Transliteration of the UET VII 126 cuneiform tablet (obverse).
(Friberg 2011:133).
The UET VII 126 tablet, published in 1965 by Kilmer, was the first official source to aid our
understanding of ancient Near-Eastern music theory (Dumbrill 2005:28). Franklin (2001:137)
mentions the importance of the UET VII 126 tablet’s existence by stating that: “[…] each of
the tablets contributes more or less to the understanding of the others [...]” and that without
the UET VII 126 tablet “none of the other tablets could have been deciphered.” More
specifically, this tablet provides us with the names and order of the nine strings of an
unknown instrument. Dumbrill (2005:24) explains:
How we are certain that the text [(UET VII 126)] we have in front of us is
about musical theory needs to be explained. Firstly, there are terms of which
we are sure that they are undisputed musical expressions. One of the most
common being Sumerian ( ) ‘SA’, [and the equivalent] Akkadian
[( )] ‘pitnu’, which means ‘string’- of a musical instrument.
Caution needs to be used in the translation process since cuneiform inscriptions are
multivalent; they have many interpretational meanings. For instance, the Akkadian term
pitnu ( ) can be loosely translated with words similar in meaning to “string” such as
“tendons”, “cords”, “net”, “gut/intestines” from an animal, or “rungs” as found on a carpet or
ship/boat (Kilmer 1965:262; Kilmer 2000:113; Dumbrill 2005:179).
63
The Sumerian term SA/sa ( ) can also be used in alternate forms: šá-tu-ú (“strung”) and
ša-tu-u (“to string”) (Kilmer 1965:263). The most recent edition of the Chicago Assyrian
Dictionary (CAD), originally published in 1956, retains the definition given above that the
Sumerian SA/sa and Akkadian pitnu can be translated to mean either “string” or “string of a
musical instrument” (Dumbrill 2019:15; 2020:23).
Dumbrill (2005 185; 2015:43) has revealed that the earliest proto-Sumerian (archaic)
pictographic representations128 of harps are as follows (figure 24):
Figure 24: Archaic stringed instrument (harp) pictographs.

(Illustration Compiled by Author 2021)
One should note that these representations come from the tablets ATU 1, 532, ATU 1, 331 and
ATU 1, 419. The presence of these pictographs is not specifically used in a music context
because they are primarily focused on administrative matters129 recording trade and produce
(Englund 1994). These symbols may have had rebus130 linguistic functions in these
administrative contexts (possibly even recording amounts of instruments).
128 Refer also to Konrad Volk (1994:173-174; 2006:12) and Krispijn (2002/2003:447) for more information concerning these
pictographic representations.
129 The tablets’ names include the abbreviations ATU, an acronym for “Administrative Texts from Uruk”.
130 The rebus principle is a method of writing that uses pictograms and symbols to represent sounds that can be combined
with letters of a script to create words. An example in English would be “L8” (an alpha-numeri-gram) which stands for
“Late”.
64
These tablets are housed at the Berlin Museum and can be accessed online via the Cuneiform
Digital Library Initiative. They are all dated to the Uruk IV period (c. 3350-3200) and are
reproduced here for convenience as figures 25, 26 and 27.
(VAT No. 15061).
Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative (CDLI No. P001443).
65
(VAT No. 15138).
(VAT No. 15350).
66
The Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative provides a list of proto-cuneiform signs131 that can
be roughly translated to mean a “string” of some type132 (refer also to Rosengarten
1967:27,32 and Burrows 1935). Table 1 below reveals a possible progression, from left to
right, of the related Proto-Sumerian, early Sumerian and late Sumerian pictographic forms
(Dumbrill 2005:362, 388; 2015:43). These symbols can all be translated to mean either
“string”, “tendon”, “sinew”, rungs of a carpet/boat or “net”133 (Dumbrill 2020:23).
Table 1
Cuneiform progression for stringed musical instruments
Type Proto-Sumerian Early Sumerian Late Sumerian Akkadian
1
(pitnu = “string”)
(sa) (sa = “string”)
(harp/lyre?)
2
(SA)
(SA) (pitnu = “string)
(Abanu – “net/sinew”)
3
(sa)
(sa)
(net/carpet rung)
4 (ŠA)
(ŠA)
(lyre + instrument
sound-box or plectrum)
131 https://cdli.ucla.edu/tools/SignLists/protocuneiform/archsigns.html (Accessed 9 June 2019).

132 With regard to the string type some Sumerian administrative texts refer to leatherworkers using “catgut” or sheep (udu)
gut/strings (šag / šà). From this it is often deduced that ancient instruments would also have made use of a similar type of
material (Van der Mieroop 1983:89; Dumbrill 2005:389; Music in Mesopotamia, 2020).
133 Example number 2 and 3 are usually translated to mean a “net” similar to those used for fishing. According to Dumbrill
(2015a:43) the proto-Sumerian cuneiform in example 4 is often used to refer to the sound-box of an instrument. This sign
could also have been representative of a plectrum or as Kilmer (1971:133) suggests a string “scraper/comb”.
67
Uri Gabbay (2014:130) and Dumbrill (2015a:42-43) both provide a probable iconographic
development for the symbols that may have been representative of an early bow which may
have developed into a harp. The theory is that the first symbol in table 2 initially referred to a
hunting bow and the associated prevailing musicological assumption is that the harp as a
musical instrument was developed from a bow with only one string (Galpin 1929:116;
Dumbrill 2005:179; Dumbrill 2020:13,31). Additional strings would have been added in the
course of the instrument’s development. The reader should note that it would be easier to
create a harp from a bow because the strings would naturally differ in length. A lyre would
require further adjustments in order to hold strings of the same length. It is noteworthy that
this first symbol in table 2 progressed to the Akkadian and Sumerian term giš which is used
as a determinative (prefix) sign to refer to something made of wood. This is the type of
material of which the bow’s frame would have been made (see table 2).
Table 2
Cuneiform progression used to indicate instruments made of wood
(bow + harp?) (giš = “wood”) (giš = “wood”) (giš = “wood”)
The proto-Sumerian pictograph of the harp/lyre in table 3 already has multiple lines
representing strings. In tracing the development of this symbol, it becomes clear why the late-
Sumerian symbol eventually came to mean “string” (refer to table 3).
Table 3
Cuneiform progression that refers to a harp instrument and its strings
(pitnu = “string”)
(harp/lyre?) (sa = “string”) (sa = “string”)
68
One should, however, not assume that this cuneiform symbol literally implies that the
instrument only had three or four strings. It is an artistic rendition which also served other
writing/linguistic purposes. As mentioned, one should be cautious in an attempt at
determining the type of instrument based on the proto-Sumerian visual depictions. This is
because the earlier proto-Sumerian cuneiform symbol, in table 3, appears to represent a harp
with different string lengths attached at an angle. In contrast to this the late Sumerian
cuneiform symbol is in a box shape with what appears to be string lines of the same length,
implying a lyre instrument.
4.2. UET VII 126 Layout, Contents and Approach to Decipherment
The UET VII 126 tablet is comprised of four sectional columns. Dumbrill (2005:28-29)
circuitously and vaguely notes that the tablet is a lexical work for the older Sumerian (column
one) and younger Akkadian language (column two). Most scholars, including but not limited
to Dumbrill (2005, 2014b, 2017-2020) and Friberg (2011), do not indicate to the reader what
script or information appears in the damaged third and fourth columns. It is not clear whether
this omitted information, from column three and four, is related to the first two columns or
not. This information is problematically excluded and will form part of the current author’s
future research.
It is apparent that Dumbrill (2005:29, 2017:27, 2019:2) only offers syllabic transcriptions and
translations of the first 10 lines of column one (i) and two (ii), and omits column three (iii)
and four (iv) entirely. The reader may refer to figures 28 and 29, along with table 6
throughout the course of the next few paragraphs as a visual aid to the textual descriptions
that are provided below.
The main reason why columns three and four are omitted is because the information in
columns one and two is often deemed as more important in the larger, music-related context:
“[columns] i and ii [are] relevant” (Dumbrill 2005:27). The UET VII 126 tablet is merely
used as a “means to an end” since the emphasis is heavily placed on how this tablet can help
decipher a possible scale/mode direction that can be used to decipher what is considered to be
the more important H6 instructional-notation. It was only after the re-examinations of this
tablet that it gained much needed focused attention. This justifies the further re-examinations
provided by this research (updated re-analyses are needed).
69
This is because some scholars assume that the tablet has been translated without error and
therefore do not attempt to engage in further re-analyses. The overall focus is often placed on
the obverse (front) as it is considered to hold vital information. A common pitfall often made
in the field of ancient studies is to study/search only for that which seems to be important,
while disregarding all else. This error is what famously plagues the name of archaeologist
Heinrich Schliemann (1822-1890).134
To return to the re-analysis, Dumbrill (2005:28) states that one can be sure that the UET VII
126 tablet reveals the names and the order of the strings of an ancient instrument because the
first undamaged line of the tablet “[…] starts with the Sumerian logogram ( ) SA[/sa],
which means [or can be translated to] ‘string’.” The mentioned logogram ( ) SA/sa “[…]
is confirmed by the second column in Akkadian […]” and this system of naming continues
partly to the 10th line in the second column. Lines 11-17, after line 10, is damaged and is
considered unnecessary. From the information discussed, the consensus is that the tablet
clearly lists the names and numbering order of the nine strings of an unknown instrument.135
How this consensus was reached, even though there are some damaged lines, will be
revealed.
The first two lines of the first column do not indicate a string number symbol in written form
like the rest of the lines (lines 3-7,10). Dumbrill (2005:29, 2017:2, 2019:15) explains that one
can deduce that line one, column one, implies the first string without actually needing the
cuneiform number symbol of “1” ( ). This is because the Akkadian term qudmum
( ), in the first line, second column, can be translated to mean “(string) front”.
The word “string” is not actually written in Akkadian but it is suggested from the Sumerian
column (column two) (Dumbrill 2005:28). Likewise, the Sumerian term di ( ), in line 1
column one, can also be translated to mean “first” or “prime.” This is why one can be sure it
is referring to the first string, even though there is no direct number indication. The Sumerian
di is equivalent to the Akkadian term qudmum which both mean “first/prime” string
(Dumbrill 2017:2, 2019:2). These related terms are summarised in table 4 on the next page.
134 Heinrich Schliemann famously excavated many layers of the site of Hisarlik, modern day Turkey, in an attempt to find
the ancient lost city of Troy. In the process of his excavations, having found Troy, he destroyed and did not record the
artefacts from the various earlier layers. This is considered to be bad archeological practice.
135 Additional information concerned with what instrument may have been implied by the UET VII 126 tablet will be
discussed in §4.3 of this chapter.
70
Table 4
Related Sumerian and Akkadian terms
UET VII 126 line Sumerian terms Akkadian terms

English translation
number (column 1) (column 2)
1 “string, sinew or tendon”

SA/sa ( ) pitnu ( )
2 “front”, “first” or “prime”

di ( ) qudmum ( )
The same comment applies to the second line since the Akkadian word šámušuum ( ) in
line 2, column two, can be translated to mean “next string” (implying string 2). By contrast,
lines 3-7 and 9 have clear number indications and one can almost make out the Akkadian
number symbol for “2” ( ) in column one, line 8, which is slightly damaged.
The cuneiform number symbols that are used on most of the music related tablets,136 from 1
to 10, are summarised in table 5 on the next page.137
136The tablets UET VII 126, CBS 10996 and H6 all make use of these numerical cuneiform inscriptions.
137Refer to the cuneiform sign list offered by Kateřina Šašková Pilsen (2015)
(http://home.zcu.cz/~ksaskova/CuneiformSignList.pdf). Additional sign lists can also be found on the Cuneiform Digital
Library Initiative (CDLI) website: https://cdli.ox.ac.uk/wiki/sign_lists.
71
Table 5
Cuneiform number symbols and names
Assyrian numerical Translated Arabic

Line Sumerian138 Akkadian139
cuneiform symbols numbers
1. 1 DIŠ / AŠ ištēn
2. 2 MIN šinā
3. 3 EŠ šalā(šat)
4. 4 LIMMU erbe(ti)
5. 5 IA2 hamiš(at)
6. 6 AŠ šediš / šeššet
7. 7 IMIN sebe(ti)
8. 8 USSU samānû / samānet
9. 9 ILIMMU tiše / tišīt
10. 10/60 U ešer / ešeret
A comprehensive table of the Sumerian and Akkadian terms in syllabic transliterations as

well as English and Arabic numeral translations for the UET VII 126 tablet appears below in
table 6 (with coloured embellishments). One should note that in Dumbrill’s transliterations
and transcriptions square brackets (“[ ]”) are used to indicate damaged information which is
theoretically possible to extrapolate (2005:29, 2017:1, 2019:2). Hyphens
(“-”) are used in transcriptions to join syllables of a word.140 Periods (“.”) are usually used
after Sumerograms.
138 It should be noted that Sumerian transliterations and transcriptions are usually not italicised (especially Sumerograms).
139 The way in which the Akkadian numbers are spoken does not appear to have a direct similarity to how modern/traditional
middle-eastern (for example Arabic, Turkish or Persian) numbers are pronounced. There may be some subtle similarities but
there is no easy way to track the influence. This is why this research cautions making inter-cultural comparisons – especially
when it comes to music.
140 Transcriptions of the older Sumerian type are customarily written in capital letters whereas Akkadian and Hurriansed-
Akkadian are differentiated by the use of lowercase letters (Kilmer 2001:482). This thesis will retain the format that is used
by those published in the consulted literature. However, it appears as if the Sumerian “sa” in lower case typesetting refers
specifically to music “strings” whereas an uppercase “SA” is used to refer to a string of another type used in religious
settings, e.g. “tendons”, “nets” or “rope”.
72
Table 6
Tabulated transliterations and translations for the UET VII 126 tablet
Line Sumerian Akkadian English translation
(column one) (column two)
1 sa.di [1] qud-mu-[um] Front string ([1]).
2 sa.uš [2] šá-mu-šu-[um] Next string ([2]).
3 sa.3(EŠ) sa.sig šá-al-šu qa-[da/at] String 3 (third),
thin string.
4 sa 4(ZA) tur a-[ba-nu-ú] String 4 (fourth),
small/Ea-created-string.
5 sa.di[1+]4(ZA)[=5] ḫa-[am] String 1 “place” + string 4 = 5 (fifth)ZA? (middle string).
6 sa.4(ZA) a.ga.gul re-bi úḫ-ri-[im] String 4 (fourth),

behind string.
7 sa.3(EŠ) a.ga.gul. šal-ši úḫ-ri-im String 3 (third),
behind string.
8 [sa.2(MIN)] a.ga.gul. ši-ni úḫ-ri-im String 2 (second),
behind string.
9 [sa.1(DIŠ)] a.ga.gul.šu141 úḫ-ru-um String 1 (behind/backmost).
10 [9 sa.a] 9 pi-it-nu 9 strings (sumarisation).

11 [du? 3(EŠ)] pi- is- mu -
12 X i- šar- ti -
13 X [si-ḫi-ip] i-šar-tum -
14 X [ki-it]-mu -
15 X [si-ḫi-ip-ki]-it-mu -
16 X [em-bu-bu-]um -
17 X [si-ḫi-ip em-bu- -
bu-um]
141 Dumbrill (2020:510) identifies this cuneiform symbol to be la but it is more likely šu. The change from a.gu.gal., as seen
in the preceding lines, to a.gu.gal.šu (or a.gu.gal.la in Dumbrill’s case) will change the meaning from “back” to “backmost”
or as “string of the bigger back”. Dumbrill (2020:51; 2021:9) states that this is why he believes this string designation refers
to the back of the instrument that had a bull-headed feature. It would literally be the “backside” of the animal/instrument
(Music in Mesopotamia, 2020). According to Mirelman (2010a :49) these “physiognomic metaphors” may mean that the
intended instrument of use was something similar to a bovine lyre. For example, the term qablu (also a music “string pair”
term - qablītu) in medical texts refers to the “middle hip” and in this case it would be the “middle/hip part” of the instrument
shaped like a bull animal. The presence of a bull-headed feature on ancient instruments will be discussed in §4.6.1 of this
chapter.
73
To help navigate the table: The text in green indicates information that can be deduced from
the other columns or other related tablets. Red exes (X) indicate unknown, missing, or
damaged information and Orange text signifies possible mistakes. Purple is used for implied
information and blue is used for numbers that can be clearly identified.
In figure 20 (and later in figure 28) one will notice that the number symbol ( ) in line 5,
column two appears to be only partially similar to the cuneiform symbol for the number “5”
( ). Refer to line 5 of table 5 headed “Assyrian numerical cuneiform symbols”. This ‘error’,
or what appears to be a fault, on the tablet sketch (figure 20 and 28) could either be an error
made by the modern sketcher (Gurney) or of the ancient scribe142 (Dumbrill 2019:8).
One can also ask whether this cuneiform symbol was intended to be an abstracted form that
may have referred to “5” similar to the manner in which the Sumerian term di or Akkadian
qudmu refers to string 1. To offer clarity, the Sumerian term di143 ( ) is found in column 1,
line 1, and implies string 1. In the fifth line of the same column, one will notice that the same
di term is used. This could mean that string 1 (di) was added to string 4 implying a fifth string
designation. It is not clear why the ancients would have written string 5 like this and further
research is required. Additionally, the related Akkadian term ḫaam[šu] ( [x]) in column
two, translated to mean “fifth”, directly implies that it is the fifth “string/place” (Kilmer
2000:114).
One should also note that this Sumerian cuneiform symbol ( ) is similar to the number 4
(refer to table 5, line 4) and can also be transcribed as “ZA” or “LIMMU5”.144 The term ZA
( ) could also have been a shorthand for string five and the fourth line in column two of table
6 can therefore also be read as “sa. di-ZA or sa. di-ša” (refer also to figure 20, 28 and 29).
142 Errors of this type are hypothetically possible but attributing something to a “scribal error” is often an effort by a scholar
to interject information to fit and/or support their particular theories. Irving Finkel and Richard Dumbrill have openly
expressed (in video lectures) that scribal errors often resulted in the dismemberment of a finger or hand depending on the
severity of the mistake in relation to the type of document. More important tablets would equate with more severe
punishments. This implies that scribes were careful and quick to fix any mistakes, or were so particular, that mistakes were
rarely made. One can refer to Wayne Pitard (2012:135) to contest this view. He provides compelling evidence that suggests
scribal errors in Ugarit were common. Conversely, there are no readily available primary source cuneiform tablets that
confirm that scribal mistakes were punished by dismemberment of the hand or finger. There is also no mention of this type
of punishment in Hammurabi’s or Ur-Nammu’s law codes. This proves to be a difficult topic to research as there is not much
information regarding scribal errors and punishments readily available. One of the available primary references concerning
scribal related punishments, is from learned scribes at tablet-houses (“schools”) who were beaten with canes. Refer
specifically to the composition cuneiform text “Edubba A” or more commonly known as “School days” (Krispijn 2008).
143 It is not clear why Dumbrill transcribes this cuneiform symbol as ki. The symbol more closely matches that of di.
144 LIMMU is the name used to refer to the number 4 (see to table 5).
74
Another term that is important in the study of ancient Near-Eastern music theory is SIG/sig
( ). This term specifically appears in line 3 and, when translated, implies that the third
string is a “thin” string145 (Vitale 1982:243; Krispijn 1990:15; West 1994:165; Dumbrill
2005:31; 2020:51).
In summary, table 6 reveals that the ordering of the strings of one example of an unknown
ancient instrument (or class of instruments) is palindromic and can effectively be read as: “1-
2-3-4-[5]-4-3-2-1”.146 Dumbrill (2005:27) also points out that “[… f]ollowing the nine
epicentric strings [line 1-9] is what appears to be a summary statement in Line 10.” This
summary statement in line 10 clearly shows the cuneiform number sign of 9 ( ).
To elucidate further: the cuneiform inscription on the tablet: 9 ( ) SA/sa ( ) in Sumerian
and 9 ( ) pitnu ( ) in Akkadian translates to mean “nine-strings”. This serves to

explain why one would assume that the tablet is describing a nine-stringed instrument. Also,
there are no further cuneiform number indications in the adjacent readable second column,
after line 10. For this reason, according to scholarly consensus, it would be logical to deduce
that the tablet is describing an unnamed/unknown nine-stringed instrument (Dumbrill
2005:29).
The forthcoming graphically enhanced and transliterated sketches (figure 2 and 29) aim to
condense and visually present the same information that was discussed above. An updated
transliteration of the entire tablet is also provided in figure 29.
145 The musicological importance of the string designation of “thin” will be discussed in more detail in §4.6 of this chapter.
146 This palindromic pattern will be discussed in more detail in §4.4. of this chapter.
75
Figure 28: Annotated sketch of the UET VII 126 cuneiform tablet (obverse).
(Cited in Dumbrill 2005:27 and Friberg 2011:133).
Figure 29: Annotated transliteration sketch (left) and updated full transliteration sketch (right)
of the UET VII 126 cuneiform tablet (obverse).
(Friberg 2011:133).
76
The information concerning the strings names and characteristics, such as “thin” and “small”,
and the order in which the strings appear have been condensed in table 7.
Table 7
Summary of the string names and order from the UET VII 126 tablet
String number Sumerian string name Akkadian string name
String (Sa/sa) 1 di (front, first) qudmúm (front, first)
String (Sa/sa) 2 uš (second, next) šámušum (second, next)
String (Sa/sa) 3 sig (third) šáalšu qatnu (third - thin)
String (Sa/sa) 4 4(ZA).tur (fourth) Abanuú (fourth - small, Ea-
created)
String (Sa/sa) 5 di-(4)ZA, di-ša or di(1)+4=5 (fifth ḫamšu (fifth, middle)
“place”)
String (Sa/sa) 4 4 a.ga.gul (fourth behind/back) rebi úḫrîm (fourth, behind)
String (Sa/sa) 3 3 a.ga.gul (third behind/back) šalši úḫrîm (third, behind)
String (Sa/sa) 2 2 a.ga.gul (second behind/back) šini úḫrîm (second, behind)
String (Sa/sa) 1 1 a.ga.gul.šu (first úḫrum (backmost)147
behind/backmost)
The reverse side of the tablet MMA 86.11.61 at the Metropolitan Museum of Art provides
alternate names for numbers. The context for the tablets intended use is not known. There are
some slight relations with the music theory terms as provided above in table 7 with those
presented below in table 8. The terms that are similar are presented in a boldened typeface
and marked with an asterisk symbol [*]:
147Dumbrill (2020:51) suggest that this Akkadian term úḫrum can also be roughly translated to mean “string of the bigger
back”.
77
Table 8
Additional cuneiform number names from the tablet MMA 86.11.61
Sumerian transliterations Akkadian transliterations English translation
me-er-ga iš-te-en One
diš-a-kám iš-ti-iš-šu In the first place
tak4-a-bi *ša-nu-ú-um Second
min-tab šu-ta-aš-nu- ú Double
peš ša-la-aš-ti Three
peš-bi *ša-al-šu Third
eš5-tab-ba šu-ul-lu-šu Triple
peš-bal er-bé-et Four
peš-gi4-bi re-bu-ú fourth
peš-bal-gi4 *ḫa-an-še-et Five
peš-peš-gi4-gi4 ši-iš-še-et Six
peš-peš-gi4 si-bé-et Seven
4.3. Ancient Lyre and Harp Excavations
The unknown musical instrument to which the UET VII 126 tablet is believed to refer to is
often presumed to be either a lyre – a symmetrical U-shaped lyre with strings fixed at a
crossbar – or a bow/triangular shaped harp.148 This description of the lyre/harp instrument is
based on archaeological and iconographic/pictorial evidence found within the same
geographical area. Examples of some of these iconographic/pictorial finds include
illustrations from cylinder seals, reliefs and inlays on the instruments themselves (Barnett
1969:96; Kilmer 1995:2601-2602). Kilmer (1998:12) states that:
[…] the discovery of the physical remains of musical instruments at the

site of Ur has added a further dimension to our knowledge. Were it not
for the […] stringed instruments recovered at Ur […] we would not have
a single actual stringed instrument from ancient Sumer-Babylonia.
148The harp is often believed to be the older instrument as it may be related to the hunting bow. The theory is that the sound
produced by one string may have inspired the addition of more strings, leading to the creation of the multi-stringed harp
(Galpin 1929:116; Dumbrill 2005:179; Dumbrill 2020:13,31). Mention must be made of the African Uhadi bow instrument
which is capable of producing a drone note with a reed while a melody can be produced on one string in “open” and
“closed/pinched” positions with the fingers.
78
These remains along with other objects, tablets and corpses were excavated by Sir Charles
Leonard Woolley (1934) and his team at the site of Ur in c.1927-1929 (Kilmer 2001:480-
481). Woolley (1934) classified the instruments excavated there according to a
naming/categorisation system developed by Galpin (1929). Ancient lyres with strings of the
same length and harps with strings of different lengths are usually easily distinguishable.
The site of Ur contained a total of 1,850 tombs/graves collectively dated between 2600–2400
BCE. Only 16 of these were identified as royal tombs because of the extremely valuable
contents (Woolley 1934:32-33; Kilmer 2001:480-481). Woolley’s 1934 publication,
specifically chapter VII, focusses on surveying and describing the excavated instruments.
Harps are discussed on pages 249-251, lyres on pages 252-258, while wind and other
percussive instruments are catalogued on pages 258-261.
Table 9 on the next page provides photographs as well as a summarised list of some of the
excavations of intact ancient harps and lyres as described by Woolley (1934). The reasons
why these finds are important will be discussed.
79
Table 9
Ancient harp and lyre excavation photographs and information
Name Original field, site and current Excavation Reconstruction
museum number photographs149 photographs150
Queen Pu-Abi’s Harp Field Number: U.10412
British Museum Item Number:

BM.121198
Site Number: PG/800

(“Grave of Queen Pu-Abi”)
‘Great’ Lyre Field Number: U.10556
Philadelphia/Pennsylvania
Museum Item Number:
CBS 17694
Site Number: PG/789

(“The Kings Grave”)
‘Plaster’ Lyre Field Number: U.12351
Baghdad Museum Item

Number: B.8695
Site Number: PG/1151

‘Gold’ Lyre Field number: U.12353
Baghdad Museum Item

Number: B.8694

(“The Great Death Pit”)
‘Silver’ (Bovine) Lyre Field number: U.12354
British Museum Item Number:

BM.121199

(“The Great Death Pit”)
‘Silver’ Boat Shaped Filed Number: U.12355
Lyre
Philadelphia/Pennsylvania
Museum Item Number:
UPM 30-12-253
Site Number: PG/1237 (“The

Great Death Pit”)
Excavation photographs by Charles Leonard Woolley (1934) and Richard Barnett (1969).
Reconstruction photographs by Charles Leonard Woolley (1934) and Anne Kilmer (1998).
(Compiled by Author 2021)
149 The excavation photographs are sourced from Woolley (1934) and Richard Barnett (1969).
150 The reconstruction photographs are sourced from Woolley (1934) and Kilmer (1998).
80
One of the interesting excavation sites is that of PG/800. This site is known as the “Grave of
Queen Pu-Abi”. The sketches and descriptions that Woolley (1934) provides, reveals that
music served an important role in rituals (refer also to Krispijn 2008). Queen Pu-Abi’s harp
(U.10412/ BM.121198) was excavated in close proximity to neatly lined up female skeletal
remains (refer to figure 30). Woolley (1934) even goes so far as to suggest that one female
musician, whose finger bone remains were close to where the strings would have been, died
supposedly whilst playing after ingesting poison as part of a death ritual (Wooley 1934:74,
113-114; Julian Reade 2003:105). The excavation site PG/1237, known as the “The Great
Death Pit”, also shows a similar archeological scene of lyres buried with the dead (refer to
figure 31) (Collon 2010:48). This death ritual practice is speculative and there are no clear
photographs of site PG/800 that shows the finger bone remains close to the harp strings. The
documentation we have available are rough sketches as illustrated below.
Figure 30: Sketch of the contents of the Figure 31: Sketch of the contents of “The
“Grave of Queen Pu-Abi” (PG/800). Great Death Pit” (PG/1237).
(Woolley 1934). (Woolley 1934).
Three of the instruments most often cited in the study of ancient Near-Eastern music, with
specific reference to stringed instruments, is that of “Queen Pu-Abi’s Harp”
(U.10412/BM.121198), the “Silver Bovine Lyre” (U.12354/BM.121199) and the “Great
Lyre” (U.10556/CBS 17694). The reason why these three are often cited is because “Queen
Pu-Abi’s Harp” and the “Silver Bovine Lyre” have been effectively restored and strung with
‘modern’ strings and have refurbished tuning pegs. All three of these instruments also make
use of the important bull-headed feature. The “Great Lyre” is important because it shows
inlaid illustrations of animals in the act of playing a lyre and this reveals how the instruments
were possibly positioned and held.
81
In ancient Near-Eastern culture, the presence of the bull head holds religious significance
because it seems to refer to the “Bull of Heaven” or more specifically the goddess Inanna’s
“Bull of Heaven” (Woolley 1934:258). This feature is also commonly used to determine
which end of the instrument was the front.151
4.3.1. Sacred/religious significance
The manner in which the UET VII 126 tablet reveals the order of the strings may have had a
corresponding religious significance. Dumbrill (2005:29-30) suggests that the significance of
the naming of the strings can be seen in how the fourth string, in Akkadian E-Abanú,152 is
given the name of the Akkadian/Babylonian god Ea (Enki in Sumerian). This string can
therefore be translated to mean “Ea-created” or the “creator string” (Horowitz and Shnider
(2009:8). The Sumerian term used is sa-4-tur ( ) and, according to Dumbrill
(2005:30), this literally translates to “string four small”.
Dumbrill (2005:43) postulates that:
[…] assuming that Ea’s string, the fourth, was marked in some way – it is
likely that it had been coloured. Had the musician placed his thumb on the
first string he would have skipped to reach string three […]
Wulstan (1971:367) believes that this size identification for the third string was possibly used
as a means of identification or a point of reference for musicians. Barnett (1969:97) notes that
there is archaeological evidence that hints at this type of decoration to mark divisions
between strings. This can be seen first-hand on the inlays on the side of the
reconstructed/refurbished “Gold Lyre” (U.12353/B.8694). A total of 15 vertical lines, on the
side of the reconstructed instrument – 7 in red and 8 in white – are believed to graphically
mark the individual strings (see figure 32 on the next page).
151 The importance of the bull-headed feature being placed at the front of the instrument will be discussed in more detail in
§4.6.1 of this chapter.
152 Scholars are able to extrapolate “E-Abanú” (from line 4, column 2) because it also appears on the CBS 1766 tablet (refer
to Chapter 6, §6.5). On the UET VII 126 tablet only the cuneiform sign “a” can be seen. As cited in Mirelman and Krispijn
(2009:46), Kilmer noticed when collating the tablet in 1977 that Gurney accidently left these cuneiform symbols out of his
sketch.
82
Figure 32: Side profile of the “Gold Lyre” (U.12353/B.8694)

showcasing possible string markings.
Baghdad Museum.
(Woolley 1934).
This theory is highly speculative since it is presented on a reconstructed/restored153

instrument and there is no related textual description indicating the purpose of these
decorative markings. We also have no other evidence to suggest that the fourth string, or any
other marked string, holds any special connotation. One can only speculate whether the
fourth string, associated with Ea,154 is given the designation of the “creator” due to the
specific consonant or possible dissonant sound it may have produced when played with other
notes. West (1994:167) suggests that
[…] its alternative name, Ea-bānû, ‘Ea (is its) creator’, . . . implies a note
not arrived at through a tuning process but given as a starting-point.
There may have been a stage at which tuning normally started from the
middle string.
A comparable situation arises in how modern guitarists can easily tune a guitar once they are
provided with the reference pitch of either the first high “e1” string to find related pitches or
the sixth low “E6” to compare the “beating” of the other notes/strings’ harmonics.
Hypothetically the string “e1” or “E6” on the guitar could be considered the “creator” string
because it helps a guitarist derive the tuning of the other strings with ease.
153 Reconstructions and restorations cannot always be “authentic” so it would be misleading to draw conclusive evidence
from these types of sources only.
154 It is important to point out that the ancient Near-Eastern god Enki/Ea is identified as the “patron of music” and the
“custodian” of the Me which encompasses the arts (including music), knowledge and reason (Kilmer 1980:13; kriwakjazek
2010:30-31).
83
West’s suggestion is only speculation and one can question whether the fourth string would
still have retained the same god association even if the number of strings were increased or
reduced (West 1994:167). Additionally, this form of identification would only be necessary
for instruments with a large number of strings tuned in a scalar fashion. The UET VII 126
tablet names and provides numbers for only nine strings so a graphic form of identification to
keep track of the string’s position while playing the instrument does not seem likely. This is
because each finger can effortlessly rest on and pluck an individual string (there are 10
fingers on the hand).
4.3.2. The strings of the excavated instruments
The need to know the precise number of strings is essentially irrelevant because the manner
in which the strings could be named and ordered as indicated on the UET VII 126 tablet can,
as many scholars including Dumbrill (2005:235, 311; 2017:10) have suggested, presumably
work in a similar fashion even when other strings were added or removed.155 One should note
that the strings on the ancient instruments could not be recovered during excavation because
they had decayed (Barnett 1969:100). However, the impressions of the strings on the “Plaster
Lyre” (U.12351/B.8695) excavated at site PG/1151 were partially visible at excavation
(figures 33 and 34). Refer to the original photograph supplied by Woolley (1934:256) and the
edited enhanced version provided by Bo Lawergren (2010:85):
155A theory concerned with extending and reducing the numbering system of the instruments strings will be provided in
§4.4.1 of this chapter.
84
Figure 33: “Plaster Lyre” original excavation Figure 34: “Plaster Lyre” string
photograph (field number U.12351/B.8695). impressions (field number
Excavation Photographs by Charles Leonard U.12351/B.8695).
Woolley (1934). (Lawergren 2010:85).
It is often postulated that if an instrument had, for example, eleven tuning pegs or studs still
attached at excavation then one can deduce that it may have had eleven strings, provided that
no pegs were missing or broken (Galpin 1929:112; Barnett 1969:98; Kilmer 2001:482).
Dumbrill (2010:33) reveals an enhanced and edited photograph of the side profile of the
“Silver (Bovine) Lyre” (U.12354/BM.121199) prior to its restoration. The following image
clearly shows the impressions of 11 strings and one can safely infer that this specific
instrument had 11 strings (figure 35):
Figure 35: Eleven string impressions from the “Silver (Bovine) Lyre”
(U.12354/BM.121199).
British Museum.
(Dumbrill 2010:33).
85
With reference to the iconographic/pictorial evidence on the reconstructed “Great Lyre”

(U.10556/CBS 17694) (figure 36) one should be skeptical because deductions made
concerning the instrument’s construction derived from illustrations might be problematic.
One should not hypothesise about the number of strings instruments may have had (a
generalisation) based solely on artistic depictions. Woolley (1934:258), referring to
iconography as found on cylinder seal impressions, elaborates:
It is of course quite possible that the artists who engraved the seals were not
at pains to be meticulously accurate in detail; space was limited to
accommodate the full number of strings and they were more concerned with
representing an instrument as such than in imparting information to
posterity […]
Dumbrill (2005:32) also points out that the depiction on the front plaque on the “Great Lyre”
(U.10556/CBS 17694) of “mythological”156 animals playing a lyre with two hands seems to
mistakenly imply a sense of harmony because it could be interpreted that one animal is
playing more than one note at the same time (refer to figures 36 and 37) (Kilmer 2001:482-
483). One should, therefore, be cautious. More supporting textual evidence is needed to build
a convincing argument for or against the use and practice of polyphony/harmony in ancient
music. Basing assumptions entirely on iconographic/pictorial sources could be misleading;
there should also be textual and archaeological evidence to support the claims (Kilmer
2001:485-486; Dumbrill 2005:32).
If one relies on artistic renditions then this scene of two animals playing a lyre could suggest
the use of a heptatonic scale because there is a total of 8 strings, with the last one possibly
being an octave (or unison) of the first. As mentioned, this type of inference is speculative
and should be avoided unless there is additional textual evidence to support a claim made
from visual depictions. The implied octaves that are presented in the re-tuning/modulation
tablet UET VII 74 could be considered as textual evidence (refer to Chapter 6, §6.2.1).
It is also important to note that this same inlaid scene, according to Julian Reade (2003:105),
may be indicative of a depiction of a small fox holding a music performance tablet while
playing a sistrum (figure 37).
156It is not clear why most scholars identify the animals as ‘mythological’. One possible reason is because they are seen
playing music on a man-made instrument. This is something animals cannot ordinarily do. There are no other traditional
mythological characteristics or traits that can be applied to the animals.
86
This is an important remark since it could imply that the Hurrian tablets and fragments could
be a similar type of performance instruction, even if the lyrics do not align with the
instructions (refer back to the discussion in Chapter 2, §2.2.1).
(constructed from shell and bitumen).

(lapis lazuli and gold-plated bulls head).
Figure 36: Front plaque and bull head Figure 37: Inlay panel/plaque depicting
fragment of the “Great Lyre” animals playing a lyre from the “Great Lyre”
(U.10556/CBS 17694). (U.10556/CBS 17694).
Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and
Anthropology.157 Anthropology.
4.3.3. The ancient lyre versus the ancient harp
The excavated lyre and harp instruments from Ur have been collectively, but possibly not
accurately, dated to approximately 2550-2450 BCE, the Early Dynastic III period. These
instruments could also have existed and may have developed before this period (Kilmer
2001:481). The instrumental remains are older in date than the UET VII 126 tablet (800
BCE). The naming/ordering system can also be considered a later convention since we
cannot, with confidence, know how the strings were named and ordered in 2550-2450 BCE.
The lyre/harp instruments were very popular, and were the most common instruments used in
the ancient Near-East during the 3rd millennium BCE. This popularity can also be seen with
the vast amount of iconographic depictions we have of the instrument.
157
Image available online at: https://www.penn.museum/collections/object_images.php?irn=9347 (Accessed 1 November
2019)
87
As a result, scholars often assume that the UET VII 126 tablet may also be referencing a
similar instrument from a similar period (Kilmer 1998:12). Dumbrill (2005:34) suggests that
these instruments were possibly used for the purpose of rhythmically or melodically
punctuating/accompanying music, rituals and chanting. According to Dumbrill this means
that they were not necessarily used as virtuosic instruments. Evidence for this claim still
needs to be provided and future research is required.
Scholars, including but not limited to Wulstan (1971), West (1994), Kilmer (1971, 1974,
1998) and Dumbrill (2005, 2014b, 2017-2020), have argued that the most probable
instrument of use, which the UET VII 126 tablet is believed to describe, is a lyre and not
necessarily a harp. More specifically, the instrument is often presumed to be a nine-stringed
lyre/harp named sammú (Akkadian) under the general classification of gišZÁ.MÍ158
(Sumerian) or one of a similar, related family of instruments. The assumption that it had 9
strings is made because the theory tablets UET VII 126 and CBS 10996 only list a total of 9
strings.
There is, however, ongoing speculative debate that attempts to assign a specific instrument
classification to the names sammú and gišZÁ.MÍ. There is not enough evidence at present to
conclude that the sammú or gišZÁ.MÍ is a harp or a lyre (Kilmer 2001:483; Marcetteau
2010:69). One of the main reasons for presupposing that the UET VII 126 tablet may also be
referring to a sammú / gišZÁ.MÍ instrument is because the name sammú is indicated on the
related UET VII 74 tablet.
It may be that both tablets (UET VII 126 and UET VII 74) refer to music theory, but one
should be careful to assume that the same instrument type was used/referred to in both texts
without further evidence (West 1994:165; Franklin 2001:137-139). Additionally, there are
presently no known iconographic representations of harps from Ugarit.159 This is one of the
reasons why the instrument believed to be used for the theory tablets UET VII 126, CBS
10996 and UET VII 74 is often assumed to be a lyre. According to Franklin (2016) ancient
lexical texts from Ugarit dated to c. 2400 BCE refers to the lyre instrument as kinnārum
(knr).
158 The determinative “gis.” in gišZÁ.MÍ can be translated to “wood” which implies that this specific instrument was
constructed from wood (Barnett 1969:96).
159 The only music related illustration that comes from Ugarit is that of a female/goddess holding either a
tambourine/sistrum, drum or cymbal (refer to Yon 2006:138-139).
88
In summary, we are currently unable to identify which instrument, by name or type – whether
a lyre or a harp – is specifically described by the UET VII 126 tablet. Woolley (1934:258)
further points out that different harp/lyre sizes would have had different registers. Most
scholars have not explored this idea. Dumbrill (2005:34; 2019:19) and Kilmer (1998:15) have
briefly considered different registers. Scholars are also unable to determine what instrument
class (bass, tenor, alto or soprano) a specific tablet might have been referring to160. The tablet
only provides the names of what seems to be a list of the instrument’s string names and the
order in which they appear.
According to scholarly consensus the instrument believed to be described by the UET VII 126
tablet is a lyre that had nine strings. Discussions concerned with which instrument was
hypothetically used are largely based on speculation and cannot be confirmed until further
evidence is revealed. All that one can confidently infer is that the UET VII 126 tablet is
intended for an unknown nine-stringed instrument presumed to be either a lyre or a harp161.
For this reason, this thesis will make no claims regarding what instrument was intended. All
that is known is that the UET VII 126 tablet is dealing with some type of stringed instrument.
4.4. Musicological Importance of the String Order
As was indicated in §4.2 of this chapter, the strings of the unknown instrument described by
the UET VII 126 tablet are translated to follow a numbering scheme/sequence of
“1-2-3-4-[5]-4-3-2-1”. Martin Lichfield West (1994:162) indicates that:
The nine strings were identified by counting inwards from the front and
back of the instrument towards the middle. Their names, listed in
Sumerian and Akkadian in parallel columns, were: (1) Foremost; (2)
Next; (3) Third Thin; (4) Fourth Small (Sumerian), or Ea (is its) creator
(Akkadian); (5) Fifth; (6) Fourth of the Rear; (7) Third of the Rear; (8)
Second of the Rear; (9) Rear, or (Sumerian) First of the Rear.
West (1994:162) furthermore supposes that:
The inward numbering is not unnatural. For the player it was easier to
identify strings in this way [(1-2-3-4-5-4-3-2-1)] than by counting from
160
Dahlia Shehata (2017b) discusses the register of a large balaĝ instrument.
161Koitabasi (1992:106-109; 1998:337) suggests that the balaĝ refers to the harp instrument and that knr, sammú and
zannaru refers to the lyre (this needs to be investigated further).
89
one end only. The seventh out of an array of nine, for example, was more
readily identified as ‘third from the end’ than as ‘number seven’.
Dumbrill (2017:2,30) explains that this epicentric palindromic sequence (read in an inwards
direction) can be more accurately read and represented as follows:
1f (front) - 2f (next) - 3f (third, thin) - 4f (Ea-created/small) - [5] - 4b (behind) - 3b (behind) - 2b (behind) - 1b (backmost)
Dumbrill (2017:2) also suggests that the string numbers should not be interpreted as
“1-2-3-4-[5]-6-7-8(1)-9(2)” as this numbering system would “wrongly” suggest diatonic-
heptatonicism consisting of seven notes similar to how modern Western scales/modes
function. This research holds that it can be numbered as both provided that one does not, at
the outset, assume heptatonicism or any other Western conceptions. For the purposes of this
section the notion of heptatonicism can be partially avoided if one superimposes “1-2-3-4-5-
6-7-8(1)-9(2)” on-top of “1-2-3-4-[5]-4-3-2-1”.
The need for this type of superimposition is necessary otherwise one can subjectively choose
which string can be used. For example, one can decide to use string 2 from the back as
opposed to string 2 from the front.162 This subjective approach is problematic and by
superimposing the two numbering systems the approach becomes objective and unbiased.
Additionally, the notion of an octave after the seventh note is included here to show why one
would often logically assume heptatonicism:163
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 (octave of 1) 9 (octave of 2)
1 2 3 4 [5] 4 3 2 (octave of 1) 1 (octave of 2)
This combined numbering system is represented graphically in figure 38 on the next page.
162 As explained in Chapter 1, §1.2.4, Dumbrill (2005:125-126; 2019:30,65) subjectively chooses to use string 2 at the
“back” as opposed to using string 2 at the “front” of the instrument.
163 An analysis of the UET VII 74 tablet, in Chapter 6, §6.2.1, reveals why the 8th and 9th strings can be understood/perceived
as octaves (or unisons).
90
Figure 38: Superimposition of numbering

systems with assumed octaves string
repeats.
Sketch by Richard Dumbrill.
Edited by Author (2021).
(Dumbrill 2019:4).
The main reasoning behind this superimposition is that, if one does not use both numbering
systems (“1-2-3-4-[5]-4-3-2-1” and “1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8(1)-9(2)”) then, as West (1994:162) also
suggests, there will be difficulties in accurately interpreting the tablet. This is because the
CBS 10996 tablet164 uses only the numbers from 1 to 7. Without the superimposition of
numbering systems, one will need to choose subjectively what numbers are to be interpreted
as 6, 7, 8 and 9 because the UET VII 126 tablet reveals a palindromic naming system (1-2-3-
4-[5]-4-3-2-1). This appears to be something that Dumbrill (2017:12; 2020:20) does within
his “Greater Babylonian System”.
The superimposition of two numbering systems, as proposed by this research, is actually

confirmed by the CBS 10996 tablet which provides evidence of both numbering systems used
simultaneously. Despite this, most scholars do not point out that two different numbering
systems are present on the CBS 10996 tablet.165
164 The CBS 10996 tablet will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 5.
165 Refer specifically to Chapter 5, §5.13.
91
4.4.1. YBC 11381 alternate straight numbering system
The tablet YBC 11381 in the Yale Babylonian Collection (figures 39 and 40), published by
Elizabeth Payne (2010), is another tablet that supports the statement that both
numbering/ordering systems were, in fact, known by some ancient scribes and musicians.
The UET VII 126 tablet provides a palindromic system (“1-2-3-4-[5]-4-3-2-1”) while the
YBC 11381 tablet provides a “straight” numbering system (“1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9”). Both UET
VII 126 and YBC 11381 suggests that it would be acceptable to use both numbering systems
to attempt to interpret ancient music. There is the possibility that other systems were also
used but there is no certainty regarding this until sufficient additional evidence is discovered.
Figure 39: Photograph of the YBC 11381 cuneiform tablet (obverse).

