Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 23:56:17 -0500 (CDT) From: (ANE Digest) To: ane-digest@asmar.uchicago.edu Subject: ANE Digest V2000 #183 Reply-To: Sender: ANE Digest Wednesday, June 28 2000 Volume 2000 : Number 183 Re: ane Archaeologists/Collectors Re: ane bar again Re: ane Ryan & Pitman Critique ? Re: ane bar again ane ANE: BAR and antiquities trade ane ANE: early Assyrian historical narrative RE: ane bar again Re: ane ANE: BAR and antiquities trade ane BAR ane New journal: PREHISTORIA 2000 ane Re: Sultan's Pool Re: ane ANE: BAR and antiquities trade Re: ane ANE: BAR and antiquities trade RE: ane bar again Re: ane ANE: early Assyrian historical narrative RE: ane bar again Re: ane Archaeologists/Collectors ane Beirut excavations newly published in 2 volumes ane FS Wente Re: ane ANE: BAR and antiquities trade Re: Fw: ane Ryan & Pitman Critique ? ane kusarikku Re: ane kusarikku ane Hurrian kusarikku? (long) Re: ane Hurrian kusarikku? (long) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 04:19:36 EDT From: Polycarp66@aol.com Subject: Re: ane Archaeologists/Collectors In a message dated 6/27/2000 2:15:50 PM Central Standard Time, jkilmon@historian.net writes: << Site destruction, tomb robbing, illegal digging, etc has been going on since antiquity and measures must be stepped up considerably to curtail it The solution to this problem is not piling up more boxes in university and museum basements. MOST antiquities owned by the lay public are neither museum quality nor academically interesting. Take some of those thousands of Hasmonean/Herodian/ Byzantine oil lamps and sell them to fund an important dig somewhere. >> As you state, this has been going on since antiquity. Even the elaborate precautions taken by the Pharaohs to ensure the security of their graves were largely unsuccessful. I'm not very confident that we will have much greater success today. Perhaps the suggestion that excess finds which are properly authenticated should be sold (with a certificate of authenticity) has merit. It might serve to cut the ground out from under the sale of unauthenticated materials. Who wouldn't prefer to have an authenticated artifact to an unauthenticated one? gfsomsel ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 06:34:43 -0400 From: "Peter T. Daniels" Subject: Re: ane bar again Louise Hitchcock wrote: > > >He argued in favor of the illicit antiquities trade, and misrepresented > >the positions of the AOS, the AIA, and ASOR regarding publishing > >unprovenanced objects. > > What would you expect from a magazine that publishes ads from antiquities > dealers? Intelligence, integrity, and editorial independence. Does the LA Times endorse every candidate that buys a campaign ad in its pages? - -- Peter T. Daniels grammatim@worldnet.att.net ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 06:43:49 -0400 From: "Peter T. Daniels" Subject: Re: ane Ryan & Pitman Critique ? Faybienne M. Geenhuizen wrote: > > A work by Ryan & Pitman was recently mentioned, so I found and read _Noah's > Flood: The New Scientific Discoveries That Changed History_, (1998). Some > of their ideas are pretty interesting, but I was wondering if anyone knows > if any responses by professional archaeologists and linguists were ever > published. The "book report" I posted to ANE List last year has been published in *Sino-Platonic Studies* 98 (2000): 1-3. I can't comment on the hydrogeology, of course, though I'm not aware it's been challenged; the attendant ethnographic speculations are just that, and any direct link between the Black Sea Flood Event and mythological accounts of floods seems unlikely because of the enormous time elapsed. Steve Tinney (Penn Sumerologist) made this point at an afternoon symposium last fall, at which Fredric Hiebert (Penn archeologist) announced he's investigating flooded settlements with the assistance of Bob Ballard (the submarine guy who found the Titanic). > They also present linguistic evidence for this north-south split, using work > of Gamkrelidze and Ivanov at the University of Tblisi in the Republic of > Georgia, and Donald Ringe, Ann Taylor, and Tandy Warrow of the University of > Pennsylvania. Their work showed the Anatalian languages to have separated > from the northern languages before the northern languages separated from > each other, and before the other southern languages separated from each > other (211-212). Gamkrelidze thought the north-south division occured "in > early fifth millennium B.C., about six hundred years after the Black Sea > flood." (212) They really should have asked linguists etc. to comment on their ms. before it was published. It's full of rather silly mistakes. - -- Peter T. Daniels grammatim@worldnet.att.net ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 08:12:25 -0400 (EDT) From: Mark Rostien Subject: Re: ane bar again - ------Original Message------ From: Louise Hitchcock To: "Peter T. Daniels" Sent: June 27, 2000 11:06:19 PM GMT PD>> He argued in favor of the illicit antiquities trade, and PD>> misrepresentedthe positions of the AOS, the AIA, and ASOR PD>> regarding publishing unprovenanced objects. >What would you expect from a magazine that publishes ads from > antiquities dealers? That's funny, because I recall at least one Shanks editorial (and I think two)recently that warned against collecting both from the ethics perspective and from the forgeries perspective. - ------------------- Mark Rostien Drexel Hill, PA mjrost@usa.com ______________________________________________ FREE Personalized Email at Mail.com Sign up at http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 15:59:23 +0200 From: Cynthia Edenburg Subject: ane ANE: BAR and antiquities trade David Maltsberger wrote: A walk through the basement of The Hebrew University (and other institutions) would back up this point--lots of wonderful dust-gathering items that will never go on display anywhere. After all, how many storage jars does the public want to see? On the other hand, if all the interested Maw and Paw Kettles would pay $500 for an authentic Masada storage jar excavated under controlled circumstances, how much more work could be done at the site or how much quicker could material be published? The wonderful dust-gathering potsherds are kept in university and museum basements, not because of their value (or lack of) as display items. They are kept because they are primary data uncovered from excavations and surveys. The number of a type of sherd collected from a specific site is primary data for the study of the history of settlement. The importance of keeping such material readily available for research purposes should be self-evident. More than once different scholars have misidentified ceramic types from sites -- the only way subsequent scholars may be able to challenge, critique and revise previous assessments is to keep the primary evidence available for examination. Cynthia Edenburg The Open University of Israel Tel. 972-3-6460500 fax. 972-3-460767 Dept. of History, Philosophy and Jewish Studies POB 39328 Rehov Klausner 16 Ramat Aviv, Tel Aviv 61392 ISRAEL ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 16:22:52 +0200 From: Cynthia Edenburg Subject: ane ANE: early Assyrian historical narrative Hope this query doesn't get buried in the BAR argument. Before the emergence of the formal annals genre during the reign of Tiglath-Pileser I there are some interesting building inscriptions of Shalmaneser I and Tukulti-Ninurta I with extended campaign narratives in the introductory section. In all cases, the text relates the campaign narratives to the first year of the kings' reign. However the narratives are so extensive and refer to so many different targets and destinations that I wonder whether they indeed all represent these kings' "first campaign". 1. Has anyone addressed this before, and if so, what are the references? 2. Is it likely that what is represented in the building inscriptions as the campaign of the first regnal year, is really a conflation of several campaigns over several years? Is it plausible that the scribal convention requiring a campaign for the first regnal year was now evolving before the convention of representing yearly campaigns -- so scribes attributed all the kings' campaigns to their first regnal year? Thanks, Cynthia Edenburg The Open University of Israel Tel. 972-3-6460500 fax. 972-3-460767 Dept. of History, Philosophy and Jewish Studies POB 39328 Rehov Klausner 16 Ramat Aviv, Tel Aviv 61392 ISRAEL ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 06:50:57 -0700 From: "Leo Bores" Subject: RE: ane bar again >From a lurker -- I own a shabti. I bought it in London and took it to the British Museum for authentication. They photographed it and recorded the inscription and pronounced it genuine (orally of course). Seems to me that solves a certain problem. As to why people collect .... Holding a piece of one's heritage going back as far as that piece, really connects one with himself and his/her roots. It's indescribable but most archeologists would understand the feeling. I can understand why there are objections to 'pot-hunters' (used here generically) because of the context issue. But I fail to see the other argument. And what of the rumors that (the BM for example) destroys things when they run out of room and can't place them? Is that a good thing? I think not. Progress is a wonderful thing. In ancient times we painted ourselves all over and danced naked to evoke the rain. Today we just have to wash the car. