Article contents
The Tuning of the Babylonian Harp
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 August 2014
Extract
In Revue de Musicologie XLIX (1963), 3–17 (henceforth cited as RM XLIX), and again in Studies in Honor of Benno Landsberger (= Assyriological Studies No. 16, Chicago (1965), 268–272, henceforth cited as AS 16), Mme. Duchesne-Guillemin has put forward a theory for the tuning of the Babylonian harp, based on a tablet from Ur, U.3011, and another tablet of unstated provenance in the University Museum, Philadelphia, CBS 10996. The CBS tablet contains a list of intervals with their names, repeated twice over, while the Ur tablet gives the names of the nine strings, presumably of the harp, followed by part of a similar list of intervals (extremely fragmentary). Starting from the observation that the third string has the name “thin string”, Mme. Duchesne-Guillemin infers that the semitone occurred between the third and fourth strings, so that the harp would have been tuned to a scale equivalent to our C major, running from C to the D in the octave above (using, as throughout this article, names of notes and scales in a relative not absolute sense). Observing further that the list of intervals contains three rising fifths followed by four descending fourths, she suggests that the list is a tuning cycle, in which the inclusion of thirds and sixths is explained by the principle that “c'est la superposition des gestes sur les mêmes cordes, pour les regler et les corriger, qui constitue l'accord” (her italics; see RM XLIX, 15), though this view is modified in RM LII. The inclusion of the tritone—an impossible tuning interval—she can only explain by the necessity for completeness (ibid). She remarks incidentally that the fourth string, named “Ea made it”, is to be identified with the Greek μέση.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The British Institute for the Study of Iraq 1968
References
1 See also Revue de Musicologie LII (1966), 147–162.Google Scholar
2 RM XLIX, 13–15Google Scholar, and AS 16, 269.Google Scholar
3 nit/d MURUB in KAR. 158 viii (see p. 223). For convenience, the interval names have been normalized in this article so that all the Akkadian terms end in -um. It will be noticed that the nominal values of the intervals divide them into two groups, ‘primary’ (fourths and fifths) and ‘secondary’ (thirds and sixths), and also that the intervals appear to be ‘invertible’, a phenomenon assumed throughout.
4 Transcriptions based on AS 16, 266–7 and 264.Google Scholar
5 See also XIX, 33 and 36, Cleonides 202, and Chrysostom, Dio, Or. 68, 7.Google Scholar
6 Cf. Plutarch, , In Timeo, 56.Google Scholar
7 Cf. Lavignac-Laurencie, , Encyclopédie de la Musique (1913), pt. I, 41.Google Scholar
8 Cf. Aristoxenus, , Harmonics 23 and also the passage quoted above p. 217Google Scholar) which does not make sense in the context of Pythagorean tuning.
9 Because the tuning relies on the consonance of the fourth or fifth, and because the sequence involves retuning all the primary intervals, the resulting tuning will be Pythagorean whatever might have been the intonation at the outset.
10 Cf. the Biblical terms and mentioned in I Chron. 15 as tunings, and also the presumably early psalm superscription (= kitmum?) denoting, perhaps, that such psalms had been composed within a modal order.
11 See footnote 3.
12 Timeus 36, cf. also Plutarch, , In Timeo 56Google Scholar and Nichomachus, , Harmonies 3Google Scholar and Excerpts 5–6.
13 History, xxxvii, 17–18.Google Scholar
14 The Exact Sciences in Antiquity, 1957, 168 ff.Google Scholar
15 New a Oxford History of Music, I, plate VIII (c).
16 Cf. Wulstan, D., The Origin of the Modes (Studies in Eastern Chant III).Google Scholar
- 2
- Cited by