Yale University Library.
The tablet is believed to have been excavated from Uruk. It is written in Neo-Babylonian
Akkadian and lists nine strings. Similar to the UET VII 126 tablet, it begins with the
Sumerian designation of SA/sa = “string”. The nine strings listed on the tablet appear to be
associated with gods and blessings. This partly links to Dumbrill’s ancient Near-Eastern god-
number166 theory in which each string is associated with a god and their corresponding
numbers (Dumbrill 2005:35, 2017:6, 2013:56-57).
166
Reference to Ancient Near-Eastern associations between gods, astronomy and numbers can be found inscribed on the
number-syllabary tablet MMA 86.11.364 housed in the Metropolitan Museum of Art and on the BM 170 tablet at the British
Museum (Crickmore 2007:45; Pearce 2005:222-229).
92
Dumbrill (2007)167 acknowledges that his god-number postulation is theoretical speculation

since there is no direct evidence for the use of associated god-numbers in music.
The YBC 11381 tablet only mentions gods and string numbers ranging from 1-9. Dumbrill
(2014a) has postulated that the mathematical tablets CBM 11340 (obverse) + CBM 11402
(reverse), CBM 11368 (reverse), CBM 11902 (obverse) and CBM 11097 (reverse) could serve
as evidence to support his speculative theory. Future research can attempt to examine his
claims regarding these tablets. The following sketch of the YBC 11381 tablet highlights the
normal “straight” incremental numbering system of “1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9”.
Figure 40: Sketch of the obverse (top) and reverse (bottom) of the YBC 11381 cuneiform
tablet.
(Payne 2010:292-293).
167 This article by Dumbrill (2007) provides a more focused and updated discussion concerning his god-number theory.
93
A syllabic transliteration of the tablet is as follows (Payne 2010:292):
Table 10
YBC 11381 tablet transliteration
Obverse (front)
[sa 1] an.šár lugal dingirmeš be-lut-ka li-dam-mi-iq ka-a-ši
sa 2 d15 ba-na-at te-né-šit ṭu-ub lìb-bi u la-ba-ri ka-a-ši liš-ruk-ka
sig da-ar!-gal kak-ku
sa 3 ddàra.gal gištukul ez-zu-tú u4-mu na-al-bu-bu liš-tam-ḫir-ka [(x)]
en du qa-at
sa 4 den!. ki .dù dgašan dlamma pa-ti-qat dam-qá-a-tú la-mas-si bu-un-(ni)
gi-ir
sa 5 ddam.ki .an.na tés-lit-ka ṣu-le-e-ka u la-ban ap-pi-ka liš-tam-gir ana en.en
en-da-šu-ru-um ri-ib
sa 6 en.da. šurim.ma mi –lik-ka nak-lu a-ma-tu-ka aq-ra-a-tú liš-taq-rib
d
u4-mi-šam ša-am
sa 7 en.du6.kù.ga ki-bi-is šul-mi u pa-dan-nu liš-tak-kan ana ši-kin gìrII-ka
d
ME
sa 8 en.u4.ti.la ḫi-ṣib ṭuḫ-du u ḫé.gál-lu4 liṣ-tak-kan ana me-rit érinme-ka!
d
me-ri-tú
d
sa 9 en.me.ṣàr.ra il-lat rag-gi-ka u za-ma-ni-ka
li-šab-bir li-sap-pi-iḫ gištukul za-‘-i-ri-ka
Reverse (back)
ana ka sar ana ṭu-ub-bi na-as-ḫi
le.e. šal-šú uḫ-ri
94
The full English translation of the tablet, as provided by Payne (2010:293), is provided
below:
Table 11
YBC 11381 English translations
English translation (obverse)
String [1]: May Aššur, King of the gods, improve your dominion for you.
String 2: May Ištar, who created mankind, grant you well-being and longevity.
String 3: May Daragal make you rival the fierce weapon[(s) and] the raging storm.
String 4: Enkidu, treat kindly the “Lady” the provocative spirit who created good things, the
lamassu.
String 5: May Damkianna make your appeal, your prayers, and the stroke of your nose [(i.e.
a gesture of respect)] always pleasing the lord of lord[s].
String 6: May Endašma present your artful advice and your precious words daily.
String 7: May Endukugal always let your footstep fall on a prosperous road and a [smooth]
path.
String 8: May Enudtila constantly establish abundance, plenty, and prosperity for the
pastures of your people.
String 9: May Enmešarrces crush the forces of those who wrong you and [of] your enemies.
May he scatter the weapon[(s)] of your adversaries.
English translation (reverse)
Copied according to dictation; excerpted for my well-being.
English translation left edge inscriptions

The third [string] from the end [(i.e. the seventh string)].
It is not clear whether there is an association between the gods/goddesses from string 1
(Aššur) and string 8 (Enudtila), as well as string 2 (Išta) and string 9 (Enmešarrces). If they
do have some form of connection, being connected in god association and pitch/note name,
then this could act as further evidence to support an ancient conception of octaves after a
seventh note which essentially implies a heptatonic system. This is in addition to the octave
proof that is already provided by the UET VII 74 tablet (discussed in Chapter 6).
The tablet fragments BM 65217 + 66616168 (figure 41) also refer to string numbers and
appear to imply that string 2 can also be associated with the god Enmešarrces / Enmešarra
(Kilmer 1984:73; Dumbrill 2005:89-91).
168 Refer to Kilmer (1984) for a transliteration, transcription and translation of the BM 65217 + 66616 tablet fragments.
95
In other words, both string 2 (on BM 65217 + 66616) and string 9 (on YCB 11381) are
capable of being associated with the same god/goddess. A possible speculation could be that
the god Enmešarrces / Enmešarra referred to a specific note/pitch, and that since YBC 11381
uses this god on string 9 and BM 65217 on string 2 then this could be evidence of an implied
octave (or unison).
Figure 41: Sketch of the obverse of BM 65217 with

accompanying transliterations and translations.
(Kilmer 1984:72-74,81)
96
Figure 42: Sketch of the reverse of BM 66616 with

accompanying transliterations and translations.
(Kilmer 1984:72-74,81)
Dumbrill [s.a]b:1-2)169 suggests that the YBC 11381 tablet may be recording an enneatonic
system. This would mean that strings 8 and 9 are unrelated to strings 1 and 2, if one
understands what the term enneatonicism actually entails (the definition of enneatonicism is
provided below in § 4.5.). One should not eliminate the possibility that there could also be
other systems, presently unknown to us, at play. Consequently, it is important to note that
these two different numbering systems (‘straight’ and palindromic) can be varied as shown in
table 12 on the next page.
169No date is provided for this publication. The reader should note that some of Dumbrill’s scholarly works are
independently published (auto-published) and this could raise suspicions since one cannot be certain to what degree the
works were reviewed before publication.
97
Table 12
Possible string numbering systems
Tablet Nine strings Seven strings Five strings
UET VII 126 1-2-3-4-[5]-4-3-2-1 1-2-3-[4]-3-2-1 1-2-[3]-2-1
System (enneatonic/extended heptatonic) (heptatonic) (pentatonic)
YBC 11381 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9 1-2-3-4-5-6-7 1-2-3-4-5
System (enneatonic/extended heptatonic) (heptatonic) (pentatonic)
The UET VII 126 string naming system seems to work only for odd numbered strings and can
extend past 9 strings. This means that the system could also be designed for octatonic and
other systems that extend over 9 pitches or a heptatonic system that becomes extended over
different octaves. This research finds that the latter is more probable because the UET VII 74
tablet provides evidence of the use of octaves after a seventh pitch/string.
Dumbrill (2020:32-33) also provides a speculative theory that posits that the god associations
and labels given to each string may act as musical “incipits”170 used to remind the ancient
musicians about the required “intonation” needed to recreate the sound of each string.
4.5. True Enneatonicism and Extended-Heptatonic Inversional Qualities
By examining the UET VII 74 (re-tuning/modulation) tablet one is able to show conclusively
that octaves/unisons after the seventh string were known by some ancient musicians.171 This
undermines Dumbrill’s stance to avoid heptatonicism when referring to the UET VII 74 tablet
(Dumbrill [s.a]a:11). Dumbrill suggests that this idea of heptatonicism “must be radically
segregated from […] UET VII, 74 […]” (Dumbrill [s.a]a:11). Dumbrill does partially
acknowledge that there is evidence of early heptatonicism which can be found on a
heptagram (a seven-sided star figure) inscribed on the CBS 1766 tablet.172
It is the view of the current author that the re-tuning/modulation tablet UET VII 74 does not
imply an enneatonic system, and Dumbrill’s insistence for an enneatonic system in ancient
music should be questioned. This is the focus of this section.
170 According to Dumbrill a musical “incipit” is a song or a melodic idea used to help one identify a certain sound/interval.
In Western terminology this can be described as “comparative interval recognition”. For example, if one wants to know, or
aurally identify, how a minor second interval sounds then one can simply think about what the opening notes from the Jaws
(1975) theme song sounds like.
171 This will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 6, §6.2.1 when discussing the UET VII 74 tablet.
172 The CBS 1776 tablet will be discussed in Chapter 6, §6.5.
98
The main concern is that Dumbrill (2005, 2014b, 2017-2020) appears to be erroneous about
the correct use and definition of the term enneatonic. Without making too much reference to
the UET VII 74 tablet in this chapter, one notices that when Dumbrill constructs an
enneatonic scale he is actually using a heptatonic system stretched over a 2-octave system
(termed by the current author as an “extended-heptatonic” scale/mode system).
Dumbrill (2020:20) acknowledges that there is an “overflow” but rejects the notion that the
octave is part of any pentatonic or heptatonic system. His argument for the use of the term
“enneatonic” is based on what he terms the use of “conjunct pentads”.173 This argument is
defective because the system used is based on what this research has termed a 2-octave
heptatonic-interrupted174 system (Dumbrill 2017:2). To clarify: The pentads of “c-d-e-f-g”
and “g-a-b-c-d” according to this research still fall within an extended-heptatonic system (“c-
d-e-f-g-a-b-[c]-[d]”) and does not imply enneatonicism.
The reader should note that Middle-Eastern music often uses a conception similar to
tetrachords and pentads/pentachords (Wright 1995:467). Dumbrill (2020:29) states that:
It is my contention that the names of Babylonian intervals were fragments of incipits

in the same way Arabian ajnas (plural, singular jins) are groups of three, four [or]
five consecutive pitches which are often known from their toponymic or other,
incipits. Two ajnas combine into maqam (plural maqamat) in the same way
Babylonian intervals combined into larger pitch-sets. This concept is also practiced
in Iran and in Turkey and in Mizrahi and Sephardic Middle-Eastern Jewish prayers
[…] this formulation is common to modern Middle-East as it would have been in the
Ancient Middle-East.
It is clear that Dumbrill aims to draw a cross-cultural link between ancient Near-Eastern and
modern/traditional Middle-Eastern music (an Orientalist perspective). Clarification regarding
the opinion that Dumbrill’s use of the term enneatonic is incorrect and what is meant by
extended-heptatonic will be discussed further in the next paragraphs.
173 A pentad consists of a series of 5 notes and by adding another set of five notes (another pentad) one can construct an
enneatonic scale consisting of a total of 10 notes (the 10th note being an octave of the first). From this one can construct a
theory that suggests one hand (five fingers) represents a pentad. The concept of an enneatonic scale could, therefore, be
derived from the natural structure of the two hands which is symmetrically proportional (Latham 1862:744). Additionally,
the Babylonians could have used each of the 3 segments of each finger and the thumb, with a total of 30 divisions, as
reference when making larger mathematical and even musical calculations – this would imply a 30-EDO structure (Cajori
1897:7). Although, this is a speculative theory, there is no clear evidence to suggest the Babylonians did this.
174 The heptatonic system is interrupted because the second octave of the heptatonic system is incomplete since only 9 notes
of the full 15 notes encompassed by two octaves are used.
99
Referring to earlier research, one should note that Duchesne-Guillemin (1967:244) was
determined to theorise about a possible scale/mode that can be deduced from the string
names/characteristics and order provided by the UET VII 126 tablet. She tried to relate this to
the patterns she initially believed provided evidence of a tuning cycle as found on the CBS
10996 tablet (now shown not to be a tuning pattern). The theorisation proposed in Duchesne-
Guillemin’s 1967 article was provided before the re-tuning/modulating UET VII 74 tablet
was officially published as a music theory tablet in 1968. She attempted to validate her
argument by referring to the UET VII 74 tablet in her later articles.
In brief, Duchesne-Guillemin (1967) initially believed that a semitone occurred between the
string denoted as the “third thin string” and the “fourth small” string. She hypothesised that
string three was the note “E” and string four was therefore “F” a semitone higher. According
to Duchesne-Guillemin this would imply that string one was “C” with the resultant overall
scale/mode being a heptatonic “C” major (Ionian) scale/mode – the white keys on the piano
(“C-D-E-F-G-A-B-[C]-[D]”). If one ascribes to this view then the result would be as follows:
Table 13
Heptatonic ascending “C” major scale (with an added 9th note)
1(front) 2 3(thin) 4(small) [5] 4(6) 3(7) 2(8/1) 1(9/2 - back)
C D E F G A B ˃C˂ ˃D˂
ascending→ Tone Tone Semitone Tone Tone Tone Semitone Tone ←descending
The symbols [‘˃ ˂’] in table 13 are used to indicate the extended-heptatonic octavial175
notes/pitches.
As is demonstrated, the result of the underlying semitone-tone structure is a major/Ionian

scale when ascending and a Dorian scale when descending. Leon Crickmore (2012) refers to
this as “inverse modes”. It is, therefore, structurally different because of the semitone-tone
relationships when ascending and descending due to the added 9th note/pitch.176
In Western-European culture the example given in table 13 will aurally be perceived as

exhibiting an overall major/Ionian sound in both ascending and descending forms because of
175 Dumbrill (2005:137) uses the term “octavial” to refer to different octave registers.
176 This phenomenon will be discussed further in Chapter 6, §6.4.1.
100
musical training, constructs and expectations. This becomes problematic when one considers
other musical practices and cultures, whether ancient, traditional or modern. We cannot be
sure how this particular ancient culture would have perceived a scale/mode in its ascending
and/or descending form. Whether it was aurally perceived as the same or different, when a
note/pitch has been added, remains unknown.
To clarify, the “C” major/Ionian scale when ascending has an obvious major/Ionian tonality
(Tone-Tone-Semitone-Tone-Tone-Tone-Semitone) and “sound”. When descending it has a
Phrygian tonality/character (Semitone-Tone-Tone-Tone-Semitone-Tone-Tone) and “sound”.
However, due to Western musical conventions, both the ascending and descending scales are
perceived as “C” major/Ionian with an implied “tonic” of the pitch “C”. However, one should
not assume that a modern concept, such as the existence of a tonic function, existed in ancient
music without explicit proof.
From a Western music perspective the nature of a scale/mode will not necessarily be
perceived differently whether used in an ascending or descending form. “C” major/Ionian
will remain constant no matter the ascending or descending orientation. This thesis holds that
we should be careful to apply this same Western notion of tonality to ancient scales/modes
particularly because there is an added 9th note/pitch which can alter the scale/modes nature.
It could furthermore be speculated that the instrument could have had a dual function,
producing one ascending scale/mode at the one end and another different, but related,
descending scale/mode at the other. This could have meant that two songs, using different
tunings, could have been performed/accompanied on one instrument without needing to re-
tune it. Hence, it is possible that the musician could switch the playing order around to
produce either a “C” major/Ionian scale with a major/Ionian tonality and sound when
ascending and a Phrygian tonality/character and sound when descending.
The Hurrian terms ašḫu/ašḫuwe (“upper/high”) and turi/duri (“lower/low”) used on some of
the other ~68 Hurrian tablets may suggest that the ancients, specifically the Hurrians, were
aware of switching directions177 in the manner suggested above (Güterbock 1970:50).
177 These terms and more details concerning the possible alterations of directions will be provided in Chapter 5, §5.10.
101
Both Wulstan (1968:215) and Dumbrill (2005:31-32) systematically disproved Duchesne-

Guillemin’s hypothesis on the basis that there is not enough evidence to support her claim for
the use of an ascending heptatonic scale/mode.178 Wulstan (1968:226) postulated that the
terms “thin” and “small” had nothing to do with pitch. He believed they were a means of
identification for the musician. Dumbrill (2017:2-3; 2005:31-32,35-36) still attempts to adapt
and fix Duchesne-Guillemin’s hypothesis by merging it with his proposed descending-
enneatonic scale/mode of “E-D-C-B-A-G-F-[E]-[D]” for the scale/mode of nīd qabli (table
14).
Table 14
Descending ‘false’ enneatonic scale/mode of “E”
1 2 3 4 [5] 4(6) 3(7) 2(8/1) 1(9/2)
E D C B A G F ˃E˂ ˃D˂
descending→ Tone Tone Semitone Tone Tone Tone Semitone Tone ←ascending
Commentary on why scholars put forward semitone-tone relationships rather than other
relationships will be made later.179 A semitone which falls between the fourth “small” string
(“B”) and the third “thin” string (“C”) in the interpretation made by Dumbrill (2017: 2-3;
2005:31-32,35-36), is similar to Duchesne-Guillemin’s theory.
Dumbrill (2005:41; 2017:23) suggests that the enneatonic scale/mode of “E” is, in abstract
terms, Dorian180 in character. One should note that the descending-enneatonic scale/mode
system is not fully Dorian in tonality. It is major/Ionian in tonality when descending (with an
“E” Phrygian sound) and only Dorian in tonality when ascending and when starting at “D9”.
This is only true if one assumes the system is “octavial heptatonic”. If the note “E8” is an
octave of “E1”, and the system was heptatonic with “D9” being an added octave of “D2”,
then the mode would technically be Phrygian.181 These comments are true when modern
Western music theory is regarded as the norm, but it must again be emphasised that we
178 Current consensus concerning the scale/mode type and direction, which is believed to be descending, will be discussed in
§4.6 of this chapter.
179 This will be the focus of Chapter 6.
180 It is only Kilmer (1971, 1984, 1998) and Duchesne-Guillemin (1975, 1980, 1984) who use an ascending scale/mode and
therefore accurately observe a Dorian character. Dumbrill (2005, 2014b, 2017-2020), West (1994) and Hagel (2005)
converted the scale/mode offered by Kilmer (1971, 1984, 1998) and Duchesne-Guillemin (1975, 1980, 1984) into a
descending one. Using the descending form, they mistakenly perceived it as Doric in character since this is how modes
function in modern Western traditions. It will be Dorian when ascending and descending.
181 Refer to Chapter 6, §6/4/1, for an in-depth discussion regarding such scale/mode inversions.
102
cannot be certain that ancient cultures perceived or constructed ascending and descending
scales/modes in this way.
Dumbrill (2017:23) constantly attempts to avoid heptatonicism. However, by using Western

pitches, labels and structures he paradoxically uses it alongside terms such as “enneatonic”
and “pentads” in an attempt to obscure the Western/modern heptatonic model. He partially
considers microtones or quartertones but, by providing a performable version of the H6 tablet
in Western notation, he is essentially using a heptatonic system. In other words, the way in
which Dumbrill uses an enneatonic scale/mode is actually heptatonic because he makes use
of octaves after the seventh string/pitch as opposed to using an octave only after the ninth
string/pitch. His assertion that ancient music makes use of a descending enneatonic
scale/mode sounds more ‘mysterious’ than the more straightforward suggestion that ancient
musicians may have developed, and would have used, the more familiar heptatonic system.
Dumbrills view is a traditional form of Orientalism that attempts to mystify and exoticise the
‘other’ (refer to Said 1978).
As discussed, Dumbrill’s use of the term enneatonic is problematic. In its “true” sense,
enneatonic means that 9 pitches are used and that each of these pitches has a specific
designation and character182 (Dumbrill 2005, 2014b, 2017-2020). Unlike the most commonly
used scales in Western (art and folk) music, there is no semitone-tone structural formula
which is adhered to when constructing enneatonic scales/modes. There are many variations
and possibilities because an enneatonic scale/mode is essentially a chromatic scale that omits
any 3 of 12 possible pitches contained within an octave range containing successive
semitones. The Japanese composer Toru Takemitsu makes use of these 9-pitch scales.
Additionally, the enneatonic scale/mode is often used to generate bitonality – two tonalities at
the same time – or for writing a melody over a polychord. It therefore follows that, if
Dumbrill suggests enneatonic scales were used in ancient music, then it is implied that some
form of polyphony/harmony existed because it arises almost naturally when using enneatonic
scales.
182To elaborate: In general, but especially in Western music, a pentatonic scale has five different pitches (for example, “C-
D-E-G-A”), the heptatonic has seven (for example, “C-D-E-F-G-A-B”) and the octatonic (“C-C#-D#-E-F#-G-A-A#”) has
eight. It is only when the scale is repeated or doubled that the starting note is used again (the octave). One should note that
the term diatonic refers to the use of two types of intervals – a semitone/half-tone and a whole-tone – and each of the above
scale types (pentatonic, heptatonic, enneatonic and octatonic) fall within the classification of diatonic. This is because all of
the notes have semitone/half-tone and whole-tone relationships. The enneatonic scale/mode that Dumbrill (2005, 2014b,
2017-2020) refers to is therefore a heptatonic one (“C-D-E-F-G-A-B…”) that restarts with the first two notes (“…[C]-[D]”)
and then becomes interrupted (“C-D-E-F-G-A-B… …[C]-[D]”). The scale of “C” is used here only for illustrative purposes.
103
In essence the ambiguous pitch names of “I-J-K-L-M-N-O-P-Q” or “A-B-C-D-E-F-G-[I]183-

[J]” are more indicative of the term enneatonic. By repeating “E1” and “D2” as “E8” and
“D9” most scholars, in effect, only have 7 note names/pitches. This results in an extended-
heptatonic scale/mode (Halperin 2010:30-32; Tracey 1969:76).
A preliminary solution to notating an enneatonic system using Western staff notation is to use
ambiguous clef signs184 (figure 43). In order to avoid heptatonicism, one would need to resist
the temptation to assume that the 8th and 9th pitches are octaves of the first two pitches.185 In
other words, “P8” and “Q9” in the example below should not be assumed to be the same as
“I1” and “J2”. This would be difficult to remember since this Western notation system was
designed with octaves in mind.
Ascending Descending
Figure 43: A proposed ambiguous ascending and descending enneatonic system.

According to Dumbrill ([s.a]b:1-2) the tablet YBC 11381, discussed earlier in this chapter,
may be an early illustration of an enneatonic system. It may, however, also be representative
of an extended-heptatonic system in which strings 8 and 9 are again the same as strings 1 and
2. There is no evidence presently available to prove either claim. The YBC 11381 tablet can
be representative of either a heptatonic or an enneatonic system. It only provides string
numbers and god-string number associations. It can be conceived as both until further, more
concrete, evidence is provided/discovered.
Referring back to the attempt to try and deduce a scale/mode from studying only the UET VII
126 and the UET VII 74 tablets one can notice that there are three inherent problems with the
183 The letter “H” as found in the “BbACH motif” has been excluded as it is used to represent the pitch “B” in German music
nomenclature.
184 Janet Smith and Anne Kilmer (2000:130, 132-133, 136-137) have opted to use the traditional Western “TAB” sign when
providing a tablature of the contents of the CBS 10996 and H6 tablet (they provide standard Werstern notation above the
tablature). It should be stressed that they have not provided tablaturisations for the music contained on the other ~68 Hurrian
tablets and fragments. This will form part of the current authors future research.
185 This is why it is problematic to use any Western system to notate ancient music. There are certain learned conventions
that would need to be avoided. When Western notation is provided there is always a temptation to recreate the sound.
104
initial hypotheses of both Dumbrill (2017: 2-3; 2005:31-32,35-36) and Duchesne-Guillemin

(1967).
Firstly, one cannot be sure of the pitch/note names, or the frequencies and relations between
them, just by using ancient textual descriptions that reveal string orders. Current
interpretations do not consider the use of microtones or quartertones either (such as a note
between “C” and “C#” for example). Dumbrill’s interpretation is essentially a re-adaptation
of Duchesne-Guillemin’s theory and a product of a Twelve-Tone Equal Temperament
system.
Secondly, if one assumes that the scale/mode of nīd qabli was perceived by the ancients as a
descending “E” major/Ionian scale/mode then any possible Western scale/mode that is
structurally major/Ionian - of which there is one basic structure with its 12 possible
transpositions186 - could be implied. All major scales have the same characteristic, easily
identifiable, sound because they all have the same basic structure (this will be discussed in
more detail in Chapter 6).
Lastly, any octave can be used. One does not know what specific pitch register/frequency
was used. It could be in any octave register and this is the primary reason why it would be
deceptive to attempt to perform or reconstruct “the world’s oldest melody”. These
interjections are important and will be mentioned and repeated sporadically throughout the
course of this thesis.
4.5.1. Implied cultural notions of octaves
Daniel McCall (2008:25-26) and Koot van Wyk (2012) have pointed out that some societies
in the ancient Near-East followed a tradition that used a cycle of seven days (one week).187
The belief is that this concept was also used in music either in the form of an octave or unison
(Mirelman and Krispijn 2009:45; Crickmore 2008:13). More concrete evidence of this
concept of octaves/unisons can be deduced from the UET VII 74 tablet.
186 These 12 scales are: (1) “C” major, (2) “G” major, (3) “D” major, (4) “A” major, (5) “E” major / “Fb” major, (6) “B”
major / “Cb” major, (7) “F#” major / “Gb” major, (8) “C#” major / “Db” major, (9) “F” major, (10) “Bb” major, (11) “Eb”
major and (12) “Ab” major, including the enharmonic spellings where applicable.
187 Dividing the month into 4 sets of 7 days according to the moon’s cycle around the earth is something that many cultures
recognise (refer to the lunar calendar). For example, the festival of Ramadan is traditionally from new moon to new moon.
105
An extrapolated reading of the UET VII 74 tablet reveals that it makes use of a “tightening”
and “loosening” system which uses seven variations. These can be used to derive seven
different scales/modes188 that can be restarted or, more accurately, reversed. These seven
scales/modes189 are called qablītu, nīs tuḫri, nīd qabli, pītu, embūbu, kitmu and išartu. Some
of these same term names can also be found on the H6, the ~68 Hurrian tablets and the CBS
10996 tablet.
In short, the manner in which the UET VII 74 tablet implies octaves can be seen in how it
indicates that, if string 1 is to be “tightened”/“loosened” then the second string from the
“back” (string 8) is also to be similarly altered. The same applies to string 2 and the
“backmost” string (string 9). This further suggests the possibility of implied octaves/unisons
after the 7th string (Mirelman and Krispijn 2009:45; Dumbrill 2017:16-17).
Ancient knowledge of octaves is likely since octaves occur naturally. For this reason, too, the
use of an enneatonic scale is unlikely. The octave is the first and easiest interval that can be
found in the harmonic/overtone series. In order to construct an enneatonic or chromatic scale
one would need to make more complex string divisions. It would be easier to construct a
pentatonic and a heptatonic scale first using the harmonic series/Just Intonation.
To elaborate, a string of any length producing any pitch when divided exactly in half (a ratio
of 2:1) will result in a pitch an octave higher than the initial fundamental frequency. The
frequencies of sound waves are measured in Hertz (Hz), for example “A4” = 440.000Hz and
its octave “A5” has twice its frequency, namely 880.000Hz (figure 44).
“A4” = 440.000HZ “A4” = 880.000HZ
Figure 44: Representation of octaves in standard Western notation.

188These seven scales/modes will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 6.

189It could be possible that the Hurrian notation may be a form of ‘Jazz’ improvisatory instruction where the musician is
instructed to play a given scale/mode a certain number of times to accompany another song (Colburn 2009a:106). This could
be similar to modern Jazz chord/scale charts.
106
According to Dumbrill (2005:vi), Mesopotamian thinking was:
[…] more interested in symmetry, and the easiest ways of finding it. And
halving is the most normal procedure for division of anything by humans.
The great discovery was its reciprocal within the octave 2:1, as harmonic
mean and this discovery is deified in EA/ENKI and gorgeously
mythologized in Gilgamesh and Enkidu. Thus, the Greek discovery of the
harmonic mean descends from routine Sumerian study.
In the harmonic/overtone series fourths and fifths also appear naturally190 when a string of a
fundamental frequency is divided to find harmonics (Dumbrill 2005:62). A fifth (“C-G”)
above the fundamental is easily found when a string is divided in the ratio 3:2. An
inversional191 fourth (“G-C”) appears with a ratio of 4:3 (figure 45).
Figure 45: Graphic representation of the natural structure of octaves, fifths and fourths
that form the harmonic/overtone series starting at “C” (Just Intonation).
Oliveira (2011).
190 Robert Fink (2003) explores the notion concerned with why these fundamental relationships may be naturally occurring
in most civilizations’ music.
191 This inversional quality (between the fourth and the fifth) appears naturally and seems to not only be an invented Western
construct.
107
The frequency of “Ɐ”453.082Hz,192 a microtonal-quartertone note exactly between “A4” =

440.000Hz and “A#4” = 466.164Hz will have a microtonal-quartertonal octave at
“Ɐ”906.164Hz. This is a microtonal note exactly between “A5” = 880.000Hz and “A#5” =
932.328Hz (figure 46).
A4(440.000Hz) Ɐ4(453.082Hz) A#4(466.164Hz) A5(880.000Hz) Ɐ5(906.164Hz) A#5(932.328Hz)
Figure 46: Microtonal-quartertones and their corresponding octaves.

A similar type of calculation can be done for other pitches as well. The above example uses
“A” = 440 as the norm for explanatory purposes only. This accounts for why one cannot be
sure that even a modern diatonic Western system was used by the ancients. Even if there is
the concept of an octave, it would be difficult to pinpoint exactly what frequency individual
strings would have been tuned to. It is the ratio/relationship that is important, not the Hertz
measurement of the pitch, which is a very recent concept. We only have an approximation
but there are far too many other possible notes/pitches. Microtones also only become relevant
when a ‘basic’ tonal system has been established.
The thresholds of hearing and how “tolerant” or “sensitive” another culture is to hearing the
“boundaries” or the “Just Noticeable Difference” (JND) between notes/pitches could have
been different to our modern conceptions (Burns 1999; Wachsmann 1953; Ross and Knight
2013; Parncutt and Hair 2011:146-147). In other words, ancient perceptions of which
intervals were to be considered as dissonant and consonant might have been different to our
modern-day perceptions. The abovementioned, according to this thesis, can be considered as
an “Ethno-Archaeo-musicological” or “Ethnoarchaeomusicological”193 view. In other words,
the focus is placed on only the culture or on “specific manifestation of music” and this means
limited cross-cultural comparisons will be made (Parncutt 2007:4). The idea that conceptions
of dissonance and consonance for the ancients may have been different means that an
192 The upside-down A symbol (“Ɐ”) will be used to indicate a microtonal-quartertone pitche exactly between the notes “A”
and “A#”.
193 This terminology was cited in the preface of the journal Telestes: An International Journal of Archaeomusicology and
Archaeology of Sound. Refer also to Both (2009:2) for more detailed description concerning these terms.
108
ambiguous tablaturisation form of notation, that does not impose these Western constructs,
will be beneficial.
It is important to reiterate that the author’s skepticism arises from the Africanist inspired
perspective of this research. The main point of this skepticism is that, even if the ancients
perceived of intervals such as a tritone, thirds or sixths, for example, it does not necessarily
mean that they can be equated to our modern intervals having the same names. Compare the
differences between a Just Intonation system with an Equal Tempered system, for example,
to understand how different the perceptions of intervals have been within the past 1000 years
in Western music.194 It should be noted that the sound of each major scale, and the inner
pentads (if one ascribes to such a theory), in Just Intonation would be different than those
constructed from Twelve-Tone Equal Temperament. Additionally, creating chords and
producing harmonies within Just Intonation is also something that is difficult to do effectively
(Brbour 1939:48,59). Therefore, Just Intonation can be an unsatisfactory system for some
instruments that rely on playing chords (this argument could form part of the Orientalist
perspective).
Aside from this there could also have been ancient pitch sets and scales/modes that may have
used more than seven/eight pitches, such as in a “true” enneatonic system, but this evidence
is currently unknown to us. The only reason why the UET VII 126 tablet, with its palindromic
ordering system (“1-2-3-4-[5]-4-3-2-1”), is often used by scholars is because it purportedly
holds a clue regarding the possible direction of the scale/mode. Commentary on the presumed
scale/mode direction is provided in the next section.
4.6. Concerning the Presumed Scale/Mode Direction
“Thin” strings always produce higher pitches than thicker strings. This natural tendency/law
(the law of mechanics/physics) can be expressed by means of the formula (cited in Wulstan
1968:226):
194A discussion regarding the differences between Just Intonation and the Twelve-Tone Equal Tempered system will be
provided in Chapter 5, §5.8.
109
This equation means that the frequency of a string is directly proportional ( ) to a calculation
concerning the string’s tension, length, and diameter (or the linear mass = µ). The most recent
consensus among most scholars, predominantly from West (1994, 1998) and Dumbrill (2005,
2014b, 2017-2020), proposes that a descending scale/mode is the “natural tendency” of
ancient Near-Eastern music because of the placement of the designation of “thin” and “small”
strings in the system (this descending only view may be an overgeneralization). It was Raoul
Vitale (1982) and Theo Krispijn (1990) who, after providing an improved reading and
interpretation of the UET VII 74 (re-tuning text), hypothesised that the scale/mode of the
instrument may in fact be descending (Gurney 1994:105; Gurney and West 1998:223-224).
West (1994) further suggested that the idea of the use of a descending scale/mode, as
suggested by Vitale (1982) and Krispijn (1990), should be taken seriously. It appears as if
Wulstan (1968:226) was the first to propose that the translated word “thin” (for string three)
and designation of “small” (for string four) meant that a higher tension and pitch for those
strings was implied. This rendered the proposal by Duchesne-Guillemin (1967:244,
1984:8,10), that the words “thin” and “small” were used as pitch relationship identifiers, as
invalid. The reason why Wulstan (1968:226) concluded that an ascending scale was used, is
not clarified. The fact that there was a “thin” and “small” string might imply the harp was the
instrument that was described. It could have had “bigger/longer” strings at the back.
The overall assumption is that, because one can deduce that the “thin” high tension strings
were placed at the front of the instrument, the resultant scale/mode would be descending.
It is assumed that the front strings were to be played first and the movement would be from a
high tension string to ones with lower tensions. This would also imply that the front of the
instrument (with the bull-headed ornament) would be facing away from the player and
towards the audience with the string producing the lowest pitch lying close to the musician’s
body (refer to table 15). This appears to be a logical deduction.
Table 15
Player orientation with a descending perspective
1(front) 2 3(thin) 4(small) [5] 4(6) 3(7) 2(8/1) 1(9/2 - back) Player
(high) →descending→ (low)
110
This view of the descending scale/mode is in opposition to the interpretations supplied by

Kilmer (1971, 1974), Duchesne-Guillemin (1975, 1980, 1984) and Wulstan (1968, 1971) in
which an ascending scale/mode is proposed.
4.6.1. Determining the front and the back of the presumed instrument
An important question that needs to be asked is how would one approach which ends of the
instrument can be termed the front and the back. Both ends according to the UET VII 126
tablet had a string numbered as one (West 1994:162). In other words, does the string
designated “front” also refer to the front of the instrument.
West (1994:166) postulates that “The ‘bovine’ lyre had a very obvious front and rear, the
front being marked by the animal head, which faced away from the player”. The cylinder
seal195 (figures 47 and 48) excavated at the Royal cemetery at Ur (grave site PG/ 1054), dated
to c. 2550 BCE, illustrates why one can deduce that the bull-headed feature faced away from
the player and possibly towards the audience (Collon 2010:50).
Figure 47: Cylinder seal IM 14597 depicting Figure 48: Sketch of the cylinder seal IM
a bull-headed lyre’s playing position. 14597 depicting a bull-headed lyre’s playing
Baghdad Museum. position.
(Collon 2010:50). (Illustration by Yumiko Higano).
(Dumbrill 2005:244).
The recently accepted assumption, influenced by Vitale (1982) and Krispijn (1990), for the
use of a descending scale/mode as used by Dumbrill (2005, 2014b, 2017-2020) and West
(1994), is graphically illustrated in figure 49 (below).
195This specific cylinder seal (excavation number U. 11904), dated to the Early Dynastic III (Ur I) period (c. 2550),
is constructed from bitumen (asphalt) covered in a thin plate of gold (Collon 2010:50).
111
Figure 49: Illustration of the assumed arrangement of strings to produce a descending

scale/mode.
(Dumbrill 2019:4).
More specifically, Dumbrill (2005, 2014b, 2017-2020) hypothesises that the ancient
enneatonic descending scale/mode of nīd qablim ( ) is comprised of the pitches

“E-D-C-B-A-G-F-E-D” (figure 50):
E D C B A G F ˃E˂ ˃D˂

Figure 50: Enneatonic descending scale/mode of “E”.
These exact pitches have presumably been deduced from the UET VII 74 tablet and god-
number associations. This will be shown to be not the only possible scale/mode since there
are 12 ascending and 12 descending possibilities for each of the scales/modes.196
The archaeological evidence of the physical instruments is incomplete due to the decay of the
strings at excavation. The evidence is not detailed enough to help one accurately deduce
which side of the instrument actually supported higher and/or lower string tensions.
196 These 12 ascending and 12 descending scale possibilities will be revealed in Chapter 6, §6.4.2.
112
It would also be difficult to hypothesise whether the standard of an ancient scale/mode was
perceived as descending. As stated previously, this would be an overgeneralisation.
Moreover, instruments are not necessarily tuned with a scale/mode direction in mind. Tuning
is usually framed around a free-standing system that is not viewed as a scale/mode (Crocker
1999:194).197 Sam Mirelman (2010b:138) indicates that the assumption that ancient music
scales/modes are generally descending comes from the discipline of comparative-musicology
where it has arisen “from knowledge of ancient Greek music, where scales do generally
descend.” Gurney (1994:105) also refers to descending ancient Greek scales.
Associating the terms “scale/mode” with either modern Western or ancient Greek concepts
should be avoided. The term scale/mode is retained here only for convenience (Blocker
2001:3-4). The terms “pitch set” and “pitch pair”, as opposed to “melodic sequence” and
“interval”, are used because they do not impose too many Western music theory connotations
(Blocker 2001:3-4). This use of ambiguous language is inspired from the Africanist
perspective. Additionally, one cannot be entirely sure that the UET VII 126 tablet is referring
to a similar instrument as those that were excavated at Ur by Sir Leonard Woolley (1934).
The UET VII 126 tablet does not name an instrument in the same way that the UET VII 74
tablet does. There is too much that is still unknown.
One can refer to many different types of instruments to show that instruments are not
necessarily tuned with a scale/mode in mind. One obvious example is that of a modern guitar
which is not tuned to a stepwise scale/mode. The directional orientation of instruments,
specifically guitars, lyres and harps, are dependent on the player’s perspective and can be
tuned from either end. For example, if one starts tuning at string 1 on a modern guitar the
system can be perceived as descending and if the tuning process is initiated at string 6 it is
ascending. When one looks at a graphic illustration of a modern guitar instrument, with a
head-on perspective, the strings are presented from a low tension (with the sixth “E6” string
at the left side) to a high tension (with the first “e1” string to the right) as shown in figure 51.
197 This article by Crocker (1999) is a response to Gurney (1994).
113
Figure 51: A graphic representation of guitar strings

(head-on perspective).
This same information can be presented in standard Western notation as follows (figure 52):
Figure 52: Guitar strings pitches in standard Western notation.