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 06:53:36 -0700 From: "Leo Bores" Subject: Re: ane ANE: BAR and antiquities trade Someone suggested that would-be collectors be satisfied with photographs. I would think that would apply here (below) as well. Or is there something in the handling of the actual piece ....? > The wonderful dust-gathering potsherds are kept in university and > museum basements, not because of their value (or lack of) as display > items. They are kept because they are primary data uncovered from > excavations and surveys ... Leo D. Bores, M.D. Medical Research Director Ophthalmic International, Inc. voice: 480-837-6810 FAX: 480-837-6870 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 10:00:23 -0400 From: "Papalas, Anthony John" Subject: ane BAR I am a specialist in ancient Greek and Rome, but teach an occasional course in the Ancient Near East. Though I took a few courses in the area while at the University of chicago i was really rusty and out of date. I started reading BAR about five years ago, and while I see its flaws, I think it serves its a purpose. I agree with Avigdor Horovitz' defense of the publication. It does invite leading scholars to contribute, and reviews many important issues. While the scholarship is watered down, the emphasis sometimes is slanted, and Shank is a hustler and intrudes a bit too much, I really get my money's worth. I now know who some of my colleagues are in the ancinet near east, and as a result of reading BAR have consulted their works. It is a great bargain, and succeeds in communicating with scholars and the general public. There is nothing quite like that on Greece and Rome, though Shank is trying Archaeological Odyssey. For those scholars on the list who find it too low brow, well let them stick with the pure academic journals. Tony Papalas Classical Studies East Carolina University ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 09:21:38 -0500 From: "Charles E. Jones" Subject: ane New journal: PREHISTORIA 2000 PREHISTORIA 2000 Journal of the International Union of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences Revue de l’Union Internationale des Sciences Préhistoriques et Protohistoriques At the end this year the first issue of a new archaeological Journal, called 'Prehistoria 2000' will appear. The journal will be published by the UISPP, better known as the International Union for Pre- and Protohistoric Sciences. The main goal of this new periodical will be the encouraging of a continuous exchange of knowledge between specialists in the entire world. In order to achieve this, a wide range of scientific information will be supplied and discussions between various scholars will be hosted. The actual publication of the new journal has been foreseen for the year 2001, when its first issue will be distributed during the XIVth UISPP Congress, being held in Liège (Belgium) from 2-8 September of that year. >From then on 'Prehistoria 2000' is intended to appear on a yearly basis. A special issue, however, consisting of a more summary version of the journal as it will be, has been planned to appear already at the end of this year. At this moment, the preparations for this so-called ‘pilot-issue’ are on their way. For this issue we are still looking for scientific articles as well as book reviews, covering the fields of the Pre- and Protohistoric Sciences. Also, we are very much interested in all kinds of information considering recently started excavations and research-projects, or announcements of congresses, exhibitions and so on that will take place in the near future. Furthermore, all information on new publications considering the fields of Pre- and Protohistory would be very useful for our bibliography. The deadline for the submitting of contributions to be included in the first issue of Prehistoria 2000 has been fixed on Monday 17th of July 2000. All announcements of events taking place, as well as bibliographical data should be submitted before the 3rd of that month in order to be included. Off course, because of the rather short notice, papers to be included in later issues are welcome as well. For any further information feel free to mail, fax or call us. Sandra Verhulst Tel: +39/543.404405 Fax: +39/543.404314 E-mail: s.verhulst@abaco-mac.it ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 08:04:04 PDT From: "Dana Brown" Subject: ane Re: Sultan's Pool Subject: Sultan's Pool Yes, Jonathan, the only thing under the traditional mount whereon the Dome of the Rock and the al-Aqsa Mosques stand is trash including the remainder of ruins from Hadrian’s pagan temple. Note: Helena apparently appropriated materials from Hadrian’s structures when building her Church of the Holy Sepulchre and her Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem. Thus, there are no buildings or mount shown in the traditional mount area when you examine the Madaba Map dated c. 562 AD. Even the Roman Gate beneath the traditional East Gate is visible on that Map. So, the traditional mount obviously did not exist in the days of the Romans until Bar Kochba misled Hadrian. No remains of the three earlier Temples are beneath that site as they were built elsewhere. The ruins of the historic Temple of Herod should be found under the mound just East of the Damascus Gate (that’s the third Temple). The second Temple was built midway down the Western Hill. And the Solomonic Temple was built West of the Hinnom. See “Temple Locations” diagram in file 2 of The Hidden City. Note very carefully where the several ancient wall remnants have been found practically beneath the respective city walls shown in that diagram. Remember, after Babylon, the requirement for a 4 square wall was altered to allow the walls to be pushed out here and pulled in there. So those walls should not be perfectly 4 square. However, the Levitical City walls around the Solomonic Temple West of the Hinnom (Jeremiah 19:2 KJV) should be 4 square (2,000 cubits per side). Solomon’s Temple faced West. We don’t know what direction the latter two faced. Details are in The Hidden City series and in Reentering Temple History both ‘A’ and ‘B’: http://www.angelfire.com/fl/BriansHouse/menuba.html#rm1 When we visited the West Bank in 1985 it was obvious that those in power were aware of Genesis 49:1,10 and feared the Holy Ark being Shiloh would signal the demise of the 6th Kingdom (John 11:47-53). Therefore, we were stonewalled when we attempted to show people Scripture and the hiding place of GOD’S Holy Ark in Hebron. At that time we even badgered the Dept. of Antiquities agent in Hebron every day for about a week. His Arab employees thought it was a big joke that he was hiding from us rather that taking a ten minute ride up nearby Kob al-Janib. That’s also where the Tombs of many kings reside including Solomon. Hebron is also a “City of David” as David was made king and reigned in Hebron. Later the Castle in Jebus (PreExilic Jerusalem) and Bethlehem were also called the “City of David”. So, you might get your Arab neighbors to help open up the tomb of Solomon which can be found by looking at the topography for the obvious cave near the top of the hill on the North side of the quarry upon Kob al-Janib. At any rate, Solomon’s Temple site West of the Hinnom has been under Jewish jurisdiction since 1948 and should be easily reentered in a matter of days or weeks if people get busy. The problem is simply to follow the water source. And when you come to places where it appears to be bubbling right out of the ground, just dig down and then go horizontal under the wall (an ancient sewer-tunnel gate). Remember, that’s why King Zedekiah made the Copper Scroll out of copper so they could immerse it on the way out during his temporary escape from Nebuchadnezzar. Zedekiah escaped after having collapsed the Solomonic Temple on itself to keep Nebuchadnezzar’s forces out and to preserve the inner portion of the Temple. Remember, they tortured Zedekiah and killed his sons in an effort to force him to tell how to get into the Temple. Zedekiah obviously kept his mouth shut. Now you know more than King Nebuchadnezzar. Smile. Note that spelunkers have lights, communications gear, cameras, light equipped hard hats, etc. and are accustomed to crawling through narrow spaces underground. With an official invite they’d probably reenter the Solomonic Temple in a day or two. CC: (1) John Pint (Member US National Speleogical Society) Jpint@foreigner.class.udg.mx (2) Mike Hood (President National Speleogical Society) President@caves.org (3) Ray Keeler (Exec. Vice Pres. NSS) rkeeler@pcslink.com Dana DanaeBrown@hotmail.com >From: "Jonathan D. Safren" >Reply-To: "Jonathan D. Safren" >To: Dana Brown >CC: john.bimson@trinity-bris.ac.uk, ane@oi.uchicago.edu, >sam@israntique.org.il >Subject: Re: ane Re: sultan's pool >Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 09:28:34 +0200 > >Do you mean to imply that the Dome of the Rock and the al-Aqsa Mosques >are NOT built upon the runis of Herod"s(or the Second) Temple? >Only for my infoprmation. >Sincerely, > >-- >Jonathan D. Safren >Dept. of Biblical Studies >Beit Berl College >44905 Beit Berl Post Office >Israel > > ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 08:37:39 -0700 From: David Maltsberger Subject: Re: ane ANE: BAR and antiquities trade on 6/28/00 6:59 AM, Cynthia Edenburg at cynthia@oumail.openu.ac.il wrote: > The wonderful dust-gathering potsherds are kept in university and museum > basements, not because of their value (or lack of) as display items. They > are kept because they are primary data uncovered from excavations and > surveys. The number of a type of sherd I disagree, Cynthia. They are kept because we can't dump them without a squabble. We don't need to keep every lmlk jar we recover for future examination--its ridiculous. Surely a finite number of sling stones compose an adequate sample? Broken loom weights--hold onto all of them, some dissertation may need to cover sporangia trapped inside at a later date? We don't excavate entire sites--or sometimes EVERY site--simply because we don't need ALL the data to gain an adequate picture. Every sherd is not significant; nor every complete vessel. If it were, we wouldn't dump the greatest part of our work after sorting each afternoon. Perhaps the need to save and hoard all excavated materials for that possible day of need is more a human characteristic than an purely scientific one. David Maltsberger North Vancouver, BC ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 19:14:12 +0300 