If one assumes that a guitarist starts tuning at string 1, then the system would be descending.
The opposite is, in fact, normal practice, namely regarding string 6 (“E6”) as the starting
string especially when holding the instrument, playing scales/modes and determining root
notes as shown in figure 53.
Figure 53: A graphic representation of guitar strings

(performer’s ascending perspective).
This does not mean that the tuning system is ascending. One would also not argue that a
piano or a harp, having incremental string lengths, is tuned to an ascending scale/mode. Even
though the strings are tuned from a low tension (on the player’s left) to a high tension (on the
114
player’s right), it does not mean that the tuning system is based on an ascending scale/mode.
The scale/mode can be perceived as both ascending and descending because the player can
play in any direction desired regardless of the numbers. The only reason why the notes and
strings are structured and displayed in an ascending direction is due to convention and
standardisation. We would do well to assume that ancient Near-Eastern systems of instrument
construction followed similar patterns.
This same ambiguity198 is what remains when looking at the UET VII 126 tablet. The crucial
fact is that the CBS 10996 tablet dictates the directions. The UET VII 126 tablet only
describes the construction and the orientation of the strings of the unknown instrument.
The string lengths for a harp, and the possible tensions for a lyre, are often problematically
deduced from observing pictorial or iconographic depictions as found on the front panel of
some of the ancient lyre/harp instruments (as discussed in §4.3.2) (Dumbrill 2005:32, 222,
233). It would be difficult to determine whether the standard ancient scales/modes were
descending by basing the argument on iconographic or pictorial evidence. Arnd Both
(2009:7) suggest that:
A small number of finds of musical instruments or iconographic

depictions is not necessarily representative of a given music culture, which
itself can be subject to change due to the permanent intracultural and
cross-cultural interactions in the course of human history.
The following photos (figures 54 and 55), cited by Jack Cheng (2012:76,81), showing harps
with different playing positions,199 helps to illustrate the point that there were different
versions and playing positions for the harp and, by extension, possibly also other instruments
such as the lyre.
198This ambiguity will be described in more detail in §4.6.2 of this chapter.

199Refer also to Dumbrill’s work on ancient organology; the study of instruments (Dumbrill 2005:179-304). The harp
instrument is discussed on pages: 179-226 and the lyre is the focus of study on pages: 227-302.
115
Nineveh, South-West Palace, Room XXXIII, Slabs 5-6

Nimrud, North-West Palace of Assurnasirpal II, Throne
(carved in Assurbanipal’s reign): Elamite prisoners with
Room B, Slab 20: Libation following a bull hunt.
vertical harps and a single horizontal harp.
Figure 54: Neo-Assyrian horizontal forearm Figure 55: Neo-Assyrian vertical
harp (c. 880-650 BCE). harp (c. 880-650 BCE).
British Museum (BM 124533). British Museum (BM 124802).
(Cheng 2012:76). (Cheng 2012:81).
The sketches (figures 56 and 57), provided by Galpin (1929), help reveal more clearly that
the strings (specifically for a harp) can be viewed as a free standing system which can be
perceived as both ascending and descending. There appears to be no descending “norm” as
Dumbrill (2005, 2014b, 2017-2020) asserts. Further evidence to support this claim is that
there are vertical and horizontal harp versions. This means that the resultant scales/modes are
reliant on the musician’s perspective/orientation (Volk 2006:13-15; Shehata and Hagel
2012:4635).
Figure 56: Neo-Assyrian horizontal harp Figure 57: Neo-Assyrian vertical harp
sketch. sketch.
(Edited by Author 2021). (Edited by Author 2021).
(Galpin 1929). (Galpin 1929).
116
Regarding lyres, with strings of the same length, we cannot be sure which end of the
instrument held the higher or lower pitches/tensions. We may only deduce that the bull-
headed feature usually faces away from the player in artistic renditions.
West (1994:166-167) partly acknowledges that the string tension is not always dependent on
the string length since the strings could be the same length with different tensions and
pitches.
The strings were fixed either in a fan-like formation, with the middle
strings slightly shorter than the outer ones, or roughly parallel, slanting
back towards the player, with the shortest string at the front […] In
neither case is the difference in length between the longest and shortest
strings very great, and the differentiation of pitch, extending over an
octave or more, must have been achieved mainly by difference of
thickness and tension. But it would be perverse to assign the lowest pitch
to the shortest string and the highest to the longest. Therefore, the
‘Foremost’ string should be the highest in pitch.
The strings of lyres, zithers, lutes/ouds and guitars all have the same lengths but different
thicknesses and pitches (refer also to Dumbrill 2005:235). West’s assertion that there must
have been longer and shorter strings is derived from pictorial evidence of a harp dated to
c.650 BCE in the Neo-Assyrian period (West 1994:166-167). One should note that this
evidence is from a considerably later period compared to the older music theory tablets and
the excavated instruments.
The theorisation for either a descending only or an ascending only scale/mode direction is
problematic because the UET VII 126 tablet may have suggested an isolated constant, it does
not necessarily mean that the same concept might have been used in the H6 or other ~68
Hurrian tablets (Bayer 2014:27-28). To clarify: One isolated instance, deduced from the UET
VII 126 tablet, revealing the possibility of a descending scale/mode, does not necessarily
guarantee a universal construct that was followed by all ancient Babylonian musicians.
Scholars that do this, namely Dumbrill (2020), clam a “universality” that cannot be easily
supported with the limited ancient evidence currently available to us. There may have been
different traditions and the Hurrians could also possibly have used altered Hurrianised
scalar/modal forms for their music tablets/notation (Bayer 2014:27-28).
117
Dumbrill (2005:237-238) suggests that some instruments (specifically lyres) may have had
parallel rows of strings. An example of this can be seen in a cylinder seal impression from the
province of Susa dated to the Early Dynastic period c. 2900-2350 BCE (figure 58). This adds
a new dimension concerning which end of the instrument is truly the “front” and the “back”.
It is possible that there could be an instrument with front and back parallel string rows.
Dumbrill (2005:237-238) maintains that the inward numbering system would have remained
the same “1(long)-2(short)-3(long)-4(short)-5(long)-4(short)-3(long)-2(short)-1(long)”. At
present there is no evidence to support this claim other than the cylinder seal visual
representation in figure 58. This could also be an artistic rendition where the strings simply
do not align.
Figure 58: Cylinder seal impression showing parallel lyre

strings.
(Illustration by Yumiko Higano).
(Dumbrill 2005:68, 234 236, 246).
Additionally, if the system is free standing and there were two players200 at one lyre
instrument it might be that the system could have been perceived as simultaneously
ascending and descending. On the other hand, if the ancients perceived scales/modes as
different because of the added 9th (or other) note, whether ascending or descending, then it
could also imply that two musicians at either end of an instrument could have been playing
music exploiting two different scales/modes that were linked in modality.
In summary: The major issue that needs to be resolved is not whether the scales/modes were
ascending or descending, but rather which end of the instrument would have held the higher
string tensions/pitches. The perspective of the player (or two players), and which
side/orientation they consider the front of the instrument to be or which side faces the
audience, is important. One needs to ascertain, for each instrument, how the strings were
200As Dumbrill (2005:32) suggests it is not advisable to cite the artistic rendition of the two “mythological” animals playing
the lyre.
118
arranged. For example, were they strung with string 1 “back” (low) moving towards string 1
“front” (high) or was the stringing from string 1 “front” (high) to string 1 “back” (low)?
This research holds that one cannot definitively know if the front strings were played first
since we do not know which strings were the “front” strings. For this reason the argument
concerning whether scales/modes were ascending or descending falls away. There are eight
possibilities, or four if the front had a bull-headed feature, for the orientation. The varied
possibilities all depend on where the player is situated, and where the starting string is
positioned. One should not be quick to assume that all ancient lyres or harps had a bull-
headed feature. Those that have been excavated, the famous Ur instruments, may have the
bull-headed feature but this does not constitute the norm for all ancient Near-Eastern lyres
and harps (Both 2009:7). There may have been exceptions. Whether the UET VII 126, H6 or
the other ~68 Hurrian tablets were intended for a lyre/harp type instrument with a bull-
headed feature or not is at present not known (as can be recalled, no harps or lyre instruments
have been excavated from Ugarit).
The sketch below (figure 59) is an iconographic illustration copied from a broken piece of
terracotta from Ischali (Diyala Province, Iraq) dated to c. 335-329 BCE. It is a sketch of a
lyre without a bull-headed feature (refer to West 1994:166 and Dumbrill 2005:249).
Although this instrument dates from a more recent period, it could indicate that the bull-
headed feature had ceased to lose its significance in certain traditions.
Figure 59: Large standing lyre without a bull-headed feature.

(Illustration by Yumiko Higano).
(Dumbrill 2005:249).
119
The following illustrations for both a U-shaped lyre (figures 60 and 61) and bow-shaped harp
(figures 62 and 63) will help illuminate the uncertainty regarding the stringing of the
instruments that we are currently faced with.
Figure 60: Four ascending and descending lyre variations with implied front designation.
(Dumbrill 2019:4).
120
Figure 61: Four ascending and descending lyre variations with ambiguous front
designations.
(Dumbrill 2019:4).
121
Figure 62: Four ascending and descending vertical harp variations with string lengths and
alternate front designations.
(Galpin 1929).
122
Figure 63: Four ascending and descending horizontal harp variations with string lengths
and alternate front designations.
(Galpin 1929).
123
4.6.2. An ambiguous scale/mode direction
There are two errors that arise when scholars attempt to interpret the UET VII 126 tablet’s
implied scale/mode direction. The first assumption is made on the basis that the string
translated to “front string prime/1” is played first and the “backmost string 1” is played last
moving from the “front” to the “back”. This is if it is assumed that the back of the instrument
(“backmost” string 1) was placed against the musician’s body (Kilmer 2000:114). In this case
the result appears to be a descending scale/mode direction. The figure below is presented
from left to right and is being interpreted also from left to right (using Western writing
conventions).201 A descending “C” major/Ionian scale/mode is used only for clarity (figure
64):
C B A G F E D ˃C˂ ˃B˂

Figure 64: Descending “C” major/Ionian extended-heptatonic perspective.
This can be mirrored especially when the “backmost string 1” is played first and the “front
string prime/1” is played last (moving from “back” to “front”). This results in an ascending
direction and a “B” Locrian scale/mode (figure 65):
Player 1(9/2 - back) 2(8/2) 3(7) 4(6) [5] 4(small) 3(thin) 2 1(front)
˃B˂ ˃C˂ D E F G A B C
(low) →ascending→ (high)

Figure 65: Ascending “B” Locrian extended-heptatonic perspective.
201Scholars mainly present the translated information from left to right due to Western conventions. Commentary on how
the tablet is actually written is provided on page 126-127 of this chapter.
124
An important assumption that is made and not often discussed, and that affects much of the
speculation around scales/modes and tuning systems of the instruments involved, is that the
strings of ancient instruments were tuned incrementally from one tone to the next in a system
similar to modern harps/lyres. A tuning system similar to that of a guitar (“E6-A5-D4-G3-
B2-e1”) or a matching palindromic system of “C-D-E-F-G-F-E-D-C” has not been
considered by scholars.202 Jean-Cluade Sillamy (1991:43) has offered an interpretation that
makes use of a concept similar to double-course strings (“C1-C2-D1-D2-E1-E2-F1-F2-G1”).
This is a unique interpretation that has not been given much attention by current scholarship
and requires further investigation. Although, the UET VII 74 tablet, according to consensus,
appears to hint at a familiar stepwise incremental scale-like system but this also needs to be
researched further and verified.
The aforementioned constitutes as enough evidence to conclude that it is, in fact, difficult to
know whether the scale/mode as presented on the UET VII 126 tablet was describing an
ascending or descending system specifically from the player’s perspective. It is for this
reason that the current research proposes that there is a need for a tablaturisation
interpretation which avoids scale/mode directional based claims for the H6, and the other ~68
Hurrian tablets. This tabularisation (without attached Western notation) would also need to
show what the H6 tablet directly reveals as opposed to offering another “performable”
version that attempts to recreate an ancient sound using a modern Western notation
framework.
Added to these observations one can note that the overall direction of the assumed
scale/mode is dependent on the player’s perspective/orientation. This ambiguity is made
clearer when one looks at the physical evidence of the UET VII 126 tablet. The tablet is not
written in a horizontal left-right orientation. The way in which it was originally inscribed
(figure 67) may hold the clue regarding where the player, in relation to the front “thin” and
“backmost” strings, was situated.
202The current author considered this idea in 2019 when Dumbrill’s most recent work, that briefly discusses a similar idea,
was not yet published (refer to Dumbrill 2020:50-51). Nonetheless, a theory regarding a possible guitar-type/palindromic
tuning system of a similar type will be partially explored in Chapter 5, 5.11.
125
Referring to the physical evidence: The tablet is written in vertical columns and one could
therefore speculate that the instrument was possibly held in a manner that reflects the way in
which the instructions were inscribed.
One can also ask whether the scribe was writing from the perspective of the player/musician
or from the viewpoint of the observer. In either case one again still does not know if the
orientation was ascending or descending. The direction of the resultant tensions and the
scale/mode remains ambiguous (figure 66).
Figure 66: Physical orientation and alternate perspectives of the UET VII 126 tablet.
(Dumbrill 2005:27 and Friberg 2011:133).
126
All that one can effectively deduce is that the first string (string 1 “front”) is of a higher
tension than that of the “backmost” string (string 1). This describes the physical construction
of this particular instrument. This ancient information cannot dictate that the standard of
ancient Near-Eastern music was written using only descending scales/modes because it is
only this unknown instrument described by the UET VII 126 tablet that is constructed with a
high tension string at the front string. When one intertextually applies the information from
the CBS 10996 tablet to the UET VII 126 tablet, one finds clear indications that one string is
to be played before the next - the “polarity”. From this an implied direction can be generated
either moving up or down in tension (only from an Orientalist perspective or a Westernalist
one that considers melodic intervals). It is the terms themselves from the CBS 10996 tablet203
that dictate the direction based on the intended instrument’s construction. These directions
can be either ascending or descending.
4.7. Closing Remarks Concerning the UET VII 126 Tablet
The UET VII 126 and YBC 11381 tablets do not offer much to aid with deciphering the H6 or
the other ~68 Hurrian tablets. The tablets do not assist in determining whether ancient
scale/mode standards were ascending or descending since only the layout of the physical
system of an unknown instrument (possibly a harp) is revealed. The strings of only this
particular instrument, mentioned on the UET VII 126 tablet, had high string tensions that
were marked with a “front” designation (with “small thin” strings) and low string tensions at
the “back” of the instrument. This is the physical construction of the instrument. Knowing
which string the musician played first is not deducible from the UET VII 126 inscriptions.
As this chapter has shown, the tuning system is essentially an ambiguous free standing
system. The debate about the exclusively ascending or descending nature of ancient Near-
Eastern scales/modes is an artificial issue. This “dualistic” argument originates in existing
scholarly research. A more valid approach, as this chapter has revealed, is to see any tuning
system as simultaneously ascending and descending. The only “music theory” that emerges
comes from the CBS 10996 tablet which dictates the order of “polarity”; one string number
with a front or back designation stated before the other.
203 This will be revealed in Chapter 5, §5.11.
127
CHAPTER 5
CBS 10996: THE STRING PAIRS/SETS TABLET
5.1. CBS 10996 Tablet General Contextual Information
The CBS 10996 tablet (figures 67 and 68) is believed to have been excavated at the ruins of
the Nippur Temple Library in Mesopotamia sometime during the 1888-1900 Nippur
excavations.204
Figure 67: Photograph the CBS 10996 cuneiform tablet (reverse).

204 For further information concerning the Nippur excavations refer to the work of John Peters (1905).
128
Figure 68: Photograph of the CBS 10996 cuneiform tablet (obverse).

129
Figure 69 is a reproduction of the cuneiform sketch of the tablet, as provided by Jöran Friberg
(2011:140,142).
Figure 69: Sketch of the obverse fragment (left) and reverse side (right) of the CBS 10996
cuneiform tablet.
(Friberg 2011:140,142).
Most sketches of the CSB 10996 tablet reveal only a portion of the obverse. There appears to
be a difference of opinion concerning which side is to be classified as the front and which as
the back. The Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative (CDLI) lists figure 67 as the obverse and
figure 68 as the reverse. The music theory-based section is labelled as column 1 (i) instead of
column 6 (vi). This differs from the published sources which label figure 67 as the reverse
and figure 68 as the obverse. In this case the music section is labelled as column 6 (vi). This
thesis will retain the latter published orientations and column numbers to avoid confusion.
Figure 70 (below) is a transliteration sketch of the tablet showing some extrapolated

information, alongside the corresponding column numbers (i, iv, v and vi) and the orientation
of the fragments.
130
Figure 70: Transliteration sketch of the obverse fragment (left) and reverse side (right) of the
CBS 10996 cuneiform tablet.
(Friberg 2011:140,141).
This tablet is currently located at the University of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) Museum of

Archaeology and Anthropology205 in the Collection of the Babylonian Section (abbreviated to
CBS). It is important to note that the above-mentioned CBS collection also includes
purchased tablets that were not excavated at Nippur. Some of these acquired tablets are said
to have been excavated from Ur and no specific details are provided (Robson 2000:12).
Therefore, we cannot be certain whether the CBS 10996 tablet is one of these purchased
tablets or not.
Friberg (2011:143) identified that the CBS 10996 tablet, in its original intact state, displays a
list of approximately 166 constants. It is the most extensive list of Babylonian mathematical
coefficients (multiplicative factors) that has been discovered thus far. Tablets of this kind,
which provide informative/descriptive lists, are usually dated to the Old-Babylonian period
(second millennium BCE). Due to the contents and script type the tablet was initially dated to
the Kassite period (c. 1500 BCE).
205The specific exhibit in which this tablet was displayed was originally curated by Professor Samuel Noah Kramer who
also aided Kilmer (1960) in her early interpretations of the tablet.
131
However, according to recent consensus, the CBS 10996 tablet deviates from the norm
because there is material presented that seems to suggest it is from the Neo-Babylonian
period (the first millennium BCE), or more specifically c. 600 BCE (Kilmer 1971:132;
Dumbrill 2005:37; 2019:14).
The entire CBS 10996 tablet was originally published as an Akkadian mathematical
coefficient text because it provides a list/table of “constants” of mixed content from different
disciplines. It shows a variety of mathematical informative lists, measurements and problems
that were probably inscribed by/for mathematics teachers (Kilmer 1960).
This section serves to provide contextual information concerning the CBS 10996 tablet. It is
not clear why theoretical information relating to music was inscribed on a tablet concerned
with mathematics. The relation between music and mathematics is something that should be
kept in mind when providing a reinterpretation of the tablet’s music information.
5.1.1. CBS 10996 overall layout and contents
Kilmer (1960) provides one of the first full textual transcriptions and translations of what can
be clearly read from the entire tablet, apart from the damaged and illegible sections. One
should also note that it may be difficult to meaningfully translate and conceptualise some of
the fragmented contents when direct context is unknown. This is why it took a few years to
decipher the music related contents. It was only when similar music related-terms were found
on other music theory specific tablets that parallels were drawn and contexts were provided.
A brief list of the contents of the full tablet has been tabulated as follows (Friberg 2011:140-
143):
132
Table 16
Summarised contents of the full CBS 10996 tablet
Orientation: Column: Condition: Contents:
Obverse (front) Column i Partially Damaged Geometry
Reverse (back) Column vi Partially Damaged Section i: music theory
(string pairs/sets and
corresponding names).
Section ii: music theory –
string names (similar to UET
VII 126 tablet).
Obverse (front) Column ii Fully Damaged Unknown
Reverse (back) Column v Partially Damaged Section i: building volumes
(bricks).
Section ii: material volumes
(bricks).
Section iii: approximate cube
volumes.
Section iv: approximate
cylinder volumes.
Obverse (front) Column ii Fully Damaged Unknown
Reverse (back) Column iv Almost fully Section i: volume of sesame.
preserved Section ii: astronomy.
Section iii: volume of
pomegranates.
Section iv: irrigation.
Section v: carrying numbers.
A sketch, showcasing the same information as presented in the table above, is reproduced
below in the more graphic form compiled by Friberg (2011:141).
133
Figure 71: Translated content summarisation sketch of the obverse fragment (left) and
reverse side (right) of the CBS 10996 cuneiform tablet.
(Friberg 2011:141).
This section aims to provide the reader with a summary of the full contents of the tablet to
make the processes of information navigation faster.
5.2. Music Specific Contents and an Approach to Decipherment
The area of concern related to music theory, around which a green border has been drawn, is
focused on the sixth (vi) column of the reverse of the CBS 10996 tablet (figure 72).
134
Figure 72: Sketch of the reverse side of the CBS 10996 tablet highlighting the sixth (vi)
column with music theory related contents.
(Friberg 2011:140,142).
The following sketch and transliteration is focused only on the abovementioned music
theoretical section (figures 73 and 74 on the next page).
135
Figure 73: Sketch of the music related section Figure 74: Transliteration of the music
of the CBS 10996 tablet (reverse). related section of the CBS 10996 tablet
(Friberg 2011:142). (reverse).
(Friberg 2011:142).
136
Dumbrill (2019:13) provides a photograph of a cast of the tablet, clearly showing the
cuneiform script (figure 75).
Figure 75: Photograph of the music related section of the CBS 10996 tablet (reverse).
(Dumbrill 2019:13).
This column was officially published, in transcription and translated forms, by Kilmer in
1968. She presented the tablet as a revised music theory-based tablet that lists the known
corpus of musical technical terms.206 This occurred before these sketches and photographs
were made available. Landsberger in 1959 was the first to realise that both the UET VII 126
and the sixth (vi) column of the CBS 10996 tablet made use of the same Sumerian music
terms SA/sa ( ) translated to “string”.
206 Dumbrill (2017:10) urges that we should be cautious in assuming that this CBS 10996 tablet is a catalogue of intervals
that ancient musicians or scribes would have used for writing compositions or playing pieces. The reason is that this system
of listing terms, with their corresponding string numbers, is restrictive and uncreative, specifically from a “compositional
standpoint”. We are not certain why the ancients intended to record this music information in this manner. It could possibly
have been commissioned for preservation, educational purposes or as a means to display the music-mathematical knowledge
they had mastered, constructed or discovered.
137
As with the UET VII 126 tablet, one can also be certain that the CBS 10996 tablet is dealing
with string pairs/sets of a musical instrument because each numbered pair/set is followed by
the aforementioned SA/sa cuneiform symbol (figure 76).
Figure 76: Highlighting the SA/sa = string indications on the CBS 10996 tablet (sketch and
transliteration).
(Friberg 2011:141,142).
Directly after each of these SA/sa = “string” indications are two numbers, designating either
string “sets” (a sequence) or “pairs” (dyads/intervals) (see figure 77 on the next page).
138
Figure 77: Highlighting string numbers on the CBS 19006 tablet (sketch and transcription).
(Friberg 2011:141,142).
For example, line 6 could represent a “set” or a sequence of strings (one “to” five i.e. 1-5), or
alternatively a “pair” of strings (one “and” five i.e. 1,5). With regard to the number
indications, the only major difference between the two tablets (UET VII 126 and CBS 10996)
is that the pairs/sets on the CBS 10996 tablet refer to seven strings. The numbers never
exceed seven, even when the nine strings are written epicentrically.207
Each of the number sets/pairs indications have their own names that appear in Akkadian (see
figure 78 on the next page).
207 As discussed in Chapter 4 the nine strings were marked epicentrically as “1-2-3-4-5-4-3-2-1” on UET VII 126 tablet.
139
Figure 78: Highlighting term names on the CBS 10996 tablet (sketch and transcription).
(Friberg 2011:141,142).
In total there are fourteen terms listed. Nine of the terms that appear on the CBS 10996 tablet
also appear on the Hurrian H6 tablet; details are provided in table 17 (see next page). It is
important to remember that the Hurrian H6 tablet makes use of the same names but in the
alternate, closely related, Akkadian-Hurrianised forms (Dumbrill 2005:125-126).
The following Hurrianised-Akkadian forms, in table 17, are cited from Laroche (1968:463);
Dumbrill (2005:127) and Krispijn (2008). Some terms are more clearly Hurrianised than
others.
140
Table 17
Akkadian-Hurrianised music terms
Initial Akkadian-Hurrianised
Cuneiform Symbols
Transliterations
em-bu-be
ir-bu-te
kab-li-te
ki-it-me
ni-id kab-li
sa-ah-ri
sa-as-sa-te
ti-ti-mi-sar-te
zi-ir-te
The Akkadian transcription and translation of column six of the CBS 10996 tablet, in a fully
realised and extrapolated208 form, will be provided in §5.7 of this chapter. The initial
transcription and translation of the CBS 10996 tablet, indicating Arabic numerals and direct
English translations, appears in table 18 (see next page). In the folowing table, the Akkadian-
Hurrianised versions that appear on the Hurrian H6 and other tablets are provided to illustrate
the close resemblance the terms have with their Akkadian equivalents.
208The lines numbers preceded by the asterisk (*) symbol represent the new extrapolated line numbers. The numbers
without these indications are the line numbers of the physical tablet. For example, line 1-5 on the physical tablet can be
renamed as *10-14. The process of this extrapolation will be discussed in §5.7 of this chapter.
141
Table 18
CBS 10996 music section transcription and translation
More than Akkadian term Related
CBS Two strings
two strings names that appear Akkadian-
10996 forming Direct English
forming pitch on the CBS 10996 Hurrianised term
Line pairs/intervals translations209
sets (“to” - tablet names
number (“and” - prefix)
prefix) (transcriptions) (transliterations)
*1 1-5 1,5 nīš tuḫri nīš GABA.RI “rise of the
(nīš GABA.RI) equivalent”,
“rise of the
duplicate” or
“rise of the
counterpart”210
*2 7-5 7,5 šēru ša-aḫ-ri “song”
*3 2-6 2,6 išartu iš-šar-te ” normal”, “erect”,
“straight” or “in
proper condition”
*4 1-6 1,6 šalšatu ša-aš-ša-te “third”211
*5 3-7 3,7 embūbu em-bu-be “reed-pipe” -
(um-bu-be) instrument (fifth)
*6 2-7 2,7 rebūtu ir-bu-te “fourth”
(sa 4-tu)
*7 4-1 4,1 nīd(i) qabli ni-id-kab-li “fall of the middle”,
(ŠUB.MURUB) “fall from the
(nad qabli) middle” or “casting
down of the
middle”
*8 1-3 1,3 isqu eš-gi “lot”, “share”,
(giš. šub.ba) “portion” or “throw
stick”
*9 5-2 5,2 qablītu kab-li-te “middle”
(MURUB4-tu)
1 (*10) 2-4 2,4 titar qablītu ti-tar-kab-li-te “bridge of the

(titur MURUB4-tu) middle”
2 (*11) 6-3 6,3 kitmu ki-it-me “closing”, “closed”.
“covered” or
“covering”
3 (*12) 3-5 3,5 titur išartu ti-ti-mi-šar-te “bridge of the
normal” or “bridge
of the išatum”
4 (*13) 7-4 7,4 pītu pen-ta-am-ma? “opening” or
“open”
5 (*14) 4-6 4,6 zirdû or z/šerdu zi-ir-te “lament”
To help navigate the table, previously incorrect readings are provided in red text. Akkadian-
Hurrianised forms are written in blue and Akkadian versions are written in green.
209 Some of these translations are cited from Dumbrill (2020:27-28).

210 Refer to Mirelman (2008:89-90) for more information concerning this translation.
211 According to Dumbrill (2020:27) the term šaššate bares a relation to šaššu which may imply it has a “feminine” quality.
142
The reader should take note of the correct reading of the terms nīš tuḫri (not: nīš GABA.RI),
rebūtu (not: sa 4-tu), nīd qabli not: ŠUB.MURUB) and lastly, titar qablītu (not: titar
MURUB4-tu). Moreover, it should be indicated that these terms can be converted into
masculine or feminine classifications212 that include normative and genitive forms213.
Masculine term forms indicating the singular tense normative case include, šēr(um),
embūb(um), isq(um), kitm(um) and z/šerd(um). Masculine term forms indicating the singular
tense genitive case include, nīš tuḫr(im) and nīdi qabl(im). Lastly, feminine term forms
indicating the singular tense normative case include, išar(tum), šalša(tum), qablī(tum), titar
qablī(tum), titur išar(tum) and pī(tum). Throughout the course of this thesis, the
“straightforward” Akkadian forms will be used instead of the Akkadian-Hurrianised forms.
This is mainly for ease of information retrieval and comparison. Additionally, this is how
they appear on the CBS 10996 tablet. 214 Some of these endings can also be partially seen on
the UET VII 74 tablet.
In summary, the sixth column of the CBS 10996 tablet clearly lists two string pairs/sets by
numbers, in between 1 and 7, in alternating orders with accompanying names. These numbers
can be interpreted to provide either specific string pair dyads/intervals (Westernalist theory)
or pitch set sequences (Orientalist theory).215 For instance, using Westernalist theory, the
term qablītu could represent harmonic or melodic dyads/intervals, composed of the notes
from string five “and” two (5,2). By contrast, the same term, qablītu, viewed from an
Orientalist perspective, can be perceived as a pitch set spanning from strings five “to” two (5-
2).
As explained previously, one of the major problems in interpreting this tablet is that at first
glance one cannot be sure what was intended. The term could imply either pairs of strings or
pitch sets. Researchers should therefore endeavor to show both versions and not dogmatically
impose only the one or the other (especially on a tablature). Like the numbering systems used
on many other ancient Near-Eastern mathematical tablets, the numbering system on this
tablet also shows only two numbers. Mathematical tablets usually imply a pair and not
necessarily a sequence.216
212 In the context of music, it is difficult to tell whether masculine or feminine forms are actually implied. Additionally, a
music theory tablet that shows the terms being used in a plural tense has not been discovered thus far.
213
A music theory tablet that shows the terms being used in the accusative form has not been discovered thus far.
214 Refer also to Chapter 6, §6.1.
215 The reader may refer back to Chapter 1, §1.2.3, for clarification concerning the Westernalist versus Orientalist debate.
216 Refer to §5.6 for examples of mathematical tablets and the direct implication for the use of string “pairs”.
143
One argument is that it seems likely that pitch pairs were implied because the scribe only
wrote down two numbers (5 [,] 2) and did not write out the rest of the numbers implying a
sequenced set (5-[4]-[3]-2). The counterargument is the possibility that there was not enough
space217 left on the tablet to write out the full array of numbers and this explains why only the
first and last number of the set was provided.
Dumbrill (2017:10) argues that, traditionally, when one learns to sing one does not sing doh
and then immediately afterwards sol. Beginners and students would be inclined to sing the
steps in-between to reach the desired note (doh-[re-mi-fa]-sol). This approach is problematic
on three accounts.
Firstly, children and adults can practice singing the interval from doh to sol and other
intervals to develop the required muscle memory to perform this vocal interval jump (from
doh to sol). One can also compare specific interval relationships with the melody lines from
songs they already know. This is usually how beginners can start to construct some form of
aural “interval recognition”. Secondly, some may have the ability to sing intervals correctly
because of innate musicality. Lastly, the use of modern singing pedagogy is a Western
conception and Dumbrill’s analogy about singing does not make sense is this context because
the CBS 10996 tablet refers to the strings of a musical instrument. This means that one is not
limited by the range or ability of the voice and on an instrument one can easily move between
pitches that one might not ordinarily sing accurately. This is the level of convenience and one
benefit that instruments offer above singing, specifically the ability to jump between large
intervals. Another reservation would be that most music education specialists aver that
children, if and when they sing two notes in succession, are more likely to sing two disjunct
intervals (in particular sol-me) than two conjunct/step-wise intervals.
In summary, the debate concerned with how two notes were played, simultaneously as
“pairs” (dyads/intervals) or successively as “sets” (in sequence), appears to be something that
cannot be easily answered. This is why this thesis determines to discover whether a
tablaturisation interpretation will be a viable future undertaking. The search for an ambiguous
tablature system that does not imply only Westernalist intervals or Orientalist sequences but
217 Usually scribes would continue over onto the sides of the tablet if more space was required.
144
provides both perspectives simultaneously to remain as open-ended as possible is the final

goal. It should be pointed out that the outdated tabularisation offered by Smith and Kilmer
(2000) is focused on a Westernalist approach.
5.3. A Direct Tabularisation
A tablaturisation (graphic representation) of the contents of the CBS 10996 tablet is provided
on the next page (figure 79). A similar type of illustration is provided by many scholars,
including but not limited to Kilmer (1965,1971,1974,1997), Smith and Kilmer (2000:130,
132-133, 136-137) and Duchesne-Guillemin (1966, 1969, 1984).
Figure 79: Tablaturisation interpretation of the CBS 10996 tablet information.

(Edited and Compiled by Author 2021).
145
As can be seen from the above figure (what this thesis terms a tablaturisation interpretation),
there is a clear implied direction depending on which number is presented first. It either
moves from a lower string number to a higher one (ascending) or vice versa (descending) if
taken literally, as it is displayed on the tablet itself (Hagel 2005:294-295). Dumbrill (2017:10;
2020:21) terms this the “polarity” of the numbers.
For the purposes of this research, the literal directions, as displayed in figure 79, can be
considered to be the “normal” positions.218 The arrows in this tabularisation show which
number is indicated first pointing to the second. The result of this interpretation is that when
the arrow points left to right, then the implied direction is moving from a high-tension string
to a lower one, that is, descending in pitch. Alternatively, when the arrow points from right to
left then the implied direction of the movement is in the opposite direction, from a lower
tension string to a higher tension one, namely ascending.
It has been established as an acoustical-physical principle/rule that pitch and tension are
directly proportional to each other. The re-analysis of the UET VII 126 tablet in Chapter 4 has
shown that one should also be cautious in assuming an explicitly descending or ascending
note/pitch naming system because each scale/mode can be perceived as either ascending or
descending depending on the player’s perspective/orientation. The “C” major scale is used
for explanatory purposes only in the illustration below.
Figure 80: Note arrangements with ascending and descending perspectives.

218 Possible specialised terms that are presumed to alter these “normal” states will be revealed in §5.8 of this chapter.
146
The lengths of the lines in figure 80 are only used to illustrate the tensions and do not imply
references to a harp instrument with strings of different lengths. It is only this particular
unknown instrument discussed on the UET VII 126 tablet that has a higher string tension at
one end and a lower one at the other. The instrument itself is capable of being playing in
either direction resulting in both ascending and descending scales/modes. Additionally, there
are no tension indicators on the CBS 10996 tablet. The information regarding the string
tensions is intertextually deduced from the UET VII 126 tablet and applied to the information
supplied by the CBS 10996.
Determining what generalised pitches219 each individual string should be assumed to be tuned
to, along with an attempt to decode, hear and display this ancient music in Western notation
is difficult. This is one of the main reasons why this research is advocating for a
tablaturisation interpretation since we cannot extrapolate the exact pitches or the relationships
between notes from abstract ancient textual descriptions (Both 2009:9). Generating a
performable version in Western notation, as most scholars continue to create, will be
misleading.
5.4. A Hypothetical Greater Babylonian Music System
Regarding the direct translations of each of the terms, Dumbrill (2017:12; 2020:20) suggests
that the tablet is a shortened/summarised copy that was taken from a larger more descriptive
“Greater Babylonian System”. Wulstan (1968:219) was the first to propose a relation to
Ptolemy’s “Greater Perfect (Changeless) System”.
The theory presented by Wulstan (1968) and other similar theories are problematic because
references are made to a different culture, in this case to ancient Greek musical concepts. We
should be cautious to assume that ancient ideas from different ancient cultures were directly
related, especially when comparing the ancient Near-East with the ancient Greeks or other
cultures. This research insists that caution needs to be exercised when making inter-cultural
comparisons. Without clear supportive evidence we cannot be sure of the extent of the
influence. One clear point of concern is that the tablet is dated to c. 600BCE. It may be
possible to compare the implied music in the tablet with music from at least those
219The problems concerning the credibility of these presumed specific pitch/note names, as deduced from textual
information from the tablet UET VII 74, will be the focus of Chapter 6.
147
civilizations/nations in the Eastern basin of the Mediterranean from the same period, but not
from earlier periods. This thesis will remain skeptical because the focus is placed on the
information that is presented by the music cuneiform tablets only.
Dumbrill (2005:40) appears to use modern Western musical conventions and suggests that “It
is the very structure of [diatonicism] which dictated the span of the system, to 13 notes,
hosting 6 descending fifths and one descending tritone; three ascending major and four
descending minor thirds”. Dumbrill (2017:12) attempts to reconstruct this notion, what he
terms the “Greater Babylonian System”, to be as follows (figure 81):
Figure 81: Hypothetical “Greater Babylonian System”.

(Dumbrill 2017:12).
The argument made by Dumbrill (2017:12; 2020:27) is that, when the terms are reordered220
to show only descending fifths and ascending thirds, with the fifths and thirds neatly and
visually221 ordered, then the term qablītu (translated to mean “middle”) falls more or less in
the middle of the system. This is assumed to be the location at which the pitch set/pair can be
found on the instrument or in the theoretical system itself – in the middle. This is
220 Dumbrill (2020:28-29) suggests that the CBS 10996 tablet was a scholarly exercise that was derived from the “Greater
Babylonian System”. This is unlikely because the CBS 10996 tablet does not share the same features usual cuneiform
student tablets exhibit (refer to Flower and Robson 1998:366, 368). It is important to recall that the music section of the
tablet forms part of a larger tablet dedicated to mathematical lists and not exercises. More evidence is needed to prove that
the CBS 10996 tablet was some form of a theoretical exercise for students (an analysis of the handwriting can be conducted).
221 This visual order may look appealing although there is no evidence to suggest that the ancients also saw, used or
conceived of this in the same way. Evidence of this “Greater Babylonian” visual system has, to date, not been found.
148
problematic. The same reasoning that is applied to the term qablītu does not apply to most of
the other terms which can be similarly translated.
To provide just one example: The theory is inconsistent because the term šalšatu (third) does
not appear third in the system and rebūtu (fourth) does not appear fourth. The only other
exception is that of embūbu (apparently a fifth) which does appear to be positioned as the
fifth term from the top of the “Greater Babylonian System”. This is only if one assumes it is
intended to be the fifth from the top (Dumbrill 2017-2019). It becomes clear that Dumbrill’s
notion of the “Greater Babylonian System” is based on speculation since it cannot be proven
with physical/textual evidence. In other words, this idea exists mainly in the mind of a music
theorist. It is possible that the CBS 10996 tablet is taken from a more complete larger system
but there is no evidence currently available to identify or construct this system.
The direct translations and associations of the terms are perplexing on three accounts. Firstly,
we cannot be certain whether the translation of the term refers to scale degrees (I-II-III-IV-V-
VI-VII)222 or string spans. For example, the term embūbu may either refer to an interval of a
fifth - five scale degrees apart - or to a span of five strings in a sequence.
Secondly, the resultant sound of the pitches associated with each term could have been
related to the position they may have had on an instrument. For instance, the word titur in
titur išartu can be roughly translated to mean “bridge”. Dumbrill (2005:64) suggests that this
could mean that the strings to which this term is applied produced a similar sound that the
bridge of the išatu(m) instrument would have made when plucked/played. In modern
terminology the Italian term ponticello is used to mean “little bridge” and indicates that the
musician must play the strings of instrument close to the bridge position. The term kitmu
could have meant that the string produced a “closed” sound. Dumbrill (2020:28) suggests that
the terms qablītu (“middle”) and pītu (“open”) may have musicological importance.
The third possibility is that the terms may be mimicking the sounds of specific instruments or
the notes/pitches they could produce. An example of this is the term embūbu which is also the
222 Western Classical music labels scale degrees and chords using Roman numerals. Usually uppercase numerals (I) are used
to indicate a major function and lowercase (i) for minor. For the purposes of this research only capitals are used and there
will be no distinction between major or minor intervals, keys or chords because we cannot be sure if the tablet implies major
or minor intervals. There are no references, or related terms, that indicate the conception of major or minor on the ancient
music/theory tablets.
149
name of an ancient reed wind pipe/flute223 instrument (Kilmer 1960:299). However, it would
be difficult to provide evidence that the sounds were related because we have no evidence
regarding the sounds/notes an ancient embūbu reed wind pipe/flute produced. The timbre of
the wind instrument would also have been different to the timbre produced by a string.
However, the fact that it might not be possible to reconstruct/recreate the sound of the
instrument does not preclude the possibility of factoring it in as probable evidence.
This research suggests that the terms can be grouped according to the types of spans, either
sixths, thirds, fourths or fifths. These groupings help illustrate sequential relationships and
also reveals how the terms move incrementally to cover different string range possibilities as
illustrated in figure 82 (further statistical analysis is needed).
Figure 82: Sequential relationships.

Take note that the term šèru moves from string 7 “to” 5 and is therefore in an opposite
direction to the other terms of the same “class” of a span of a third/three. It is not clear
whether this was done intentionally or if it was a scribal error.224
The terms as they are presented on the tablets should be interpreted exactly as they have been
written on the tablets. No external theories should be added to the terms since all that we
know with certainty is that there are string spans of thirds, fourths, fifths and sixths. Applying
some other greater musical system to this information should be avoided during the initial
reinterpretation phase.
223 The translation of “wind pipe” comes from embūbu ḫaše (Mirelman and Krispijn 2009:50).
224 This will be discussed further in §5.6.
150
5.5. An Additional Musicological Effort
Musicologist Wilhelm Stauder (1967)225 initially believed that the pairs/sets of numbers on
the CBS 10996 tablet possibly referred to the lengths of strings. He read the numbers as
single two-digit numbers as opposed to two separate one-digit numbers. For instance, he read
the Akkadian term kitmu as 63 instead of six “to” three (6-3) or six “and” three (6,3).
Furthermore, the question regarding whether the numbers are to be perceived as separated or
combined can again be inferred from looking at a multitude of ancient cuneiform
mathematical tablets (refer to Robson 2000). Usually, numbers placed next to each other can
be read as a set and numbers separated by spaces become another separate set. Regarding the
mathematical tablets, the underlying calculations still work out whether the numbers are
viewed as separate sets or as a unit (Robson 2000:24). The numbers can be perceived as both
joined or separate because it is constructed using a base-sixty (sexagenary/sexagesimal)
system (figures 83, 84 and 85). Sketches of the obverse of the tablet CBS 7265 are provided
below to illustrate how the numbers, within the base-sixty system, can be perceived both
jointly and separately.
Figure 83: Numerical cuneiform sketch of the

obverse of the mathematical tablet CBS 2756.
(Robson 2000:24).
225It appears as if Stauder (1967) did not have access to the publications by Duchesne-Guillemin (1963, 1966) and Kilmer
(1965).
151
Figure 84: CBS 2756 tablet joint numbering Figure 85: CBS 2756 tablet separate ‘set’
system (annotated translation). numbering system (annotated translation).
(Illustration Edited by Author 2021). (Illustration Edited by Author 2021).
(Robson 2000:24). (Robson 2000:24).
From the above illustrations it is clear that the joint numbers 515 (5[x60] + 15 = 315) and the
separate sets 5;15 (5[x60]; + 15 = 315) can be read to obtain the same result due to the nature
of the base-sixty system (within this specific context).226
Despite appealing to mathematical cuneiform conventions it remains difficult to conclude

whether the numbers on the CBS 10996 were to be perceived as separate sets (x,/-x) or joint
numbers (xx). However, the assumption of joining the numbers to produce string lengths, as
advanced by Stauder (1967), was disproved by Marcelle Duchesne-Guillemin (1963, 1966)
her husband Jacques Duchesne-Guillemin, Anne Kilmer (1965) and Gustav Güterbock
(1970). They realised, after together examining the physical tablet in 1962, that there was a
clear number pattern that skips every line (when looked at individually). If the numbers are
perceived as single units then the pattern follows a numerical order that adds or subtracts by
one value incrementally, depending on the chosen perspective. This pattern, as seen in lines
1-5 (extrapolated line numbers *10-14), is illustrated in figure 86.
226
The number 273345 or 27;33;45 when read in the base-sixty system is: 27[x602]+ 33[x60] + 45 = 99225. This is the sum
315 x 315 = 99225.
152
Figure 86: CBS 10996 number pattern.

(Friberg 2011:142).
Current consensus, due to the evidence of a number pattern, is that the numbers refer to a set
of two different numbers (x-x or x,x) and not one joint number (xx). Additionally, there is
consensus in that some form of octaves/unisons227 may have been used by the ancients
(another generalisation). This is because the CBS 10996 tablet makes use of, and never
extends beyond, the number 7 and proves that a base-10 system was used in music to refer to
strings (this is also confirmed by the YBC 11381 tablet.
5.6. Numerical Patterns and the Process of Extrapolation
Jacques Duchesne-Guillemin’s initial realisation of the imbedded pattern also led him to
discover that the last two pairs/sets of numbers in line 15-16 (extrapolated lines *24-25) were
possibly the same as those found in the top line 1-2 (*10-11). Using this knowledge of the
pattern, one can reconstruct the broken/missing top half (line *1-9) of the tablet to construct a
fully realised extrapolation. This is because, in theory, the number sequence should be the
same as that found in lines 6-16 (*15-25). One is also able to extrapolate the bottom missing
part of the tablet using the same logic (see figure 87).
227 Evidence for the existence of the notions of octaves/unisons will be provided in Chapter 6.
153
Figure 87: CBS 10996 tablet full extrapolated number pattern (transcription).
(Friberg 2011:142).
Duchesne-Guillemin (1963, 1966) initially believed that the importance of this pattern could
in fact be an underlying cyclical outline intended for a tuning procedure. This was disproved
by Wulstan in 1968 who realised that the pattern had nothing to do with tuning an instrument.
One can see the full extent of the emerging pattern, emphasised by indentations, if one refers
to table 19. Note that there seem to be deviations in three places, in lines *2,*4 and *6, which
break the straight-forward pattern. Whether this error was made on the part of the scribe or
sketcher is unknown and could form part of a further study.
154
Table 19
CBS 10996 music section number pattern
CBS 10996
Line Akkadian term First number Second number
number
*1 nīš tuḫri 1 5
*2 šēru 7 (switch to 5) 5 (switch to 7)
*3 išartu 2 6
*4 šalšatu 1 (switch to 6) 6 (switch to 1)
*5 embūbu 3 7
*6 rebūtu 2 (switch to 7) 7 (switch to 2)
*7 nīd qabli 4 1
*8 isqu 1 3
*9 qablītu 5 2
1 (*10) titar qablītu 2 4
2 (*11) kitmu 6 3
3 (*12) titur išartu 3 5
4 (*13) pītu 7 4
5 (*14) serdû 4 6
As suggested above, the pattern can be corrected if the numbers are switched/flipped as
follows: When lines *2, *4 and *6 are switched the resulting directional spans also invert
(refer to Friberg 2011:134). The descending span of a fifth (5th) in line *2 become ascending,
the ascending span of a sixth (6th) in line *4 becomes descending and lastly, the ascending
span of a sixth (6th) in line *6 switches to descending.
This digression – an attempt to correct the pattern, does not affect the outcome of this
research. It is included because it has not been explicitly mentioned by current scholars.
155
Table 20
CBS 10996 corrected number pattern
CBS Numerical
Akkadian
10996 line Span numbers orientation and Alterations
term
number span
Ascending span of
*1 nīš tuḫri 1↗5
a fifth (5th)
Descending
7↘5 (switched to Ascending span of
*2 šēru (switched to
5↗7) a third (3rd)
ascending)
Ascending span of
*3 išartu 2↗6
a fifth (5th)
Ascending
1↗6 (switch to Descending pan of
*4 šalšatu (switched to
6↘1) a sixth (6th)
descending)
Ascending span of
*5 embūbu 3↗7
a fifth (5th)
Ascending
2↗7 (switch to Descending span of
*6 rebūtu (switched to
7↘2) a sixth (6th)
descending)
Descending span of
*7 nīd qabli 4↘1
a fourth (4th)
Ascending span of
*8 isqu 1↗3
a third (3rd)
Descending span of
*9 qablītu 5↘2
a fourth (4th)
Ascending span of
1 (*10) titar qablītu 2↗4
a third (3rd)
Descending span of
2 (*11) kitmu 6↘3
a fourth (4th)
Ascending span of
3 (*12) titur išartu 3↗5
a third (3rd)
Descending span of
4 (*13) pītu 7↘4
a fourth (4th)
Ascending span of
5 (*14) serdû 4↘6
a third (3rd)
It is important to note that the term “ascending” is used only to signal a movement up in a
numerical ascending order (“1-2-3-4-5-6-7”). Similarly, the term “descending” is used to
indicate that the numbers move down in a descending numerical order (“7-6-5-4-3-2-1”).
By providing corrections to the “errors” in lines *2, *4 and *6, a clear relation and symmetry
begins to develop since all the spans of a fifth (5th) are ascending with the opposite spans of a
fourth (4th) being descending. Additionally, all the spans of a third (3rd) are ascending while
156
the contrasting spans of a sixth (6th) are descending. There appear to be more possibilities
than Dumbrill’s “Greater Babylonian System” would suggest. Assuming that a mistake was
made by the scribe is highly speculative but there appears to be no clear underlying pattern
unless one corrects the “errors” found in lines *2, *4 and *6. Most scholars do not point this
out.
This research holds that the direction should be conceived neither as only descending nor as
only ascending, but rather as a combination of both, which may then be called a “free
standing system”. This section also aims to reveal that one should take the information
presented by the CBS 10996 tablet as literally as possible even if there may appear to be
scribal errors because this is the way in which it was preserved (whether intentional or not).
5.7. Just Intonation Versus Modern Equal Temperament
In 1968 and 1971 Wulstan proposed that the CBS 10996 tablet may be referring to seven
“primary” and seven “secondary”228 intervals. Wulstan (1968:218-2019) suggests that the
fourths and fifths, being music theoretically “perfect”229, as well as thirds and sixths would be
regarded as consonant in sound, which relates to our modern Western notion of consonance
and dissonance based on acoustics. He also implies that the link to the harmonic/overtone
series, with its basis in natural phenomena, results in Just Intonation230 which could then lead
to developing tuning systems such as Pythagorean tuning. As mentioned in Chapter 4, a
string divided in half, with the ratio of 2:1, naturally produces an octave. The smaller
intervals/overtones of fifths, fourths, thirds and sixths are obtained by subdividing the string
in different ratios. These divisions resulted in the discovery of the harmonic series.
This thesis holds that ancient cultures would have perceived intervals differently because
they would have relied on the harmonic series which occurs naturally and is easily
228 The secondary intervals are indented in the table. As cited in Parncutt and Hair (2011:120), the designation of “primary”
and “secondary” appears to have been influenced by Heinrich Schenker’s divisions of primary consonant intervals and
secondary dissonant intervals.
229 Usually the intervals of fourths/fifths and the octave are identified as “perfect” because they are the first intervals one can
draw out from the natural harmonic series. It should be noted that octaves and unisons can also be regarded as “perfect”
unless ancient cultures may have perceived the octave as a ‘new’ note. Judging perfect fifths according to other tuning
temperaments, such as Just Intonation, is an important distinction that needs to be made (Omigie, Delacherie and Samson
2014:18).
230 A tuning system based on simple ratios by dividing a vibrating object like a string or tube. This means that the
notes/pitches are not equidistant from each other.
157
discoverable by simple divisions of a string.231 It is highly probable that this resulted in the
use of what is now called Just Intonation in which the “pure” intervals in the harmonic series
are used. This is not the case with Equal Temperament which has been used in Western
music for approximately the last 400 years.
By way of definition, the Equal Temperament system divides the octave into 12 equal
parts,232 called semitones, in an artificially calculated manner so that the distance between
each interval is the same. The octave is divided into 1200 cents, so that the distance between
each semitone is exactly 100 cents. The reader should note that many scholars use the
modern Twelve-Tone Equal Tempered system when attempting to convert the ancient
notation into a performable Western notation version. Dumbrill (2019:22) has recently come
to this same realisation and is likely to update his interpretation in the near future.
Comparing the cent value of intervals in Just Intonation with Twelve-Tone Equal
Temperament reveals the important differences between the two. An adult can generally
distinguish deviations in pitch if they exceed 25 cents, in other words “A” = 440Hz will only
be perceived as being “out of tune” if its value is changed to 415Hz or 465Hz. Leon
Crickmore (2007:46), however, places this value at 22 cents.
In table 21 below the starting note/pitch of “C” is used for explanatory purposes.
231 If one aspires to make a performable version of ancient Near-Eastern music it may be more accurate to use a Just
Intonation system. However, Chapter 1, §1.2.3 has shown that we cannot be sure about the exact octave register and Chapter
6 will reveal that we cannot be sure of the exact scale/mode types or the notes/pitches contained therein. This is because
there are 24 different possibilities (12 ascending and 12 descending). This means that any attempt to generate a performable
version in Western notation is based on subjective perceptions and should be avoided.
232 One important advantage of Equal Temperament is that the musician is able to move freely between 24 different keys
without retuning the instrument. The intervals in Just Intonation, on the other hand, can only be used in one key at any
specific time and the musician would have to change the tuning to use another key/scale/mode. The information from the
UET VII 74 tablet implies a Just Intonation system because it instructs the musician on how to arrive at different keys
through a re-tuning modulating system. To clarify, the musician needs to tune the instrument to reach different tunings. In
Twelve-Tone Equal Temperament these types of adjustments are not necessary.
158
Table 21
Comparison between interval sizes in Just Intonation and Equal Temperament in cents
Twelve-Tone Equal
Just Intonation
Pitch233 Temperament Difference
Cents
Cents
C (Unison) 0.00 0 (0.00)
Db (Minor Second) 111.73 100 (11.73)
D (Major Second) 203.91 200 (3.91)
Eb (Minor Third) 315.64 300 (15.64)
E (Major Third) 386.31 400 (13.69)
F (Perfect Fourth) 498.04 500 (1.96)
F# (Tritone/augmented 582.51 600 (17.49)
fourth)
G (Perfect Fifth) 701.96 700 (1.96)
Ab (Minor Sixth) 813.69 800 (13.69)
A (Major Sixth) 884.36 900 (15.64)
Bb (Minor Seventh) 996.09 1000 (3.91)
B (Major Seventh) 1088.27 1100 (11.73)
C (Octave) 1200.00 1200 (0.00)
Unisons and octaves have no cents differences in the two different tuning systems. It is
debatable whether one can perceive a difference of 1.96 cents when comparing the interval of
a perfect fourth or fifth from the Just Intonation system with Twelve-Tone Equal
Temperament.
The tritone interval in a Just Intonation system is 17.49 cents smaller than in Twelve-Tone
Equal Temperament. According to Edwards Burns (1999:228,233) this is a “Just Noticeable
Difference”. The intervals of thirds/sixth (major and minor)234 also have a noticeable
difference of between 13.69 and 15.64 cents.
233 Some enharmonic equivalents are provided because the size of the interval is usually counted according to the number of
note names involved. The interval of “C-C#” would in this case be an augmented unison and the interval of “C-D#” would
be an augmented 2nd. Musicians who focus on historical performance practice tune “D#” and “Eb” differently, with “Eb”
being slightly sharper than “D#”.
234 There is no direct way of knowing whether the CBS 10996 tablet implied major or minor intervals (Foxvog and Kilmer
(1986:447).
159
Crickmore (2007:46) indicates that most musicians and listeners can perceive the difference
in a pitch of 22 cents (defined as a syntonic comma) but he has not considered a “Just
Noticeable Difference” of between 13-15 cents. Therefore, when modern theorists provide a
performable interpretation in Western notation using the Twelve-Tone Equal Tempered
system it means that their interpretation would be different to that of one that uses the Just
Intonation system.235 Problems of correct intonation may arise from the two tuning systems.
Additionally, there may be different tuning standards/practices from musician to musician
(Tamer and Bozkurt 2013:74; Dumbrill 2019:19). Dumbrill (2019:9,35) has recently made
reference to an “acute tritone”, derived from a Just Intonation system, which is microtonally
different to the Western Twelve-Tone Equal Temperament tritone.
As this section has shown it is likely that the ancients made use of a Just Intonation system
simply because it is an easily discoverable natural phenomena of acoustics. There is no
evidence that has been discovered thus far that proves that the ancients constructed a similar
Twelve-Tone Equal Tempered system that divides an octave in 12 artificially calculated
equal parts (Crickmore 2008:18). Burns (1999:244) indicates that: “Many musicians claim
that equal temperament has destroyed the ‘inherent beauty’ of the natural scales.”
This thesis holds that the ancients could have perceived certain intervals differently because
there is a higher probability that they discovered a Just Intonation system. Pythagoras has
been accredited with ‘discovering’ and adapting this natural phenomenon as well (the ancient
music theory tablets precede Pythagoras’ discovery). It is only after one discovers this natural
property of acoustics that one can construct other tuning systems. One reservation is that the
differences between the two systems are small – less than 1/8th of a semitone – that it
becomes merely theoretical to speculate about whether the ancients would have heard the
pitches differently.
To counter this one can refer to Tolgahan Çoğulu’s “adjustable microtonal guitar” (Aji 2010).
Çoğulu indicates that the positioning of the modern classical guitars fixed frets is limiting.
The use of the Twelve-Tone Equal Tempered system on the guitar (and by extension on other
instruments) is an “imperfect system” (Tamer and Bozkurt 2013:81-83,86). Çoğulu therefore
attempts to correct these imperfections by adding movable frets that allows for microtonality
on the instrument. These fret additions allow the musician to play in other tuning
235 The claim that this is how “ancient Near-Eastern music would have sounded” is purely used to attract readership.
160
temperaments such as the Just Intonation system and these small differences are easily
noticeable. The addition of these frets also makes it possible to play Middle-Eastern music on
a classical guitar. To clarify these small microtonal fret additions changes the character and
sound of the instrument and allows for one to hear the nuances other tuning temperaments
offer as compared to the precise artificial calculations and corrections provided by the
Twelve-Tone Equal Tempered system. It is perplexing why modern theorists continue to use
the Twelve-Tone Equal Tempered system and Western notation to interpret ancient Near-
Eastern music. This forms part of a historical informed performance practice perspective that
attempts to determine the authenticity of an interpretation/performance (Pearce and Eerola
2015:92).
If a performable version of ancient Near-Eastern music is possible then one would need to
alter it to conform to the Just Intonation system to be historically authentic/accurate. One
would need to “retouch” or “touch up” current interpretations. On the other hand, the
performable version will still be open to modern interpretation and it would be misleading to
suggests that “this is how ancient music sounded”. Interpretations are usually used to
supplement the theory but it appears as if scholars are currently doing the inverse, they are
using theory to support their performance interpretations. Dumbrill (2019:64) has
acknowledged that his interpretation is a “tonal interpretation” and is not necessarily intended
to be performed. Nonetheless, this thesis opts for a tablaturisation interpretation because
when researchers see ancient music translated into Western notation the impression is that
one can attempt to perform it.
To return to the problem of musical perceptions, Albion Gruber (1970:53) has mentioned that
Marin Mersenne (1588-1648), in his music theoretical treatise Harmonie Universelle (1636),
suggested that one can become accustomed to the dissonances caused by intervals of sevenths
and ninths which could become perceived as consonant; in fact, for at least the last 100 years
musicians, particularly jazz musicians, have used seventh chords as “consonant” chords,
something which had not been acceptable for almost 1000 years. This suggests that the ear,
and the culture within which the ear developed, subjectively determines preferences, and this
accounts for why discrepancies between precise calculations and preferences can be found
(Parncutt and Hair 2011:140, 158, Omigie, Delacherie and Samson 2014:21-23; Pearce and
Eerola 2015:92). This is the main reason why this thesis suggests that the ancients may have
perceived and interpreted intervals differently to how we do so today.
161
To provide further evidence: Even an octave, which is produced through an exact division of
a string, could have been regarded as a ‘new’ pitch instead of as a higher duplication – an
octave – of itself. This would be an early conception of a quasi-enneatonic system. To clarify,
when one plays the open strings “E6-G3-B2-e1” and then “E6-G3-B2-E6” on the guitar then
one will notice there is a difference in sound even though the same notes are used (“E-G-B-
E”). The only difference is that the last note in both examples are different octaves.
The reader should further note that there is currently no known ancient Sumerian, Akkadian
or Hurrian word for an “octave” and this is why caution is needed within the translation
process (Kilmer 2006:275-276; 2001:114). This is precisely why an ambiguous
tablaturisation interpretation would be beneficial. Whether one assumes an Equal
Temperament system or the more probable Just Intonation system, will not affect the
outcome of the tablaturisation of this research. The tablaturisation will not provide exact
pitches, octave designations or relationships. The proposed future tablaturisations will only
reveal string spans/numbers similar to the way in which the CBS 10996 tablet only refers to
string spans/numbers.
5.8. Musicological Significance and the Possibility of Inversions
Both West (1994) and Dumbrill (2005, 2014b, 2017-2020) have adopted Wulstan’s theory
(1968) and have further attempted to validate it with the notation of “primary” and
“secondary” intervallic diatonicism (table 22).
162
Table 22
Primary and secondary terms
CBS
10996
Akkadian term First digit Hypothesised quality
line
number:
*1 nīš tuḫri 1↗5 Primary fifth (5th)
*2 šēru 7↘5 (switched to Secondary third (3rd)
5↗7)
*3 išartu 2↗6 Primary fifth (5th)
*4 šalšatu 1↗6 (switch to Secondary sixth (6th)
6↘1)
*5 embūbu 3↗7 Primary fifth (5th)
*6 rebūtu 2↗7 (switch to Secondary sixth (6th)
7↘2)
*7 nīd qabli 4↘1 Primary fourth (4th)
*8 isqu 1↗3 Secondary third (3rd)
*9 qablītu 5↘2 Primary fourth (4th)
1 titar qablītu 2↗4 Secondary third (3rd)
(*10)
2 (*11) kitmu 6↘3 Primary fourth (4th)
3 titur išartu 3↗5 Secondary third (3rd)
(*12)
4 (*13) pītu 7↘4 Primary fourth (4th)
5 serdû 4↘6 Secondary third (3rd)
(*14)
Dumbrill (2005:31) has suggested that the term pismu236 ( ) translated to “of a full
quality” may refer to primary intervals of thirds and sixths. He also postulates that the term
gantu,237 translated to “of a thin quality”, might be a term used for secondary intervals of
fourths and fifths. However, this is speculation and needs to be proved more substantially
because they could also refer to musical texture (an instruction to “double-up” on
instruments238). Wulstan’s theoretical conceptualisation of the primary fifth (5ths) and fourth
(4ths) intervals and the secondary thirds (3rds) and sixths (6ths), should not be confused with
our modern Western understanding of diatonic intervals and inversions (Wulstan 1968,
1971). Hagel (2005:289) also shares a similar outlook.
236 The term pismu can be found on the UET VII 126 tablet.
237 It is not clear on which music related tablet the term gantu can be found.
238 Refer to Collon (2010), Krisjipn (2010) and Marcetteau (2010) for more information concerning ancient orchestras and
ensembles.
163
Proponents of the Orientalist theory, who reject Westernalist notions, appear to be using
modern Western music notation and conceptions to translate ancient Near-Eastern music.
More specifically, they make use of an Equal Tempered - Equidistant - system. They appear
to make the same mistakes that Westernalist scholars make. In essence, both Orientalist and
Westernalist scholars appeal to modern Western ideas and notation in an attempt to interpret
ancient music.
The only way in which one can find a relation to Western interval theory is when a “straight”
numbering system is used and then perceived as both ascending and descending
simultaneously, as is the case with an ambiguous free standing system:
1→ 2→ 3→ 4→ 5→ 6→ 7→ 8 (1)
(1) 8 ←7 ←6 ←5 ←4 ←3 ←2 ←1
The palindromic string order system of: “1-2-3-4-[5]-4-3-2-1”, as presented on the UET VII
126 tablet, is not a viable source of information as it does not make use of numerical values
beyond 5 unless one creates them. This is another reason why the YBC 11381 tablet239 is
more meaningful at this stage in interpretation – the numbers 6,7,8(1) and 9(2) are provided:
1 2 3 4 [5] 4(6) 3(7) 2(8/1) 1(9/2)
One important fact to consider is that, when using the “straight” numbering system (“1-2-3-4-
5-6-7-8(1)-9 (2)”), it becomes difficult to determine which term is truly ascending or
descending. This challenges Dumbrill’s assumption that there are only descending pentads
(fifths) and ascending triads (thirds) in what he terms the “Greater Babylonian System”
(Dumbrill 2017:9-12). This thesis holds that the system can also be ambiguous as there can
be both ascending and descending thirds, fourths, fifths and sixths. It is important to note that
no unisons or seconds are provided on the CBS 10996 tablet.240 If one relies purely on the
numerical information that is provided on the CBS 10996 tablet and uses a “straight”
numbering system, in ascending and descending forms, then the result is as illustrated in
figure 88 (see next page).
239 Refer back to Chapter 4, §4.4.1 for an in-depth discussion concerning the “straight” numbering system found on the YBC
11381 tablet.
240 The reasoning for why unisons (monotones) and seconds (dyads) were possibly omitted on the CBS 10996 tablet will be
partially discussed and explored in §5.10.
164
Figure 88: CBS 10996 ambiguous primary and secondary (joint ascending and
descending) tabularisation.
165
Similar to the UET VII 126 tablet the directions can also be viewed as part of an ambiguous
free standing system that is capable of being both ascending and descending. One can use the
combined numbering system that superimposes an ascending straight string order (“1-2-3-4-
5-6-7-8(1)”) on top of a descending one (“8(1)-7-6-5-4-3-2-1”) to show how the string pair/sets
can be perceived as ambiguous.241
Figure 88 reveals that there are four possible configurations for each term. As one would
expect, there appear to be some partial relations between the classes of term names and their
inverted counterpart’s names. Take, for example, the primary class of nīš tuḫri (1,/-5) and its
proposed relation nīd qabli (4,/-1). In this case, compare nīš ( ) with nīd ( ) and then
tuḫri242 ( ) with qabli ( ). This claim, that there may be a relationship
between the invertible term names, which differs in sound character when ascending or
descending, still needs to be explored and can form part of a future study. More terms that are
yet to be discovered may prove a theory that suggests that there may be possible inversional
qualities for each term. One reservation is that any relation in the script type may only be
coincidence.
Nonetheless, the invertible configurations (figure 88) reveal that a term can have ascending
or descending qualities. This directly challenges many of the claims made by Dumbrill (2005,
2014b, 2017-2020). For instance, the term nīš tuḫri (1-5 or 1,5) can represent any of the
configurations listed in table 23 (see next page) and the sound characteristics will be similar
in different keys. The notes/pitches in “C” major/Ionian, provided below, are used only for
convenience. Additionally, ambiguous pitch labels according to an Africanist perspective243
are also provided.
241 Evidence of this ambiguity and proof that shows that the ancients knew both numbering systems will be provided in
§5.11.
242 The term tuḫri can be roughly translated to mean “part of the foot” (Dumbrill 2020:27)
243 Refer again to Chapter 2, §2.4. regarding the validity of an Africanist perspective.
166
Table 23
Configuration possibilities for the term nīš tuḫri (1,/-5)
Ascending span of a fifth: Ascending span of a fourth
“[1]-2-3-4-[5]” “[1]-7-6-[5]”
“[I]-J-K-L-[M]” “[I]-J-K-[L]”
“[C]-D-E-F-[G]” “[C]-D-E-[F]”
Descending span of a fourth Descending span of a fifth:
“[1]-7-6-[5]” “[1]-2-3-4-[5]”
“[M]-O-N-[M]” “[I]-O-N-M-[L]”
“[C]-B-A-[G]” “[C]-B-A-G-[F]”
There appears to be a relationship that accords with Western music theory244 but it will be
demonstrated that this relationship is actually a mathematical inversional one that occurs
naturally and is also present in a Just Intonation system. Moreover, this relationship suggests
heptatonicism, or more accurately extended-heptatonicism, as opposed to enneatonicism.245
This is because the thirds (3rds) appear to be invertible into sixths (6ths) and the fourths (4ths)
can invert into fifths (5ths). It should be noted that it is not clear whether the thirds and sixths
are major or minor. This inversional quality would not be possible in a true enneatonic
system because there would be two different pitches instead of octave repeats at the 8th and
9th position. The relation to modern intervals becomes even more evident when one imposes
a piano keyboard, using familiar Western pitch labels, with the string numbers (refer back to
figure 88 and to figure 89).
Figure 89: Western pitch-numeric system.

244 Clarification on why this ancient-modern comparison should be avoided will be provided in §5.9.
245 Refer back to Chapter 4 for discussions concerning “true” and “false” enneatonicism.
167
It should be stressed that this superimposition of a “C” major/Ionian heptatonic (diatonic)

scale-based system is only used for convenience and any other scale/mode constructed on
seven diatonic (or other) notes can be used.
As inspired by Hugh Tracey’s writings on African music, scales and interpretations, one can
also more effectively use an alternate and ambiguous pitch naming system (Tracey 1969:76).
An example would be to use letters not associated with Western music that symbolises
unknowable ambiguous pitch frequencies. This forms part of the Africanist perspective.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8/1
[I] J K L M N O [I]
This section provides a speculative theory that suggests inversions similar to Western
concepts (a product of mathematics) may have been possible. This is achieved by interpreting
the information presented on the CBS 10996 tablet within a simultaneously ascending and
descending system similar to how all scales/modes function. This serves to provide further
evidence, in line with the conclusions derived at in Chapter 4, why ancient Near-Eastern
scales/modes should be perceived as a free standing system. It should be emphasized that this
relation to Western intervallic theory is an unexpected observation.
5.9. A Theory Regarding Normal and Inverted Positions
Aaron Shaffer (1981:80-81) suggests that the Akkadian term sihip ( ), with its
alternate forms sihpum or seḫpum, from tablet N.4782 (figure 90) may, when placed in front
of the known string pair/set terms, have acted as an indication to alter their directions
(inversions). This is because the term sihip can be translated to mean “to turn down”, “to turn
over” or “to turn upside down”. An example of a term that makes use of this prefix is that of
sihip kitmum which could act as an inversion of the un-prefixed “normal” term kitmu (6 -/, 3).
To specify the term sihip kitmum could be read as the inverted (3 -/,6) instead of the normal
(6 -/, 3). It is assumed that the CBS 10996 tablet provides the “normal” (unaltered)
configurations. The term sihip kitmimi does appear on the N.4782 tablet but the true meaning
in a musical context is not clear (see figure 90 on the next page).
168
Obverse Reverse
Figure 90: Sketch and transcriptions of the obverse (left) and reverse (right) of the N.4782
tablet.
(Compiled by Author 2021).
(Shaffer 1981:79-80).
Leon Crickmore (2012:59) holds a similar view but suggests that these terms may have been
used to refer to inverse modes.246 Jerome Colburn (2009a:98-99), as well as Richard Crocker
and Anne Kilmer (1984), propose that this idea of inversions may not be the case. To specify,
Colburn (2009a:99) suggests that fifths and fourths in the CBS 10996 tablet are treated
equally as inversions of one another so it may be unlikely that sihpum or seḫpum could imply
inversions (Hagel 2005:289). To clarify, the CBS 10996 tablet shows some terms as fifths
and others as fourths. It is assumed that in either case fifths or fourths were implied (a
standard of music theory). This debate between whether inverse modes and inversional
possibilities were used or not calls for further research and is beyond the scope of the present
study. One would need to analyse the other ~68 Hurrian tablets to determine whether the
sihip term is used to imply an “inversion” or a “shift” in position (refer to Dumbrill 2020:78-
79). This will form part of the current author’s future doctoral research.
246 A more in-depth discussion concerning invers modes will be discussed in Chapter 6.
169
The previous section of this chapter (§5.7.) has shown that there can be inversional
relationships. Drawing from the work of Shaffer (1981:81), one can ask whether a different
prefixed term, such as seḫpum, or any other (currently unknown) word/term was used to
separate the “normal” intended order from the “inversion” or “sub-place”.
The normal order appears to be how the terms were inscribed on the CBS 10996 tablet. The
Akkadian-Hurrianised terms ašḫu/ašḫuwe247 ( ) “upper/high” and turi/duri248 ( )
“lower/low” or paḫita249 ( ) “towards the head/front”, which can be found on some
of the other ~68 Hurrian tablets, may suggest that the ancients (specifically the Hurrians)
practiced switching between ascending and descending “inversional” directions (Dumbrill
2005:125-126,132,136). Hagel (2005:337-338) suggests that these terms could also have
referred to altered states of notes (sharps or flats) and possibly also modulating or chromatic
passing notes. We face another challenge since only the ancient musicians would have known
which was considered “normal”. Without sufficient evidence it would be difficult for us to
deduce the intended orientation (Güterbock 1970:50; Kilmer 1971:144).
Dumbrill (2005:125-126,132,136-137) also suggests that these Hurrian terms may have been
used to differentiate between the different octave species acting as “octavial” position
identifiers. In other words, they could have been used as instructions to indicate a change
between octaves. Similar to the aforementioned theories, this is also speculation (refer to
Güterbock 1970:49-50).
From a Westernalist perspective the specialised terms, ašḫu/ašḫuwe (“upper/high”) and

turi/duri (“lower/low”), could also have been used to differentiate between two intervallic
positions. For example, the (1) “normal” nīš tuḫri position versus the (2) literal inverted
“upper/high” ašḫu/ašḫuwe nīš tuḫri or the (3) inverted “lower/low” turi/duri nīš tuḫri. One
should note that it appears as if these specialised terms could be placed either before or after
the “normal” terms. The following figure provides a visualisation of how these additive terms
could have functioned. The scale/mode of “E” is used only for convenience (figure 91).
247 This term can be found on the tablet H10.

170
Westernalist
interval pairs
Tablaturised
interval pairs
Figure 91: Specialised inversional terms – Westernalist perspective.

The tablature here uses different lengths to indicate tensions. The higher tension is depicted
by a shorter line and this should not be interpreted to mean that a harp instrument is
suggested.250 As stated earlier the different lengths are only used to visually convey the
different tensions and octave regions. The CBS 10996 tablet does not specify the instrument
for which it was written for.
From an Orientalist standpoint, as Dumbrill (2005:125-126,132,136) suggests, the terms may

also have been used to switch between the ascending or descending variants (figure 92).
250 As discussed in Chapter 4 the instrument in question can be either a harp with strings of different lengths and tensions or
a lyre with strings of the same length but with different tensions.
171
Orientalist
pitch sets
Tablaturised
pitch sets
Figure 92: Specialised inversional terms – Orientalist perspective.

The tablaturisations in figures 91 and 92 reveal that the “upper” and “lower” alterations are
related to one another. In this specific case, the alterations are both spans of ascending fourths
with the “normal” position being a different descending span of a fifth. This is specifically if
the polarity of the numbers is followed as written on CBS 10996. This same method can also
be applied to all of the other terms as well. The terms will function in a similar inversional
way.
One should note that there are also many other Akkadian-Hurrianised terms found on some
of the other ~68 Hurrian tablets. These other terms could also have served similar alteration
functions as described above (see Dumbrill 2005:125-126. 132,136,174). These additional
terms are not listed here since more research still needs to be conducted concerning them.
The cuneiform texts N 3020, N 3354, N 3355, N 7745, N 7679 and UM 29-15-357)251
supposedly refer to processes of “fine tuning”.252 However, according to Kilmer and Tinney
251 The combined tablets N 3354 + N 3355 + N 7745 + N 7679 are often interpreted to be some sort of tuning instruction or a
notation performance text for the king Lipit-Ishar and are therefore referred to as “music instructions for Lipit-Ishtar”
(Kilmer and Peterson 2009).
252 Refer to Kilmer and Tinney (1996; 1997), Smith and Kilmer (2000), Kilmer (2009).
172
(1996), these “fine tunings” are difficult to understand in a musicological context. Crickmore
(2008:12) does suggests that the fine tunings might have applied to the thirds and the sixths
from the Just intonation. Hagle (2005:312) also indicates that in Just Intonation, neither all
fifths nor thirds are “pure”. This would account for the need to fine tune certain intervals.
Analysing these “fine tunings” can form part of a future study. For a more in-depth
discussion refer to the work of Crickmore (2007), Colburn (2009a) and Hagel (2005;
forthcoming).
As can be seen, there are many interpretative possibilities. Determining what was considered
“normal” and what was the variation, is difficult to prove. For this reason, this research will,
in this section, consider all the invertible possibilities. The tablaturisation configurations, as
presented in figure 88, are effective in illustrating that the ancient system is capable of being
both ascending and descending especially when it is perceived as an extended-heptatonic
system that spreads over two octaves. At this point in the analysis, there is no evidence to
support either the Westernalist or Orientalist argument, specifically when one looks at the
CBS 10996 tablet in isolation.
The main point to emphasize is that one should avoid speculations that attempt to compare
ancient music with modern, usually Middle-Eastern, music in order to determine how the
terms were played, whether as Orientalist “sets” or as Westernalist “pairs”. There could be a
stronger case made out for comparing the music under study with the music of Judaism and
Islam, since both traditions are by nature “conservatist” and may still bear traces of pre-BCE
musical elements, like the characteristic use of augmented 2nds.
In conclusion, the author’s speculative theory is that the ancients may have inverted the
“normal” performance terms with certain other prefixed terms. This should be considered
when conducting future research on this topic.
5.10. Elementary Music-Mathematical Proof
The superimposition of Western theory on an ancient music theoretical system is problematic

because we are dealing with ancient music and not modern music (Blocker 2001:3-4). The
reader should also note that the tablet is expressing a natural mathematic operation.
173
There will always be thirds (spaces of three) inverted into sixths (spaces of six) and fourths
(spaces of four) inverted into fifths (spaces of five) when a number system is used. The
numbers move up incrementally by one, hence the use of the term “spaces/spans” (figure 93).
Figure 93: A mathematical system of eight with thirds

that can be inverted into sixths and vice versa.
Further evidence that suggests the system is purely based on mathematics, and was probably
conceived as a mathematical order, is that the rest of the content on the CBS 10996 tablet is
dedicated to mathematics. It is a mathematical coefficient tablet dealing with measurements,
volumes and geometry (Kilmer 1960:273-275; Friberg 2011:142-143). There appears to be
no other reason why music would have been included on a tablet preoccupied predominantly
with the topic of mathematics253. One reservation which may be raised is whether the sixth
column of the CBS 10996 tablet is related to music at all, given the all-mathematical context.
For example, one could argue that the CBS 10996 tablet could be describing an abacus, a
device used for counting and accounting that consists of strings to which spherical wooden
balls, beads or something similar are attached. This might account for the use of SA/sa
(“string”) and its use in a non-musical context. Friberg (2007:8) states that the Babylonians
may have made use of abacuses despite there being no archaeological remains. Although, the
suggestion that the CBS 10996 tablet could be an ancient abacus can be easily dismissed
because the terms on the CBS 10996 tablet are also the names of other musical instruments
(embūbu – reed wind pipe/flute – being an example). This means that there must be a musical
association.
253Cuneiform writing initially developed to record trade and produce (administrative matters). Mathematics and accounting
played a large role in its development. Therefore, it would be logical that numbers were also applied to music and that this
tradition was passed down.
174
Additionally, some of the terms from the CBS 10996 tablet can also be found on the other
known music related tablets. Finally, it is not clear why information associated with an
abacus should be provided on a tablet that provides no extra contextual information
concerning what the string numbers would have referred to or calculated.
One problem that arises is in the field of Archaeomusicology, that has not been considered by
current scholars, is that there is not enough evidence on the CBS 10996 tablet, or even on the
UET VII 74 tablet,254 to suggest that ancient music theory made use of an Equal Tempered
(Equidistant) or a Just Intonation system. It is here where other systems have not been
considered by leading scholars within the field. The use of the term “interval”, specifically
when referring to primary and secondary intervals, should be avoided in the study of ancient
Near-Eastern music because it wrongly implies a sense of modern Western music theory and
diatonicism. There is no clear evidence of this type of Equal-Tempered diatonicism in ancient
Near-Eastern music. The divisions that arise out of the naturally occurring Just Intonation
system are not equal divisions.
The pitches contained within the system could also have been ordered and spaced differently.
The tablet, when roughly translated, refers to strings and not necessarily degrees of a
scale/mode. For example, string 6 (high-“E”) and 2 (“B”) on the guitar are a perfect fifth
apart. This does not mean that it is tuned to an incremental sequence of: 6(“E”)-5(“F”)-
4(“G”)-3(“a”)-2(“b”)-1(“c”). The strings are ordered: 6(“E”)-5(“A”)-4(“D”)-3(“g”)-2(“b”)-
1(“e”). The aim of this digression is to point out that we have no evidence that suggests that
ancient harps/lyres, the presumed instruments, were tuned in incremental sequences as is the
case with their modern counterparts. They could have been tuned in an array of different
formulations currently unknown to us. Conversely, the pitches themselves could also be
microtonally/quartertonally different to our modern Western system. The ancients could have
used microtonal/quartertonal pitches; A pitch between “C” and “C#” for instance. One should
note that trying to assign and interpret any pitch, even one between “C” and “C#”, will be
difficult to do because the ancient tablets are primarily concerned with relationships (i.e.
spans of thirds, fourths, fifths and sixths) and not with absolute pitch identifiers.
254 The UET VII 74 tablet will be the focus of Chapter 6.
175
Hypothetically, string 1 could have been a “C” and string 5 could have been an “E” spaced
five strings apart. Ancient musicians could theoretically have referred to this span as a fifth,
the number of string spaces. This means that the note relations, in modern music-alphabetical
terms, would be a consonant major third (“C-E”) and not necessarily a consonant perfect fifth
(“C-G”). This lack of clarity is why the numbered spans of thirds, fourths, fifths and, sixths
should not be confused with modern conceptions of intervals or scale/mode degrees.
Supporting this argument, the term rebūtu, for example, can be translated to mean “fourth”
and according to the tablaturisation configurations (figures 80 and 88) this term does not
consist of a span of four strings. It has a span of a third/sixth (rebūtu = string 2,7). There are
clear differences between the number of string spans and the direct translated meanings of the
terms. The reader should note that there is no evidence to suggest that an ancient ear would
have heard different pitches with spans of tritones, seconds, thirds, sixths and sevenths
similar to how we perceive intervals in modern times. If one refers to a string span of a third
then one will have difficulties offering evidence for whether a major or a minor third was
heard by the ancients. Also, as has been discussed, an interval of a third using Just Intonation
can be perceived differently from a third within the Equal Temperament system. Kilmer
(1998:15) argues that:
[…] the intervals and the tunings, which are as “modern” as they are “ancient” (and
as universal). Because the structure of the ancient human ear was the same as our
own, Mesopotamians heard the consonances of the octaves, the fifths, and the
fourths as readily as we do.
Apart from the natural consonances of the unisons, octaves, fourths and fifths, other modern
cultures have different musical preferences when it comes to what can be considered as
consonant or dissonant (it is culturally defined). One can compare, for example, modern
Indian Classical, traditional Arabic and Turkish music with Western Classical music to hear
these differences. This argument can also be extended to ancient cultures since we cannot be
entirely sure what they considered to be consonant and dissonant. We should also be careful
to use modern/traditional Middle-Eastern, ancient Greek or ‘other’ unrelated musical
practices as models to analyse ancient Near-Eastern music. The current author does not
discourage it but cautions that we should initially focus on the information that can be
directly read from the music theoretical and notation tablets. Ancient concepts may have
influenced modern concepts but this does not mean that they would have remained the same.
176
Ideas may have been lost, altered or rediscovered and the sheer number of different tuning
systems that have been developed by different cultures proves that it is difficult to track
musical influence.
This section confirms the mathematical-musical link which should not be dismissed. Leon
Crickmore (2008:11,15,19) holds a similar view. This link also indicates why a
tablaturisation interpretation will be advantageous. A tablaturisation is mathematical in
structure and conception and it does not directly impose external concepts. To clarify: A
string span of a fifth does not need to be associated with a perfect fifth interval.
5.10.1. Two special terms
There are two special terms that appear on the CBS 10996 tablet. The first term is kitmu (6,3)
and, according to this thesis, it can be termed a “special primary” term. The second term is
rebūtu (2,7) which can be called a “special secondary” term (the terms primary and
secondary are retained here for convenience). These two terms are unique because they are
mathematically related only to themselves.
The inverted thirds and sixths in rebūtu (2,7) and the inverted fourths and fifths in kitmu (6,3)
have the same name. They are mathematical inversions, not necessarily musical inversions,
of themselves. The pairs of 1,1 and 4,5 are also examples of mathematical inversions of
themselves (figure 94). These specific pairs, with a span of 1, are not found on the CBS
10996 tablet. However, the pair of 4,5/5,4 can be found on the related CBS 1766 tablet.255
Figure 94: Mathematical self-reflections.