From: Eliot Braun Subject: Re: ane ANE: BAR and antiquities trade I can see a case for releasing some properly provenience non-essential materials to the antiquities market, if it does not detract from study assemblages. Thousand of pots gathering dust and costing a lot of money to store, could be used to benefit continued scholarship, excavation, research and eventual publication. They could fund it! That would be a good thing in theory. A good certificate of authenticity and a healthy price tag would be ok in my mind, so long as an object does not have intrinsically greater worth to the discipline that would necessitate its remaining in an assemblage. But really, that's not where the money is and that will not slake the lust (and I use that word advisably) of the big collectors who pay fabulous prices for the really uniquely important objects. That's the real market and the real threat. That's what provides the impetus for gangs of impoverished indigenous people all over the globe to loot antiquities. I've worked on sites where they left the simple, intact pots in heaps because there is no major profit to be had in it. That's not what we're really talking about here. I've also experienced the effects of looting first hand. A hoard of gold coins was looted from a site where I excavated and eventually was published in a despicable publication that deals with treasure troves. Of course I can't prove it but the circumstantial evidence makes it obvious. The context was lost and so was most of the import of the coins. As a dirt archaeologist who spends so much time grubbing around for information, I'm appalled that there are so many on this list who are so much in favor of collecting. I suspect they just don't understand how difficult it is to reconstruct the past from excavations. Certainly without bothering with that side of it the whole task would be easier. Here's a thought to sober us: What if (and I don't know anything to the contrary) there really was a tomb in Dorak? - -- Eliot Braun, Ph. D. Sr. Research Archaeologist Israel Antiquities Authority POB 586, Jerusalem, 91004 Tel. 972-2-5345687; Fax: 972-2-5811858 Email: eliot@israntique.org.il ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 10:02:41 -0700 From: Louise Hitchcock Subject: RE: ane bar again >I see no contradiction between selling extra artifacts as Hershel and >Liz prefer and exchange of >artifacts as you suggest as ways of deriving benefit from things which >just clutter store >rooms and collect more dust than they did when in situ. By the way, you >imply htat the artifacts in the store rooms have no context. I assume this >is a slip of the keyboard, for obviously anything in the storeroom of an >excavation had a context when found and the excavator noted it. Otherwise >the thread has goten a bit tangled and I'm a bit confused. Sorry for being less than clear. I'm teaching 2 summer school classes which leaves me a bit tired. Anyway, I didn't mean to imply that all artifacts in the museum storeroom have no context. Rather, I was suggesting that perhaps this might be a possibility for dealing with redundant artifacts whose contextual information had somehow been irretreivably lost. My preference is to see all artifacts properly documented and studied. I am disturbed by the continuing excavations of more sites while unpublished artifacts continue to languish in storerooms and while monuments exposed to the elements are crumbling. There is a difference between my suggestion and Liz's. I believe that archaeological heritage should remain in the public domain. I believe that selling artifacts to private collectors no matter how innocent the source may seem to be encourages collecting, and that collecting encourages looting. I also believe that it is morally wrong for archaeological magazines and journals to accept ads from antiquities dealers. Louise Louise A. Hitchcock, Ph.D. Research Associate, The Cotsen Instititute of Archaeology at UCLA ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 20:02:04 +0300 (IDT) From: avigdor horovitz Subject: Re: ane ANE: early Assyrian historical narrative dear cynthia, Tadmor and coganhave both written about the custom of attributing some major event to the assyrian king's first year. I think Tadmor mentioned it in the Sienna conference volume. Cogan's contribution has been included in Tigay's volume on EmpiricalModels for Biblical criticism but I unfortunately don't remember the initial publication and I'm too lazy to go to the shelf in the next room and check. Maybe I"ll tell you later when I get up the drive. Prof. Victor Avigdor Hurowitz Dept. of Bible and Ancient Near Eastern Studies Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Beer Sheva, ISRAEL tel 972-7-646-1036 On Wed, 28 Jun 2000, Cynthia Edenburg wrote: > Hope this query doesn't get buried in the BAR argument. > > Before the emergence of the formal annals genre during the reign of > Tiglath-Pileser I there are some interesting building inscriptions of > Shalmaneser I and Tukulti-Ninurta I with extended campaign narratives in the > introductory section. > In all cases, the text relates the campaign narratives to the first year of > the kings' reign. However the narratives are so extensive and refer to so > many different targets and destinations that I wonder whether they indeed > all represent these kings' "first campaign". > > 1. Has anyone addressed this before, and if so, what are the references? > 2. Is it likely that what is represented in the building inscriptions as the > campaign of the first regnal year, is really a conflation of several > campaigns over several years? Is it plausible that the scribal convention > requiring a campaign for the first regnal year was now evolving before the > convention of representing yearly campaigns -- so scribes attributed all the > kings' campaigns to their first regnal year? > > Thanks, > > Cynthia Edenburg > > The Open University of Israel Tel. 972-3-6460500 fax. > 972-3-460767 > Dept. of History, Philosophy and Jewish Studies > POB 39328 Rehov Klausner 16 > Ramat Aviv, Tel Aviv 61392 ISRAEL > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 13:09:26 -0400 From: "Liz Fried" Subject: RE: ane bar again Um, it's not *my* suggestion. I'm reporting my recollection of Hershel Shanks' idea. Liz > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ane@asmar.uchicago.edu > [mailto:owner-ane@asmar.uchicago.edu]On Behalf Of Louise Hitchcock > Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2000 1:03 PM > To: avigdor horovitz > Cc: ane@oi.uchicago.edu > Subject: RE: ane bar again > > > >I see no contradiction between selling extra artifacts as Hershel and > >Liz prefer and exchange of > >artifacts as you suggest as ways of deriving benefit from things which > >just clutter store > >rooms and collect more dust than they did when in situ. By the way, you > >imply htat the artifacts in the store rooms have no context. I > assume this > >is a slip of the keyboard, for obviously anything in the storeroom of an > >excavation had a context when found and the excavator noted it. Otherwise > >the thread has goten a bit tangled and I'm a bit confused. > > Sorry for being less than clear. I'm teaching 2 summer school classes > which leaves me a bit tired. Anyway, I didn't mean to imply that all > artifacts in the museum storeroom have no context. Rather, I was > suggesting > that perhaps this might be a possibility for dealing with redundant > artifacts whose contextual information had somehow been > irretreivably lost. > My preference is to see all artifacts properly documented and > studied. I am > disturbed by the continuing excavations of more sites while unpublished > artifacts continue to languish in storerooms and while monuments > exposed to > the elements are crumbling. > > There is a difference between my suggestion and Liz's. I believe that > archaeological heritage should remain in the public domain. I believe that > selling artifacts to private collectors no matter how innocent the source > may seem to be encourages collecting, and that collecting encourages > looting. I also believe that it is morally wrong for archaeological > magazines and journals to accept ads from antiquities dealers. > > Louise > > Louise A. Hitchcock, Ph.D. > > Research Associate, > The Cotsen Instititute of Archaeology at UCLA > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 13:52:19 EDT From: JDe2129629@aol.com Subject: Re: ane Archaeologists/Collectors Dear Jack Kilmon and other List-Members: Thank you for your thoughtful comments on collecting. I believe that this topic has in the past often generated too many simplistic responses that have done little to approach this complicated series of problems. I believe a few questions might help illuminate some of the problems 1) Should a museum (or similar institution) accept donations of artifacts if they cannot (or will not) preserve them? Would it be wrong for that museum to sell off some of its artifacts in order to preserve others? 2) Should museums sell artifacts from excavations that have not been published? 3) When museums sell artifacts should they not be required to include documentation? Should that documentation be required by law to remain with the artifacts? 4) Should there be laws on the books requiring museum to preserve them. 5) Should a law be passed that museums cannot destroy artifacts? For example using parchment manuscripts to make lampshades. I have often wondered if we could develop an equivalent to the American automobile "pink slip" for artifacts that would be required remain with the artifacts. Since hundreds of thousands of artifacts have left their places of origin legally over the last four hundred years, why do some people assume that everything is stolen that is on the market? Some archaeologist point to the obvious fact that artifacts gain considerable value when they are found in contexts. The most frequently used example is that of the mosaic. Surly tessares are of little use separated from the mosaic. But what of papyri? What if you had a situation in which the water table was razing and you had to chose between recording the clay seals on the papyri, but not the papyri itself, in their precise location they were lift and allowing an informal dig in which the papyri was preserved but not the find spot. If they were the only two chooses I would opt for the later. By the way, before one donates to a museum, you should check to see if: 1) the museum wants the artifact; 2) that they are willing and able to preserve it; 3) that they will not resell it, 4) that they will make it available to researchers. These are just a few of my personal thoughts on the subject. I realize many will disagree. Sincerely Yours, John Deaton. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 14:05:41 -0500 From: "Charles E. Jones" Subject: ane Beirut excavations newly published in 2 volumes From: "elayi-j" Beirut excavations newly published in 2 volumes First volume : J. ELAYI and H. SAYEGH Beirut in the Iron Age III/Persian Period : a district of the Phoenician harbour. The objects (SUPPLEMENT nr 6 to TRANSEUPHRATENE) Paris 1998=20 With the collaboration of=20 C. Doumet-Serhal, A. G. Elayi, Z. Ghadar, D. A. Glanfield, D. R. = Griffiths, S. Jabak, S. Khanafer, L. Latouche, D. R. Neuville, G. C. = Parodi, J. Sapin, B. B. Shefton and N. Tal Emergency excavations in the center of Beirut before its rebuilding have = brought out a whole district of the ancient Phoenician harbour, = exceptionally well-preserved, dating from the Iron Age III/ Persian = period (areas Bey 010 and Bey 039). This first volume is devoted to the = artifactual material discovered, which provides important information. = One discovers the cosmopolitism of its inhabitants, their activities, = daily life, tastes and beliefs. Various activities were performed in = this site : trade, fishing, spinning, sewing, and also in the vicinity = glass, bone, stone, metal working, terracotta and pottery making. The = potters of Beirut were inspired, in terracotta figurines, by Greek and = Egyptian art in order to create a popular art, original when compared = with the productions of other Phoenician workshops. The inhabitants of = this district used these sacred figurines in their houses, worshipping = above all their poliad divinity Astart/Astarte, conceived as a fecundity = goddess. Table of contents Chapter I : The pottery of Locus 130=20 Chapter II : The jars and amphorae of Locus 130=20 Chapter III : Fabric analysis of jars and amphorae of Loci 130 and = 135-138 Chapter IV : Coarse ware Chapter V : Imported Greek ware Chapter VI : The graffiti on pottery Chapter VII : Terracotta lamps Chapter VIII : Terracotta figurines Chapter IX : Other clay objects Chapter X : Glass artifacts Chapter XI : Analysis of a glass sample Chapter XII : Bone artifacts Chapter XIII : Stone objects=20 Chapter XIV : Weights, objects for weighing and coins Chapter XV : Metal artifacts A volume 16 X 24 of 365 pages and 40 plates (in French and English). = 580FF Second volume on Beirut excavations (New publication) : J. ELAYI and H. SAYEGH Beirut in the Iron Age III/Persian Period : a district of the Phoenician harbour. Archaeology and history (SUPPLEMENT nr 7 to TRANSEUPHRATENE) Paris 2000=20 Emergency excavations in the center of Beirut before its rebuilding have = brought out a whole district of the ancient Phoenician harbour, = exceptionally well-preserved, dating from the Iron Age III/ Persian = period (areas Bey 010 and Bey 039). This second volume is devoted to the = urbanism and architecture of the district, to its history in the local = and regional context from its building (end of VIth c.B.C.) to its = likely destruction by an earthquake (end of IVth c./beginning of IIIrd = c.). It was built according to an orthogonal plan with integrated system = of draining, including different kinds of buildings : houses, shops, = houses-shops, houses-workshops, and a small district temple of betyl = type, probably devoted to Astart/Astarte. Beirut belonged by that time = to the powerful city of Sidon, and it was inside the project of = developping the civic territory that the new district Bey 010 and the = western quay Bey 039 were planned. Beirut was a very active fishing and = trading harbour, turned to sea-borne trade as well as terrestrial, = import, export and transit, on short and long distances.=20 Table of contents Chapter I : Geological, geomorphological and geographical survey of the = site in its regional context Chapter II : Beirut in ancient sources Chapter III : Topography of the site Chapter IV : Methodology, stratigraphy and chronology Chapter V : Study of the architecture and urbanism of Stratum IX of Bey = 010 Chapter VI : The technics of building Chapter VII : The Phoenician harbour of Iron age III/ Persian period = (Bey 039) Chapter VIII : Functions of the harbour district Bey 010 Chapter IX : History of Beirut in the Iron age III/ Persian period Appendix A : Analysis of a vase contents Appendix B : Petrographical and microfaunical analysis of soils and = walls samples, and pigment Appendix C : Analysis of shells Appendix D : Analysis of fragments of animal bones Appendix E : Analysis of a sample of olive stone Appendix F : Two miniature vases A volume 16 X 24 of 426 pages and 59 plates (in French). 615FF Editions GABALDA, 18 rue Pierre et Marie Curie, F-75015 Paris Tel : 33 1 43 26 53 55 : FAX : 33 1 43 25 04 71 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 16:44:43 -0500 From: "Charles E. Jones" Subject: ane FS Wente In a small celebration here at the Oriental Institute Chicago earlier this afternoon, the first advance copy of his Festschrift was presented to Edward F. Wente. Containing fourty-two articles by his students, friends, and colleagues, and a bibliography of his publications compiled by yours truely, the volume will be available on July 5 2000. Orders can be sent to: The Oriental Institute Publications Sales 1155 E. 58th Street, Room 227 Chicago, IL 60637 USA Facsimile: (773) 702-9853 Electronic mail: oi-publications@uchicago.edu _Gold of Praise: Studies on Ancient Egypt in Honor of Edward F. Wente_. E. Teeter and J. A. Larson, eds. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization, No. 58. 1999. Pp. xxxi + 494; frontispiece [Edward F. Wente], 140 figures, 7 tables. $75. Table of Contents Contributions 1. A MONUMENT OF KHAEMWASET HONORING IMHOTEP. James P. Allen 2. FEUDS OR VENGEANCE? RHETORIC AND SOCIAL FORMS. John Baines 3. THEBAN SEVENTEENTH DYNASTY. Jürgen von Beckerath 4. INVENTORY OFFERING LISTS AND THE NOMENCLATURE FOR BOXES AND CHESTS IN THE OLD KINGDOM. Edward Brovarski 5. A CASE FOR NARRATIVITY: GILT STUCCO MUMMY COVER IN THE GRAECO-ROMAN MUSEUM, ALEXANDRIA, INV. 27808. Lorelei H. Corcoran 6. OPENING OF THE MOUTH AS TEMPLE RITUAL. Eugene Cruz-Uribe 7. A LETTER OF REPROACH. R. J. Demarée 8. CREATION ON the POTTER'S WHEEL AT THE EASTERN HORIZON OF HEAVEN. Peter F. Dorman 9. THE BORDER AND THE YONDER SIDE. Gertie Englund 10. ENJOYING THE PLEASURES OF SENSATION: REFLECTIONS ON A SIGNIFICANT FEATURE OF EGYPTIAN RELIGION. Ragnhild Bjerre Finnestad 11. SOME COMMENTS ON KHETY'S INSTRUCTION FOR LITTLE PEPI ON HIS WAY TO SCHOOL (SATIRE ON THE TRADES). John L. Foster 12. ON FEAR OF DEATH AND THE THREE BWTS CONNECTED WITH HATHOR. Paul John Frandsen 13. TWO INLAID INSCRIPTIONS OF THE EARLIEST MIDDLE KINGDOM. Hans Goedicke 14. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND TO THE EXODUS: PAPYRUS ANASTASI VIII. S. I. Groll 15. The MUMMY OF AMENHOTEP III. James E. Harris 16. FRAGMENTARY QUARTZITE FEMALE HAND FOUND IN ABOU-RAWASH. Zahi Hawass 17. TWO STELAE OF KING SEQENENRE' DJEHUTY-AA OF THE SEVENTEENTH DYNASTY. Helen Jacquet-Gordon 18. A MARITAL TITLE FROM THE NEW KINGDOM. Jac. J. Janssen 19. REMARKS ON CONTINUITY IN EGYPTIAN LITERARY TRADITION. Richard Jasnow 20. ETHNIC CONSIDERATIONS IN PERSIAN PERIOD EGYPT. Janet H. Johnson 21. The NFRW-COLLAR RECONSIDERED. W. Raymond Johnson 22. THE WEALTH OF AMUN OF THEBES UNDER RAMESSES II. K. A. Kitchen 23. WIE JUNG IST DIE MEMPHITISCHE PHILOSOPHIE AUF DEM SHABAQO-STEIN? Rolf Krauss 24. "LISTENING" TO THE ANCIENT EGYPTIAN WOMAN: LETTERS, TESTIMONIALS, AND OTHER EXPRESSIONS OF SELF. Barbara S. Lesko 25. SOME FURTHER THOUGHTS ON CHAPTER 162 OF THE BOOK OF THE DEAD. Leonard H. Lesko 26. ROYAL ICONOGRAPHY OF DYNASTY 0. Thomas J. Logan 27. The AUCTION OF PHARAOH. J. G. Manning 28. SEMI-LITERACY IN EGYPT: SOME ERASURES FROM THE AMARNA PERIOD. Peter Der Manuelian 29. VINEGAR AT DEIR EL-MEDINA. N. B. Millet 30. OBSERVATIONS ON PRE-AMARNA THEOLOGY DURING THE EARLIEST REIGN OF AMENHOTEP IV. William J. Murnane 31. ZUM KULTBILDRITUAL IN ABYDOS. Jürgen Osing 32. SPORTIVE FENCING AS A RITUAL FOR DESTROYING THE ENEMIES OF HORUS. Peter A. Piccione 33. AN OBLIQUE REFERENCE TO THE EXPELLED HIGH PRIEST OSORKON? Robert K. Ritner 34. THE AHHOTEP COFFINS: THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF AN EGYPTOLOGICAL RECONSTRUCTION. Ann Macy Roth 35. A LITANY FROM THE EIGHTEENTH DYNASTY TOMB OF MERNEITH. David P. Silverman 36. THE NAGA-ED-DEIR PAPYRI. William Kelly Simpson 37. O. Hess = O. Naville = O. BM 50601: AN ELUSIVE TEXT RELOCATED. Mark J. Smith 38. CELIBACY AND ADOPTION AMONG GOD'S WIVES OF AMUN AND SINGERS IN THE TEMPLE OF AMUN: A RE-EXAMINATION OF THE EVIDENCE. Emily Teeter 39. NEW KINGDOM TEMPLES AT ELKAB. Charles Cornell Van Siclen III 40. MENSTRUAL SYNCHRONY AND THE "PLACE OF WOMEN" IN ANCIENT EGYPT (OIM 13512). Terry G. Wilfong 41. SERRA EAST AND the MISSION OF MIDDLE KINGDOM FORTRESSES IN NUBIA. Bruce Beyer Williams 42. END OF THE LATE BRONZE AGE AND OTHER CRISIS PERIODS: A VOLCANIC CAUSE? Frank J. Yurco ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Charles E. Jones Research Associate - Bibliographer The Oriental Institute - Chicago 1155 E. 58th St. Chicago IL 60637-1569 USA Voice (773) 702-9537 Fax (773) 702-9853 ce-jones@uchicago.edu http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/DEPT/RA/Research_Arch.html ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 17:41:11 EDT From: BisnoCC@aol.com Subject: Re: ane ANE: BAR and antiquities trade I spoke with Ma and Pa Kettle this morning and they said that they'd rather the artifacts stayed in the museums where they belong. First, they like reading all the new interpretations in the archaeological journals, and, second, Ma just has enough to dust already (Pa don't do housework 'cause he's out sloppin' the pigs. So it ain't no sexist thang). Jay Bisno Culver City with apologies to European and Middle Eastern readers for the Arkansas dialect. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 09:55:20 +0900 From: markhall@gol.com Subject: Re: Fw: ane Ryan & Pitman Critique ? > From: "Mark Hall" > Subject: Re: Fw: ane Ryan & Pitman Critique ? > Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 00:36:46 GMT > ----- > While I've not tracked a lot of the references on this topic, > a brief letter to SCIENCE (Vol. 280, 24 April 1998) by Burkhard (Geology > Institute, Neuchatel University) had some brief objections on geological > grounds. > There is also a rebuttal by Ryan and Pittman. > > Best, Mark Hall > > > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 03:37:32 +0200 From: "Bjarte Kaldhol" Subject: ane kusarikku Dear listmembers, Gordon Whittaker wrote: "Bjarte (24 June 2000) brought up the possibility of a Hurrian origin of the term, inspired primarily by its -ikk- ending." But I was not inspired primarily by its -ikk- ending. The whole word appears to have a Hurro-Urartian structure, with a root plus three well-known Hurrian suffixes following each other in the correct sequence (the fourth suffix, -i, has been replaced by the Akkadian -u(m)). Even if the root cannot be identified, the distinctive structure of the word should be kept in mind: CVC-ar-i-kk-(i) which, in principle, is a negated, iterative verbal. One might have expected a nominalizer at the end, for example -Vnne: *kusarikkonne, but as I noted, there are other examples of Hurrian nominals in -kk- (puttukki-, 'value', being the most obvious), as well as nominals in -ari that might explain the Boghazkoy form ku$ari-hhu, too, although one would expect *ku$aruhhu, with the normal change to -u- (o) before -hh-, but cp. a$tu$$ihena in Alalakh text 423: 36. I would also like to mention the interesting form kusarakki (ku6-sa4-rak-ki) in Ee III 91, since there are Hurrian nominals in -akk- (kapakka and tahakka), where the second -a- is explained by some as an Ugaritic variant of the normal intransitive class vowel -u-. If this is correct, there would also have been a Hurrian *kusarakke with an intransitive meaning of the root. Such variations are not uncommon in Hurrian; a root may well be intransitive as well as transitive. A Hurro-Urartian origin of kusarikku is generally more likely than an Indo-European one, since Hurrians are known to have been present in the north (Tell Mozan) in Old Akkadian times, when the word is first attested, whereas an Indo-European presence at this time, or earlier, is yet to be established. Best wishes, Bjarte Kaldhol ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 05:11:29 +0300 (IDT) From: avigdor horovitz Subject: Re: ane kusarikku Did not Maria de Jong Ellis write on this word? Prof. Victor Avigdor Hurowitz Dept. of Bible and Ancient Near Eastern Studies Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Beer Sheva, ISRAEL tel 972-7-646-1036 On Thu, 29 Jun 2000, Bjarte Kaldhol wrote: > Dear listmembers, > > Gordon Whittaker wrote: "Bjarte (24 June 2000) brought up the possibility > of a Hurrian origin of the term, inspired primarily by its -ikk- ending." > > But I was not inspired primarily by its -ikk- ending. The whole word > appears to have a Hurro-Urartian structure, with a root plus three > well-known Hurrian suffixes following each other in the correct sequence > (the fourth suffix, -i, has been replaced by the Akkadian -u(m)). Even if > the root cannot be identified, the distinctive structure of the word should > be kept in mind: > > CVC-ar-i-kk-(i) > > which, in principle, is a negated, iterative verbal. One might have > expected a nominalizer at the end, for example -Vnne: *kusarikkonne, but as > I noted, there are other examples of Hurrian nominals in -kk- (puttukki-, > 'value', being the most obvious), as well as nominals in -ari that might > explain the Boghazkoy form ku$ari-hhu, too, although one would expect > *ku$aruhhu, with the normal change to -u- (o) before -hh-, but cp. > a$tu$$ihena in Alalakh text 423: 36. > > I would also like to mention the interesting form kusarakki > (ku6-sa4-rak-ki) in Ee III 91, since there are Hurrian nominals in -akk- > (kapakka and tahakka), where the second -a- is explained by some as an > Ugaritic variant of the normal intransitive class vowel -u-. If this is > correct, there would also have been a Hurrian *kusarakke with an > intransitive meaning of the root. Such variations are not uncommon in > Hurrian; a root may well be intransitive as well as transitive. > > A Hurro-Urartian origin of kusarikku is generally more likely than an > Indo-European one, since Hurrians are known to have been present in the > north (Tell Mozan) in Old Akkadian times, when the word is first attested, > whereas an Indo-European presence at this time, or earlier, is yet to be > established. > > Best wishes, > Bjarte Kaldhol > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 23:55:21 -0400 From: nyokabi@kingcon.com Subject: ane Hurrian kusarikku? (long) On June 24 Bjarte Kaldhol wrote: >kusarikku/husarikku/ku$arihhu might be a Hurrian (Hurro-Urartian) word. > There is no contradiction between this idea and the idea I proposed. The idea was that that an ancient Sumerian term gud.alim had passed into Akkadian either directly OR via another language, probably either Hurrian or Elamite or perhaps some form of proto-language in the Cushitic family, (as well as other possibilities unnamed). G. Whittaker doubts the possibility of a direct transfer on phonetic grounds, but doesn't acknowledge my alternative route, so I'll ignore the direct possibility in this posting. [B.K.] >Although the meaning of the root kus-/hus-/ku$ cannot be determined, the >structure of the word is transparent and typically Hurrian: You go on to suggest two different etymologies, 1)one based on a verb with a negative suffix, or 2)one based on an unknown noun stem with an adjectival suffix. I am going to split your posting to keep these two separate. Please correct me if I am misunderstanding you. 1) [B.K.] >CVC-root plus iterative-durative morpheme -ar- plus class vowel -i- >(transitive) plus the verbal negative (?) morpheme -kk-, and >A possible meaning of kusarikku might be "the one that cannot be tethered", >if the root is related to Hurrian hu$- 'to tether, bind'. This is nothing >more than a guess, however. There is also a Hurrian root kuz-/kuzz-. Where is the verb "can/to be able" in this? Do you mean simply "one that is not tethered", i.e. a wild animal? This seems a little broad for a word for bison, let alone for a bull/bison-man. 2) [B.K.] >or, in ku$arihhu, >a very common morpheme -hh-, used to form qualitative adjectives from >other words (*ku$arihhe would then have been formed from *ku$ari). > >The force of the suffix -kk- in nouns is not always quite clear, but see >Bush, A GRAMMAR OF THE HURRIAN LANGUAGE, p. 203, where he discusses the >nominals kapakka, tahakka, puttukki and menakki. There are also personal >and place names like Adabikki, Amarikki/Ammarike, Andarik, B/Wirikki, >Herikka, Kimdagrikka, Pittiarik, Ugurakki, and Wa$dirikka. I take it in this one you are not assuming a verbal root hu$ + the iterative durative morpheme etc. - because without the negative, it would mean "tetherable"? - i.e. domesticated? Granting that ku$ari or (ku$-ari?)could be a noun root with a qualitative adjectival suffix -ihhe comes pretty close to my suggestion based on the meaning of something like bovine/ bull/ /bison/buffalo, with 1)a simple singulative suffix-- OR 2)a suffix meaning "like" or "near" so that the full thing means "bull/bison-like", or "nearly a bull/bison," = bull-man. As before, I admit, for all of us, the inability to find the meaning or origin of the suffix is the weakest point. Thus the root ku$ari could mean bison or bull OR it may be a compound noun such as gud-alim with a somewhat more extended meaning: kus-ari, possibly "powerful bull", which is also a possible meaning for gud.alim [alim=powerful, a meaning in Halloran]. Here I am trying to deal with the semantic content of the two terms, not the question of their possible phonetic equivalence or derivation. Since we don't know the meaning of a Hurrian noun root ku$ari, let's take a big leap: compare it to Hurrian pedari/petari meaning bull. Is this possibly also a compound made up of a bovine root ped/pet- and a root -ari for 'male' and by extension bull, powerful, etc.? cf. Dravidian: ancient Tamil: pettam/cow; Tuluva: petta/cow; Telugu: abotu/bull. cf. Tibeto-Burman: Kiranti: pit/cow; Limbu: bit/cow. cf. Niger-Kongo: W. Atlantic: Padsade: patura/bull; Biafada: -tura/bull. Plateau Nigerian: Dsarawa: ndag/ cow; bitndag/ bull. Only the Telugu and Dsarawa suggest an evolution into a specialized word or prefix for bull; all the rest seem to be bovine generics. [The Padsade looks suspiciously like petari, and as if the pe- was treated as a prefix, to be dropped and replaced with the animal class prefix in Biafada: x-tura. cf. E. Nilotic: Tepeth/ Toposa? turo/ buffalo; Surma: Didinga: dhuri/male buffalo; Omotic: Kaffa/ turo/ fattened ox. Taurus!] Now if the pet- in petari originally meant cow/bovine, perhaps the -ari meant male, bull, or powerful, as in Dravid: Brahui: are/male individual, husband, or in the bull, male buffalo series I mentioned last time: (DED # 917)Tamil: eru/ male of certain animals (incl buffalo); errai/ male of any animal remarkable for physical strength; Malayalam: eru/ bullock, eran/bull. Kota: er/ male buffalo; Toda: e.r/ male buffalo. [cf. S. Nilotic: Kalenjin: e:ri/bull. cf. Bantu: Gusii/Singiri/Suba: eri/bull; Singa/Wanga/Luhya? iri/bull; Nyamwezi