255 Evidence of this pair of a span of 1 will be provided in Chapter 6.
177
The above makes it clear that a mathematical structure, not necessarily a musical scale-
degree based structure, underlines the number system. This is why one should also avoid
using a solfège labelling system (doh-re-mi-fa-sol-la-ti-doh). Jean-Claude Sillamy (2006:23)
uses a solfège based system in his interpretation of ancient Near-Eastern music notation. With
regard to the idea of the “primary” and “secondary” classifications, it is only the primary
string pair spans that appear on the UET VII 74 tablet. These seven primary terms are also the
names of the seven ancient scales/modes256 – hence the reason why the term “primary” will
be retained.
Friberg (2011:143) points out that many scholars assume that ancient Near-Eastern music
was intricately connected to mathematics simply because numbers are involved. In other
words, music is found on a tablet focused primarily on mathematical endeavors. One can
pose the question of whether the ancients themselves also perceived music in terms of being a
form of a mathematical “constant” (Friberg 2011:143). The aforementioned section appears
to confirm this claim. Friberg also indicates that it appears as if the scribe(s) of the tablet
might have recorded the music-theoretical information after they had run out of mathematical
constants to record. On the other hand, the scribe might have recorded extra musical
information simply because there was still more space available. In closing, it is not explicitly
clear why these music theory-based inscriptions are found on a mathematical constants tablet.
5.11. Evidence of a Joint Palindromic and Straight Numbering System
It is apparent that most scholars have not revealed that the CBS 10996 tablet refers to both a
palindromic (“1-2-3-4-5-4-3-2-1”) and a ‘straight’ (“1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8(1)-9(2)”) numbering
system (figure 95). The superimposition of the two number systems, as hypothesised in
Chapter 4, is confirmed by the CBS 10996 tablet (see figure 95 on the next page).
256 The names of the seven ancient scales/modes will be revealed and discussed in Chapter 6.
178
Palindromic System Straight System

(1-2-3-4-5-4-3-2-1) (1-2-3-4-5-6-7)
Figure 95: Akkadian cuneiform illustrating the palindromic string system and the straight
numbering system on the CBS 10996 tablet.
(Friberg 2011:142).
It is only Kilmer (1960, 1965 and 1971), and Duchesne-Guillemin (1984) who have vaguely
revealed this same information (refer also to Kilmer, Crocker and Brown 1976:7). The
information they provide has not been presented as explicitly as will be shown in table 24
(see next page).
179
Table 24
Evidence of the palindromic and “straight” numbering system on the CBS 10996 tablet
Line Akkadian Straight Orientation
Full palindromic system (Akkadian)
term system and span:
*1 nīš tuḫri (sa) qud-mu-ú(front/first) [ù] (sa) 5-šú(middle) = 1(front) (,/-) 5(middle) 1 (,/-) 5 (5 span)→
*2 šēru (sa) 3 uḫ-ri (back)

[ù] (sa) 5-šú (middle)
= 3 (back)
(,/-) 5 (middle)
7 (,/-) 5 ←(3 span)
*3 išartu (sa) šá- ge6(front) [ù] (sa) 4 uḫ-ri(back) = 2(front) (,/-) 4(back) 2 (,/-) 6 (5 span)→
*4 šalšatu (sa) qud-mu-ú(front/first) [ù] 4 uḫ-ri(back) (sa) = 1(front) (,/-) 4(back) 1 (,/-) 6 (6 span)→
*5 embūbu (sa) 3-šu sig (front)

[ù] 3-šu uḫ-ri (back)
(sa) = 3 (front)
(,/-) 3 (back)
3 (,/-) 7 (5 span)→
*6 rebūtu (sa) šá- ge6(front) [ù] 3-šu uḫ-ri(back) (sa) = 2(front) (,/-) 3(back) 2 (,/-) 7 (6 span)→
*7 nīd qabli
d
(sa) é. a. dú [ù] qud-mu-ú (front/first)
(sa) = 4 (front)
(,/-) 1 (front)
4 (,/-) 1 (4 span) →
*8 isqu (sa) qud-mu-ú(front/first) [ù] 3-šu sig(front) (sa) = 1(front) (,/-) 3(front) 1 (,/-) 3 (3 span)→
*9 qablītu (sa) 5-šú (middle)

[ù] šá- ge6(front) (sa) = 5 (middle)
(,/-) 2 (front)
5 (,/-) 2 ←(4 span)
titar (sa) šá- ge6(front) [ù] dé. a. dú (sa) = 2(front) (,/-) 4(front) 2 (,/-) 4 (3 span)→
1(*10)
qablītu
2(*11) kitmu (sa) 4 uḫ-ri(back) [ù] (sa) 3-šu sig(front) = 4(back) (,/-) 3(front) 6 (,/-) 3 ←(4 span)
titur (sa) 3-šu sig(front) [ù] (sa) 5-šú(middle) = 3(front) (,/-) 5(middle) 3 (,/-) 5 (3 span)→
3(*12)
išartu
4(*13) pītu (sa) 3-šu uḫ-ri(back) [ù] dé. a. dú (sa) = 3(back) (,/-) 4(front) 7 (,/-) 4 ←(4 span)
5(*14) serdû
d
(sa) é. a. dú [ù] 4 uḫ-ri (back)
(sa) = 4 (front)
(,/-) 4 (back)
4 (,/-) 6 (3 span)→
It appears as if most scholars are inclined to interpret only the numbers that can be clearly
read - the numbers from 1-7 – which form part of the ‘straight’ numbering system.
The palindromic numbering system is presented in Akkadian. It is important because it
reveals that each term has an indisputable implied direction. It moves either from the “front”
string to the “middle” or from the “back” string to the “middle”.
To provide an example, this means that the term qablītu, in the context of the CBS 10996
tablet, can only be a span of a fourth (4th). This is because it moves from the “middle” fifth
(5th) string to the second (2nd) “front” string. This disproves Dumbrill’s claims that the system
the CBS 10996 is based on, or derived from, a “Greater Babylonian System” that makes use
of only ascending thirds (3rds) and descending fifths (5ths) (Dumbrill 2017:12; 2020:27). His
theory does not match the physical evidence provided by the CBS 10996 tablet.
The only factor that we cannot be sure about is whether the Hurrians, and by extension the
terms on the H6 tablet, followed the same system. They could have adapted the system that
appears on the CBS 10996 tablet slightly when inscribing the Hurrian tablets. This is
important to keep in mind because the information from the CBS 10996 tablet was not
180
recorded by the Hurrians. The notation on the Hurrian tablets and fragments are in a
Hurrianised-Akkadian form and may have been altered compared to the Akkakian
information that is presented on the CBS 10996 tablet. We should therefore be cautions in
deciphering the H6 notation using the CBS 10996 tablet.257 This further proves the necessity
for an ambiguous tablaturisation interpretation.
One should take note that the Akkadian term ù ( )258 could be translated to mean either
the Westernalist “and” or the Orientalist “to”. It acts as a separation between the different
strings. Dumbrill (2019:20) suggests that in this specific context we cannot be sure how the
numbers are separated because this symbol does not appear between the numbers.259 To
paraphrase Dumbrill (2019:20) he states that, “we have sa qud-mu-ú ù sa 5 šú 1 5 and not ‘1
ù 5’”.
Dumbrill in this instance has not acknowledged that there are two numbering systems clearly
present and that the conjunction ù is used in the palindromic system and separates the first
sting (sa qud-mu-ú) from the middle-fifth string (5šú). The “straight” numbering system uses
only number symbols and is written without this ù conjunction (i.e 1 5). The “palindromic”
system combines words and some numbers and it is written using the conjunction ú3 (i.e sa
qud-mu-ú ù sa 5šú).
The reader should also note that ù is directly translated to mean “and”.260 This directly
implies that, when reading the palindromic numbering system, pairs are to be used because of
the conjunction ù (“and”). This research will still approach this evidence with caution
because the second numbering system does not have the conjunction ù. This might mean that
the ancient musician could have chosen any of the two numbering systems and could have
played either string pairs, string sets or a combination of both as desired.
257 Bathja Bayer (2014:28) also recommends this same level of caution.
258 The symbol u3 is usually used in transliterations to denote ù (u2 = ú).
259 The conjuncture ú in cuneiform texts is often used for nouns and in sentences. Conjunctions with words are more
3
common but not always necessary, depending on the context. This does not imply the absence of conjunction or addition. In
Assyriology conjunctions with numbers are unusual. Administrative texts usually join numbers without any addition sign
(“+”) and the expression la2 in Sumerian means “to hang” and implies a subtraction (“-”).
260 Another important term that may have bearing on ancient Near-Eastern music is that of the Akkadian “itti” (“together
with”). This does not appear on any of the music theory tablets discussed in this thesis. Additionally, if one ascribes to an
Orientalist perspective then this would mean that one would need to have the indications “ina” (from) and “adi” (“to” or
“until”) to suggested that a sequence was played; “from one string to/until another string”. These indications do not appear
on the CBS 10996 tablet or any of the other music theoretical tablets.
181
Anne Kilmer and Miguel Civil (1986:95) have suggested that the Akkadian term s/ziennum
( ), as found on the tablet fragment N.3354, is also suggestive of an instruction to
play a (Westernalist) pair/interval. This word “and” is used to imply a pair and means it is to
be played at the same time. Further research is needed.
To summarise: there is an Akkadian term used as a prefix that describes the positioning either
at the front or back.261 The prefixes are used especially when the “palindromic system” is
used. A glossary of these terms is listed in table 25.
Table 25
Akkadian string position prefix terms
Prefix (Akkadian) Translation

(5)-šú in the “middle”
uḫ-ri “backmost” string section
qud-mu-ú “front”, “first” or “prime” (as confirmed by UET VII 126).
šá-ge6 “front string” section or “second string from the front”.
šu sig “front string” section - “front ‘thin’ string”
d
é. a. dú “front string” section - “front ‘small’ 4 Ea-created string”
As cited in Mirelman and Krispijn (2009:48), other known terms that refer to the “back
strings” are rebi uhrî(m) = “fourth from behind”, šalši uḫrî(m) = “third from behind”, and šini
uḫrî(m) = “second from behind”. These terms appear to be present on the broken first column
of the UET VII 74 tablet (refer to Chapter 6, §6.1.).
5.12. Closing Remarks Concerning the CBS 10996 Tablet
This chapter has established that it is imperative not to make any hasty generalisations,
especially regarding the application of scale/mode directions, when interpreting the CBS
10996 tablet. The safest approach to interpreting the CBS 10996 tablet in a musical way is to
use what is physically expressed on the tablet in a tablaturised form (figure 96).
261The fact that there was a separation between “front” and “back” strings could also mean that the strings designated to the
back could have been passive/sympathetic strings which were not activated/plucked by the player, but simply resonated with
the vibrations emanating from the front plucked strings (refer to the Rubab instrument).
182
Figure 96: Direct tablaturisation of the information from the CBS 10996 tablet with
implied tensions and directions (“polarity”).
This research holds that a similar tablature-based approach should be used when interpreting
the notation on the Hurrian H6 tablet. The tablaturisation system is also capable of illustrating
ambiguous information, especially if one removes the arrow indications. In other words, it is
capable of suggesting both Westernalist pairs (intervals) and Orientalist sets (sequences). The
arrows are only used to reveal the “polarity”.
183
One should take note that string 1 is believed to have been of a higher tension than that of
string 7. However, this does not necessarily mean it is representative of a descending scale.
The system should rather be viewed as a free standing system because it is based on the
musician’s perspective. The player could have been situated at either end of the instrument.
All that one needs to remember is that, if the CBS 10996 tablet indicates that string 1 is
placed before string 5, as is the case with the term nīš tuḫri, then we can be confident in
assuming that it moves from a high-tension string (string 1) to a lower tension one (string 5).
This assumption is only possible if one believes that the information regarding string orders
and tensions on the UET VII 126 tablet are directly applicable to the CBS 10996 tablet. In
other words, the CBS 10996 tablet provides no information concerning which end had the
higher string tension. This information is inferred intertextually from the UET VII 126 tablet
and applied to the CBS 10996 tablet.
It is important to note that each of the notational terms could also have had their own unique
rhythmic character that was known by the ancient musician and scribe which is now
unknown to us. This is another reason why a tablaturised interpretation of ancient notation is
necessary – there are far too many ambiguities.
It would appear that the initial graphic representations and directions provided by Kilmer
(1965,1971,1974) and Duchesne-Guillemin (1966, 1969, 1984) are, in fact, the most
plausible approach to understanding and interpreting the CBS 10996 tablet. A similar type of
graphic realisation - a tablaturisation - will need to be constructed for each of the Hurrian
music tablets/fragments. This will form part of the current author’s future research.
184
CHAPTER 6
UET VII 74: RE-TUNING/MODULATION TABLET
6.1. UET VII 74 Tablet General Contextual Information and Decipherment
The UET VII 74 tablet is considered to be an ancient instructional re-tuning cycle or

modulation text.262 The tablet is currently held in the British Museum under the fragment
number U.7/80. It was initially published by Gurney in 1968 and was excavated at Ur
(Mesopotamia) by Sir Leonard Woolley. The tablet can be roughly dated to the old-
Babylonian period (around 1800 BCE) (Mirelman 2013:43).
Dumbrill (2020:52) provides a high-resolution photograph of a cast263 of the reverse264 of the

UET VII 74 tablet (figure 97).
Figure 97: Photograph of the UET VII 74 cuneiform tablet (reverse).

(Dumbrill 2020:52).
262 Gurney (1994:101) refers to the UET VII 74 tablet as a “re-tuning” text, rather than a “tuning” text. Similarly, Černý
(1994:18), Mirelman and Krispijn (2009:43) state that it can more accurately be described as a “modulation text”. The
reasoning for this change in terminology will be clarified in this chapter. In summary, the tablet appears to cycle through
different scales/modes through the process of “tightening” and “loosening” certain strings.
263 The cast is incomplete. This means that the information from the obverse of the tablet is damaged. The original state of
the obverse of the tablet may have been heavily damaged or impossible to retrieve. This is why a cast of the legible reverse
side of the tablet was made.
264 It is not clear why Gurney labels this specific side the “reverse”.
185
A cuneiform line drawing/sketch265 of the UET VII 74 tablet along with an accompanying
transliteration sketch266 is supplied below (figure 98).
Figure 98: Cuneiform sketch (left) and transliteration sketch (right) of the UET VII 74
tablet.
(Gurney 1968:231; Friberg 2011:135).
The tablet fragment consists of two columns. The first column (left) is fragmentary and the
musicological context is not fully known (figure 99).
Figure 99: Cuneiform sketch (left) and transliteration sketch (right) highlighting the left
column of UET VII 74 tablet.
(Gurney 1968:231; Friberg 2011:135).
265 The cuneiform copy was sketched by Gurney (1968:231).

266 A transliteration sketch is supplied by Friberg (2011:135).
186
The masculine single tense “normative” (-um) and “genitive” (-im) 267, as well as the
feminine single tense “normative” (-tum) and “genitive” (-tim) endings, that can be seen on
the first column shows the Old-Babylonian form endings (Crocker 1978:102-103). As can be
recalled the term úḫrî(m)268 also appears on the CBS 10996 tablet.
Musicological focus is often placed on the second (right) column of the tablet. The contents
of this column, written in Akkadian, can be divided into five distinct sections (figure 100).
Figure 100: Cuneiform sketch (left) and transcription sketch (right) highlighting the right
column of the UET VII 74 tablet (musicological focus).
(Gurney 1968:231; Friberg 2011:135).
Each section follows a specific stanza-like structural form that can roughly be expressed as
follows in table 26 (Friberg 2011:135).
Table 26
Stanza-like structural form of each section of the UET VII 74 tablet
If the sammú (instrument) is in (A) tuning,
then string pair (B) is “not clear”,
when string (C) is “tightened”,
then the aforementioned string pair (B) will become “clear”
267 The nominative case indicates the subject of the main verb within a sentence and the genitive case indicates possession.
268 The term úḫrîm can also be found on the UET VII 126 tablet.
187
More specifically, the instructions follow a three-part structure: (1) it names a scale/mode
type (A), (2) reveals which string pair (B) is naturally perceived as “not clear”, (3) provides a
designated string (C) that can be “tightened”/“loosened” causing (4) the previous string pair
(B) to become “clear” (Gurney 1968:230). A direct translation with embedded transcriptions
of the UET VII 74 tablet, as cited in Friberg (2011:135), is provided in table 27. It should be
noted that the “tightening” and “loosening” terms are actually difficult to see on the UET VII
74 tablet. These terms are more clearly read on the supplementary tablet UET VI/3 899
discussed in §6.2. of this chapter.
Table 27
Translation of the overall structural of the UET VII 74 tablet
Section 1 Translation with Akkadian transcriptions Section 1 Structure
Line (0*): if the sammú (instrument) is pītu (scale/mode), A
Line 1: the embūbu (string pair/set) is lā zakû (“not B – “not clear”

clear”)
Line 2: the šalšam (“third, thin”), C – “tighten”

you shall tanassaḫma (“tighten”), then
Line 3: the embūbu (string pair/set) will be zakû B – “clear”

(“clear”).
Section 2 Translation Section 2 Structure
Line 4: if the sammú (instrument) is embūbu B – implied “clear”

(scale/mode),
Line 5: the kitmu (string pair/set) is lā zakû (“not clear”) D – “not clear”
Line 6: the rebi úḫrîm (“fourth, rear”), E – “tighten”

Line 7: the kitmu (string pair/set) will be zakû (“clear”). D – “clear”
Line 8: if the sammú (instrument) is kitmu (scale/mode), D – implied “clear”
Line 9: the išartu (string pair/set) is lā zakû (“not clear”) F – “not clear”
188
Line 10: the samuššu (“second”) and uḫrîam (“rear”), G – “tighten”

Line 11: the išartu (string pair/set) will be zakû (“clear”). F – “clear”
Line 12: nusuḫum (“tightening”) End of Tightening Section
Line 13: if the sammú (instrument) is išartu (scale/mode), F – implied “clear”
Line 14: the qablitu (string pair/set) is lā zakû (“not H – “not clear”
clear”)
Line 15: the rebi úḫrîm (“fourth, rear”), G – “loosen”

you shall tenè”amma (“loosen”), then
Line 16: the sammú (instrument) will be kitmu D

(scale/mode).
Line 17: if the sammú (instrument) is kitmu (scale/mode), D – implied “clear”
Line 18: The išartu (string pair/set) is lā zakû (“not F – “not clear”
clear”) (“unclear”)
Line 19: the samuššu (“second”) and uḫrîam (“rear”), E – “loosen”

you shall tenè”amma (“loosen”), then
Line 20: the sammú (instrument) will be embūbu B

(scale/mode).
The overall result of this procedure is that at the end of each section a new scale/mode is
generated when the string pair becomes “clear”, “clean” or “pure” (zakû)269. This “clearing”
of the strings is achieved through a process of “tightening” (tanassaḫma)270 or “loosening”
(tenè”amma).271 The new scale/mode that is arrived at through the process of “tightening” or
“loosening” is named after the preceding “clear” (zakû) pair name. Each of these newly
269 The term izakū can be read in the passive tense to mean “will become clear/pure”. According to Gurney (1968:230) the
form zakû can be translated to “will be clear” or “will become cleared”. The form izaku/izzazkku could mean “will stand”.
270 The G-Durative (future tense) 2sgm of nasāḫu(m) implies “to tighten’” and the enclitic (combined) conjunction of -ma
suggests “and”. The resultant translation therefore becomes: “you (will) tighten it and…” (Mirelman and Krispijn 2009:48-
48).
271 The G-Durative (future tense) 2sgm of ne’û(m) implies “to loosen” or “to turn back”. The enclitic (combined)
conjunction of -ma suggests “and” and the translation therefore becomes “you (shall) loosen it and…” (Mirelman and
Krispijn 2009:47-48).
189
generated scales/modes have their own unique inner “not clear” (lā zakû) string pairs which
can become “cleared” (Mirelman 2013:2-3). In other words, the name of the ancient
scale/mode is derived from the position in which this “not clear” interval can be found within
the scale/mode. Mirelman and Krispijn (2009:43) provide clarification:
By playing a particular dichord, and hearing that it is “unclear”, one can tell
on which mode the instrument is tuned. In order to reach the next mode in the
tightening and loosening cycle, one must tighten or loosen one or more
strings. This will make the previous dichord “clear”, although it will now
make another dichord “unclear”. This “unclear” quality, and the dichord to
which it applies, are what defines a particular mode.
The reader should note that there are no publications that provide a clear answer as to why
the term lā zakû (or lā zakat),272 can be perceived as a tritone. Mirelman (2013:49) states that
“[w]e have no [extratextual] information outside of the tuning text itself explaining what
exactly is meant by ‘clear’ and ‘unclear’ in a musical context.” This links with the Africanist
inspired perspective of this research and the skepticism attached with this perspective is
similar to the view held by Mirelman (2013:54):
The widely accepted and most elegant interpretation of this system of cyclical
tuning and/or modulation proposes that the unclear interval is a tritone, which
becomes clear by resolving to a perfect 5th or 4th by tightening or loosening.
We cannot be sure that such an interpretation is correct. Indeed, it seems
uncomfortably familiar and Eurocentric. I propose to leave the question of the
precise nature of the Mesopotamian tuning system open.
The fact that the ancient scale/mode can be identified by unique “clear” and “not clear” string
pair relationships suggests that there is an implied polyphonic result since the relationships
between two strings are perceived as either “clear” or “not clear”. It is important to note that
there could also have been other qualities other than “clear” and “not clear”, but these are not
yet known.
6.1.1 Primary terms
The UET VII 74 tablet makes use of the same primary terms that can be found on the CBS
10996 tablet. The seven primary terms, specifically pītu, embūbu, kitmu, išartu and qablītu
272The appropriate “normalisations” of Akkadian words that appear in the UET VII 74 text are mentioned by Mirelman and
Krispijn (2009:47). The ending of “ka-at” or “kat” is the feminine form of kû. Therefore zakât, can be translated to mean
“she is clear/pure”. The genitive ending of “um” in zakûm could also refer to ritual purification or “cleansing”.
190
are present on the UET VII 74 tablet. As can be recalled from the CBS 10996 tablet273 the
abovementioned terms have specific, associated string pair/set numbers and are reproduced
and summarised in table 28 below.
Table 28
UET VII 74 string pair/set numbers intertextually derived from the CBS 10996 tablet
Term names present CBS 10996 “straight” pair CBS 10996 palindromic pair
numbers: numbers:
on UET VII 74 and CBS
10996:
pītu 7,4 3(back),4(front)
embūbu 3,7 3(front),3(back)
kitmu 6,3 4(back),3(front)
išartu 2,6 2(front),4(back)
qablītu 5,2 5(front),2(back)
The UET VII 74 re-tuning tablet seems to call for the use of “pairs” and not necessarily
sequenced “sets”. When one reads on the UET VII 74 tablet that the term embūbu is “not
clear” in the scale/mode pītu, then one can intertextually deduce that the relationship between
the string pair of 3 and 7 was perceived as “not clear”. To make the embūbu pair “clear”, the
third (3rd) “thin” string would need to be “tightened”. It seems preferable to use “and” instead
of “to” when referring to the string relationships. If “to” is used, it would imply that the
resultant sound of the strings between 3 and 7 (as a pitch set 3-4-5-6-7) would have been
perceived as “not clear” for the term embūbu. The more likely interpretation is that the pair 3
“and” 7 would have been perceived as “not clear” for the term embūbu. This means that two
notes, either played together harmonically (vertically) or one after the other melodically
(horizontally), were perceived as having a certain “not clear” quality. This tablet does not
make use of the ù designation, implying “and”, like in the CBS 1099 tablet.
In this case, a “not clear”, or to use modern terminology a “dissonant” quality, could become
“cleared” or “consonant”. Hans Güterbock (1970:51) warns that:
273 The CBS 10996 tablet is discussed in detail in Chapter 5.
191
The literal meaning of these terms, while certainly of prime importance,

must be handled with extreme caution and, if possible, in constant
consultation between the philologist and the musicologist.
This research holds that one should be careful to state categorically that “clear” relates to
what we today perceive as a consonant sound and that the word “not clear” relates a
dissonant tritone274 (Shehata 2002:492). Retaining the terms “clear” and “not clear” in an
interpretation is more accurate to use in this context other than to think in terms of the
existence of an implied elementary “harmony/polyphony”.
Using Helmholtz’s Beat Theory, one could speculate that the ancients may have referred to
“not clear” sounds when they would have heard the rapid “beating” of note frequencies
resulting in a “dissonant” sound (Cazden 1962:303-305; 1972:323,234). The opposite of this
would be when little to no “beats” are heard forming a “consonant” sound – interpreted as
“clear” (Cazden 1962:303-305). Dumbrill (2005:42) offers a counter statement by stating that
the intervals of thirds:
[…] would not have been sufficiently audible due to the poor sustain
quality in harps in general. Even today, our great 42 string concert
instruments are never accurately tuned for the same reason.
Dumbrill (2019:7) expands upon his initial reasoning by explaining that:
We cannot assume what was understood as consonance or dissonance in

the Ancient Near-East. A fifth is Just when no referential beats are heard
any longer in the process of tuning one string against the other. However,
while beats are easily perceived in the tuning of modern instruments, their
perception depends on the quality of instruments. Furthermore, we have
no evidence that Babylonian theoreticians used beats for tuning purposes.
The outlined reservations support this thesis’s claim that ancient intervals of tritones, thirds
and sixths may have been microtonally different and accounts for why a tablaturisation, that
avoids using modern interval conventions, is necessary to understand ancient Near-Eastern
music notation.
274 Modern tritones are characteristically three adjacent whole tones or six semitones apart.
192
A full English and Arabic numerical translation of the tablet, with deductions and
transliteration interjections, follows (table 29).
Table 29
Numeric translation of the terms from the UET VII 74 tablet
Section 1 Translation with transcriptions
Line (0*): if the sammú (instrument) is in the ‘scale/mode’ of pītu,
Line 1: and string ‘pair’ 3,7 [3(front), 3(back)] (embūbu) is “not clear” (lā zakû),
Line 2: then the “third (3), thin front” (šalšam) string, you shall “tighten”
(tunasáaḫma),
Line 3: and the string ‘pair’ 3, 7 [3(front), 3(back)] (embūbu) will then be “clear” (zakû).
Section 2 Translation
Line 4: if the sammú (instrument) is in the ‘scale/mode’ of embūbu,
Line 5: and the string ‘pair’ 6,3 [4(back),3(front)] (kitmu) is “not clear” (lā zakû),
Line 6: then the “fourth (4), rear” (rebi uḫrîm) string, you shall “tighten” (tunasáaḫma),
Line 7: and the string ‘pair’ 6,3 [4(back),3(front)] (kitmu) will be “clear” (zakû).
Section 3 Translation
Line 8: if the sammú (instrument) is in the ‘scale/mode’ of kitmu,
Line 9: and the string ‘pair’ 2,6 [2(front),4(back)] (išartu) is “not clear” (lā zakû),
Line 10: then the “second (2) front” (samuššu) and “rear (9)” (uḫrîam) string, you shall
“tighten” (tunasáaḫma),
Line 11: and the string ‘pair’ of 2,6 [2(front),4(back)] (išartu) will be “clear” (zakû).
As can be seen in the above table, there is both a “tightening” and a “loosening”
section/chapter. The “tightening” section makes up the majority of what can be read on the
tablet. Most of the “loosening” section is damaged but, according to scholarly consensus, it
theoretically works in the same manner to the “tightening” section but reversed.
193
In other words, the “loosening” and “tightening” procedures are inversions of one another
with a recurring pattern that can be easily extrapolated275 (Mirelman and Krispijn 2009:43-
45; Friberg 2011:135-136). This is why the tablet should not necessarily be perceived as
providing a list of “7 ancient modes” it is rather a re-tuning/modulation procedure that can be
mirrored.
One should note that in the kitmu scale/mode the existence of the concept of octaves/unisons,
within an extended-heptatonic system276 is made obvious because one is instructed to tune
both the “second” string (of the samúššu instrument) with the “rear” (string 9) at the same
time. This disproves Dumbrill’s theory that ancient music makes use of an enneatonic
system.277 In a true enneatonic system one would not tighten/loosen string one (1) and eight
(8) or two (2) and nine (9) at the same time. As the name [ennea]tonic suggests, there are
nine different pitches. These nine pitches will not include any repeated pitches after the 7th
note since a true enneatonic system requires the use of nine characteristically different
pitches. It is only the 10th note that is an octave repeat. We do not have any retuning
instructions that indicates that string 1 is to be “tightened” or “loosened” together with string
10.
A more accurate categorisation of these ancient scale/modes, using contemporary

terminology and the knowledge at our disposal, is probably “extended-heptatonic”. All that
one can be sure of is that these ancient scales/modes, as described by the UET VII 74 tablet
above, states that string one (1) and eight (8) and two (2) and nine (9) are to be “tightened”
respectively. This suggests that string one (1) and eight (8) and string two (2) and nine (9)
were, in this specific context,278 perceived as equivalents. From this we may then also infer
that there was possibly a concept related to an “octave”. As has been discussed in Chapter 4
(§4.5.1.) octaves are also easily discoverable in nature. It is highly probable that the ancients
would have referred to this concept using terminology and definitions which are not yet
known to us (Kilmer 2006:275-276; 2001:114).
275 The full extrapolations will be provided in figure 111 in §6.4.

276 Further evidence that is highly suggestive of the fact that the ancients knew of a seven note/pitch (heptatonic) system will
be provided in section 6.4. when discussing the CBS 1766 tablet.
277 As discussed in Chapter 4, §4.5 Dumbrill uses the term enneatonic incorrectly.
278 There could have been other practices/standards but these are currently not known due to lack of textual evidence.
194
6.2. UET VI/3 899 General Contextual Information and Decipherment
The UET VI/3 899 tablet is fragmentary and holds less information than the UET VII 74
tablet. The inclusion of this tablet is to provide additional depth to the discussion. The tablet
UET VI/3 899, published by Aaron Shaffer and Marie-Christine Ludwig in 2006, is believed
to be a different Old-Babylonian (c.1900-1600 BCE) version of the same re-tuning text. Both
UET VII 74 and UET VI/3 899 are related in content. A photograph/digitisation of the
obverse279 of the UET VI/3 899 tablet is provided in figure 101.
Figure 101: Photograph of the UET VI/3 899 cuneiform tablet (obverse).
279 The reverse (back) of the tablet is reportedly blank.
195
A cuneiform and transliteration sketch, with accompanying annotations, of this tablet is as

follows (figure 102):
Figure 102: Cuneiform sketch (left) and transliteration sketch (right) of the UET VI/3 899
tablet.
196
Extrapolated transliterations and a translation of the UET VI/3 899 tablet are provided by
Mirelman and Krispijn (2009:44-45):
Figure 103: Transcription of the UET VI/3 899 tablet with extrapolations.
(Mirelman and Krispijn 2009:44-45).
The supplementary UET VI/3899 tablet (figure3-4) is important because it gives us evidence
of the Akkadian terms tanassaḫma (“tightening”) and tenè”amma (“loosening”). These are
the more correct philological and musicological readings offered by Mirelman and Krispijn
(2009:47). On the aforementioned UET VII 74 tablet the inscriptions of these terms are
damaged and it is because of this relation in content between these two tablets that scholars
are able to provide extrapolations for the full retuning procedure presented on UET VII 74
(Krispijn 1990:15; Gurney 1994:101; West 1998:223). According to Mirelman and Krispijn
(2009:43) the UET VI/3 99 tablet appears to complete the bottom end of the UET VII 74
tablet.
For the purpose and scope of this research the relation in content to the UEV VII 74 tablet is
the most important information that may be gleaned from the UET VI/3 899 tablet. As with
the UET VII 126 tablet no comment on the intended type of instrument280 will be made for
the UET VII 74 tablet.
280 Kilmer (2000:116) suggests that the UET VII 74 tablet is likely to provide retuning/modulation instructions for the lyre.
197
6.3. The Possibility of Ancient Tritones Being Equivalent to Western Tritones
Harry Blocker (2001:3-4) has also suggested that there are often fundamental errors made
with regard to translations. He specifically terms this the problem of “deep translation”:
[…] where we are not just looking for equivalences (or near equivalences)
among words of different languages for the same concept, but where it is
not at all clear that there is a shared concept in the first place […] if we are
speaking and writing English or some other European language, we have
to select one of our words - so, we have to ask, which one is the best?
Which type of Western discourse does it most closely resemble?
According to this research, this attempt to search for near equivalences between ancient and
modern words that describe music is the biggest problem that hinders the study of these
ancient music theory cuneiform tablets (Michalowski 2019:452). Recognising these
shortcomings, Curt Sachs (1943:27) earlier suggested that one should consider Otto Abraham
and Erich M. von Hornbostel’s method for generating more accurate musical translations
(Abraham and Hornbostel 1909). These translations would need to be capable of representing
non-Western, or as Sachs terms it, “exotic”, pitch and rhythmical conceptions. Such work in
the field of ancient Near-Eastern musicology has yet to be successfully undertaken and this
will be the goal of the current author’s future research.
On the website 432Octaves,281 Benjamin Joshua ([s.a]:[s.p]), has postulated that the Old
Babylonian (OB) school tablet YBC 7280282 holds evidence that the modern concept of a
tritone was known by ancient musicians. A photograph of the tablet is supplied by the Yale
University’s Institute for the Preservation of Cultural Heritage website283 (figure 104).
281 The reader should note that this source has not been peer-reviewed and is used to illustrate how these types of references
are often used to distort knowledge and information.
282 The tablet has been referred to as the “Pythagorean tablet” mainly because it provides evidence of the use of the square
root of two that predates Pythagoras’s discovery of the same concept (Flower and Robson 1998; Crickmore 2007:44).
283 https://ipch.yale.edu/news-events/3d-print-ancient-history-one-most-famous-mathematical-texts-mesopotamia (Accessed
3 September 2019).
198
Figure 104: Photograph of the YBC 7280 cuneiform tablet (obverse).

A sketch and a numerical translation of the tablet in question is provided below (figure 104).
Figure 105: Cuneiform sketch (left) and numerical translation (right) of the YBC 7280
tablet showing knowledge of the square root of two.
(Flower and Robson 1998:367).
To clarify, the YBC 7280 tablet, which is a school exercise284 tablet of unknown date and
origin, provides evidence of the mathematical use, a sexagesimal approximation, of the
square root of two (√2) (Flower and Robson 1998:366). Joshua ([s.a]:[s.p]) believes that
because mathematicians, and their students, knew or were tasked with calculating the √2
(=1.414213) then musicians/instrument makers would also possibly have known this and may
have applied it to the strings of an instrument.
284School exercise tablets are often circular in shape and fit comfortably within the palm of the hand (there are exceptions).
The ancients referred to these tablets as IM.ŠU (Sumerian) or imšukkum (Akkadian) which translates to mean “hand tables”.
An important characteristic feature of these types of school exercise tablets is the presence of large and rough inscriptions
made by learned scribes. The inscriptions are usually rough because the students are in the process of improving and
practicing their writing skills. This is done while attempting to solve problems or complete exercises. In other words, the
inscriptions are not as neat and precise as the handwriting of professional scribes (Flower and Robson 1998:366, 368).
199
By way of definition, a modern tritone within a Twelve-Tone Equal Tempered system falls
directly in the middle of a chromatic scale. The mid-point is exactly 6 semitones from the
lowest and highest octave (figure 106).
Figure 106: Piano diagram showing a tritone interval (A-D#/Bb).

This chapter has already revealed that the concept of some form of an octave, as illustrated by
the re-tuning/modulation procedure on the UET VII 74 and UET VI/3 899 tablet, was known
by ancient scribes and musicians. Conversely, if they also knew of the √2, like the
mathematicians did, this would mean that they possibly knew how to divide the octave into
12 “almost” equal parts.285 The problem with this logic is that the conclusions made here, by
Joshua ([s.a]:[s.p]), does not necessary flow from the stated premise since knowledge of the
√2 does not imply knowledge of 12 equal divisions of a string or tritones. The problems with
this theory will be discussed below.
The intervals within a modern Twelve-Tone Equal Tempered system, starting at “A” =
440Hz can, be represented as fractions and decimals as follows (table 30):
285Twelve-Tone Equal Temperament is not necessarily “equally” divided because it is based on complex ratios which allow
one to play in different keys as opposed to retuning an instrument each time a key changes. The existence of the UET VII 74
tablet reveals that each scale/mode had to be tunned through a modulation process. This provides further evidence as to why
a Just Intonation system is more probable for this ancient music. The ancients had to arrive at each of the 7 tunings.
200
Table 30
Twelve-Tone Equal Tempered system starting on “A” = 440Hz with corresponding
frequency and decimal values
Note/Pitch Name Interval Type Frequency Decimal Value
A Unison 440Hz = 1.000000
A#/Bb Minor Second 466.164Hz = 1.059463
B Major Second 493.883Hz = 1.122462
C Minor Third 523.251Hz = 1.189207
C#/Db Major Third 554.365Hz = 1.259921
D Perfect Fourth 587.330Hz = 1.334839
D#/Eb Tritone 622.254Hz = 1.414213
E Perfect Fifth 659.225Hz = 1.498307
F Minor Sixth 698.456Hz = 1.587401
F#/Gb Major Sixth 739.989Hz = 1.681792
G Minor Seventh 783.991Hz = 1.781979
G#/Ab Major Seventh 830.609Hz = 1.887748
A Octave 880.000Hz = 2.000000
As tabulated above the note “A” = 440Hz can be represented as a value (to 6 decimal places)
as 1.000000. One will then notice that the “D#/Eb” forms a tritone with a decimal value of
1.414213 (i.e. the √2). It is notable that this value 1.414213 only appears at “D#/Eb” when
one starts at A = 440Hz using a Twelve-Tone Equal temperament (figure 107).
Figure 107: Piano diagram showing a tritone with a numerical value of 1.414213.
201
From this mathematical proof Joshua ([s.a]:[s.p]), deduces that the ancients must have known
how to equally divide an octave into 12 equal parts with a tritone failing directly in the center
of the system forming a structure similar to the modern Twelve-Tone Equal Temperament.
At first glance this is an attractive theory. The main drawback is that it assumes that the
ancients tuned to a standard of “A” = 440Hz using a Twelve-Tone Equal Tempered system.
There is no textual evidence to support this claim. In Chapter 5 (§5.7) it has been argued that
it is more probable that the ancient would have observed the natural properties of the Just
Intonation system.
The standard of tuning to “A” = 440Hz286 was officially developed in the 19th century by the
International Organization for Standardization and the ability to mathematically divide the
octave into 12 equal parts is only possible once one adapts the more natural Just Intonation
system. Therefore, Joshua’s theory has very little credibility. It is difficult to know how this
mathematical knowledge of the square root of two hypothetically enables a musician to tune
a scale or interpret/create intervals. Moreover, just because we find evidence of the √2 on a
mathematical tablet intended for geometric shapes does not necessarily mean it was also used
in a musical context and applied to strings and it is a student practice exercise.
To clarify: the mathematical tablet YBC 7280 is calculating the diagonal287 of a unit square.
Alternatively, in order to calculate the diagonal of a square, one can multiply the length of
one of the square’s sides by the square root of two (√2) (Flower and Robson 1998:370). In
this specific context it is not applied to the strings of a musical instrument.
The major challenge is that we would need evidence of an ancient music theory cuneiform
tablet that specifically shows the use of the √2 in a musical context using a monochord. It
would need to be applied to the octave and a frequency of “A” = 440Hz in order to verify the
speculative theory. The scale of improbability rises not arithmetically, but geometrically and
becomes less and less likely. In other words, a probability of 60% combined with another
probability of 60% results in a probability of only 36%. A cuneiform music theory tablet that
discusses how the √2, starting at the frequency of “A” =440Hz, was used or was related to the
286 It should be noted that 440Hz is not necessarily considered to be a universal standard at present. In Spain 442Hz is used
whilst in Germany 443-445Hz is the ‘norm’. In the Sydney Opera House 441Hz is used and 440Hz is mostly used in British-
American Orchestras.
287 The diagonal line is longer than either of the square’s sides.
202
term lā zakû (“not clear”) will be extremely difficult to come by since we appear to have no
evidence of ancient Near-Eastern tuning or instrument building standards288 (Music in
Mesopotamia, 2020). Additionally, we may be dealing with an atritonia system, a system that
does not have tritones. The opposite of this would be a musical system that relies on tritones,
referred to as tritonia. The YBC 7280 tablet also provides one with the inverse of the square
root of two (√2), namely (1÷√2) (figure 108).
Figure 108: YBC 7280 tablet base-sixty

numerical translation.
(Flower and Robson 1998:367).
One should also note that both of these calculations are only close approximations. The
number for the square root of two (√2) that is provided on the tablet is equal to 1.414212963.
The more accurate answer would be 1.414213562. The modern tritone, to five decimal
places, is equal to 1.414213 and the hypothetical ancient tritone according to this tablet
would be 1.414212. The difference is negligible, not only mathematically but also
audially/aurally.
At present, it is difficult to argue that the use of the square root of two (√2) in ancient Near-
Eastern mathematics proves the existence of a tritone. The next section will provide evidence
for why we cannot assume the only sounds the ancients heard as “not clear” was an interval
of a tritone (augmented 4th/diminished 5th). In other words, they could have perceived of
other intervals as “not clear” based on their own cultural perceptions and preferences.
288
Both (2009:7) suggests that some instruments remain “conserved” and this means that some instruments do not develop
extensively over time (the East Asian Zither instrument is an example).
203
6.4. UET VII 74 Musicological Interpretation
The common method for interpreting the UET VII 74 and UET VI/3 899 tablet
musicologically, assuming that tritones were implied despite the reservations previously
expressed, will be revealed and criticised in the course of this section. The reasoning
underpinning this criticism is that it is currently accepted that modern Western tritones
existed in ancient music and this stance is dogmatically imposed and needs to be criticised.
For convenience a portion of the UET VII 74 re-tuning/modulatory “tightening” procedure,
with illustrations adapted from Tom Phillips and Armand D’Angour (2018:23), can be
depicted visually as follows (figure 109).
Figure 109: Visualisation of the re-tuning/modulatory

procedure described by the UET VII 74 tablet.
Tom Phillips and Armand D’Angour (2018:23).
Wulstan (1968) and Gurney (1968), with their now rejected ascending interpretations, were
among the first289 to argue that, if one assumes that the term “not clear” (lā zakû) is related to
our modern concept of a dissonant tritone,290 then one can construct a working scale/mode.
289 Before the discovery of the UET VII 74 tablet Gulpin also attempted to interpret ancient music using tritones because
evidence of the use of tritones was believed to be producible from ancient flutes from China (Sachs 1941a:65). Sachs
similarly attempted to deduce ancient scales/modes by looking at ancient pipe instruments excavated at Ur (Lawergren
2000:121). Dumbrill (2020:95) believes that many of these “Neanderthalian bone flutes” are not musical instruments
because bone would not be an “appropriate” material to use/work with to construct wind instruments (refer specifically to
Dumbrill 2015b). Juzhong Zhang, Xinghua Xiao and Yun Kuen Lee (2004) provide a contending view in which they are
able to calculate intervals (Both 2009:8). The reader should note that Dumbrill (2015b) does not make any reference to the
work of Zhang, Xiao and Lee (2004).
290 A tritone is not the only dissonant interval. Even in a “limited” scale consisting of only a few notes any major or minor
2nd (or their inversions; minor and major 7ths) are also dissonant. If these intervals are not accepted to be dissonant enough
204
The reasoning is that there is only one place a tritone291 in a descending heptatonic system
can occur when one looks at the instructions described by the UET VII 74 tablet. One can use
a “trial and error” approach to deduce this (Gurney 1968:232). Wulstan (1968:215) argues
that the use of the term is effective because, in this re-tuning/modulation setting, the tritone is
traditionally “an impossible tuning interval”. The implication is that, using Western theory, it
is difficult to tune an interval of a tritone and that this is why it is important that the tritones
should be “cleared” by “tightening” or “loosening” specific strings.
The basis of the argument is that we can connect modern notions of tritones to the ancient
terms “string spans”. The terms pītu, embūbu, kitmu, išartu and qablītu, with spans of
fourths/fifths, can be either (1) “not clear” fourths/fifths equating to our modern augmented
fourths/diminished fifths or (2) they can be converted into “clear” fourths/fifths (perfect
fourths/fifths). Wulstan (1968:220) states: “there is only one interval in the scale that is a
fourth or fifth, and at the same time [can be altered to become] dissonant, viz., the tritone.”
The descending interpretation of the UET VII 74 tablet by Dumbrill (2005:24, 48, 52-54) is
currently the most recent interpretation. At first glance, the resultant tritones appear to be able
to exist in only one possible formation, a descending one that makes use of “tightening”. This
is termed a thetic/static292 system. The term “static” is used to indicate that the alphabetical
music pitch names do not shift – they remain in place (figure 110).
then why would one accept that only the augmented 4th (inversion: diminished 5th) which forms a tritone, would be
something that needs to be “cleared”. The need to avoid or resolve the tritone is a Western construct.
291 In a chromatic scale, there are 12 places where a tritone can be formed. In the ascending melodic minor scale, there are 2
places.
292 Wulstan (1968:221) was the first to use the terms thetic/static and dynamic for identification purposes. Kilmer
(1971:136), and Dumbrill (2005:53) later adapted this in their own work.
205
Figure 110: Thetic/static system visualisation.

Tom Phillips and Armand D’angour (2018:23).
By knowing where the tritones are placed in a descending scale/mode and by assuming
specific pitches, scholars have been able to extrapolate more information and complete a full
thetic/static reading of the missing sections of the tablet. This more complete, extrapolated
theoretical interpretation by Dumbrill (2005, 2014b, 2017-2020), generates a supposed
concise list of general pitches that appear in each of the seven known ancient scales/modes
(figure 111).
Figure 111: Fully realised (extrapolated) thetic/static descending interpretation.

Tom Phillips and Armand D’angour (2018:23).
206
Dumbrill (2019:38) was of the opinion that, “However speculative this might be, rather than
saying that it could not have sounded the way I am proposing it, I would say why should it
not?” A preliminary criticism to this question, discussed more fully in §6.4.2, is that this
speculation should be avoided because there is a total of 24 different pitch arrangement
possibilities (12 ascending and 12 descending). In other words, it would not have sounded as
Dumbrill has theorised because there are 24 different scale/mode possibilities that all have
their own inner, unique sound. More information concerning the nuanced character that each
scale/mode has will be provided shortly.
The only other reason why most scholars seem to use these specific pitches, the music
alphabetical note names, is because the system appears to conform to the notion of the circle
of fifths which forms the basis for much music theory (refer to the descending static/thetic
system in Appendix V). Within Western music theory, an ascending circle of fifths is used
from the pitch “C”, adding sharps in the order of “F#-C#-G#-D#-A#-E#-B#” (Crocker
1978:101).293 A Western theoretical idea is yet again forced onto an ancient Near-Eastern
concept. This research holds that one should be careful to assume that these seven
scales/modes may be related to our modern Western modes/scales. There is presently not
enough evidence to support a claim that suggests that they are related.
6.4.1. Considering a theory of modes and modal inversions
Dumbrill (2005, 2014b, 2017-2020), influenced by Wulstan (1968), reimagines the above
thetic/static system into a dynamic/transposed system (figure 112). Compare the thetic/static
“E” major based system form Appendix V to the dynamic “C” major system in Appendix I.
The overall intent by scholars, when interpreting the UET VII 74 tablet, becomes to attempt
to resurrect ancient scales/modes based on hypothetical tone and semitone relationships (refer
to table 31).
293The scales/modes which require flats are not considered by Crocker (1978:101). The order of flats is arrived at using a
descending circle of perfect fifths/fourths moving from the scale with no flats, “C” major, to the scale with all the flats, “Cb”
major. Thus, we arrive at the major scale transposed to three chromatic pitches following on each other: “Cb/B”, “C” and
“C#/Db”.
207
Table 31
Tone and semitone structures of the seven ancient scales/modes
qablītu nīš tuḫri nīd qabli pītu embūbu kitmu išartu
Locrian Lydian *Ionian Mixolydian Dorian *Aeolian Phrygian

↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓
↓ S T T T T T S ↑
. .
1 7
T T T T S S T
. .
2 6
T T S S T T T
. .
3 5
S S T T T T T
. .
4 4
T T T T T S S
. .
5 3
T T T S S T T
. .
6 2
T S S T T T T
. .
7 1
S T T T T T S
↓ ↑
↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑
Phrygian *Aeolian Dorian Mixolydian *Ionian Lydian Locrian
išartu kitmu embūbu pītu nīd qabli nīš tuḫri qablītu
One should note that the Ionian mode is structurally equivalent to the major scale and the
Aeolian mode is in effect the natural minor scale. This is in accordance with old and modern
Western theoretical conceptions.
208
Recent consensus believes that the scale/mode of nīd qabli is the equivalent of the Dorian
mode. As can be seen from table 31, this thesis finds that the scale/mode nīd qabli is Ionian
(when read from bottom to top) with its inverse embūbu being Dorian (when read from top to
bottom). Crickmore (2008, 2012) partially explores this possibility of a conception of
perceiving scales/modes in inversions (“inverse modes”) in ancient theory. Crickmore
(2008:13) uses a similar table but it does not extend past the octave and therefore omits an
important feature that comes attached with the added 9th note (to be discussed below).
Traditionally when there are 7 notes with an 8th octave repeat (within a heptatonic system) a
Dorian scale/mode remains Dorian no matter whether it is heard in its ascending or
descending form. The mode of “D” Dorian is used in the following table to illustrate this.
Table 32
Heptatonic scale/mode that is Dorian when ascending and descending
← “D” Dorian →
D E F G A B C D
→ T S T T T S T ←
When one adds a 9th note, making it an extended-heptatonic scale/mode as the UET VII 74
tablet calls for then the character of the scale/mode will change slightly, but not drastically,
when read in the inverse (table 33).
209
Table 33
Extended-heptatonic scale/mode with an added 9th note
→ “D” Dorian (structure) →
(“D” Dorian sound)
D E F G A B C D [E]
→ T S T T T S T [T] ←
← Ionian (structure) ←
(“E” Phrygian sound)
Furthermore, when a descending system is used as above, then one will notice that the
semitone-tone relationship is Ionian. However, the resultant sound is Phrygian. Most
scholars have not observed this phenomenon. Crickmore (2008:13) only acknowledges the
change in pattern. With this modus operandi, everything is possible. For example, one could
start one note higher (on “F”) which will give the “original” mode a Lydian audial effect. If
one starts at an even higher note (on “G”) then there will be a Mixolydian effect. The
reservation is that the validity of a procedure could be applied to any mode to “change” it into
another mode, depending on which “higher note” is chosen.
Dumbrill (2005, 2014b, 2017-2020), as do most other scholars, specifically uses the parent
key of “C” major with its related modes, in the dynamic form.294 He does this simply
because it is easier to work with since one can avoid using an excessive number of sharps and
flats. Using only the white keys of the piano, the tritone is formed between the notes “F” and
“B”. The thetic/static and dynamic rearrangements of each scale/mode is presumed still to
have the same sound and character because of the constant semitone-tone relationships
(figure 112).
294 Refer to Appendix I-XII for the full list of descending thetic/static and dynamic variations.
210
Figure 112: Rearranged dynamic system interpretation.

(Tom Phillips and Armand D’Angour 2018:23).
Each individual scale/mode has its own character, scholars do not generally consider this
uniqueness. The theory is that scales/modes will sound the same in terms of character
regardless of the pitch to which they have been transposed. For example: when the scale of
“C” major is transposed to the pitch “G” to become “G” major it will have the same major
sound, and semitone-tone relationships. The two scales should therefore ‘sound’ the same in
terms of character but each key also has its own inner “personality”. This is especially
evident in modern Twelve-Tone-Equal Temperament. Major scales in the Just intonation
system will sound drastically different.
The added 9th pitch also obscures the presumed unique character in that it can be perceived
differently whether ascending or descending. For instance, an ascending Ionian mode with an
added “D” (9th pitch) will sound like a Dorian mode when descending (table 34). The last
pitch, according to Dumbrill (2005:53), acts like an anacrusis (a musical up-beat). This is
why he still views it as Dorian. He also contradicts himself here since an enneatonic scale
would not have a Dorian character. Only a heptatonic scale with an octave repeat at the 8th
note will have these types of modal characters.
211
Table 34
“C” Ionian ascending while “D” Dorian descending.
→ “C” Ionian structure →

(Ionian sound)
C D E F G A B C [D]
→ T S T T T S T [T] ←
← “D” Dorian structure ←

(Dorian sound)
Like Crocker (1978:101), Dumbrill (2005, 2014b, 2017-2020) avoids all the other key
possibilities because it is only this thetic/static system, based on the dynamic “E” major
parent scale, that starts the circle of fifths beginning at “F#” which then moves sequentially to
“C#-G#-D#-A#-E#-B#” (Refer to Appendix V). The other major scales possible in the
thetic/static system will also follow the circle of fifths but will not start at “F#” and will also
require numerous enharmonic notations. In this instance, too, a Western concept has been
used to analyse ancient Near-Eastern music. This is why a tablaturisation interpretation is
needed.
The contents on the UET VII 74 tablet suggests the use of a thetic/static system. This is
because “not clear” pairs need to be “cleared” by means of “tightening” or “loosening”
strings. This is why the tablet is currently considered to be a re-tuning/modulation tablet. A
dynamic system is problematic because it rearranges the pitch orders thereby breaking the
cyclical re-tuning/modulation pattern.
6.4.2. Further problems and ambiguities
One should note that Dumbrill’s interpretation is based entirely on an initial descending
system that “tightens” (Dumbrill 2005:48,52-54). These same semitone-tone and tritone
structural relationships can, however, also be found in an ascending system that “loosens”
(figure 113). This ascending interpretation can be arrived at if it is assumed that string 1 is
low in tension rather than a high one. The reader should note that the UET VII 74 and UET
VI/3 899 tablet does not mentioned whether string 1 is of a higher tension or not.
212
String 1 is usually read as a higher tension, resulting in a descending interpretation, because it

is intertextually inferred from the UET VII 126 tablet. In other words, scholars assume that
the UET VII 74 and UET VI/3 899 tablet is similarly referring to a descending based system
because the UET VII 126 tablet appears to be making use of a descending system.
Figure 113: Fully realised (extrapolated) thetic/static ascending interpretation.

(Tom Phillips and Armand D’Angour 2018:23).
The ascending and descending systems (figures 112 and 113) can be “tightened” and
“loosened”. This is strongly suggestive of a free standing system that is capable of being both
ascending and descending. Figure 114 provided on page 214 illustrates this free standing
interchangeability more explicitly.
As shown in Chapter 4, §4.6.2, the problem concerned with whether ancient scales/modes
were perceived as naturally ascending or descending is a false dilemma – they can be
perceived as both simultaneously. One preliminary conclusion that can be drawn is that the
overall character and sound of the scale/modes will be different when ascending or
descending because of the added 9th note. The discussion which follows will elaborate.
If one conforms to the notion that the UET VII 74 and UET VI/3 899 tablet reveals a
semitone-tone relationship, then any of the twelve thetic/static and related dynamic
keys/scale possibilities, with their associated modes and inner unique nuances, can be used.
The underlining structure, and not the sound or character, will be constant.
213
The tritones will always be found in the same places for each of the 24 (12 ascending and 12
descending) scales/modes. In this case we are left with another ambiguity since one cannot be
sure what the exact pitches of the scale/mode are. The descending interpretation that
“tightens” has 12 different scale/mode possibilities and the ascending interpretation that
“loosens” adds another 12.
A realisation in Western notation specifying pitches is redundant because we cannot be sure

of the exact pitches. This is why an ambiguous tablaturisation interpretation is necessary. To
clarify: the Hurrian H6 tablet indicates clearly that it uses the scale/mode of nīd qabli. This
specific scale/mode together with its inverse embūbu appears to be the equivalent, in terms of
the semitone-tone relationships, to either our modern Western Ionian (major) mode when
ascending or a Dorian mode (Doric character) when descending. This is only if one assumes
modern tritones existed in ancient Near-Eastern music (Hagel 2005: 298-299; West
1994:168-169). Dumbrill (2005:41) acknowledges that the scale/mode of nīd qabli has a
Doric character, within the Doric scale species. However, due to the reanalysis offered by
this section, the character may be either Dorian or Ionian in structure depending on the
ascending or descending direction.
Dumbrill (2005:53) problematically enforces only one scale/mode on the reader without
making it clear that there are other possibilities. Following Dumbrill’s interpretations, he
dogmatically imposes that the pitches of the descending “false” enneatonic scale/mode of nīd
qabli are “[E]-D-C-B-A-G-F-E-D”. He uses these specific pitches only because he is able to
generate a performable version of his interpretation in Western notation. He offers no
concrete evidence why he chooses these specific pitches as opposed to any of the other 12
descending and 12 ascending possibilities.
As stated, it seems as though Dumbrill (2005, 2014b, 2017-2020) and most other scholars
may be mistaken in that this series of notes is Ionian in structure, with a Phrygian sound,
when descending and Dorian in structure and sound when ascending. This invertible quality
is because of the added 9th note.
214
Table 35
“E” Ionian/Phrygian ascending while “D” Dorian descending.
→ Ionian (Structure) →
(“E” Phrygian Sound)
[E] D C B A G F E D
→ [T] T S T T T S T ←
← “D” Dorian ←
(“D” Dorian Sound)
Dumbrill (2005:41) assumes that the scale/mode will have a Dorian character and sound
when descending but this view may not be correct. It is, rather, Ionian in structure with an
“E” Phrygian sound when played as a descending structure. It will only have a Dorian
structure and sound when played as an ascending structure.
The scale/mode of nīd qabli can be any one of the following 24 ascending and descending
thetic/static and dynamic scales/modes (figure 114). It should be stressed that this is only if
one assumes that modern tritones were used in ancient music. There could also have been
other possibilities. In this specific instance the tritones (an augmented 4th/diminished 5th) can
be found in the same place in each example as they all follow the, now confirmed, Ionian
semitone-tone structure of: tone-tone-semitone-tone-tone-tone-semitone-[tone] (figure 114;
see next page).
215
Twelve descending (thetic/static and dynamic) possibilities for nīd qabli
Twelve ascending (thetic/static and dynamic) possibilities for nīd qabli
Figure 114: Twelve descending (top) and twelve ascending (bottom) possibilities for the
scale/mode of nīd qabli.
(Illustration Compiled and Edited by Author 2021).
It is striking that this system, as described on the UET VII 74 and UET VI/3 899 tablet,
appears to have structural relations between the semitones-tones that seem to correspond to
our modern concept of scales/modes (Volk 2006:37,39,41; 1994:193-196). However, this
similarity is only valid when one assumes that our understanding of what is “not clear” is
comparable to modern tritones (Hagel 2005: 298-299). Furthermore, it is tempting to
presuppose that the scales/modes appear to be based on perfect fifths/fourth intervals because
these consonant intervals, according to our modern ears, are easy to identify and are
commonly used in modern tuning systems (West 1994:164). Logic also dictates that our
modern tuning systems may have been derived from these ‘elementary’ tuning systems,
specifically the Pythagorean Tuning, Meantone Tuning, Just Intonation and then only – much
later, from about 1700 – Twelve-Tone Equal Temperament.
216
To offer another objection: scholars do not consider that ancient music may have made use of
microtones/quartertones and that ancient musicians might not have favored the same sounds
modern musicians do. Additionally, it is not only the intervals of fifths and fourths that can
be considered as “consonant”. Intervals of thirds (and their inversions of sixths) are
consonant as well and both can be achieved through subdivision in whole fractions of
strings/pipes.
6.5. CBS 1766 Seven-Sided Star Figure Tuning Diagram
The CBS 1766 tablet, of uncertain origin,295 has been dated to the Neo-Babylonian period.296
Hermann Hilprecht (1903) and, more recently, Wayne Horowitz (2006) initially believed that
this tablet provided astronomical information. This was assumed because the main feature of
the tablet is a unique seven-sided star figure engraving (a heptagram) with inner acute
pointed angles297 (figure 115). The tablet is incomplete and only contains limited text. An
important question to ask is why did the scribe abandon completing the tablet?
A high-resolution photograph of the tablet, illustrating this feature, is reproduced from

Dumbrill ([s.a.]c:1).
Figure 115: Photograph of the CBS 1766 cuneiform tablet (obverse).

(Dumbrill [s.a.]c:1).
295 Dumbrill (2020:40) claims that it was probably excavated at Nippur.

296 Dumbrill (2019:14; 2020:39) dates it between 600-539 BCE in the historical period known as the Chaldean Empire.
297 This type of heptagram is often indicated with the Schläfli symbol: 7/3.
217
A cuneiform sketch/copy of the tablet is provided by Horowitz (2006:38) (figure 116).
Figure 116: Sketch of the CBS 1766 tablet (obverse).

(Horowitz 2006:38).
A transliteration sketch and numerical translation of the tablet is supplied by Friberg

(2011:129) (figure 117).
Figure 117: Transcription and numeral translations sketch of the CBS 1766 tablet
(obverse).
(Friberg 2011:129).
Caroline Waerzeggers and Ronny Siebes (2007) provided a reinterpretation of this tablet and
realised that the contents relate to the strings of a musical instrument. It is now accepted that
the tablet concerns music theory because the Akkadian terms that are listed at each of the
218
seven points of the star diagram, around the inner circle, are the same as the string names that
are listed on the UET VII 126 tablet (Waerzeggers and Siebes 2007:43-44). These familiar
terms are qúdmu, samušum, rebi úḫrî, šalši úḫrîm and è/eabanu (figure 118).
Figure 118: CBS 1766 heptagram diagram with English and numerical translations.
(Waerzeggers and Siebes 2007:43-44).
Using the second column298 on the CBS 1766 tablet, the listed numbers can be used to
construct the heptagram diagram. This is specifically if one moves from point 2-6, 6-3, 3-7,
7-4, 4-1, 1-5 and then finally to 5-2. As can be recalled from the CBS 10996 tablet, these
same numbers also have corresponding term names. This information can be generated
intertextually by applying information from the CBS 10996 tablet to CBS 1766 (figure 119).
CBS 1766 Numbers CBS 10996 String Numbers
Figure 119: CBS 1766 and CBS 10996 intertextual comparison.

298 The first column is damaged and holds no numerical inscriptions.
219
Dumbrill (2017:27; [s.a.]a:5-6; 2020:40) has cited this acute angle heptagram figure as, “our
first evidence of [ancient] heptatonicism”. Dahlia Shehata (2017a:44) postulates that this may
be evidence of a diatonic tuning system that predates Pythagoras. Dumbrill (2019:52) also
states that:
To a musicologist, this pattern suggests immediately a typical method of

tuning, still in usage to this day, for the construction of a heptatonic scale
by means of descending fifths and ascending fourths. The reason we have
chosen to start the pattern with descending fifth ‘B-E’ followed by
ascending fourth ‘E-A’, etc., is that the last alternation will fall on a
tritone, avoiding any sharps or flats, for the sake of clarity.
Even if this system was widely known and practiced, this research holds that the numbers in
the columns refer to “spans” of strings and not necessarily to “intervals” 299 of fourths and
fifths. A more appropriate term to use would be “spans” (figure 120).
Figure 120: CBS 1766 tablet “spans”.

(Friberg 2011:129).
To be more specific the 7/3 heptagram diagram can be constructed when moving from the
listed numbers vertically and also horizontally as illustrated in figure 121 on the next page
(refer to Dumbrill [s.a.]c:4 and Colburn 2018b:175).
299As discussed in Chapter 5, §5.11 we can deduce that the ancient system of using numbers to represent musical ideas is
based on mathematics and may refer to string spans and not necessarily intervals or degrees of a scale.
220
Figure 121: CBS 1766 tablet re-tuning 7/3 heptagram diagram procedure.
(Dumbrill [s.a.]c:4).
From the above illustration we can see that the seven-sided star figure acts like a pictorial
tuning dial/chart that runs through and connects each of the seven scales/modes. It also
appears to cycle through fourths and fifths 2-6 (fifth), 6-3 (fourth), 3-7 (fifth), 7-4 (fourth), 4-
1 (fourth), 1-5 (fifth), 5-2 (fourth). The seven-sided star figure presented on the CBS 1766
tablet also relates strongly to the UET VII 74 re-tuning/modulation tablet.
The reader should note that this cycle does have a strong resemblance to the “circle of
fourth/fifths” used in Western music. Cycling through fifths and fourths is the currently the
221
only viable way to understand and interpret the CBS 1766 and UET VII 74 tablet. Mirelman
(2013:54) notes that it “[…] seems uncomfortably familiar”.
This thesis avers that one should be cautious to apply this Western construct on ancient
music. The main reasoning for this is because the “circle of fourths/fifths” also implies other
knowledge. For instance, when one traditionally learns about the “circle of fourths/fifths” one
can draw out other information from it that aids with improvisation and songwriting (such as
chords, functional harmony, relative keys, parallel minor keys and the order of key
signatures). If one assumes this ancient knowledge is related to Western knowledge of the
“circle of fourths/fifths” then one might lead others to attempt to draw out this same modern
Western knowledge and apply it to the ancient tablet. It would be safer to be more explicit
and suggest that this ancient knowledge precedes the conception of the “circle of
fourths/fifths” and its intended use was for retuning or a system of modulation to arrive at
other scales/modes that may or may not share a relation to Western knowledge. This is why
this thesis suggests that the modern Western conception of the “circle of fourths/fifths”
should be avoided in initial interpretations.
The following diagrams (figure 122 and 123) will show this cyclical process and the manner
in which one can apply this same heptagram re-tuning procedure/diagram to the seven
scales/modes as presented in the UET VII 74 tablet (Waerzeggers and Siebes 2007:44).
222
Figure 122: Descending based system capable of being “loosened” and “tightened”.
223
Figure 123: Ascending based system capable of being “tightened” and “loosened”.
224
One will also notice that the scales/modes of išartu and qablītu have the potential to continue
the cycle a semitone higher or lower, so that there are eventually eight repetitions of the first
scale/mode (an octave difference). This means that both išartu and qablītu can be perceived
as a possible “starting” position (Dumbrill 2019:38). If microtones/quartertones were used in
the ancient system, then it might have been possible that the system restarted the same as it
initially did, with the first išartu scale/mode (this needs to be tested).
We cannot be sure how the system continued past the seventh scale/mode of qablītu because
the tablet is damaged. Dumbrill (2019:39) cautions that this system was probably a
theoretical device and was not necessarily used in practice. The reason he gives is that he
himself cannot imagine a court or temple musician going through this laborious process.
Dumbrill (2019:39) provides no further evidence for this claim. Contrary to his view, we
have accounts of ancient musicians and kings who found the ability to tune instruments a
skill worthy to boast about. One can refer, for example, to the Old-Babylonian (c.1900-1600
BCE) cuneiform inscriptions, identified as “A praise poem of Šulgi (Šulgi B)”.300 The
translations reveal a musician king who is boastful about being a master at tuning both
familiar and unfamiliar instruments.
In the cuneiform text known as “Examination Text A” a student is asked as part of an

examination if he knows the names of six different songs and how to tune a specific
instrument (refer to Černý 1994:17-18 and Michalowski 2010:200). This implies that tuning
instruments was a specialised skill that would have required diligent practice and training.
But one would still be inclined to see a “tuning demonstration” as something different from a
performance. Whether an audience would have been impressed to see this tuning
demonstration before a performance is an open-ended question.
In summary, the CBS 1766 tablet presents the terms in the order from top to bottom in the
order of; 2-6 (išartu), 6-3 (kitmu), 3-7 (embūbu), 7-4 (pītu), 4-1 (nīd qabli), 1-5 (nīš tuḫri), 5-
2 (qablītu). This cycle can be restarted with a repeat of a ‘new’ eighth išartu scale/mode.
Additionally, as shown by the above illustrations (figure 122 and 123), the same star diagram
can also be constructed when moving in the inverse; 2-5 (qablītu), 5-1 (nīš tuḫri), 1-4 (nīd
300Refer to the Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature (ETCSL) database for more information concerning this
inscription: http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-
bin/etcsl.cgi?simplesearchword=tuning&simplesearch=translation&searchword=&charenc=gcirc&lists=
225
qabli), 4-7 (pītu), 7-3 (embūbu), 3-6 (kitmu), 6-2 (išartu). This cycle can be restarted with a
repeat of a new eighth qablītu scale/mode. This tablet also seems to have an imbedded free
standing system that is capable of being perceived in both directions (figure 124).
Figure 124: Invertible directions

for “tightening” and “loosening”.
One can, as before, pose the question of whether the ancient music instructional term names
could also have had ascending and descending inversional functionalities301 (table 36):
Table 36
Normal and inverted states
Instructional term name Normal order Inverted
išartu 2→6 2←6 (6→2)
kitmu 6→3 6←3 (3→6)
embūbu 3→7 3←7 (7→3)
pītu 7→4 7←4 (4→1)
nīd qabli 4→1 4←1 (1→4)
nīš tuḫri 1→5 1←5 (5→1)
qablītu 5→2 5←2 (2→5)
This adds a new level of ambiguity and provides reasons why an updated tablature
interpretation could be more viable in understanding and visualising ancient Near-Eastern
music notation: according to this research there are far too many unknowns. It should be
stressed that the CBS 10996 tablet specifically indicates the string number order only in the
“normal” configuration as opposed to the proposed “upper” and “higher” alterations
301Refer to Chapter 5, §5.9, for information concerning the possible inversional qualities of the string pairs/sets as seen on
the CBS 10996 tablet.
226
(discussed in Chapter 5, §5.9). The theorised tablaturisations302 should reflect these “normal”
configurations because this is the only information that is currently available.
The UET VII 74 tablet does not specify whether it starts with a “tightening” or “loosening”
procedure. As this chapter has shown, it may be applied to both ascending and descending
systems. This adds further validity to the claim that the system, the intended instrument(s)
and the terms with which the numbers are associated can be perceived within a free standing
system capable of being both ascending and descending. For example: the term išartu can be
perceived as either 2→6 or 6→2.
As is the case with the UET VII 126 tablet, the manner in which the tablet was inscribed also
has a bearing on the direction the tablets are to be read. The same logic can be applied to the
re-tuning procedure on the tablet UET VII 74. Additionally, when the numbers are read from
top to bottom on the CBS 1776 tablet it appears to call for a “loosening” system and when
read in the opposite direction (from bottom to top) it follows a “tightening” system (figure
125). It can be perceived as both “tightening” and “loosening”, dependent on perspective.
This implies that it is also within a free standing system.
Figure 125: CBS 1776 tablet “tightening” and “loosening” orientation.

302 For the preliminary tablaturisation of the CBS 10996 tablet refer back to figure 79 in Chapter 5, §5.4.
227
6.5.1. Hidden heptagrams and heptagons
The third column of the CBS 1776 tablet makes use of a span of only one string. There is no
evidence on the tablet regarding the names of these types of spans. A heptagon generated
from these spans, read as horizontal units, follows (refer to Friberg 2011:130) (Figure 126).
Figure 126: Spans of one on the CBS 1776 tablet.

(Friberg 2011:129-130).
One could assume that the terms appearing on top of the corresponding columns are the
names given to the class of spans (figure 127). For example, the numbers that have a span of
1 could be refed to as ziqipu. However, according to Dumbrill (2017:27) these terms are
difficult to place into context and it “resists interpretation”. Colburn (forthcoming) suggests
that there may be an error in transliteration and that the header in column 2 (zi-qí-pi), that
refers to spans of sevenths, can be more accurately read as sí-iḫ-pu. He therefore postulates
that the term siḫpū may refer to “primary sevenths” (see Colburn 2018b).
228
Figure 127: Unknown terms on the CBS 1776 tablet.

(Friberg 2011:129-130).
It is important to point out that the lines that can be drawn from the numbers from the third
column run parallel, and in the same direction, to the lines that can be drawn from the second
column. The parallel relation might be why the numbers were presented in the configuration
illustrated in figure 128. This further reveals how the two diagrams, namely the acute angle
heptagram and the heptagon, can be superimposed (Colburn 2009b).
229
Figure 128: CBS 1776 tablet diagram with parallel relations construction both a heptagon and
a heptagram.
(Compiled and Edited by Author 2021)
(Dumbrill [s.a.]c:4)
Another type of obtuse angle heptagram, with the Schläfli symbol: 7/2, can be constructed
when the last numbers from column two and the first numbers from column one are read as
vertical units (Friberg 2011:129-130).
230
Figure 129: Constructing a 7/2 heptagram from information from the CBS 1766 tablet.
(Friberg 2011:129-130).
Referring again to the numbers on the CBS 10996 tablet, one will notice that both the acute
(7/3) and obtuse (7/2) versions of the heptagram can also be drawn, especially when the
numbers are followed in a random order. Both of these heptagrams can be combined to form
a new star figure ([7]+[7/2]+[7/3]).
When following the numerical units horizontally on the CBS 10996 tablet no clearly
identifiable diagram will appear (Dumbrill 2019:25-28). However, one will notice that the
“primary” spans303 (1-5, 5-2, 2-6, 6-3, 3-7, 7-4, 4-1) draw the 7/3 version of the heptagram
and the “secondary” spans (2-7, 7-5; 1-3, 3-5; 2-4, 4-6; 1-6) draw the other 7/2 version. This
is shown in figure 130.
303 These are the same “primary” and “secondary” spans as discussed in Chapter 5, §5.9.
231
Primary (7/2) Secondary (7/3)
Combined ([7]+[7/2]+[7/3])
Figure 130: The three different heptagram diagrams.

(Complied and Edited by Author 2021).
6.5.2. Pentagrams, heptagrams and dodecagrams indicating tones and

semitones
When interpreting the heptagram diagram on the CBS 1766 tablet, Dumbrill (2019:24;
2020:42-43) makes use of the analogy of a rope with a sequence of tied knots. He uses this to
support his theory for the existence of diatonicism in ancient music (figure 105). He
continues to use a “false” enneatonic system. To reach his conclusion he repeats the notes of
strings four (4) and (5). As this research has shown this is closer to an extended-heptatonic
system as opposed to an enneatonic system because there are octave repeats after the 7th note.
The figure that Dumbrill (2019:24,53-54; 2020:39,42-43) draws to prove his assumption of
the use of tones and semitones is deceptive because the physical engraving on the tablet does
not reflect his digital reconstruction. Dumbrill (2020: 24,43) draws the acute angle heptagram
with smaller outer angles at two places where he believes the semitones from a diatonic
system would occur. He places the semitones between strings two (2) and three (3) and six
(6) and seven (7). There are no markings on the tablet to support this presumption.
232
Figure 131: CBS 1766 heptagram engraving (right) compared to Dumbrill’s theoretical
diagram (left).
(Dumbrill 2020:39,42-43).
It is important to note that Dumbrill (2005:73-74) had already theorised about a similar type
of heptagram diagram before the CBS 10996 tablet was published as a known music related
tablet. West (1994:164,168) also constructed a similar heptagram diagram. One of the
reasons why musicologists and theoreticians usually attempt to construct a heptagram
diagram is because a system that visually depicts pitch relations, is already well established in
modern Musicology as may be seen in the chromatic-dodecagram304 and the ‘pentagram’ or
incomplete heptagram circles below (figure 132 and 133).
Figure 132: Modern music theoretical Figure 133: Modern music theoretical circle
chromatic-dodecagram. of fifths pentagram.
(McCartin 1998:364). (McCartin 1998:364).
304 This chromatic-dodecagram illustration is similar to Mersenne’s star diagram that shows the harmonies and disharmonies
of twelve chromatic intervals (Lima 2017:243).
233
As an aside: the tablet O.176, dated to the second century BCE, makes use of a dodecagram
figure. This figure is used to name the months of the year and is not used in a music
theoretical context (Friberg 2011:132; Steele 2016:58) (figure 134).
Figure 134: Photograph of the O.176 tablet (obverse).

(Steele 2016:58).
234
A detailed sketch of the dodecagram figure, with corresponding transcriptions and

translations, is provided below (figure 135).
Figure 135: O.176 tablet dedecagram figure with

transliterations and translations.
(Friberg 2011:132).
Another old tradition reflecting a similar music theoretical principle appears in a 13th century
Islamic treatise on music theory called the Kitāb al-Adwār.305 The information is derived
from ancient Greek theory306 and can be translated to “The Book on Cycles”. It was written
by Ṣafī ad-Dīn al-Urmawi (1216-1294) and the importance of this document is that it features
a ‘pentagram’, not necessarily pentatonic in nature, that shifts which aims to graphically
represent Arabic music information (Friberg 2011:152) (figure 136). This texts deals with the
cyclical tuning of fifths and fourths for a five stringed Oriental lute,‘ūd or Oud instrument
(Arslan 2007:2).
305 A scanned copy of the book, manuscript LJS 235, in the L. J. Schoenberg Collection can be found online at
http://openn.library.upenn.edu/Data/0001/html/ljs235.html (Accessed: 9 January 2019)
306 It appears as if the Kitāb al-Adwār was written by a Muslim scholar who attempted to preserve certain aspects of ancient
Greek and Middle-Eastern knowledge (Arslan 2007:2).
235
Figure 136: Diagram from the Medieval Islamic

music theory treatise Kitāb al-Adwār.
(University of Pennsylvania Library)
The crucial difference between the ancient CBS 1766 engraving, the traditional Arabic and
modern Western graphic representations is that the CBS 1766 inscription is a heptagram that
is believed to be representative of some sort of an ancient heptatonic system.
The Western and Arabic examples are not heptagrams. The Arabian diagram starts out as a
pentagram and then seems to shift whereas the Western diagram is a dedecagram (to
accommodate a chromatic scale). An attempt to make a across-analysis between the CBS
1766 tablet and the contents from the Kitāb al-Adwār music theory treatise can form part of
future research.307 As a disclaimer, one should be cautious in comparing and drawing
comparisons between Medieval Islamic music theoretical information with ancient Near-
Eastern music theory.
307 Fszil Arslan (2007) offers an in-depth content analysis of the Kitāb al-Adwār music theory treatise.
236
If one follows the logic of the theory that postulates that the outer angles of the heptagram on
the CBS 1766 were drawn to represent the relations/differences in sound, then one will notice
that, contrary to Dumbrill’s belief in diatonicism in ancient music, there seem to be three
different types of gap sizes. This might be illustrative of a microtonal/quarter tonal system.
Fazil Arslan (2007:11) states that the Kitāb al-Adwār treatise mentions three different classes
of consonances: “major consonant”, “mid consonant” and “weak consonant”. The CBS 1766
tablet could be making reference to these three different classes of consonances.
A rough approximation showing pixelated (px) average line lengths, from corner to corner
reveals that there are roughly three different length types on the CBS 1766 heptagram
diagram. The smallest length is 32 pixels, followed by 50 pixels. The largest pixel length is
56. Further research can be done measuring these lengths more accurately. The angles can
also be measured for more accurate readings (figure 137).
Figure 137: Average pixel distances of the

points on the CBS 1766 tablet heptagram.
(Dumbrill 2020:39,42-43).
It is up to the reader to decide whether this ancient heptagram diagram was intended to be
reflective of the steps/scale degrees that occur within a scale/mode as a sort of “visual tuning-
chart” or “tone circle” (Crickmore 2008:18). Future research is needed. Friberg (2011:138)
suggests that the figure is not intended to be an accurate representation of a visual depiction
for the use of tones and semitones. Bigger spaces between points are not necessarily
indicative of a tone. Similarly, smaller spaces do not imply semitones.
237
Friberg (2011:138) further theorises that the semitones and tones can be shifted along the
diagram to match each scale/mode that both “tightens” (figure 138) and “loosens” (figure
139). This would mean that the sizes of the angles would not need to have been recorded
because they could be shifted. In other words, there would be no point to have accurate
angles to depict semitones and tones if the system itself is supposed to shift (Friberg
2011:138).
Figure 138: Shifting tones and semitones cycle while “tightening”.

(Friberg 2011:138).
Figure 139: Shifting tones and semitones cycle while “loosening”.