subgroup Shashi: hiri/bull. {all these in L Victoria area}.] My Kurukh grammar says that in Kurukh ( N. Dravidian branch with Brahui and Malto to which Elamite has sometimes been connected in published hypotheses) two nouns stand in apposition without the need for a genitive to connect them: so kus-ari could conceivably mean bull cow or male buffalo, on a parallel with ped-ari/bull. Does this apply in Hurrian? So this etymology is semantically similar to the basic etymology suggested by Whittaker with a proto-Indo-Iranian *husrah or implied by Black and Green's translation of kusarikku to mean bull-man, stating that it is the equivalent of Sumerian gud-alim, which they note is "probably" a term for bison. [Note that they make no statements about derivation! This was me, not them, obviously.] My main difference with G. Whittaker is that I think kusarikku and *(h)usra(h) both probably derive from a common origin so ancient we don't know what to call it. How about pre-Ubaidian for now? -- indicating not an unknowable, unnameable language, but a time frame. Part of the improbability to me of a derivation of *husrah > kusarikku is that I notice many more LWs in various contexts where initial gutterals are dropped, than where they are added on: ku>hu>u seems inherently more likely than u>hu>ku, doesn't it? And dropping a foreign suffix seems more likely than adding one to a foreign LW, doesn't it? A real problem here is chronology. What is our earliest attestation of kusarikku? Does it antedate Proto I-I? (As if the latter could be dated with any accuracy!) I don't have RLA kusarikku article. The problem is still to find a root for bison/bovine to equal the first syllable kus/ku$/hus or the whole word k/hus/$ari. We don't find it in Hurrian, nothing so obvious as the LEC Kushitic root *gaisar/buffalo, which may itself be a descendant or cousin of Akkadian kusar[ikku]. We do have Sumerian: ku$u and Ubykh (NW Cauc): xucha meaning " herd (of sheep or cattle)", and Elamite ke$u/ ka$a/ kasa/ cattle, all of which may or may not be long distance related to Sumerian gud/ox, bull. It is possible that these cattle and/or herd words are a clue to our missing bovine singular root kus-/ku$-. When I say missing, I mean from the ANE because we already found it in E Nilotic, with a clear indication that it could contain a permutation of Sumerian and/or Central Sudanic gu/gur/gud: (from my first kusarikku posting): > An interesting E Nilotic example, which could conceivably >have derived from the Sumerian [gud.alim] via another route, >substituting another root for alim is > > E Nilotic: Karamojo: ekusugwan/ S. Karamojo: egudugwan >/ Elgumi: ekusogwan/ Dorobo: goiso/ all meaning buffalo. > >At least it shows the variability of kus/gud! > I now have some more E Nilotic roots for buffalo: Toposa: nye-kosowwa-n. Teso: e-kosobwa-n. [This makes it clear that the Karamojo ones have a singulative suffix -n on them too: e-gudugwa-n/ e-kusugwa-n. Plural -k]. Masai: usuwa-n/ oisa/ and arro/ all meaning buffalo. It can be seen that the first Masai word belongs in the Karamojo series, the second is approx. the Dorobo form minus the initial gutteral, whereas the third belongs with the E. Kushitic and Dravidian series I included in my last posting. This perfectly epitomizes the Masai position along the Nilotic/Kushitic linguistic frontier (see below for Vossen on this). Plus the Surma roots: Surma: Didinga: kuthuwa-n/buffalo; Murle: kidhiwa-n. These are considered to be loans from EN, possibly Toposa. Note that if Ehret's postulated early E.Cushitic Yaaku, now confined to the N. slopes of Mt Kenya, were the donors of most of this cultural vocabulary, their sound change from proto Cushitic d > s, z makes it likely that the S. Karamojo with their egudu-gwan somehow preserved a form closer to an original PEC or even unknown PC form. If PEC had a Yaakuan type of phonology, it could have been the middle man between a pre- or proto-Sumerian gud and the pre-Akkadians, the latter still breeding up in their tents in the sands of the Arabian desert, or by the side of those long lost lakes and rivers of Havilah! [Note a possible etymology of the Biblical land of Havilah, son of Cush, in the Beja term "awil" for land to the West of the Red Sea coastal plain, a term I just re-encountered tonight.] I have now found the E. Nilotic ox, bovine root that may go back to the ancestor of this gudu/kusu/kuthu in the above probably compound names for buffalo, which I had overlooked in my previous posting: E. Nilotic: Masai: gisu/ox or ing'-ki-shu/cattle; Bari & Ngisu: kite-n/ox, cow (-n sing. prefix) plural kisu-k ; Pojolu: kisu-k/cattle; Lopit: xusu-ng'/ cattle; Lotuko: esu-ng'/cattle. (Nilotic common plural suffix -k(V),-g(V),-x(V), -ng'(V)). ( from Rainer Vossen, 1980 "The Classification of Eastern Nilotic and Its Significance for Ethnohistory", in in Proceedings of The First Nilo-Saharan Colloquium.) cf.Bantu: Shengwe: kuze/ox; Shangaan/Mashangana: kumdzi/ ox. Tonga: -kuzi/ bull; Xhosa, Zulu, Ndebele, Sutu: -kunzi/bull; Karana: -hunzi/bull; Swazi: -kunti/bull; Barotse: -gundi/bull. Angaziya {Greater Comoro): konzu/ bull. A Nyasa dialect: -usa, ng'osa/bull. Kinga: -gwada/-gide/ox,bull; Sangu/ -kida/ox, bull; Rwanda: -gora/ ox; a Nyoro dialect: -korwa/ ox. N-K: W. Atlantic: Fulup: -kat/ox. Sarar, Pepel, Bula: -kas/bull. These are NOT PB forms for bull or ox . They are minority forms, as one would expect for what may be foreign LW's or substrate remnants. The first series preserving the nasal before the dental may represent a surviving form of the ancestor of Sumerian: gud < gund! Note that W. Nilotic (not E.N.!) Nuer and Dinka ghok/cattle, may be a -k plural on the ancient Sumerian and C. Sudanic root gu/gud, which occurs in some form in Nilo-Saharan, Niger-Kongo, Khoisan, and Dravidian as well as possibly Egyptian: (see PPS at end). I now have a better conjecture for the -gwan on kusugwan/gudugwan than a root for "buffalo" - I had originally suggested Proto-Bantu njani/ nyani. I noticed in Ehret's Proto-Cushitic Reconstruction that #306. *gwanxw (the two w's are in superscript) means "strong". In C. Cushitic this is *gwaxw (again superscripts) and in E Cush. Oromo: gonkis. However if we remove the -xw adject. suffix from the *PC form we are left with the root gwan, which looks suspiciously like gwa + (Nilotic) -n sing. suffix. When we look at the EN roots - -gwa-n is exactly what we find : kusu-gwa-n and gudu-gwa-n. This gwa word could be a distant cousin of Nubian: Mahass: guwwa/ strength. [cf. also proto-Bantu *-gudu/strength ,to be strong *-kod-, to become strong *-kud-]. Thus guwwa > -gwa + n > Proto-Cushitic *gwan-, a direction of borrowing based on the appearance that the -n sing. suffix of Nilotic is treated as if it were part of the Cushitic word. The Surma roots and the Toposa and Teso forms of the word for buffalo seem to have dropped the initial gutteral on the second word: instead of having guwwa/ strength, they have -uwa: Vossen discusses these transfers of animals and lexical items which took place between the EN proto-Maa speakers [Masai, Ongamo, Samburu,and Camus] and a now extinct E. Kushitic language called Proto-Baz, via the intermediary of the SN speakers, somewhere west of L. Turkana sometime in the mid lst mil BC. Needless to say this kind of historical and linguistic reconstruction is highly tentative, but it in no way precludes the presence of some of this vocabulary and its speakers in 4th or 3rd or even 2nd milennium, Arabia, that hotbed birthing house of waves of Semitic language groups! Or even - god forbid! - the contact between pre-Akkadians or proto-Semites with some proto-Kushites on the other side of the Great Water, somewhere in the Heart of the Horn or even in the land of Punt! Way back when Egypt and Sumer may still have been swamps!! Thus the word kusu-gwan/gudu-gwan/ buffalo could mean "strong beast" or "powerful bovine". Sumerian gud.alim may have meant the same thing, (Halloran: alim/ "powerful", in addit to the various animal species named alim) and not as I previously suggested, a wild ruminant alim whose particular species was determined by the bovine gud. The Dravidian variants of god/guri [see PPS below] show that this term itself could be extended to, or originally included, the same range of species as Sumerian alim: bison, bull, antelope (ram). Thus if the gud in gud.alim could itself originally have covered the species bison, the alim is freed up to be read in its adjectival meaning: "powerful". Thus gud.alim and presumably also kusar- could mean "powerful bovine, bison". Well if those PII folks really spread this stuff all over Africa, now we know why Cambyses nearly went mad trying to take it all back. "How did you guys get so huge?? You used to be so short before you got into cattle!! Aii yai yaiii!" E. Adams PS Since Dravidian, by and large, with a few exceptions, has no "s", we can look for roots containing "s" under t or d (with dots underneath, what is the term for this kind of dentals? found also in Cushitic) to find equivalents for kus/ku$/ bovine, bison: #2256. Pengo, Manda: kudru/ buffalo; Kuwi: kodru/godru/ditto. Konda: kori/ buffalo; Kui: koru (pl korka) buffalo. In this d (dot underneath) alternating with r, in a buffalo root it is almost as if we have found the missing sound intermediary between d/r and s , linking the phonological developments manifested in the E African roots for buffalo, gudu/kusu/kuthu/ kidhu/ and in the ancient root for beast, ox, bull: gu/gud/gor. kudru (kus-ru? kus-aru?). For the t (with dot underneath) as the equivalent of Akkadian s (and before the Hurrian-induced a>o sound change), we find (DED # 1438): Kui: kasi/ wild, undomesticated; Kodagu: ka.ti/ bison; Tulu: kada/ wild, untamed; katu/ wild, rude; kati/ bison; kate/ wild, untamed beast. Malayalam: katti/ bison. Tamil: katta/ bison. [cf Proto-Bantu: *-kadi/ wild, undomesticated. ] PPS Excursus on C. Sudanic and/or Sumerian gu/gud: Ehret traces the Khoisan words gu/sheep and gwe/cow to a Proto-Central Sudanic *g'u/ body, living thing, with common semantic shift first to "animal" then to "livestock". [1982 "The First Spread of Food Production to Southern Africa,", Table XII.] W. Nilotic added its plural suffix -k: ghuk/ cattle in Dinka, Nuer, Shilluk. Northern Sudanic in the wider Nubian family: Midob: kut, Kenuzi-Dongolawi: gur, Mahass: gor, all meaning "ox, cow", forms which resemble the Sumerian gud (r/d is an extremely common phonetic variation in this area). S.Nubian: Dair: kul/ ox. (cf Hungarian gulya/ox; Dravidian: Kannada: guli/bull.) Note that in N Sudanic: Nera/Barya the word nu[w]ay means animal/ cattle; it is possible that the original word was ~gu/ng'u, and that it survived in C Sudanic and Nubian (and Sumerian!) as g'u, but in Barya as nu-, which is surprising because Sumerian ~g- words more often show up in Nubian with n-.] Note Mid.Egyptian: gw/ a class of bulls, ng3w [< ~guru?] long horned ox or cattle. An interesting comparison is with a Dravidian root (DED #1664) which crosses species, #1664. Gadba: guri, god / bison; Konda: gura/ bison; Gondi: koda mav/ blue bull.. Parji: gudva/ nilgai (large antelope). Kota: guriya mav/ nilgai. This suggests that Sumerian gud, like C. Sudanic gu, could have originally had a broader meaning, later (after the death of the spoken language?) being confined to the specialized bovine meaning. (DED #2074): Telugu: goddu/beast; godlu (pl.)/kine, horned cattle. Gondi: god, (pl. gorku)/cow; Malayalam and Kota: god(u)/ cattle, cow (pl. godk(u)). (DED # 2199): Telugu: kodiya/ kode/ young bull, male (adj); Kolami: kode/bull; Konda, Pengo, Kuwi, & Manda: kodi/ cow; Kui: kodi/ cow, ox. (DED # 2216): Telugu: goda/ ox; Kannada: konde/ bull, ox; Kolami & Naikri: konda/bull; Parji: konda/ bison. Gadba: konde/ cow; Gondi: konda/ bullock, ox. > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 08:00:10 +0300 (IDT) From: avigdor horovitz Subject: Re: ane Hurrian kusarikku? (long) I don't know whether it's relevant for this discussion, but have a look at Maria de Jong Ellis, "An Old BAbylonian kusarikku" inStudies in HOnor of A. W. Sjorberg ed. H. Behrens, et al, OPSNKF 1 ;(Philadelphia, 1989) 121-135. She doesn't speak specifically about etymology but discusses other importnat subjects including the identity of the real animal, translation of the term and the words for the real animals, forms of the images, identification of artifactal kusarikkus. victor Prof. Victor Avigdor Hurowitz Dept. of Bible and Ancient Near Eastern Studies Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Beer Sheva, ISRAEL tel 972-7-646-1036 On Wed, 28 Jun 2000 nyokabi@kingcon.com wrote: > > On June 24 Bjarte Kaldhol wrote: > > >kusarikku/husarikku/ku$arihhu might be a Hurrian (Hurro-Urartian) word. > > > There is no contradiction between this idea and the idea I > proposed. The idea was that that an ancient Sumerian term gud.alim > had passed into Akkadian either directly OR via another language, > probably either Hurrian or Elamite or perhaps some form of proto-language > in the Cushitic family, (as well as other possibilities unnamed). > G. Whittaker doubts the possibility of a direct transfer on phonetic > grounds, but doesn't acknowledge my alternative route, so I'll > ignore the direct possibility in this posting. > > [B.K.] > >Although the meaning of the root kus-/hus-/ku$ cannot be determined, the > >structure of the word is transparent and typically Hurrian: > > You go on to suggest two different etymologies, 1)one based on a verb > with a negative suffix, or 2)one based on an unknown noun stem with > an adjectival suffix. I am going to split your posting to keep > these two separate. Please correct me if I am misunderstanding you. > > 1) [B.K.] > >CVC-root plus iterative-durative morpheme -ar- plus class vowel -i- > >(transitive) plus the verbal negative (?) morpheme -kk-, > > and > > >A possible meaning of kusarikku might be "the one that cannot be tethered", > >if the root is related to Hurrian hu$- 'to tether, bind'. This is nothing > >more than a guess, however. There is also a Hurrian root kuz-/kuzz-. > > Where is the verb "can/to be able" in this? Do you mean simply > "one that is not tethered", i.e. a wild animal? This seems a little > broad for a word for bison, let alone for a bull/bison-man. > > 2) [B.K.] > >or, in ku$arihhu, > >a very common morpheme -hh-, used to form qualitative adjectives from > >other words (*ku$arihhe would then have been formed from *ku$ari). > > > >The force of the suffix -kk- in nouns is not always quite clear, but see > >Bush, A GRAMMAR OF THE HURRIAN LANGUAGE, p. 203, where he discusses the > >nominals kapakka, tahakka, puttukki and menakki. There are also personal > >and place names like Adabikki, Amarikki/Ammarike, Andarik, B/Wirikki, > >Herikka, Kimdagrikka, Pittiarik, Ugurakki, and Wa$dirikka. > > I take it in this one you are not assuming a verbal root hu$ + the > iterative durative morpheme etc. - because without the negative, > it would mean "tetherable"? - i.e. domesticated? > > Granting that ku$ari or (ku$-ari?)could be a noun root with a > qualitative adjectival suffix -ihhe comes pretty close to my > suggestion based on the meaning of something like bovine/ bull/ > /bison/buffalo, with 1)a simple singulative suffix-- > OR 2)a suffix meaning "like" or "near" so that the full thing > means "bull/bison-like", or "nearly a bull/bison," = bull-man. > As before, I admit, for all of us, the inability to find the meaning > or origin of the suffix is the weakest point. > > Thus the root ku$ari could mean bison or bull OR it may be a compound > noun such as gud-alim with a somewhat more extended meaning: kus-ari, > possibly "powerful bull", which is also a possible meaning for > gud.alim [alim=powerful, a meaning in Halloran]. Here I am trying > to deal with the semantic content of the two terms, not the > question of their possible phonetic equivalence or derivation. > > Since we don't know the meaning of a Hurrian noun root ku$ari, > let's take a big leap: compare it to Hurrian pedari/petari meaning > bull. Is this possibly also a compound made up of a bovine root ped/pet- > and a root -ari for 'male' and by extension bull, powerful, etc.? > > cf. Dravidian: ancient Tamil: pettam/cow; Tuluva: petta/cow; > Telugu: abotu/bull. > cf. Tibeto-Burman: Kiranti: pit/cow; Limbu: bit/cow. > > cf. Niger-Kongo: W. Atlantic: Padsade: patura/bull; > Biafada: -tura/bull. > Plateau Nigerian: Dsarawa: ndag/ cow; bitndag/ bull. > > Only the Telugu and Dsarawa suggest an evolution into a specialized > word or prefix for bull; all the rest seem to be bovine generics. > > [The Padsade looks suspiciously like petari, and as if the pe- was > treated as a prefix, to be dropped and replaced with the animal class > prefix in Biafada: x-tura. > cf. E. Nilotic: Tepeth/ Toposa? turo/ buffalo; > Surma: Didinga: dhuri/male buffalo; > Omotic: Kaffa/ turo/ fattened ox. Taurus!] > > Now if the pet- in petari originally meant cow/bovine, perhaps > the -ari meant male, bull, or powerful, as in > Dravid: Brahui: are/male individual, husband, > or in the bull, male buffalo series I mentioned last time: > > (DED # 917)Tamil: eru/ male of certain animals (incl buffalo); > errai/ male of any animal remarkable for physical strength; > Malayalam: eru/ bullock, eran/bull. Kota: er/ male buffalo; > Toda: e.r/ male buffalo. > > [cf. S. Nilotic: Kalenjin: e:ri/bull. > cf. Bantu: Gusii/Singiri/Suba: eri/bull; Singa/Wanga/Luhya? iri/bull; > Nyamwezi subgroup Shashi: hiri/bull. {all these in L Victoria area}.] > > My Kurukh grammar says that in Kurukh ( N. Dravidian branch with > Brahui and Malto to which Elamite has sometimes been connected in > published hypotheses) two nouns stand in apposition without the > need for a genitive to connect them: so kus-ari could conceivably > mean bull cow or male buffalo, on a parallel with ped-ari/bull. > Does this apply in Hurrian? > > So this etymology is semantically similar to the basic etymology > suggested by Whittaker with a proto-Indo-Iranian *husrah or > implied by Black and Green's translation of kusarikku to mean > bull-man, stating that it is the equivalent of Sumerian gud-alim, > which they note is "probably" a term for bison. [Note that they make > no statements about derivation! This was me, not them, obviously.] > > My main difference with G. Whittaker is that I think kusarikku > and *(h)usra(h) both probably derive from a common origin so ancient > we don't know what to call it. How about pre-Ubaidian for now? -- > indicating not an unknowable, unnameable language, but a time frame. > Part of the improbability to me of a derivation of *husrah > > kusarikku is that I notice many more LWs in various contexts where > initial gutterals are dropped, than where they are added on: > ku>hu>u seems inherently more likely than u>hu>ku, doesn't it? > And dropping a foreign suffix seems more likely than adding one to > a foreign LW, doesn't it? > > A real problem here is chronology. What is our earliest attestation > of kusarikku? Does it antedate Proto I-I? (As if the latter could be > dated with any accuracy!) I don't have RLA kusarikku article. > > The problem is still to find a root for bison/bovine to equal the > first syllable kus/ku$/hus or the whole word k/hus/$ari. We don't > find it in Hurrian, nothing so obvious as the LEC Kushitic root > *gaisar/buffalo, which may itself be a descendant or cousin of > Akkadian kusar[ikku]. > > We do have Sumerian: ku$u and Ubykh (NW Cauc): xucha > meaning " herd (of sheep or cattle)", and Elamite ke$u/ ka$a/ kasa/ > cattle, all of which may or may not be long distance related to > Sumerian gud/ox, bull. It is possible that these cattle and/or > herd words are a clue to our missing bovine singular root kus-/ku$-. > When I say missing, I mean from the ANE because we already found it in > E Nilotic, with a clear indication that it could contain a permutation > of Sumerian and/or Central Sudanic gu/gur/gud: > (from my first kusarikku posting): > > > An interesting E Nilotic example, which