(Friberg 2011:136).
238
The main problem with the CBS 1766 tablet is that we cannot be sure exactly what
information is being provided. We can only understand some of the context when comparing
information intertextually from the tablets CBS 10996, UET VII 126 and UET VII 74. Again,
one must caution against reading too much theory into the CBS 1766 tablet.
All that the tablet provides is a heptagram diagram that indicates the string names (in
Akkadian) with a list of numbers presented in columns (two of which seem to be complete).
The rest of the tablet is incomplete, and information can be inferred by comparing it to the
CBS 10996, UET VII 126, UET VII 74 and UET VI/3 899 tablets (Dumbrill 2019:52). There
is not enough information present to determine whether it is a music theoretical treatise or
not. This research holds that this heptagram diagram is not necessarily intended to be
reflective of a scale/mode structure. If one refers back to figure 122 and 123, one will notice
that the diagram can be generated from the movement between the strings that are
“tightened” or “loosened”. It is also not clear why the tablet is incomplete. It could have been
abandoned due to a mistake (this requires further investigation).
6.6. Closing Remarks Concerning the UET VII 74 Tablet
This chapter finds that the UET VII 74 tablet does not specify by how much a string is to be
“tightened” or “loosened”. Scholars appear to assume a semitone because one can construct a
working theoretical diatonic system using tones and semitones that cycles through
fourths/fifths (Dumbrill 2005:57). Mirelman (2010a:46) suggests that “[…] our sources are
too inadequate to reach a satisfactory answer regarding questions of precise tuning and
temperament”. This research supports Mirelmans view and argues for the necessity of an
ambiguous tabularised interpretation that does not assume pitch information or a tuning
system. Additionally, the UET VII 74 does not specify if a descending or ascending
scale/mode was intended. The tablet is capable of generating ascending and descending
interpretations.
The quality of the tuning of an instrument is subjective. Each ancient musician could have
had their own preference (Dumbrill 2005:55). Dumbrill (2019:18) points out that different
singers would have had different versions of the same melody. This same idea can also be
extended to the H6 notation and the tuning systems of different instruments. There could
239
have been different practices. It may also have been possible that they tuned according to the
song/melody that was to be performed. Since there was a fixed tuning, the musicians would
then need different sets of instruments for the various melodies. Dumbrill (2020:30) also
suggests that perfect pitch as we understand it today would possibly not have existed if there
were no tuning standards. To oppose this, it may have been possible that different people may
have had different forms of “personal perfect pitch” related to the instruments or singing
styles they were accustomed to playing or grew up listening to. Certain people and cultures
would have developed their own musical “incipit” devices (“comparative interval
recognition”).
The presence of both a scribe and musician in the information recording process serves as a
further complication. The scribe may have misinterpreted some of the musicial information.
This is if it is assumed that the scribe was not a musician as well. It might have been difficult
to notate, through instructional guides, the real-time tuning procedures and
harmonies/melodies produced by the singers and instrumentalists.
In general, no specific note naming conventions are given, only string names and “spans”.
Dumbrill (2020:70) states that ancient musicians would have been mostly illiterate and this is
why scribes were necessary. On the other hand, Piotr Michalowski, as cited in Colburn
(2009a:97) suggests that musicians and scribes would have received different training. This
claim needs more supportive evidence since this is a generalization. Some musicians may
also have been scribes. Additionally, some scribes could also have been amateur musicians or
had intermediate musical knowledge. There is no evidence on the UET VII 126, CBS 10996
or UET VII 74 tablet that shows there was a collaboration between scribes and musicians. It is
only the ~68 Hurrian tablets that show both a scribe and a musician/composer’s name on the
colophon. The fact that some scribes had examinations (refer to “Examination Text A”) and
had to recite the different instruments, song types and demonstrate tunings could imply that
they had to have some fundamental music knowledge (Černý 1994:17-18 and Michalowski
2010:200). Wulstan (1968:224) importantly suggests that each of the 7 scales/modes from the
UET VII 74 tablet could be in different octave species as well. We cannot be certain what
octave was intended to be used. This further supports the need for an updated tablaturisation
interpretation.
240
CHAPTER 7
CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND LIMITATIONS
7.1. Concluding Synopsis
The first and second chapter of this thesis has shown that one of the major concerns regarding
ancient Near-Eastern instructional notation is that it is ambiguous and open to interpretation.
There are far too many interpretational possibilities that can be realised according to
Westernalist or Orientalist perspectives. All that can be effectively read, on the Hurrian H6
and the other ~68 Hurrian notational cuneiform fragments and tablets, is that each term refers
to specific string numbers; nīš tuḫri (1-/5), šēru [šaḫri] (7-/5), išartu (2-/6), šalšatu [šaššate]
(1-/6), embūbu (3-/7), rebūtu [irbute] (2-/7), nīd qabli (4-/1), isqu [ešgi] (1-/3), qablītu (5-/2),
titar qablītu (2-/4), kitmu (6-/3), titurišartu [titimišarte] (3-/5), pītu [pentamma?] (7-/4) and
šerdu [zirte] (4-/6). These associated string numbers for each term are arrived at by
intertextually referring to the CBS 10996 tablet which also provides the corresponding
Akkadian term form names.
Modern scholars can interpret these string numbers in two ways. The first interpretation
postulates that two strings were played together at the same time (“X, Z”). This forms part of
the Westernalist perspective. The second mode of interpretation is to perceive the strings as
representative of a sequence. This means that only the first and last string number of the
sequence is provided by the ancient music theory texts. The middle string numbers between
these two string pairs are believed to have been implied (“X-[Y]-Z”). The strings found inside
of these pairs vary in number and the sequences range from spans of three, four, five or six
notes. It may be that the ancient scribe did this in order to save space. In simplistic terms, this
is considered as the Orientalist perspective.
Another factor that makes the interpretation of this ancient notation difficult is that there are
additional cuneiform number signs that follow the Akkadian terms, specifically on the
Hurrian tablets, that are difficult to place into a musical context. They are simply numerical
indications that appear after the instructional term names. Most scholars subjectively attempt
to apply some form of a rhythmical formula or musical repetition system to these numbers.
241
Another theory is that the ancient notational terms could also have had their own unique
rhythmical character or could have been a shorthand for something that was known by the
ancient musician, but is presently unknown to modern theorists/researchers. This information
may have been originally transmitted through oral/aural tradition.
The above reasons account for why a tablaturisation interpretation for ancient notations is
necessary. As has been alluded to throughout this research, the proposed updated
tablaturisation interpretation may in fact be the most effective representation that can
accurately showcase the ancient ambiguous musical information as directly as possible
without imposing external modern and Western constructs. A tablaturisation is capable of
eliminating much of the subjective guess work most scholars are currently engaged with. It
should be reiterated that the current tablature interpretation that exists, provided by Smith and
Kilmer is outdated (by 21 years) and only focuses on the Hurrian H6 tablet. A revised and
updated tablaturisation system for all ~68 Hurrian tablets is a necessary future undertaking.
There are far too many ambiguities that arise especially when it comes to attempting to
render and generate performable versions of the ancient notation using modern Western
practices and notation. The proposed tablaturisation interpretation according to this thesis is
viable in that it is capable of showing both string pairs (from the Westernalist perspective)
and sequences (from the Orientalist perspective) in one interpretational model. This
tablaturisation model will also eliminate and avoid the need to apply rhythmical ideas to the
ambiguous numerical terms. Providing the tablaturisation in a digital medium (web and
mobile applications) will also allow for this ancient information to become easily accessible.
Digitizing the music theory tablets can also be a viable future undertaking (digitizing
cuneiform tablets is becoming an important part of the field of Assyriology).
The proposed vocal/instrumental tablaturisation interpretation will need to be flexible and

would need to allow for one to apply (or programme in) any pitches and a scale/mode as
desired to test the validity of the proposed relationships. This thesis cautions that it may be
difficult to resurrect the sound of ancient music to generate a performable version. One
question that should be asked is, does the interpretational framework capture the essence of
the music/theory or does it hinder it. For this reason, the current author suggests that any
attempt to construct rhythms, designate exact or general pitches, or even applying relative
pitches should be avoided. This is because we cannot be certain the ancients perceived
242
intervals, consonances and dissonances the same as we presently do. There is no concrete
evidence available that suggests they did.
7.2. Restatement of Aims
The aims of this research as outlined in Chapter 1 was to systematically re-examine, re-
interpret, and critically discuss the contents of the existing music theoretical tablets
UET VII 126, CBS 10996 and UET VII 74. The purpose of these re-examinations was
twofold. The first aim was to refer to literature to determine if the ancient tablets were
interpreted as directly as possible by using an Africanist inspired perspective. Additionally,
these re-examinations set out to test the accuracy and validity of the current claims that
appear to be held under consensus or have widespread appeal. The second aim, after the re-
examination process, was to determine whether an updated tablaturisation interpretation for
the H6 and the other ~68 Hurrian cuneiform notational tablets would be a viable future
undertaking.
These aims were achieved by using a grounded theory approach by examining and focusing
only on the information that is presented directly by the tablets. This is known as a surface-
structure synchronic approach or an intra-/intertextual analysis. Certain features from the
historical-comparative methodology were used in order to determine whether certain
“distortions”, “cultural biases” or “nonsource-based knowledge” were applied to ancient
music. These methods and features aided in revealing that modern Western music theoretical
ideas are problematically applied to the ancient music theory-based cuneiform tablets. This
thesis has argued that the information from the tablets, as informed by the Africanist
perspective, should be translated as directly as possible because the music information is
ambiguous in nature. This forms part of the Text Immanent Method which included External
Criticisms to determine the literal/direct meanings of the information.
The resultant re-examinations and aims of this research were realised and achieved in
Chapter 4, Chapter 5 and Chapter 6. The tablet UET VII 126 was re-examined in Chapter 4,
CBS 10996 in Chapter 5 and UET VII 74, along with its duplicate UET VI/3 899, in Chapter
6. These chapters also engaged with analysing some of the other related minor tablets that
also have a bearing on ancient Near-Eastern music knowledge.
243
7.3. Major Conclusions and Findings
The major findings and conclusions from the re-examinations of the tablets UET VII 126,
CBS 10996 and UET VII 74 will be outlined below.
7.3.1. Chapter 4 – UET VII 126
i) According to the literature studied in this thesis it appears as if current scholarly

consensus suggests that the natural tendency of Babylonian scales/modes were
descending. A re-examination of the UET VII 126 tablet in Chapter 4 has shown that
ancient Near-Eastern scales/modes, as with most other scales/modes, can be perceived
as an interchangeable free standing system capable of being both ascending and
descending. With these observations one can note that the overall direction of the
assumed scale/mode is dependent on the player’s perspective/orientation in relation to
the unknown nine-stringed instrument as described by the UET VII 126 tablet. The
instrument is presumed to be either a lyre or a harp but there is no way to verify
which instrument was intended because the tablet does not label one.
The dualistic view about the exclusively ascending or descending nature of ancient
Near-Eastern scales/modes originates in existing scholarly research and is an artificial
issue. A more valid approach, as Chapter 1 has revealed, is to see any tuning mode as
simultaneously ascending and descending. It would be illogical to state that the
natural tendency of standard ancient Near-Eastern scales/modes were perceived in an
only descending orientation. This would be an overgeneralisation.
It has also been demonstrated that the ancient musician’s perspective and orientation
in relation to the instrument determines whether the scale/mode was momentarily
perceived as ascending or descending. This thesis has cautioned that one should not
initially draw a relation to ancient Greek descending scales308 because we are dealing
with another culture. We cannot be sure about the possible influences especially when
considering music.
308The reader should note that the designation of “descending scales” may also be a fallacy of petition principii that makes
an undue assumption about ancient Greek music.
244
When one sits at a piano one does not perceive it written with only ascending
scales/modes in mind. The instrument is constructed with lower pitches at the one end
and higher ones at the other. The same logic applies to all instruments, including
ancient instruments. It may be that the particular unknown instrument described on
the UET VII 126 tablet had a high tension at string 1, designated to be the front of the
instrument, but this does not necessarily mean this string was to be played first. It is
only the theoretical information intertextually drawn out from the CBS 10996 tablet
that dictates the ascending or descending direction each term may have had within the
free standing system. The proposed tablaturisation interpretation should be capable of
dealing with most of these abovementioned ambiguities.
ii) Both Chapter 1 and Chapter 4 has continued the narrative that we cannot be sure
about the octave register (octave species) in which ancient music was written. The
ancient scale/mode term names, music theory and notation tablets do not give precise
register indications. When scholars provide performable interpretations, they
subjectively choose a scale/mode register based on what they believe the string
tensions of the unknown instruments would theoretically have been. The need to
know what octave the notation or theorical information is written in is not necessary
when using a tablature-based system because any octave can be applied to it.
iii) According to the examined literature it appears as if the most recent theory to date is
that ancient Near-Eastern scales/modes were probably enneatonic in nature. Chapter 4
postulates that there is a logical error that is made when scholars refer to ancient
enneatonic scales/modes. The error that is made is that scholars are using the term
enneatonic incorrectly. Enneatonicism by definition makes use of 9 notes that each
have a specific designation and character with an octave repeat only at the 10th note.
To clarify, the recent view (from Dumbrill) is that the scale/mode of nīd qabli is
enneatonic and includes the descending notes “E-D-C-B-A-G-F-[E]-[D]”. This
sequence of notes is not enneatonic. In a “true” enneatonic system string one (1) and
eight (8) and two (2) and nine (9) would not be the same note/pitch. If it was truly
enneatonic then there would be no repeated notes or octave/unison repeats at string 8
and 9. This is an error of definition. With regards to the notes that are to be selected,
there are far too many possibilities since an enneatonic system simply leaves out three
245
notes from the chromatic scale. There can also be different arrangements and different
formulations of these 9 notes.
It should be stressed that one can be certain that octaves were implied/used in ancient
Near-Eastern music theory because the UET VII 74 tablet provides evidence that
some form of an octave was known/used. In short, string 1 and 8, 2 and 9 is tuned at
the same time. This “proof” for the existence of ancient octaves and the possibility
that the ancients made use of a system similar to a heptatonic one is provided in
Chapter 6 with the re-examining of the UET VII 74 tablet.
The scale/mode system as described on the UET VII 126 tablet seems to be an
extended-heptatonic system stretched over 2-octaves that is partially interrupted. The
system is interrupted because the 2-octave heptatonic scale/mode ends at 9 instead of
15 notes to complete the octave. In other words, there are 9 notes in total with the last
two notes repeated as octaves (or unisons) in relation to the first two notes. This thesis
finds that some scholars use the term enneatonic because it appears to be an
unfamiliar and unique sounding concept compared to the standard heptatonic model
one would naturally expect.
Scholars who ascribe to the use of this term should consider adopting a different term
because enneatonicism by definition means that there will be no octave repeats at the
eighth and ninth stings. Due to the above points, a tablaturisation interpretation will
be effective because it does not assume or impose a scale/mode type. Any scale/mode
type can essentially be applied to the proposed tablaturisation (even if there are 8
strings and not octaves or unions).
iv) This thesis proposes that some ancient Near-Easter music probably made use of a
system similar to a heptatonic system. The term “heptatonic” is used only because
readers and authors need to be able to understand one another in academic discourse.
The ancients would not have referred to their scales/modes as “heptatonic” since this
term is a Western construct. The terms scales/modes are also Western constructs.
Simply put, the music theory tablets seem to suggest a seven-note system with an
octave/unison repeat at the 8th pitch.
246
It is important to stress that the ancients used numbers to describe their music and
modern research should also attempt to follow this mathematical basis as closely as
possible when making interpretations. This is why this research proposes a
tablaturisation interpretation that can be constructed around a mathematical system
using numbers as opposed to exact or general musical pitches.
7.3.2. Chapter 5 – CBS 10996
i) A re-examination of the CBS 10996 tablet in Chapter 5 has shown that each term has
an undisputable implied direction. It moves either from the “front” string to the
“middle” or from the “back” string to the “middle”; the “polarity”. This disproves the
claim that the system the CBS 10996 tablet is based on or is derived from is a
“Greater Babylonian System” that makes use of only ascending thirds (3rds) and
descending fifths (5ths). In summary one can notice that there is an Akkadian prefix
term that describes the positioning either at the “front-most” string (qud-mu-ú), the
“middle” ([5]-šú), and the “back string section” (uḫ-rî). The tablet also specifies
string designations for the “front section” of the instrument which all purportedly
have high tensions.
These textual designations specifically mark the second string (šá - ge6), the third
“thin” string (šu sig) and the fourth “small” string (dé. a. dú). This means that when
the CBS 10996 tablet indicates that string 1qud-mu-ú-5-šú is implied it moves from the
“front” first to the “middle” 5th string. One should not mistake string number 1 (uḫ-rî)
from the “back” of the instrument with the “front” string 1 (qud-mu-ú). These are
unique position identifiers.
The proposed tablaturisation interpretation will be effective in that it will not impose a
direction. A tablature can be constructed in such a way to reveal that it can be within a
free standing system capable of being perceived as ascending and descending
simultaneously. The implied “polarity”, the numbers which are presented first
followed by the second, as expressed on the CBS 10996 tablet, can be visually
represented with arrow indications.
247
ii) The CBS 10996 tablet makes use of two numbering systems. The palindromic
numbering system separates string numbers with the designation ù which can be
translated to mean “and” in Akkadian (implying a Westernalist perspective). This
suggests that strings are to be played together. The second “straight” numbering
system that is provided by the CBS 10996 tablet does not include this ù separation
term. This could imply that the strings were to be played as a sequence from one
string “to” the next (Orientalist perspective). The fact that there are two different
numbering systems that imply different things suggests that the ancient musician
could have chosen how to play the strings. To clarify, the musician could have chosen
to play either Westernalist pairs (X , Z) or Orientalist sequences (X-[Y]-Z).
iii) One of the significant findings of this chapter that affects the field of ancient Near-
Eastern Archaeomusicology/Musicology is the idea that intervals of tritones, thirds
and sixths (and by extension seconds and sevenths) could have been perceived
differently by the ancients. There is also a possibility that these intervals may have
been microtonally different to modern-day conceptions. This is because the cents of
the intervals of tritones, thirds and sixths from the Just Intonation system, which is
easily and naturally discoverable using the law of acoustics, are different from those
of the more artificially calculated/adjusted and modern Twelve-Tone Equal Tempered
system.
This research has found that it is problematic to interpret ancient Near-Eastern

notation using a Western notation frame within a Twelve-Tone Equal Tempered
system. This is because it is more likely that the ancients made use of some form of
Just Intonation (current research also confirms this supposition). Many scholars
appear to use the Twelve-Tone Equal Tempered system when converting the ancient
notation into a performable Western notation version for modern audiences and this is
misleading. The problem with using the Twelve-Tone Equal Tempered system is that
it is a modern Western system that is imposed on ancient Near-Eastern music and
theory. Additionally, no evidence has been discovered that proves that the ancients
constructed a system similar to the Twelve-Tone Equal Tempered system that
artificially divides an octave in twelve equal parts. Artificially constructing a Twelve-
Tone Equal Tempered system is usually only possible once some form of a Just
248
Intonation has been discovered. Additionally, current scholars have not attempted to
“retouch”/“touch up” their interpretations to reflect Just Intonation.
This ties in with the idea that ancient “thresholds” of listening and how tolerant one is
to hearing the “boundaries” or the “Just Noticeable Difference” (JND) between
notes/pitches could have been different to our modern conceptions. In other words,
ancient perceptions of what sounds were to be considered as dissonant and consonant
might also have been different to our own modern-day conceptions. They may also
have had microtonal inflections.
The above reasons account for why a tablature system is more beneficial to use when
interpreting ancient Near-Eastern music and notation. The proposed future
tablaturisation interpretations will not assume intervals. This updated tablature system
can be designed to refer to the spans/pairs of strings ranging from three, four, five or
six as opposed to offering direct pitch identifications written in standard Western staff
notation. Additionally, Western notation should not be added above the tablaturisation
because this would suggest the music can be performed.
iv) Chapter 5 discloses that there is a mathematical basis that underlines the music
theoretical information. It is noteworthy that the ‘intervals’ as described on the CBS
10996 tablet appear to be similar to how Western intervals function, specifically with
regard to the mathematical structure that underlies the system. This is because the
fifths can be inverted into fourths and the thirds can be similarly inverted into sixths.
This same mathematical logic can also be applied to seconds and sevenths as well as
to unisons and octaves. This is how intervals function in Western music and it is also
rooted in mathematics. Assuming that there is a link to Western music should not be
made.
Though, each of the ancient music terms appear to have familiar inversional qualities
especially when equated with modern Western music theory. However, this thesis
argues that the string pairs that are provided on the CBS 10996 tablet should not be
referred to or interpreted as Western ‘intervals’. They should rather be viewed as
“spans” because the CBS 10996 tablet is referring to string numbers and not degrees
of a scale/mode. The system is based on mathematics and spaces of three will always
249
invert into six and vice versa. It is an underlining mathematical ‘rule’/proof. These
types of inversions are possible especially when there is an array of eight numbers
(essentially a heptatonic system).
v) The terms on the CBS 10996 tablet may have had their own inner ascending or
descending variants (the invertible quality). This adds further ambiguities with regard
to what direction was implied by the ancient notational terms. This does not affect the
proposed tablature interpretation because the tablature can be altered so it does not
impose a direction.
7.3.3. Chapter 6 – UET VII 74
i) The assumption that the term “not clear” (lā zakû) is related to our modern concept of
a dissonant tritone is a problem of “deep translation” (looking for near equivalences
between languages). A re-examination of the UET VII 74 and UET VI/3 899 tablet in
Chapter 6 has found that these tablets do not specify by how much a string is to be
“tightened” or “loosened”. Scholars appear to a assume a semitone relationship
because one can construct a familiar working theoretical system using tones and
semitones that cycles through fourths and fifths (similar to the Western “circle of
fourths/fifths”). This thesis argues that the ancient term should remain as
directly/roughly translated as possible.
As inspired from the Africanist perspective the direct translation of “not clear” should
be used and modern Western conceptions should not be applied to it. The fact that
current scholarship assigns the existence of tritones in ancient Near-Eastern music
means that they must a priori have decided that a system of semitones existed in
ancient Near-Eastern music or that systems which incorporated intervals which
formed a tritone relationship existed, and that this tritone was aurally recognised as
being dissonant.
ii) A Preliminary analysis of the CBS 1776 tablet hints at the possibility that the ancients
may have distinguished between more than just tones and semitones. There could
have been another smaller or larger microtonal/quartertonal division. This opens up
250
the argument that microtonal theory may have been present in some ancient Near-
Eastern music traditions. The reader should note that this is a speculative theory and
requires further research.
iii) If one assumes a relation to modern semitones, tones and tritones then there are 24
different possibilities. More specifically, this means that the H6 scale/mode of nīd
qabli can be any one of the 12 ascending and 12 descending thetic/static and dynamic
scales/modes. This is only if one assumes that tritones as we understand them today
were used in ancient music. The scales/modes can therefore be interpreted as both
ascending and descending (within a free standing system) which links to the findings
of Chapter 4.
iv) Furthermore, the UET VII 74 and UET VI/3 899 tablet does not specify whether string
1 is to be interpreted as a high tension or a low tension. Inferring that string 1 was
higher in tension is done intertextually by referring to the UET VII 126 tablet. This is
why this research considers the 12 ascending and 12 descending possibilities. Caution
needs to be used when making these types of intertextual inferences, especially
between tablets from different periods.
This thesis finds that an updated tablaturisation will be a valid future undertaking
because it will not assume modern tritones and it is capable of expressing all 24
scale/mode possibilities within one ambiguous system that is capable of being
ascending and descending simultaneously. This is because no exact music pitch
names are imposed (only string numbers). One can apply any of the 24 scale/mode
pitches to a tablature because it is a visual/graphic representation of musical
information.
v) This chapter has also revealed that the scale/mode, for lack of better terminology, is
an ambiguous extended seven note/pitch system which is essentially heptatonic
(extended-heptatonic). This is because string 1, 8(1) and 2, 9(2) on the UET VII 74
tablet are instructed to be tuned respectively. This means that the system is akin to
some form of heptatonicism as opposed to enneatonicism. Additionally, as mentioned
in Chapter 1 and Chapter 4 ancient knowledge of octaves is plausible. This is because
octaves occur naturally due to the harmonic/overtones series. It is a general law of
251
acoustical properties. From this we may then also infer that there was a concept
related to an “octave”. The ancients might have referred to this concept using
different terminology and definitions which are not yet known to researchers. It
should be stressed that one can construct a heptatonic scale first, using the
harmonic/overtones series, before one is able to generate an enneatonic one.
vi) The addition of an added 9th note in the extended-heptatonic system could mean that
scales/modes could have been perceived differently when ascending and descending.
Whether the ancients perceived scales/modes differently is open for debate.
7.4. Critical Discussion
From these major conclusions it follows that current interpretations for the Hurrian H6 and
the other ~68 Hurrian tablets are fallible since one cannot be sure about the scale/mode type,
octave direction, or the relative note/pitch relationships. The exact pitches used within the
ancient scale/mode are also difficult to infer accurately. Hasty and subjective generalisations
have been made, and it seems improbable that this ancient instructional notation can be
accurately translated into modern Western notation. This thesis also argues that this ancient
notation cannot be recreated or performed for modern audiences.
This justifies why a proposed tablature-based approach, inspired by an Africanist perspective,

is necessary when interpreting ancient Near-Eastern music (specifically the Hurrian H6 and
other ~68 tablets). This is because it would be problematic to interpret the ancient notation
using the modern Western notation framed around a Twelve-Tone Equal Tempered system. It
may be more probable that the ancients would have discovered the natural properties of the
Just Intonation system and used it as a basis for their music. From this it logically follows
that ancient cultures may have perceived certain intervals differently to modern Western
standards and this would account for the existence of microtonal inflections.
The research findings that did not form part of this thesis’s original objectives were that there
seem to be a mathematical and inversional link when string numbering systems are
superimposed (refer to Chapter 4, §5.8). This initially seems to resemble familiar Western
interval theory especially because spans of thirds appear to be invertible into sixths and the
fourths also seem to invert into fifths. The reader should note that the nature of these
252
inversional relationships is because the ancient theory is based on numbers and not degrees of
a scale/mode. It is therefore clear that this music system is based on mathematics and
scholars should avoid applying Western constructs, such as the “circle of fourths/fifth” to this
ancient knowledge.
7.4.1. Research limitations
This research was limited in that the author had to rely on secondary source published
photographs and sketches of the ancient cuneiform tablets. A more thorough re-examination
can be done while dealing with the physical evidence. The author was initially limited to only
using English language literature as this is the author’s first language. Some important texts
on ancient Near-Eastern music, Assyriology and Archaeology are written in German and
French. However, this issue was partially resolved by using online translation services.
7.4.2. Implications and future recommendations
This thesis has revised what other authors have written and has also presented new findings.
The new insights that this research has brought to the field of ancient Near-Eastern
Musicology/Archaeomusicology include:
(1) Providing evidence for why ancient Near-Eastern scales/modes have the capability of
being within a free standing system that can be perceived of both ascending and
descending simultaneously.
(2) Challenging the conception that diatonic scales/modes equivalent to our Twelve-Tone
Equal tempered system were used in the ancient Near-East. There is no evidence to
support the claim that ancient intervals/spans of tritones, thirds and sixths (including
seconds and sevenths) were perceived the same as we currently do in modern Western
society. This opens the discussion to include and consider Just intonation and
microtones/quartertones.
(3) Bringing attention to the fact that scholars have no evidence to validate the claim that
the ancient Near-Eastern term for a tritone (lā zakû), loosely translated to “not clear”,
is the equivalent of a Western dissonant tritone.
253
(5) The terms listed on the CBS 10996 tablet seem to have inversional qualities that are
based on numbers and mathematics and it should not be compared hastily with the
Western conception of the “circle of fourths/fifths”.
The implications of this research were to show that ancient Near-Eastern music theory and
notation is still perceived in a Western light using Western conceptions. This is especially
evident when scholars interpret the ancient music and notation using standard Western
notation so it can be performed and heard.
It may be possible that this ancient music spurred on or influenced later Greek, Middle-
Eastern and Western ideas but this does not mean modern Western theories should be applied
back to ancient abstract conceptions. After re-examining the tablets UET VII 126, CBS
10996, UET VII 74 and UET VI/3 899, and reviewing the literature this thesis has
demonstrated that current scholarly consensus has problematically been using Western
conceptions and the modern Twelve-Tone Equal Tempered system to interpret ancient Near-
Eastern music theory and notation. This thesis has also found that it is actually difficult to
pinpoint what the exact consensus is regarding ancient-Near Eastern music. Determining the
consensus will form part of a future study conducted by the current author.
In closing, the information presented in each of the chapters in this thesis can be used as
teaching material that forms part of a Musicology/Archaeomusicology course specifically
dedicated to ancient Near-Eastern music and theory. This is a subject area that does not
receive much attention in music and ancient studies departments. This thesis also serves to
help non-specialists navigate the complexities and ambiguities that arise from the study of
ancient Near-Eastern music, theory and notation.
The direct result of this research is to emphasise the point that a tablaturisation interpretation
will be beneficial to help understand ancient Near-Eastern music and notation, from a
mathematical perspective, more accurately than has previously been done. An updated
digital tablaturisation interpretation that refers to string numbers only, while avoiding
Western notation, also make this ancient knowledge more accessible to researchers who
may not be well versed in either Musicology/Archaeomusicology, Philology or Assyriology.
254
In closing, this thesis finds that an updated tablaturisation interpretation is necessary and
will be a viable future research undertaking for a doctoral study.
255
REFERENCE LIST
Abraham, O. & von Hornbostel, E.M. (1909). Vorschläge für die Transkription Exotischer
Melodien, Sammelbände der Internationalen Musikgesellschaft, XI: pp. 1-25.
Agawu, K. (2001). African Music as Text. Research in African Literatures, 32(2): pp. 8-16.
Agawu, K. (2003a). Defining and Interpreting African Music, in: Agawu, K, Herbst, A &
Nzewi (eds.). Musical Arts in Africa: Theory, Practice and Education. Pretoria: Unisa
Press. pp. 1-12.
Agawu, K. (2003b). Representing African Music: Postcolonial Notes, Queries and Positions.
New York: Routledge.
Agawu, K. (2004). How We Got Out of Analysis, and How to Get Back In Again. Music
Analysis, 23(2/3): pp. 267-286.
Agawu, K., Herbst, A. & Nzewi, M. (2003). Musical Arts in Africa: Theory, Practice and
Education. Pretoria: Unisa Press.
Aji, J. (2010). Tolgahan Çoğulu. Soundboard: The Journal of the Guitar Foundation of
America, 36(3): pp. 80-81,101.
Apel, W. (2003). The Harvard Dictionary of Music. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Arnold, T. & Guillaume, A. (1931). The Legacy of Islam. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Arslan, F. (2007). Safī Al-Dīn Al-Urmawī and the Theory of Music: Al-Risāla Al-Sharafiyya
Fī Al-Nisab Al-Ta’Līfiyya Content, Analysis, and Influences. Foundation for Science
Technology and Civilisation, 1: pp. 1-24.
Aruz, J. & Wallenfels, R. (2003). Art of the First Citie: The Millenium B.C. from the
Mediteranian to the Indus. New York: New Haven Yale University Press.
Barbour, J.M. (1938). Just Intonation Confuted. Music & Letters, 19(1): pp. 48-60.
Barnett, D. (1969). New Facts about Instruments from Ur, Iraq, 31(2): pp. 96-103.
Bayer, B. (2014). The Mesopotamian Theory of Music and the Ugarit Notation: A
Re-examination, in: Westenholz, J.G, Maurey, Y. & Seroussi, E. (eds.). Music in
Antiquity: The Near East and Mediterranean. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter. pp. 15-91.
Bengston, J.D. (2008). In Hot Pursuit of Language in Prehistory: Essays in the Four Fields
of Anthropology. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Belhassen, R. (2014). The Notion of Ethos in Arabic Music: Computational Modeling of Al

Urmawii’s Modes (13th Century) in Csound. 40th International Computer Music
Conference - 11th Sound and Music Computing Conference, September, Athen,
France.
256
Benzel, S., Graff, S.B., Rakic, Y. & Watts, E.D. (2010). Art of the Ancient Near East: A
Resource for Educators. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art.
Bethke, AJ. (2017). The Transforming Idioms of South African Hymn Tunes: Diminishing
Residues of Colonial Harmonic Systems and the Reinterpretation of Hymn Tunes.
Muziki, 14(1): pp. 7-25.
Biers, W.R. (1992). Art, Artefacts, and Chronology in Classical Archaeology. New York:
Routledge.
Blacking, J. (1959). Problems of Pitch, Pattern and Harmony in the Ocarina Music of Vends.
African Music Society Journal, 2(2): pp.16-23.
Blacking, J. (1982). The Structure of Musical Discourse: The Problem of Song Text.
Yearbook for Traditional Music, 14: pp.15-23.
Blocker, H.G. (2001). Non-Western Aesthetics as a Colonial Invention. The Journal of

Aesthetic Education, 35(4): pp. 3-13.
Both. A. A. (2009). Music Archaeology: Some Methodological and Theoretical

Considerations. Yearbook for Traditional Music. 41: pp. 1-11.
Bragard, R. & De Hen, F.J. (1968). Musical Instruments in Art and History.
University of Michigan: Viking Press.
Burns, E.M. (1999). Intervals, Scales, and Tuning, in: Deuch, D. (ed). The Psychology of
Music. San Diego: Academic Press: pp. 215-264.
Burrows, E. (1935). Ur Excavations, Texts. II: Archaic Texts. London: Trustees of the British
Museum.
Cammarosano, M. (2014). The Cuneiform Stylus, Mesopotamia, XLIX: pp. 53-90.
Campbell, D. (2016). Observations on the Lyrical Structure of Hurrian Songs and the
Fragment KBo 35.39. Res Antiquae, 13: pp. 59-80.
Carroll, J.R. (1995). The Technique of Gregorian Chironomy. Ohio: Gregorian Institute of
America.
Cajori, F. (1897). A History of Mathematics. London: The Macmillan Company.
Cazden, N. (1962). Sensory Theories of Musical Consonance. Journal of Aesthetics and Art,
10: pp. 302-305.
Cazden, N. (1972). The Systematic Reference of Musical Consonance Response.

International Review of the Aesthetics and Sociology of Music, 3(2): pp. 217-245.
257
Černý, M.K. (1988). Probleme der Musikaufzeichnung aus Ugarit: Versuch einer neuen
Interpretation des Hymnus 6. Šulmu. Papers on the Ancient Near-East presented at the
International Conference of Socialist Countries. September the 30th to October the 3rd,
Prague: pp. 49-62.
Černý, M.K. (1994). Some Musicological Remarks on the Old Mesopotamian Music and its
Terminology, Archiv Orientalní, 62: pp. 17-26.
Černý, M.K. (2004). Another Look at the Mesopotamian “Tonal” System - Ascending or
Descending? Archiv Orientalní, 72: pp. 25-32.
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing Grounded Theory. California: Sage Publications.
Cheng, J. (2012). The Horizontal Forearm Harp: Assyria’s National Instrument. British
Institute for the Study of Iraq, 74: pp. 75-87.
Cohen, M.E. (1981). Sumerian Hymnology: The Eršemma. Cincinnati: Ohio Hebrew Union
College.
Civil, M & Finkel, I.L. (1982). Materials For The Sumerian Lexicon: The Series SIG7.ALAN
= Nabnītu. Roma: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum.
Colburn, J. (2009a). A New Interpretation of the Nippur Music-Instruction Fragments.

Journal of Cuneiform Studies, 61: pp. 97-109.
Colburn, J. (2009b), CBS 1766 as a guide to string pairs, including seconds, Nouvelles
Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires 2009/3, 43: pp. 56-58.
Colburn, J. (2018a). New Views of RŠ h. 6: Text, Interpretation, and Musical Setting.

Presented at the Online Conference Tonal Systems and Music, 20-22 September.
Würzburg, Germany.
Colburn, J. (201b). Sihpu in Music: Primarily Sevenths. Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et

Utilitaires, (4): pp. 147-175.
Colburn, J. (forthcoming). CBS 1766 as a Guide to String Pairs, Including Seconds.
Collon, D. (2010). Playing in Concert in the Ancient Near East, in: Dumbrill, R.J. & Finkel,
I. (eds). International Conference of Near Eastern Archaeomusicology. London:
ICONEA, pp. 47-66.
Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. (2015). Basics of Qualitative Research. California: Sage

Publications.
Crickmore, L. (2007). A New Hypothesis for the Construction and Tuning of Babylonian
Musical Scales, Journal of Ancient Civilizations, 22, pp. 35-67.
Crickmore, L. (2008). New Light on the Babylonian Tonal System. International Conference
of Ancient Near Eastern Archaeomusicology, 1: pp. 11-22.
258
Crickmore, L. (2012). A Musicological Interpretation of the Akkadian Term Siḫpu. Journal

of Cuneiform Studies, 64: pp. 57-64.
Crocker, R. L. (1975). “Un Canto de Ugarit”, Talea 1: pp. 86-122.
Crocker, R. L. (1978). Remarks on the Tuning Text UET VII 75 (U. 7/80), Orientalia, NOVA
SERIES, 47(1): pp. 99-104.
Crocker, R. L. (1997). Mesopotamian Tonal System, British Institute for the Study of Iraq,
59: pp. 189-202.
Crocker, R. L. (2011), No Polyphony before A.D. 900!, in: Heimpel, W. & Frantz-Szabó, G.
(ed.), Strings and Threads. A Celebration of the Work of Anne Draffkorn Kilmer,
Winona Lake (Indiana): Eisenbrauns, pp. 45-58.
Crocker, R.L. & Kilmer, A.D. (1984). The Fragmentary Music Text from Nippur. British
Institute for the Study of Iraq, 46(2): pp. 81-85.
Dahan-Dalmedico, A. & Peiffer, J. (2010). History of Mathematics: Highways and Byways.

Washington, DC: The Mathematical Association of America.
Deuch, D. (1999). The Psychology of Music. San Diego: Academic Press.
Dietrich, M. & Loretz, O. (1975). Kollationen zum Musiktext aus Ugarit. Ugarit-
Forschungen, 7: pp. 521-522.
Duchesne-Guillemin, M. (1963). Découverte d'une Gamme Babylonienne. Revue de

Musicologie, 49(126): pp. 3-17.
Duchesne-Guillemin, M. (1966). A l’aube de la théorie musicale: concordance de trois

tablettes babyloniennes. Revue de Musicologie, 52(2): pp. 147-162.
Duchesne-Guillemin, M. (1967). Survivance Orientale Dans la Désignation des Cordes de la

Lyre en Grèce? Syria, 3: pp. 233-246.
Duchesne-Guillemin, M. (1969). La théorie babylonienne des métaboles musicales. Revue de

Musicologie, 55 (1): pp. 3-11.
Duchesne-Guillemin, M. (1975). Les Problèmes de la Notation Hourrite. Revue

d'Assyriologie et 'Archéologie Orientale, 69(2): pp. 159-173.
Duchesne-Guillemin, M. (1980). Sur la restitution de la Musique Hourrite. Revue de

Musicologie, 66(1): pp. 5-26.
Duchesne-Guillemin, M. (1981). Music in Ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt. World

Archaeology, 12(3): pp. 287-297.
Duchesne-Guillemin, M. (1984). A Hurrian Musical Score from Ugarit: The Discovery of

Mesopotamian Music, Sources from the Ancient Near East, 2(2): pp. 5-32.
259
Dumbrill, R.J. (1998). The Musicology and Organology of the Ancient Near East. London:
Green Press.
Dumbrill, R.J. (2005). The Archaeomusicology of the Ancient Near East. Cheshire: Trafford
Publishing.
Dumbrill, R.J. (2007). Babylonian Theonumerics and Scale Systems, Journal of Ancient
Civilizations, 22: pp. 23-34.
Dumbrill, R.J. (2010). Rediscovering the Silver Lyre of Ur. London: ICONEA.
Dumbrill, R.J. (2013). Mesopotamian Sonic Proto-Theory. NEMO, 2(2): pp. 51-61
Dumbrill, R.J. (2014a). Modus Vivendi. NEMO, 11: pp. 1-42.
Dumbrill, R.J. (2014b). The Hurrian Musical Text H6: A New Interpretation. ARAM
Periodical, 26(2): pp. 327-334.
Dumbrill, R.J. (2015a). Musical Scenes and Instruments: on Seals, Sealings and Impressions
from the Ancient Near-East. ICONEA.
Dumbrill, R.J. (2015b). A Flute of not a lute? That is the Question. ICONEA: pp. 1-10.
Dumbrill, R.J. (2017). The Truth About Babylonian Music. NEMO, 4(6,7): pp. 1-34.
Dumbrill, R.J. (2018). A Concise Treatise on Sumerian and Babylonian Music Theory.
London: ICONEA.
Dumbrill, R.J. (2019). Semantic Music Theory. London: ICONEA.
Dumbrill R.J. (2020). The Birth of Music Theory: Universalism and Relativism in Sumerian
Babylonian Musicology. London: ICONEA.
Dumbrill, R.J. (2021). Posteriorism and Old-Babylonian Musicology. [s.l]:[s.n] pp. 1-23.
Dumbrill, R.J. ([s.a]a). The Earliest Evidence of Heptatonism in a late Old Babylonian Text:
CBS 1766. ICONEA: pp.1-18.
Dumbrill, R.J. ([s.a]b). YBC 11381: New Evidence for Neo-Babylonian Enneatonism in
Music Theory. ICONEA: pp. 1-7.
Dumbrill, R.J. ([s.a]c). Is the Heptagram in CBS 1766 a Dial? London: ICONEA: pp. 1-5.
Dumbrill, R.J. & Finkel, I. (2008) International Conference of Near Eastern

Archaeomusicology. London: ICONEA.
Ebeling, E., Meissner, B., Calmeyer, P. & Edzard, D.O. (1997). Reallexikon Der Assyriologie
Und Vorderasiatischen Archaologie: Meek Mythologie. Volume 8. Berlin:
Walter de Gruyter.
260
Engel, C. (1864). The Music of the Most Ancient Nations, Particularly of the Assyrians,
Egyptians, and Hebrews: With Special Reference to Recent Discoveries in Western
Asia and in Egypt. London: J. Murray Publication.
Englund, R.K. (1994). Administrative Texts from Uruk: The Early Campaigns.
Berlin: Gebr. Mann.
Ernst-Pradal, F. (2016). Paléographie des tablettes musicales hourrites de Ras

Shamra-ugarit’. Etudes Ougaritiques, IV: pp. 73-94.
Ernst-Pradal, F. (2017). Dossier on the Hurrian Hymn. [Online], Available:

https://www.circlethroughnewyork.com/blog/2017/2/13/dossier-on-the-hurrian-hymn
[Accessed 17 July 2020].
Farmer, H.G. (1931). Music, in: Arnold, T. & Guillaume, A. (eds.). The Legacy of Islam.
Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 356-375.
Franklin, J.C. (2001). The Invention of Music in the Orientalizing Period. PhD Dissertation,
London: University College London.
Franklin, J.C. (2002). Diatonic Music in Greece: A Reassessment of its Antiquity.

Mnemosyne, 51(6): pp. 669-702.
Franklin, J.C. (2016). Kinyras: The Divine Lyre. Hellenic Studies Series 70. Washington,
DC: Center for Hellenic Studies. [Online], Available:
https://chs.harvard.edu/CHS/article/display/6329.john-curtis-franklin-kinyras-the-
divine-lyre [Accessed 10 January 2021].
Franklin, J.C. (2018). Epicentric Tonality and the Greek Lyric Tradition, in: Philips, T. &
d'Angour, A. (ed.), Music, Text, and Culture in Ancient Greece. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, pp. 17-46.
Fink, R. (2003). On the Origin of Music: Selected Essays & Readings. Saskatchewan:
Greenwich Publishing.
Flower, D. & Robson, E. (1998). Square Root Approximations in Old Babylonian

Mathematics: YBC 7289 in Context. Historia Mathematica, 25: pp. 366-378.
Friberg, J. (2007). A Remarkable Collection of Babylonian Mathematical Texts: Manuscripts

in the Schøyen Collection Cuneiform Texts I. New York: Springer.
Friberg. J. (2011). Seven-Sided Star Figures and Tuning Algorithms in Mesopotamian, Greek
and Islamic Texts, Archiv für Orientforschung (AfO)/Institut für Orientalistik, 52: pp.
121-155.
Foxvog, D. A. & Kilmer, A. D. (1986). Music. International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

III, pp. 436-453.
261
Gabbay, U. (2014). The Balaĝ Instrument and Its Role in the Cult of Ancient Mesopotamia,
in Westenholz, J.G., Maurey, Y. & Seroussi, E. (eds). Music in Antiquity: The Near
East and Mediterranean Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, pp. 129-147.
Gabbay, U. & Mirelman, S. (2011). Two Summary Tablets of Balag Compositions with
Performative Indications from Late-Babylonian Ur. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und
vorderasiatische Archäologie, 101(2): pp. 274-293.
Galpin, F.W. (1929). The Sumerian Harp of Ur, c. 3500 B.C. Music & Letters, 10(2):
pp. 108-123.
Galpin, F.W. (1937). The Music of the Sumerians – and their Immediate Successors, the
Babylonians and Assyrians. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gelb, I.J., et al. (1956). The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of
Chicago. 21 Volumes. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Glaser, B.G & Strauss, A. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for
Quaitative Research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Inc.
Gruber, A. (1970) Mersenne and Evolving Tonal Theory, Journal of Music Theory, 14(1):
pp. 36-67.
Grupe, G. (2005). Notating African Music: Issues and Concepts. The World of Music, 47(2):
pp. 87-103.
Gurney, O. R. (1968), An Old Babylonian Treatise on the Tuning of the Harp, British
Institute for the Study of Iraq 30(2): pp. 229-233.
Gurney, O.R. (1973/1974). Ur Excavation Texts Volume VII: Middle Babylonian Legal
Documents and Other Texts. London: British Museum Press.
Gurney, O. R. (1994). Babylonian Music Again, British Institute for the Study of Iraq, 56:
101-106.
Gurney, O.R & West, M.L. (1998). Mesopotamian Tonal Systems: A Reply. British Institute
for the Study of Iraq, 60: pp. 223-227.
Güterbock, H. G. (1970). Musical Notation in Ugarit. Revue d'Assyriologie et Archéologie

Orientale, 64: pp. 45-52.
Hagel, S. (2005). Is Nīd Qabli Dorian? Tuning and Modality in Greek and Hurrian Music.
Baghdader Mitteilungen (BaM), 36: pp. 287-348.
262
Hagel, S. (2016). ‘Leading Notes’ in Ancient Near Eastern and Greek Music and their
Relation to Instrument Design, in: Eichmann, R., Koch, L.C. & Jianjun, F. (eds.).
Studien zur Musikarchäologie. Klang – Object – Kultur – Geschichte. Vorträge des 9.
Symposiums der Internationalen Studiengruppe Musikarchäologie im Ethnologischen
Museum der Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin, 9.–12. September 2014. Rahden: Marie
Leidorf, Orient Archäologie 37, pp. 133-150.
Hagel, S. (Forthcoming). Tunings, Scales and Tonal Systems in Antiquity, in: Van den Berg,
G. & Krispijn, Th. J. H. (ed.), Musical Traditions in the Middle East: Reminiscences
of a Distant Past. Psicataway, NJ: Gorgias.
Holloway, S.W. (2006). Orientalism, Assyriology and the Bible. Sheffield: Phoenix Press.
Horowitz, W. & Shnider, S. (2009). Return to CBS 1766. Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves
et Utilitaires 2009/1, 5: pp. 7-9.
Hamilakis, Y. (2002). Labyrinth Revisited: Rethinking ‘Minoan’ Archaeology. Oxford:

Oxbow Books.
Hilprecht, H.V. (1903). Explorations, in Bible lands during the 19th Century.
Philadelphia: A. J. Holman.
Horowitz, W. (2006). A Late Babylonian Tablet with Concentric Circles from the University
Museum (CBS 1766). Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society (JANES), 30(1):
pp. 37-53.
Jones, A. 2016. Time and Cosmos in Greco-Roman Antiquities. New York: Princeton
University Press.
Joshua, B. ([s.a]). 432Octaves: Cuneiform Tablets [Online], Available:

https://sites.google.com/site/432octaves/the-sumerian-gods/cuneiform-
tablets?authuser=0 [Accessed 5 November 2019].
Journeau, V. A. (2007). L’antique cithare chinoise qin (guqin) archetype de la musique de

l’antiquité, Akkadica, 128: pp. 117-134.
Kilmer, A.D. (1960). Two New Lists of Key Numbers for Mathematical Operations.
Orientalia NOVA SERIES, 29(3): pp. 273-308.
Kilmer, A.D. (1965). The Strings of Musical Instruments: Their Names, Numbers, and
Significance, Studies in Honor of Benno Landsberger. Assyriological Studies, 16: pp.
261-279.
Kilmer, A.D. (1971). The Discovery of an Ancient Mesopotamian Theory of Music.

Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 40(2): pp. 131-149.
Kilmer, A.D. (1974). The Cult Song with Music from Ancient Ugarit: Another Interpretation.
Revue d'Assyriologie et d'Archéologie Orientale, volume 68: pp. 69-82.
263
Kilmer, A.D. (1980). The Lute in Ancient Mesopotamia, in: Mitchell, T.C. (ed.), Music and
Civilisation. London: British Museum Publications, pp. 13-28.
Kilmer, A.D. (1984). A Music Tablet from Sippar(?): BM 65217 + 66616. British Institute
for the Study of Iraq, 46(2): pp. 69-80.
Kilmer, A. D. (1995), Music and Dance in Ancient Western Asia, in: Sasson, J. M. (ed.),
Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, volume 4. New York: Charles Scribner’ Sons,
pp. 2601–2613.
Kilmer, A. D. (1997). Musik A. I, in: Ebeling, E., Meissner, B., Calmeyer, P. & Edzard, D.O
(eds), Reallexikon Der Assyriologie Und Vorderasiatischen Archaologie: Meek
Mythologie. Volume 8. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 463-482.
Kilmer, A.D. (1998). The Musical Instruments from Ur and Ancient Mesopotamian Music.
Expedition, 40(2): pp. 12-19.
Kilmer, A. D. (2000), “Continuity and Change in the Ancient Mesopotamian Terminology

for Music and Musical Instruments”, in: Hickmann, E.; Laufs, I. & Eichmann, R.
(ed.), Studien zur Musikarchäologie 2. Musikarchäologie früher Metallzeiten:
Vortrage des 1. Symposiums der International Study Group on Music Archaeology
(ICTM), Kloster Michaelstein, 18. - 24. Mai 1998. Rahden: Marie Leidorf, Orient
Archäologie 7, pp. 113-119.
Kilmer, A.D. (2006). How the Mesopotamians Did or Did Not Express the Concept of
Octave, in: Hickmann, E.; Both, A. A. and Eichmann, R. (ed.), Studien zur
Musikarchäologie 5. Music Archaeology in Contexts. Papers from the 4th Symposium
of the International Study Group on Music Archaeology at Monastery Michaelstein,
19-26 September 2004, Rahden: Leidorf, Orient-Archäologie 20, pp. 275-280.
Kilmer, A. D. (2014). Mesopotamian Music Theory since 1977, in: Westenholz, J. G.;
Maurey, Y. & Seroussi, E. (ed.) Music in antiquity: the Near East and the
Mediterranean. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Studies of the Jewish Music Research
Centre 8, pp. 92–101.
Kilmer, A.D & Civil, M. (1986). Old Babylonian Musical Instructions Relating to Hymnody.
Journal of Cuneiform Studies, 38(1): pp. 94-98.
Kilmer, A.D.; Crocker, R.L. & Brown, R.R. (1976). Sounds from Silence. Recent Discoveries
in Ancient Near Eastern Music. Berkeley: Bit Enki Publications.
Kilmer, A.D. & Tinney, S. (1996). Old Babylonian Music Instruction Texts. Journal of
Cuneiform Studies, 48: pp. 49-56.
Kilmer, A.D. & Tinney, S. (1997). Correction to Kilmer/Tinney “Old Babylonian Music
Instruction Texts” “JCS” 48 (1996). Journal of Cuneiform Studies, 49: p. 118.
Kilmer, A.D. & Mirelman, S. (2001). Mesopotamia, in: Stanley, S & Tyrrell, J. (eds). The
New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, Volume V, Second Edition. London:
Macmillian Publishers, pp. 480-487.
264
Kilmer, A.D. & Peterson, J. L. (2009), More Old Babylonian Music-Instructions Fragments
from Nippur, Journal of Cuneiform Studies, 61: pp. 93-96.
Kotiabashi, M (1992). The Deification of the Lyre in Ancient Ugarit. Orient, XXVIII: pp.
106-110.
Koitabashi, M. (1998). Music in the Texts from Ugarit. Ugarit-Forschungen, 30: pp. 363-
396.
Krispijn, Th. J. H. (1990). Beiträge zur Altorientalischen Musikforschung 1. Šulgi und

Musik. Akkadica, 70: pp. 1-27.
Krispijn, Th. J. H. (2002/2003). Musik im Keilschrift. Beiträge zur altorientalischen

Musikforschung 2, in: Hickmann, E.; Kilmer, A. D. & Eichmann, R. (ed.), Studien zur
Musikarchäologie 3. Rahden: Marie Leidorf, Orient Archäologie 10, pp. 465-479.
Krispijn, T.H. (2008). Music in School and Temple in the Ancient Near East: What was Old
is New Again, A Meeting of Art and Scholarship. Presented at the ZKM Centre for
Art and Technology, 21-23 November. Leiden University (Netherlands) Department
of Assyriology.
Krispijn, T.H. (2010). Musical Ensembles in Ancient Mesopotamia, in Dumbrill, R.J. &
Finkel, I. (eds). International Conference of Near Eastern Archaeomusicology.
London: ICONEA, pp. 125-150
Kriwaczek, P. (2010). Babylon: Mesopotamia and the Birth of Civilization. London: Callisto.
Kuckertz, J. (1993). Das Skalensystem der altmesopotamischen Musik. Baghdader

Mitteilungen 24, pp. 185-191.
Kümmel, H. M. (1970). Zur Stimmung der babylonischen Harfe, Orientalia NOVA SERIES,
39: pp. 252-263.
Kutzer, E.R. (2017). The Socio-Cultural Value and Function of Music: On Musical
Instruments and their Performances in Mesopotamia of the 3rd Millennium BCE from
an Archaeological, Iconographic and Philological Perspective. MA Dissertation.
Leiden: Leiden University.
Langdon, S. (1913). Babylonian Liturgies — Sumerian Texts from the Early Period and from
the Library of Ashurbanipal, for the most part Transliterated and Translated. Paris:
Librarie Paul Geuthner.
Langdon, S. (1917). Sumerian Liturgical Texts, Publications of the Babylonian Section,

Volume 10, Number 2. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum of
Archaeology and Anthropology.
Langdon, S. (1919). Sumerian Liturgies and Psalms, Publications of the Babylonian Section,
Volume 10, Number 4. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum of
Archaeology and Anthropology.
265
Langdon, S. (1923a) Sumerian and Semitic Religious and Historical Texts, Volume 1.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Langdon, S. (1923b). Two Sumerian Hymns from Eridu and Nippur. The American Journal
of Semitic Languages and Literatures, 39(3): pp. 161–186.
Laroche, E. (1968). Documents en Langue Hourrite Provenant de Ras Shamra, in: Nougayrol,
J., Laroche, E., Virolleaud, C. & Schaeffer, F.A.C. (eds). Ugaritica V. Paris: Paul
Geuther, pp. 447-544.
Lasserre, F. (1988), Musica babilonese e musica greca, in: B. Gentili, R. Prestagostini (ed.),
La Musica in Grecia. Rome: Laterza, pp. 72-83.
Latham, R.G. 1862. Elements of Comparative Philology. London: Walton and Maberly.
Lawergren, B. (2010). Bull Lyres, Silver Lyres, Silver Pipes and Animals in Sumer, in:
Dumbrill, R.J. & Finkel, I. (eds). International Conference of Near Eastern
Archaeomusicology. London: ICONEA, pp. 83-88.
Lawergren, B. (2000). Extant Silver Pipes from Ur, 2450 BC. Studien zur Musik Archäologie,
2: pp.121-132.
Lima, M. (2017). The Book of Circles: Visualising Spheres of Knowledge. New York:
Princeton Press.
Lundberg, M.J., Fine, S. & Pitard, W.T. Lieden. (2012). Puzzling Out the Past: Studies in
Northwest Semitic Languages and Literatures in Honor of Bruce Zuckerman, Leiden:
Brill.
McCartin, B.J. (1998). Prelude to Musical Geometry. The College Mathematics Journal,
29(5): pp. 354-370.
Marcetteau, M. (2010). A Queen’s Orchestra at The Court of Mari: New Perspectives on the
Archaic Instrumentarium in the Third Millennium*, in: Dumbrill, R.J. & Finkel, I.
(eds). International Conference of Near Eastern Archaeomusicology. London:
ICONEA, pp. 67-76.
Mathiesen, T.J. (1999). Apollo’s Lyre: Greek Music and Music Theory in Antiquity and the
Middle Ages. Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press.
Maurey, Y. (2014). Ancient Music in the Modern Classroom in Music, in: Westenholz, J.G.,
Msurey, Y. & Seroussi, E. (eds). Antiquity: The Near East and Mediterranean.
Berlin: Walter De Gruyter. pp. 365-374.
McCall, D.F. (2008). African Weeks, in: Bengston, J.D. (ed). In hot pursuit of Language in
Prehistory: Essays in the Four fields of Anthropology. Philadelphia: John Benjamins
Publishing, pp. 25-37.
Melville, D.J. (2003). Sumerian and Akkadian Numbers [Online], Available:

http://it.stlawu.edu/~dmelvill/mesomath/Numerals.html
[Accessed 5 May 2019].
266
Melville S.C. & Slotsky, A.L. (2010). Opening the Tablet Box: Near Eastern Studies in
Honor of Benjamin R. Foster, Boston: Brill.
Michalowski, P. (2010). Learning Music: Schooling, Apprenticeship, and Gender in Early

Mesopotamia, in: Pruzsinszky, R. & Shehata, D. (eds). Musiker und Tradierung:
Studien zur Rolle von Musikern bei der Verschriftlichung und Tradierung von
Literarischen Werken. Zürich: Lit Verlag, pp. 199-240.
Michalowski, P. (2019). On some Early Mesopotamian Percussionists, in: Pieńkowska, A.,

Szeląg, D. & I. Zych (eds). Stories Told Around the Fountain. Papers Offered to Piotr
Bieliński on his 70th Birthday. Warsaw: Warsaw University Press, pp. 451-476.
Mihandoust, A. (2021). The Echo of ‘Babylonian’ Modal System in Early Persian Writings
on Music, International Conference on Musical Sources and Theories from Ancient
Greece to the Ottoman Period. Online Video Presentation, 10-12 June 2021. Tehran
University.
Mirelman, S. (2008). Tuḫru-Achilles’ Tendon? Nouvelles assyriologiques breves et

utilitaires, (2008/4) 65: pp. 89-90.
Mirelman, S. (2009). New Developments in Social History of Music and Musicians in

Ancient Iraq, Syria, and Turkey. Yearbook for Traditional Music, 41: pp. 12-22.
Mirelman, S. (2010a). A New Fragment of Music Theory from Ancient Iraq. Archiv für
Musikwissenschaft, 67(1): pp. 45-51.
Mirelman, S. (2010b). The False Decipherment of Cuneiform ‘Notation’ in the Early

Twentieth Century, in: Mirelman, Sam, (ed.), The Historiography of Music in Global
Perspective. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, pp. 135-144.
Mirelman, S. (2010c). Drum Construction in the lilissu Ritual. Nouvelles Assyriologiques

Brèves et Utilitaires, 2(43): pp. 50-51.
Mirelman, S. (2010d). The Gala Musician Dada and the si-im Instrument. Nouvelles
Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires, 2(33): pp. 40-41.
Mirelman, S. (2013) Tuning Procedures in Ancient Iraq. Analytical Approaches to World

Music, 2 (2): pp. 43-56.
Mirelman, S. & Krispijn, T.J.H. (2009). The Old Babylonian Tuning Text UET VI/3 899.
Iraq, 71: pp. 43-52.
Mirelman, S. & Sallaberger, W. (2010). The Performance of a Sumerian Wedding Song, CT

58,12. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und vorderasiatische Archäologie, 100(2): pp. 177-
196.
Mitchell, T.C. (ed.) (1980), Music and Civilisation. London: British Museum Publications.
267
Monzo, J. (2000). A New Reconstruction of the Hurrian Hymn. [Online], Available:

http://www.tonalsoft.com/monzo/babylonian/hurrian/monz-h6.aspx
[Accessed 30 July 2020].
Music in Mesopotamia. (2020). Episode Three (October 2020), Thin End of The Wedge
[Podcast]. Available: http://www.wedgepod.org/episode-list/
[Accessed 26 October 2020].
Neuman, W.L. (2011). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches.
Boston: Pearson Education.
Nketia, K. (1974). The Music of Africa. New York: Norton.
Nougayrol, J., Laroche, E., Virolleaud, C. & Schaeffer, F.A.C. (1968). Ugaritica V.
Paris: Paul Geuther.
Nzewi, M. (2003). Acquiring Knowledge of the Musical Arts in Traditional Society, in:
Agawu, K., Herbst, A. & Nzewi, M. (eds). Musical Arts in Africa: Theory, Practice
and Education. Pretoria: UNISA Press, pp. 13-37.
Oliveira, N (2011). A Física da Música. [Online], Available:

https://musicaeadoracao.com.br/25359/a-fisica-da-musica/
[Accessed 18 October 2020]
Omigie, D., Delacherie, D. & Samson, S (2014). Effects of Learning on Dissonance

Judgements. Journal of Interdisciplinary Music Studies, 6(1/2): pp. 11-28.
Oppenheim, A.L. (1960. Assyriology- Why and How?. Current Anthropology, 1(5/6): pp.
409-423.
Parncutt, R. (2007). Systematic Musicology and the History and Future of Western Musical
Scholarship. Journal of Interdisciplinary Music Studies, 1(1): pp. 1-32.
Parncutt, R. & Hair, G. (2011). Consonance and Dissonance in Music Theory and
Psychology: Disentangling Dissonant Dichotomies. Journal of Interdisciplinary
Music Studies, 5(2): pp. 119-166.
Payne, E. (2010). A New Addition to the Musical Corpus, in: Melville SC & Slotsky, A.L
(eds). Opening the Tablet Box: Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Benjamin R. Foster.
Boston: Brill, pp. 291-300.
Pearce, M.T. & Eerola, T. (2015). Music Perception in Historical Audiences: Towards
Predictive Models of Music Perception in Historical Audiences. Journal of
Interdisciplinary Music Studies, 8(1/2): pp. 91-120.
Pearce, L.E. (2005). A Late Babyloanian Number-Syllabary, in: Spar, I. & Lambert, W.
(eds). Cuneiform Texts in the Metropolitan Museum of Art: Literary and Scholastic
Texts of the First Millennium B.C. New York: Brepols Publishers, pp. 222-229.
268
Peters, J.P. (1905). The Nippur Library. Journal of the American Oriental Society, 26:
pp. 145-164.
Philips, T. & d’Angour, A. (2018). Music, Text and Culture in Ancient Greece. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Pitard, W.T. (2012). Nodding Scribe and the Heavy Thumb: The Scribal Errors in CAT 1.14
III 52-V 8, in: Lundberg, M.J., Fine, S. & Pitard, W.T. (eds). Puzzling Out the Past:
Studies in Northwest Semitic Languages and Literatures in Honor of Bruce
Zuckerman. Leiden: Brill. pp. 135-154.
Pilch, J.J. (2011). Flights of the Soul: Visions, Heavenly Journeys, and Peak Experiences in
the Biblical World. Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing.
Pilsen, P. (2015). Cuneiform Sign List. [Online], Available:

http://home.zcu.cz/~ksaskova/CuneiformSignList.pdf
[Accessed 10 May 2019].
Potts, D.T. (2012). A Companion to the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East. West
Sussex: Blackwell Publishing.
Pruzsinsky, R. & Shehata, D. (2010). Musiker und Tradierung: Studien zur Rolle von
Musikern bei der Verschriftlichung und Tradierung von Literarischen Werken.
Zürich: Lit Verlag.
Rahn, J. (1984). A Theory for All Music: Problems and Solutions in the Analysis of Non
Western Forms. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Rahn, J. (2011a). The Hurrian Pieces, ca. 1350 BCE: Part One - Notation and Analysis,
Analytical Approaches to World Music, 1(1): pp. 93-151.
Rahn, J. (2011b). The Hurrian Pieces, ca. 1350 BCE: Part Two - From Numbered Strings to
Tuned Strings, Analytical Approaches to World Music, 1(2): pp. 204-269.
Reade, J. (2003). The Royal Tombs of Ur, in: Aruz, J. & Wallenfels, R. (eds.). Art of the
First Citie: The Millenium B.C. from the Mediteranian to the Indus. New York: New
Haven Yale University Press. pp. 93-107.
Reese, J. (1940). Music in the Middle Ages: With an Introduction on the Music of Ancient
Times. London: J. M. Dent & Sons.
Robson, E. (2000). Mathematical Cuneiform Tablets in Philadelphia Part 1: Problems and

Calculations. SCIMVS: Sources and Commentaries in Exact Sciences, 1: pp. 11-47.
Rosengarten, Y. (1967). Répertoire Commenté des Dignes Présargoniques Sumériens de

Lagash. Paris: Éditions E. de Boccard.
Ross, B. & Knight, S. (2013). Perception of Pitch Organisation in Equitone Music:

Implications for Psychology and Ethnomusicology. Proceedings of the Sixth
International Conference of Students of Systematic Musicology, 6: pp. 33-38.
269
Rossouw, D. (ed). 2005. Intellectual Tools: Skills for the Human Sciences. Pretoria: Van
Schaik.
Sadie, S. & Tyrrell, J. (2001). The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians,
Volume V, Second Edition. London: Macmillian Publishers.
Sachs, C. (1941a). The Mystery of the Babylonian Notation. The Musical Quarterly, 27(1):
pp. 62-69.
Sachs, C. (1941b). The Rise of Music in the Ancient World. New York: W. W. Norton &
Company.
Sahala, A., Silfverberg, M., Arppe, A. & Lindén, K. (2020). Automated Phonological
Transcription of Akkadian Cuneiform Text. Presented at Proceedings of the 12th
Conference on Language Recourses and Evaluation, 11-16 May. Marseile: pp. 3528-
3534.
Said, E.W. Orientalism. New York: Pantheon Books.
Sánchez Muñoz, D. (2019/202). Analysis of Two Terms Related to Music in Ancient

Mesopotamia: Nam-nar and Nārūtu(m), PhD Dissertation, University of Granada,
Spain.
Schaps, D.M. (2011). Handbook for Classical Research. New York: Routledge.
Schaeffer, C. (1939). The Cuneiform Texts of Ras Shamra-Ugarit. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Shaffer, A. (1981). A New Musical Term in Ancient Mesopotamian Music. British Institute
for the Study of Iraq, 43(1): pp. 79-83.
Shaffer, A. & Ludwig M.C. (2006) Ur Excavation Texts VI/3:

Literary and Religious Tests. London: British Museum Press.
Shehata, D. (2002). Contributions to the Music Theory System of Mesopotamia, in:

Hickmann, E.; Kilmer, A. D. & Eichmann, R. (ed.) Studien zur Musikarchäologie 3,
Marie Leidorf, Rahden: Marie Leidorf, Orient Archäologie 10, pp. 487-496.
Shehata, D. & Hagel (2012). Ancient Near Eastern Music, in: Bagnall, R. et al. (ed.), The
Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Oxford, pp. 4634-4636.
Shehata, D. (2017a). La théorie musicale mésopotamienne et le système de “notation”, in:

Emerit, S.; Guichard, H.; Jeammet, V.; Perrot, S.; Thomas, A.; Vendries, Chr.;
Vincent, A. & Ziegler, N. (ed.), Musiques! Échos de l’Antiquité., Lens and Ghent:
Musée du Louvre-Lens and Snoeck Publishers, pp. 44-45.
Shehata, D. (2017b). Eine mannshohe Leier im altbabylonischen Ištar-Ritual aus Mari (FM 3,
no. 2). Altorientalische Forschungen, 44(1): pp. 68-81.
270
Sillamy, J.C. (1991). Le Principe de la Modulation dans le Fragment Babylonien d'Ur :

U.7/80 (XVIIIème siècle av. J.C.) (A partir d'un instrument de l'époque non identifié :
le "giš ZÀ – MÍ "), Ajaccio.
Sillamy, J.C. (2006). La théorie musicale des Babyloniens au lé millénaire av. J.-C., Dossiers
d'Archéologie 310: pp. 23.
Smith, J.C. & Kilmer A.D. (2000). “Laying the Rough, Testing the Fine (Music Notation for
CBS 10996)”, in: Hickmann, E. & Eichmann, R. (eds.), Studien zur Musikarchäologie
1: Archäologie früher Klangerzeugung und Tonordnung, Rahden: Leidorf, Orient-
Archäologie, pp. 127-140.
Smith, M.E. Peregrine, P. (2012). Approaches to Comparative Analysis in Archaeology, in:

Smith, M.E., & Peregrine, P, (eds). The Comparative Archaeology of Complex
Societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 4-20.
Smith, M.E., & Peregrine, P, (2012). The Comparative Archaeology of Complex Societies.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Snell D.C. (ed.) (2004). A Companion to the Ancient Near East. Blackwell Companions
to the Ancient World. Oxford: Blackwell
Spar, I. & Lambert, G.W. (2005). Cuneiform Texts in the

Metropolitan Museum of Art: Literary and Scholastic Texts of the First Millennium
B.C., New York: Brepols Publishers.
Stanfield, N.A. (1977). The “San Koten Honkyoku” of the Ninko-Ryū: A Study of
Traditional Solo Music for the Japanese Vertical End-Blown Flute – the Shakuhachi.
PhD Dissertation. Vancouver: University of British Columbia.
Stanton, A.L., Ramsamy, E, Seybolt, P.J. & Elliot, C.M. (2012). Cultural Sociology of the
Middle East, Asia, and Africa: An Encyclopaedia. California: SAGE Publications.
Steele, J.M. 2016. Near East Relations: Mesopotamia and Egypt, in: Jones, A. (ed). Time and
Cosmos in Greco Roman Antiquities. New York: Princeton University Press, pp. 45-
62.
Tamer, Y.B. & Bozkurt, B (2013). A Microtonal Tuning Method: Test & Discussion on the
use of Microtonal Intervals for the Performance of Traditional Turkey Music. Journal
of Interdisciplinary Music Studies, 7(1/2): pp. 73-88.
The Oldest Song in the World. (2021). BBC Sounds (04 January 2021),
[Podcast]. Available: http://www.wedgepod.org/episode-list/
[Accessed 04 January 2021].
Thiel, H.J. (1977). Der Text und die Notenfolgen des Musiktextes aus Ugarit. Studi Miceni ed
Egeo-Anatolici, 18: pp. 109-136.
Thiel, H.J. (1978). Zur Gliederung des "Musik-Textes" aus Ugarit. Revue Hittite et
Asianique, 36: pp. 189-198.
271
Topolski, J. (1976). The Functions of Source-Based and Non-Source-Based Knowledge, in:

Topolski, J (ed). Methodology of History. Bostton: D. Reidel Publishing, pp. 418-427.
Tracey, H. (1969). Measuring African Scales. African Music, 4(3): pp. 73-77.
Van De Mieroop, M. (1983). The Administration of Crafts in the Early ISIN Period,
in Veenhof, K.R. (ed). Cuneiforum Archives and Libraries Papers Read at the 30e
Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale. Leiden: Nederlands Historisch-
Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul, pp. 87-95.
Van Wyk, K. (2012). Seven Day Cycles and Seventh-day Sabbath in Cuneiform Texts.
Korean Christian Theology Publications, 84: pp. 25-48.
Veenhof, K.R. (1983). Cuneiform Archives and Libraries. Papers Read at the 30e Rencontre
Assyriologique Internationale. Leiden: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch
Instituut te Istanbul.
Verwey, S. (2005). Content Analysis, in: Rossouw, D. (ed). Intellectual Tools: Skills for the
Human Sciences. Pretoria: Van Schaik, pp. 160-168.
Vitale, R. G. (1979-1980). La tablette « musicale » H. 6 (R.S. 15.30 + 15.49 + 17.387).

Quelques remarques sur sa traduction et nouvel essai d'interprétation de sa notation
musicale. Les annales archéologiques arabes syriennes. Revue d'archéologie et
d'historie, 29: pp. 41-62.
Vitale, R. (1982). La Musique suméro-accordienne: gamme et notation musicale. Ugarit

Forschungen, 14: pp. 241-263.
Volk, K. (1994). Improvisierte Musik im alten Mesopotamien?, in: Fähndrich, W. (ed.),

Improvisation II. Winterthur, pp. 160-202.
Volk, K. (2006). Musikalische Praxis und Theorie im Alten Orient, in: Volk, K.; Zaminer, F.;
Floros, C.; Harmon, R.; Richter, L. & Haas, M. (ed.), Von Mythos zur Fachdisziplin:
Antike und Byzanz, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstad, pp. 3-46.
Waerzeggers, C. & Siebes, R. (2007). An Alternative Interpretation of the Seven-Pointed Star

on CBS 1766. Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires (N.A.B.U), 40(2): pp.
43-45.
Wellesz, E. (ed) (1957). Ancient and Oriental Music. London: Oxford University Press.
West, M.L. (1994). The Babylonian Musical Notation and the Hurrian Melodic Texts. Music
and Letters, 75(2): pp. 161-179.
Westenholz, J.G., Msurey, Y. & Seroussi, E. (2014). Music in Antiquity: The Near East
and Mediterranean. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter.
Woolley, C.L. (1934). Ur Excavations – The Royal Cemetery: A Report on the predynastic
and Sargonid Graves Excavated Between 1926 and 1931 (Volume I and II). New
York: Carnegie Corporation.
272
Wright, O. (1995). A Preliminary Version of the “Kitāb al-Adwār”. Bulletin of the School of
Oriental and African Studies, 58(3): pp. 455-478.
Wulstan, D. (1968). The Tuning of the Babylonian Harp. British Institute for the Study of
Iraq, 30(2): pp. 215-228.
Wulstan, D. (1971). The Earliest Musical Notation. Music & Letters, 52(4): pp. 365-382.
Yon, M. (2006). The City of Ugarit at Tell Ras Shamra. Pennsylvania: Eisenbrauns.
Zhang, J., Xiao, X., & Lee, Y.K. (2004). The Early Development of Music: Analysis of the
Jiahu Bone Flutes. Antiquity, 78(302): pp. 769-778.
273
APPENDIX I
Descending thetic/static and dynamic system in the key of “C” major
Thetic/static (descending)
“C” major scale and modes
Tightening →
High qablītu nīš tuḫri nīd qabli pītu embūbu kitmu išartu
String 1 Db→ D D D D D D
String 2 C C C C C C→ C#
String 3 Bb Bb Bb Bb→ B B B
String 4 Ab Ab→ A A A A A
String 5 G G G G G G G→
String 6 F F F F F→ F# F#
String 7 Eb Eb Eb→ E E E E
String 8 Db→ D D D D D D
String 9 C C C C C C→ C#
Low ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑
Phrygian Aeolian Dorian Mixolydian Ionian Lydian Locrian
←Loosening
Dynamic (descending)
“C” major scale and modes
String 1 F B E A D G C
String 2 E A D G C F B
String 3 D G C F B E A
String 4 C F B E A D G
String 5 B E A D G C F
String 6 A D G C F B E
String 7 G C F B E A D
String 8 F B E A D G C
String 9 E A D G C F B
Low ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑
274
APPENDIX II
Descending thetic/static and dynamic system in the key of “G” major
“G” major scale and modes (“F#”)
Tightening →
String 1 Ab→ A A A A A A
String 2 G G G G G G→ G#
String 3 F F F F→ F# F# F#
String 4 Eb Eb→ E E E E E
String 5 D D D D D D D→
String 6 C C C C C→ C# C#
String 7 Bb Bb Bb→ B B B B
String 8 Ab→ A A A A A A
String 9 G G G G G G→ G#
Low ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑
←Loosening
“G” major scale and modes (“F#”)
String 1 C F B E A D G
String 2 B E A D G C F#
String 3 A D G C F# B E
String 4 G C F# B E A D
String 5 F# B E A D G C
String 6 E A D G C F# B
String 7 D G C F# B E A
String 8 C F# B E A D G
String 9 B E A D G C F#
Low ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑
275
APPENDIX III
Descending thetic/static and dynamic system in the key of “D” major
“D” major scale and modes (“F#, C#”)
Tightening →
String 1 Eb→ E E E E E E
String 2 D D D D D D→ D#
String 3 C C C C→ C# C# C#
String 4 Bb Bb→ B B B B B
String 5 A A A A A A A→
String 6 G G G G G→ G# G#
String 7 F F F→ F# F# F# F#
String 8 →Eb E E E E E E
String 9 D D D D D D→ D#
Low ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑
←Loosening
“D” major scale and modes (“F#, C#”)
String 1 G C# F B E A D
String 2 F# B E A D G C#
String 3 E A D G C# F# B
String 4 D G C# F# B E A
String 5 C# F# B E A D G
String 6 B E A D G C# F#
String 7 A D G C# F# B E
String 8 G C# F# B E A D
String 9 F# B E A D G C#
Low ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑
276
APPENDIX IV
Descending thetic/static and dynamic system in the key of “A” major
“A” major scale and modes (“F#, C#, G#”)
Tightening →
String 1 Bb→ B B B B B B
String 2 A A A A A A→ A#
String 3 G G G G→ G# G# G#
String 4 F F→ F# F# F# F# F#
String 5 E E E E E E E→
String 6 D D D D D→ D# D#
String 7 C C C→ C# C# C# C#
String 8 Bb→ B B B B B B
String 9 A A A A A A→ A#
Low ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑
←Loosening
“A” major scale and modes (“F#, C#, G#”)
String 1 D G# C# F# B E A
String 2 C# F# B E A D G#
String 3 B E A D G# C# F
String 4 A D G# C# F# B E
String 5 G# C# F# B E A D
String 6 F# B E A D G# C#
String 7 E A D G# C# F# B
String 8 D G# C# F# B E A
String 9 C# F# B E A D G#
Low ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑
277
APPENDIX V
Descending thetic/static and dynamic system in the key of “E” major
“E” major scale and modes (“F#, C#, G#, D#”)
Tightening →
String 1 F→ F# F# F# F# F# F#
String 2 E E E E E E→ E#
String 3 D D D D→ D# D# D#
String 4 C C→ C# C# C# C# C#
String 5 B B B B B B B
String 6 A A A A A→ A# A#
String 7 G G G→ G# G# G# G#
String 8 F→ F# F# F# F# F# F#
String 9 E E E E E E→ E#
Low ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑
←Loosening
“E” major scale and modes (“F#, C#, G#, D#”)
String 1 A D# G# C# F# B E
String 2 G C F# B E A D#
String 3 F# B E A D# G# C#
String 4 E A D# G# C# F# B
String 5 D# G# C# F# B E A
String 6 C# F# B E A D# G#
String 7 B E A D# G# C# F#
String 8 A D# G# C# F# B E
String 9 G# C# F# B E A D#
Low ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑
278
APPENDIX VI
Descending thetic/static and dynamic system in the key of “B” major (enharmonic “Cb”)
“B” major scale and modes (“F#, C#, G#, D#, A#”)
Tightening →
String 1 C→ C# C# C# C# C# C#
String 2 B B B B B B#→ B#
String 3 A A A A#→ A# A# A#
String 4 G G→ G# G# G# G# G#
String 5 F# F# F# F# F# F# F#
String 6 E E E E E→ E# E#
String 7 D D D→ D# D# D# D#
String 8 C→ C# C# C# C# C# C#
String 9 B B B B B B→ B#
Low ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑
←Loosening
“B” major scale and modes (“F#, C#, G#, D#, A#”)
String 1 E A# D# G# C# F# B
String 2 D# G# C# F# B E A#
String 3 C# F# B E A# D# G#
String 4 B E A# D# G# C# F#
String 5 A# D# G# C# F# B E
String 6 G# C# F# B E A# D#
String 7 F# B E A# D# G# C#
String 8 E A# D# G# C# F# B
String 9 D# G# C# F# B E A#
Low ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑
*Enharmonic Cb
279
APPENDIX VII
Descending thetic/static and dynamic system in the key of “F#” major (enharmonic “Gb”)
“F#” major scale and modes (“F#, C#, G#, D#, A#, E#”)
Tightening →
String 1 G→ G# G# G# G# G# G#
String 2 F# F# F# F# F# F#→ Fx
String 3 E E E E→ E# E# E#
String 4 D D→ D# D# D# D# D#
String 5 C# C# C# C# C# C# C#
String 6 B B B B B→ B# B#
String 7 A A A#→ A# A# A# A#
String 8 G→ G# G# G# G# G# G#
String 9 F# F# F# F# F# F#→ Fx
Low ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑
←Loosening
“F#” major scale and modes (“F#,C#, G#, D#, A#, E#”)
String 1 B E# A# D# G# C# F#
String 2 A# D# G# C# F# B E#
String 3 G# C# F# B E# A# D#
String 4 F# B E# A# D# G# C#
String 5 E# A# D# G# C# F# B
String 6 D# G# C# F# B E# A#
String 7 C# F# B E# A# D# G#
String 8 B E# A# D# G# C# F#
String 9 A# D# G# C# F# B E#
Low ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑
*Enharmonic Gb
280
APPENDIX VIII
Descending thetic/static and dynamic system in the key of “C#” major (enharmonic “Db”)
“C#” major scale and modes (“F#, C#, G#, D#, A#, E#, B#”)
Tightening →
String 1 D→ D# D# D# D# D# D#
String 2 C# C# C# C# C# C#→ Cx
String 3 B B B B→ B# B# B#
String 4 A A→ A# A# A# A# A#
String 5 G# G# G# G# G# G# G#→
String 6 F# F# F# F# F#→ Fx Fx
String 7 E E E#→ E# E# E# E#
String 8 D→ D# D# D# D# D# D#
String 9 C# C# C# C# C# C#→ Cx
Low ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑
←Loosening
“C#” major scale and modes (“F#, C#, G#, D#, A#, E#, B#”)
String 1 F# B# E# A# D# G# C#
String 2 E# A# D# F# C# F# B#
String 3 D# G# C# F# B# E# A#
String 4 C# F# B# E# A# D# G#
String 5 B# E# A# D# G# C# F#
String 6 A# D# G# C# F# B# E#
String 7 G# C# F# B# E# A# D#
String 8 F# B# E# A# D# G# C#
String 9 E# A# D# G# C# F# B#
Low ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑
*Enharmonic (Db)
281
APPENDIX IX
Decending thetic/static and dynamic system in the key of “F” major
“F” major scale and modes (“Bb”)
Tightening →
String 1 Gb→ G G G G G G
String 2 F F F F F F→ F#
String 3 Eb Eb Eb Eb→ E E E
String 4 Db Db→ D D D D D
String 5 C C C C C C C→
String 6 Bb Bb Bb Bb Bb→ B B
String 7 Ab Ab Ab→ A A A A
String 8 Gb→ G G G G G G
String 9 F F F F F F→ F#
Low ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑
←Loosening
“F” major scale and modes (“Bb”)
String 1 Bb E A D G C F
String 2 A D G C F Bb E
String 3 G C F Bb E A D
String 4 F Bb E A D G C
String 5 E A D G C F Bb
String 6 D G C F Bb E A
String 7 C F Bb E A D G
String 8 Bb E A D G C F
String 9 A D G C F Bb E
Low ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑
282
APPENDIX X
Descending thetic/static and dynamic system in the key of “Bb” major
“Bb” major scale and modes (“Bb, Eb”)
Tightening →
String 1 Cb→ C C C C C C
String 2 Bb Bb Bb Bb Bb Bb→ B
String 3 Ab Ab Ab Ab→ A A A
String 4 Gb Gb→ G G G G G
String 5 F F F F F F F→
String 6 Eb Eb Eb Eb Eb→ E E
String 7 Db Db Db→ D D D D
String 8 Cb→ C C C C C C
String 9 BB Bb Bb Bb Bb Bb→ B
Low ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑
←Loosening
“Bb” major scale and modes (“Bb, Eb”)
String 1 Eb A D G C F Bb
String 2 D G C F Bb Eb A
String 3 C F Bb Eb A D G
String 4 Bb Eb A D G C F
String 5 A D G C F Bb Eb
String 6 G C F Bb Eb A D
String 7 F Bb Eb A D G C
String 8 Eb A D G C F Bb
String 9 D G C F Bb Eb A
Low ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑
283
APPENDIX XI
Descending thetic/static and dynamic system in the key of “Eb” major
“Eb” major scale and modes (“Bb, Eb, Ab”)
Tightening →
String 1 Fb→ F F F F F F
String 2 Eb Eb Eb Eb Eb Eb→ E
String 3 Db Db Db Db→ D D D
String 4 Cb Cb→ C C C C C
String 5 Bb Bb Bb Bb Bb Bb Bb→
String 6 Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab→ A A
String 7 Gb Gb Gb→ G G G G
String 8 Fb→ F F F F F F
String 9 Eb Eb Eb Eb Eb Eb→ E
Low ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑
←Loosening
“Eb” major scale and modes (“Bb, Eb, Ab”)
String 1 Ab D G C F B Eb
String 2 G C F Bb Eb Ab D
String 3 F Bb Eb Ab D G C
String 4 Eb Ab D G C F Bb
String 5 D G C F Bb Eb Ab
String 6 C F Bb Eb Ab D G
String 7 Bb Eb Ab D G C F
String 8 Ab D G C F Bb Eb
String 9 G C F Bb Eb Ab D
Low ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑
284
APPENDIX XII
Descending thetic/static and dynamic system in the key of “Ab” major
“Ab” major scale and modes (“Bb, Eb, Ab, Db”)
Tightening →
String 1 Bbb→ Bb Bb Bb Bb Bb Bb
String 2 Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab→ A
String 3 Gb Gb Gb Gb→ G G G
String 4 Fb Fb→ F F F F F
String 5 Eb Eb Eb Eb Eb Eb Eb→
String 6 Db Db Db Db Db→ D D
String 7 Cb Cb Cb→ C C C C
String 8 Bbb→ Bb Bb Bb Bb Bb Bb
String 9 Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab→ A
Low ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑
←Loosening
“Ab” major scale and modes (“Bb, Eb, Ab, Db”)
String 1 Db G C F Bb Eb Ab
String 2 C F Bb Eb Ab Db G
String 3 Bb Eb Ab Db G C F
String 4 Ab Db G C F Bb Eb
String 5 G C F Bb Eb Ab Db
String 6 F Bb Eb Ab Db G C
String 7 Eb Ab Db G C F Bb
String 8 Db G C F Bb Eb Ab
String 9 C F Bb Eb Ab Db G
Low ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑
285

Gibson Ancient 2021

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gibson Ancient 2021

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A RE-EXAMINATION OF ANCIENT NEAR-EASTERN MUSIC-THEORETICAL

TABLETS AND NOTATION; CONCERNING A TABLATURISATION FOR THE

Supervisor: Dr. Louis van der Watt

Dylan Lawrence Gibson

Copyright © 2021 Stellenbosch University

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

CHAPTER 1: ANCIENT NEAR-EASTERN INSTRUCTIONAL NOTATION AND

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH TO THE RESEARCH

4.6. Concerning the Presumed Scale/Mode Direction…………………………….……. 109

CHAPTER 5: CBS 10996 – THE STRING PAIRS/SETS TABLET

CHAPTER 6: UET VII 74 – RE-TUNING/MODULATION TABLET

CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND LIMITATIONS

REFERENCE LIST…………………………….………..…………………………..…….. 256

Figure 1: A generalised map of ancient Mesopotamia illustrating the approximate

Figure 3: Photograph of the Hurrian H6 = R.Š15.30 + 15.49 + 17.387 cuneiform

Figure 4: Photograph of the Hurrian H6 = R.Š15.30 + 15.49 + 17.387 cuneiform

Figure 5: Photograph of the Hurrian H6 tablet fragments (obverse and

Figure 6: Sketch of the Hurrian H6 = R.Š15.30 + 15.49 + 17.387 cuneiform tablet

Figure 7: Sketch of the Hurrian H6 = R.Š15.30 + 15.49 + 17.387 cuneiform tablet

Figure 8: Hurrian H6 tablet lyrical section (obverse and reverse)………………………. 8

Figure 9: Hurrian H6 tablet music instructional notation section (obverse)…………….. 9

Figure 10: Modern Western notation for the descending enneatonic

Figure 12: The term qablītu as an ascending fourth (Orientalist

Figure 13: The term qablītu as an ascending fifth (Orientalist

Figure 17: Hurrian H6 colophon (reverse)……………………………………………..… 20

Figure 18: External Criticism and Internal Criticism diagram………………………........ 46

Figure 19: Research process schematic diagram…………………………………………. 57

Figure 24: Archaic stringed instrument (harp) pictographs…………………………….… 64

Figure 32: Side profile of the “Gold Lyre” (U.12353/B.8694)…………………................ 83

Figure 33: “Plaster Lyre” original excavation photograph (field number

Figure 34: “Plaster Lyre” string impressions (field number U.12351/B.8695)…………... 85

Figure 38: Superimposition of numbering systems with assumed octave string

Figure 39: Photograph of the YBC 11381 cuneiform tablet (obverse)…………………… 92

Figure 43: A proposed ambiguous ascending and descending enneatonic

Figure 44: Representation of octaves in standard Western notation……………............... 106

Figure 46: Microtonal-quartertones and their corresponding octaves……………………. 108

Figure 47: Cylinder seal IM 14597 depicting a bull-headed lyre’s plying

Figure 49: Illustration of the assumed arrangement of strings to produce a descending

Figure 50: Enneatonic descending scale/mode of “E”……………………………………. 112

Figure 51: A graphic representation of guitar strings (head-on-perspective)…………….. 114

Figure 52: Guitar strings pitches in standard Western notation…………………………... 114

Figure 53: A graphic representation of guitar strings (performer’s ascending

Figure 55: Neo-Assyrian vertical harp (c. 880-650 BCE)………………………………... 116

Figure 56: Neo-Assyrian horizontal harp sketch……….………………………………… 116

Figure 57: Neo-Assyrian vertical harp sketch……………………………………………. 116

Figure 59: Large standing lyre without a bull-headed feature……….…………………… 119

Figure 64: Descending “C” major/Ionian extended-heptatonic perspective……….…….. 124

Figure 65: Ascending “B” Locrian extended-heptatonic perspective……….…………… 124

Figure 71: Translated content summarisation sketch obverse fragment (left)

Figure 81: Hypothetical “Greater Babylonian System”………………………………….. 143

Figure 82: Sequential relationships………………………………………………………. 150

Figure 86: CBS 10996 number pattern…………………………………………………… 153

Figure 89: Western pitch-numeric system……….……………………………………….. 167

Figure 91: Specialised inversional terms – Westernalist perspective……….……………. 171

Figure 92: Specialised inversional terms – Orientalist perspective……….……………… 172

Figure 94: Mathematical self-reflections………………………………….……………… 177

Figure 99: Cuneiform sketch (left) and transcription sketch (right)

Figure 104: Photograph of the YBC 7280 tablet (obverse)………………………….……... 199

Figure 106: Piano diagram showing a tritone interval (A-D#/Bb)……………………….... 200

Figure 107: Piano diagram showcasing a tritone with a numerical value of

Figure 108: YBC 7280 tablet base-sixty numerical translation……………………………. 203

Figure 109: Visualisation of the re-tuning/modulatory procedure described by

Figure 110: Thetic/static system visualisation……………………………………………... 206