could conceivably > >have derived from the Sumerian [gud.alim] via another route, > >substituting another root for alim is > > > > E Nilotic: Karamojo: ekusugwan/ S. Karamojo: egudugwan > >/ Elgumi: ekusogwan/ Dorobo: goiso/ all meaning buffalo. > > > >At least it shows the variability of kus/gud! > > > > I now have some more E Nilotic roots for buffalo: > Toposa: nye-kosowwa-n. Teso: e-kosobwa-n. > > [This makes it clear that the Karamojo ones have a singulative > suffix -n on them too: e-gudugwa-n/ e-kusugwa-n. Plural -k]. > > Masai: usuwa-n/ oisa/ and arro/ all meaning buffalo. > > It can be seen that the first Masai word belongs in the Karamojo > series, the second is approx. the Dorobo form minus the initial > gutteral, whereas the third belongs with the E. Kushitic and Dravidian > series I included in my last posting. This perfectly epitomizes > the Masai position along the Nilotic/Kushitic linguistic frontier > (see below for Vossen on this). > > Plus the Surma roots: > Surma: Didinga: kuthuwa-n/buffalo; Murle: kidhiwa-n. > > These are considered to be loans from EN, possibly Toposa. > Note that if Ehret's postulated early E.Cushitic Yaaku, now confined > to the N. slopes of Mt Kenya, were the donors of most of this > cultural vocabulary, their sound change from proto Cushitic > d > s, z makes it likely that the S. Karamojo with their > egudu-gwan somehow preserved a form closer to an original PEC or > even unknown PC form. If PEC had a Yaakuan type of phonology, > it could have been the middle man between a pre- or proto-Sumerian gud > and the pre-Akkadians, the latter still breeding up in their tents in the > sands of the Arabian desert, or by the side of those long lost lakes and > rivers of Havilah! [Note a possible etymology of the Biblical land of > Havilah, son of Cush, in the Beja term "awil" for land to the West > of the Red Sea coastal plain, a term I just re-encountered tonight.] > > I have now found the E. Nilotic ox, bovine root that may go back > to the ancestor of this gudu/kusu/kuthu in the above probably > compound names for buffalo, which I had overlooked in my previous > posting: > > E. Nilotic: Masai: gisu/ox or ing'-ki-shu/cattle; > Bari & Ngisu: kite-n/ox, cow (-n sing. prefix) plural kisu-k ; > Pojolu: kisu-k/cattle; Lopit: xusu-ng'/ cattle; > Lotuko: esu-ng'/cattle. > > (Nilotic common plural suffix -k(V),-g(V),-x(V), -ng'(V)). > > ( from Rainer Vossen, 1980 "The Classification of Eastern Nilotic > and Its Significance for Ethnohistory", in in Proceedings of The > First Nilo-Saharan Colloquium.) > > cf.Bantu: Shengwe: kuze/ox; Shangaan/Mashangana: kumdzi/ ox. > Tonga: -kuzi/ bull; Xhosa, Zulu, Ndebele, Sutu: -kunzi/bull; > Karana: -hunzi/bull; Swazi: -kunti/bull; Barotse: -gundi/bull. > Angaziya {Greater Comoro): konzu/ bull. > A Nyasa dialect: -usa, ng'osa/bull. > Kinga: -gwada/-gide/ox,bull; Sangu/ -kida/ox, bull; > Rwanda: -gora/ ox; a Nyoro dialect: -korwa/ ox. > N-K: W. Atlantic: Fulup: -kat/ox. Sarar, Pepel, Bula: -kas/bull. > > These are NOT PB forms for bull or ox . They are minority forms, as > one would expect for what may be foreign LW's or substrate remnants. > The first series preserving the nasal before the dental may represent > a surviving form of the ancestor of Sumerian: gud < gund! > > Note that W. Nilotic (not E.N.!) Nuer and Dinka ghok/cattle, > may be a -k plural on the ancient Sumerian and C. Sudanic root gu/gud, > which occurs in some form in Nilo-Saharan, Niger-Kongo, Khoisan, and > Dravidian as well as possibly Egyptian: (see PPS at end). > > I now have a better conjecture for the -gwan on kusugwan/gudugwan > than a root for "buffalo" - I had originally suggested Proto-Bantu > njani/ nyani. I noticed in Ehret's Proto-Cushitic Reconstruction > that #306. *gwanxw (the two w's are in superscript) means "strong". > In C. Cushitic this is *gwaxw (again superscripts) and in E Cush. > Oromo: gonkis. However if we remove the -xw adject. suffix from the > *PC form we are left with the root gwan, which looks suspiciously > like gwa + (Nilotic) -n sing. suffix. When we look at the EN roots > -gwa-n is exactly what we find : kusu-gwa-n and gudu-gwa-n. > > This gwa word could be a distant cousin of Nubian: Mahass: > guwwa/ strength. > [cf. also proto-Bantu *-gudu/strength ,to be strong *-kod-, > to become strong *-kud-]. > Thus guwwa > -gwa + n > Proto-Cushitic *gwan-, a direction of > borrowing based on the appearance that the -n sing. suffix of Nilotic > is treated as if it were part of the Cushitic word. > > The Surma roots and the Toposa and Teso forms of the word for buffalo > seem to have dropped the initial gutteral on the second word: instead of > having guwwa/ strength, they have -uwa: > > Vossen discusses these transfers of animals and lexical items > which took place between the EN proto-Maa speakers [Masai, Ongamo, > Samburu,and Camus] and a now extinct E. Kushitic language called > Proto-Baz, via the intermediary of the SN speakers, somewhere west > of L. Turkana sometime in the mid lst mil BC. Needless to say this > kind of historical and linguistic reconstruction is highly > tentative, but it in no way precludes the presence of some of > this vocabulary and its speakers in 4th or 3rd or even 2nd milennium, > Arabia, that hotbed birthing house of waves of Semitic language > groups! Or even - god forbid! - the contact between pre-Akkadians > or proto-Semites with some proto-Kushites on the other side of > the Great Water, somewhere in the Heart of the Horn or even > in the land of Punt! Way back when Egypt and Sumer may still > have been swamps!! > > Thus the word kusu-gwan/gudu-gwan/ buffalo could mean "strong beast" or > "powerful bovine". Sumerian gud.alim may have meant the same thing, > (Halloran: alim/ "powerful", in addit to the various animal species > named alim) and not as I previously suggested, a wild ruminant alim whose > particular species was determined by the bovine gud. > > The Dravidian variants of god/guri [see PPS below] show that this term > itself could be extended to, or originally included, the same range of > species as Sumerian alim: bison, bull, antelope (ram). Thus if the gud in > gud.alim could itself originally have covered the species bison, the alim > is freed up to be read in its adjectival meaning: "powerful". Thus > gud.alim and presumably also kusar- could mean "powerful bovine, > bison". > > Well if those PII folks really spread this stuff all over Africa, > now we know why Cambyses nearly went mad trying to take it all > back. "How did you guys get so huge?? You used to be so short > before you got into cattle!! Aii yai yaiii!" > > E. Adams > > PS Since Dravidian, by and large, with a few exceptions, has no "s", > we can look for roots containing "s" under t or d (with dots underneath, > what is the term for this kind of dentals? found also in Cushitic) > to find equivalents for kus/ku$/ bovine, bison: > > #2256. Pengo, Manda: kudru/ buffalo; Kuwi: kodru/godru/ditto. > Konda: kori/ buffalo; Kui: koru (pl korka) buffalo. > > In this d (dot underneath) alternating with r, in a buffalo root > it is almost as if we have found the missing sound intermediary > between d/r and s , linking the phonological developments > manifested in the E African roots for buffalo, gudu/kusu/kuthu/ > kidhu/ and in the ancient root for beast, ox, bull: gu/gud/gor. > kudru (kus-ru? kus-aru?). For the t (with dot underneath) > as the equivalent of Akkadian s (and before the Hurrian-induced > a>o sound change), we find > > (DED # 1438): Kui: kasi/ wild, undomesticated; Kodagu: ka.ti/ bison; > Tulu: kada/ wild, untamed; katu/ wild, rude; kati/ bison; > kate/ wild, untamed beast. Malayalam: katti/ bison. > Tamil: katta/ bison. > > [cf Proto-Bantu: *-kadi/ wild, undomesticated. ] > > PPS Excursus on C. Sudanic and/or Sumerian gu/gud: > > Ehret traces the Khoisan words gu/sheep and gwe/cow to a Proto-Central > Sudanic *g'u/ body, living thing, with common semantic shift first to > "animal" then to "livestock". [1982 "The First Spread of Food Production > to Southern Africa,", Table XII.] > > W. Nilotic added its plural suffix -k: ghuk/ cattle in Dinka, Nuer, Shilluk. > > Northern Sudanic in the wider Nubian family: Midob: kut, Kenuzi-Dongolawi: > gur, Mahass: gor, all meaning "ox, cow", forms which resemble the > Sumerian gud (r/d is an extremely common phonetic variation in this area). > S.Nubian: Dair: kul/ ox. > (cf Hungarian gulya/ox; Dravidian: Kannada: guli/bull.) > > Note that in N Sudanic: Nera/Barya the word nu[w]ay means animal/ cattle; > it is possible that the original word was ~gu/ng'u, and that it survived > in C Sudanic and Nubian (and Sumerian!) as g'u, but in Barya as nu-, which > is surprising because Sumerian ~g- words more often show up in Nubian with > n-.] > > Note Mid.Egyptian: gw/ a class of bulls, ng3w [< ~guru?] long horned > ox or cattle. > > An interesting comparison is with a Dravidian root (DED #1664) > which crosses species, > > #1664. Gadba: guri, god / bison; Konda: gura/ bison; Gondi: koda mav/ > blue bull.. Parji: gudva/ nilgai (large antelope). > Kota: guriya mav/ nilgai. > > This suggests that Sumerian gud, like C. Sudanic gu, could have > originally had a broader meaning, later (after the death of the spoken > language?) being confined to the specialized bovine meaning. > > (DED #2074): Telugu: goddu/beast; godlu (pl.)/kine, horned cattle. > Gondi: god, (pl. gorku)/cow; Malayalam and Kota: god(u)/ cattle, > cow (pl. godk(u)). > > (DED # 2199): Telugu: kodiya/ kode/ young bull, male (adj); > Kolami: kode/bull; Konda, Pengo, Kuwi, & Manda: kodi/ cow; > Kui: kodi/ cow, ox. > > (DED # 2216): Telugu: goda/ ox; Kannada: konde/ bull, ox; > Kolami & Naikri: konda/bull; Parji: konda/ bison. > Gadba: konde/ cow; Gondi: konda/ bullock, ox. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ End of ANE Digest V2000 #183 **************************** Back issues are available on the Oriental Institute World-Wide Web (WWW) site at: http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/ANE/OI_ANE.html