From: owner-ane@ (ANE Digest) To: ane-digest Subject: ANE Digest V1999 #49 Reply-To: Sender: owner-ane@ Errors-To: owner-ane@ Precedence: bulk ANE Digest Friday, February 19 1999 Volume 1999 : Number 049 Re: ane status of dead Persian kings? Re: ane Darius III Codomannus Re: ane eme-SAL ane KV-63? RE: ane status of dead Persian kings? ane emesal ane Job: Associate Editor, American Journal of Archaeology Re: ane Philistines Re: ane emesal ane understanding meroitic? ane Semitic Etymological Dictionary (SED) on-line ane: Persian royal land ane Book: Texts from the Babylonian Collection III Re: ane Priamos and Aeneas in Hettite sources ane Image index... Re: ane Philistines Re: ane understanding meroitic? ane Diglossia Re: ane understanding meroitic? Re: ane Josephus Re: ane understanding meroitic? ane Philistim - KasluHim Re: ane Josephus ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 05:00:51 -0600 (CST) From: Giuseppe Del Monte Subject: Re: ane status of dead Persian kings? See most recently P. Briant, Histoire de l'empire perse de Cyrus à Alexandre, (Paris, Fayard, 1996 =) Achaemenid History X, Leiden, Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 1996, pp. 106-108 (tomb and cult of Cyrus at Pasargadae), p. 923 (bibl.), p. 182f. (tombs of Darius I and his successors at Naq$-i Rustam and of Artaxerxes II and his successors near Persepolis), p. 934 (bibl.). It seems that only Cyrus the Great received a formal and regular cult at his tomb. Best regards, Giuseppe Del Monte At 15.25 17/02/99 +0100, libran@jet.es wrote: >Dear fellow members: > >I have read that in an article called "The subject of the Achamenid tomb >reliefs" (Proceedings of the Third Annual Symposium in Archaeological >Research in Iran, Tehran, 1975, 233-42) iranologist P. Calmeyer claimed >that, although Persian kings were not worshipped during their >lifetimes, when dead they received a formal cult; and he goes on to >state that Aeschylus, in setting his play The Persians before the tomb >of Darius, reveals a deep knowledge of what the tomb of an Achaemenid >king was: a place to visit the dead monarch, to venerate him and speak >with him (p. 242) > >I am not an iranologist, but a classicist whose emphasis is Aeschylus´ >Persae, and therefore I´d be immensely grateful to any of you if you >could please either confirm of refute Calmeyer´s allegations, or if you >know of thorough treatments of the issue of Achaemenid kings´ status >after their death. I´d be very interested to hear about the possibility >of dead kings´ tombs being utilized as council chambers. > >Thanks beforehand. > >Regards, Miryam Librán Moreno - -------------- Prof. Dr. Giuseppe del Monte Cattedra di Storia del Vicino Oriente antico Dpt. Scienze storiche del mondo antico Università di Pisa via Galvani 1 - I-56100 Pisa Fax 39-050-500668 - E-mail delmonte@lunet.it ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 05:00:51 -0600 (CST) From: Giuseppe Del Monte Subject: Re: ane Darius III Codomannus At 16.42 17/02/99 -0500, "Franz Alfred" wrote: >Hi, > >I'm confused. Although most reference works spell Darius III co- >name "Codomannus", Webster's Biographical Dict. and >Encyclopedia Britannica spell it "Codommanus." > >What is the correct spelling? Is it from Latin? If yes, >"Codomannus" would make sence since it would mean something >like "strongly dedicated pony." > >Any comment? > >Thanks, >Franz > The problem was discussed at length by R. Schmitt, 'Achaemenid Throne-Names', in: Istituto Orientale di Napoli, Annali, 42 (1982), pp. 83-95, esp. pp. 86 and 90-91. In case you have difficulty to find this journal, I'll summarize the relevant passages: "A hint at the original name of this last Achaemenid king seems to be given by Iustinus, where we read, that a certain Codomannus (X,3,3-4), having deserved well of his king and his country in the Cadusian War and therefore having been created chief of the Armenians, ... 'some time after the death of king Ochus is appointed king by the people in remembrance of his previous bravery, honoured with the surname of Darius'" (p. 86). Babylonian astronomical texts have ascertained that the original name of Darius III was Arta$ata (Old Persian Rta$ati-). "These data point categorically to that Darius III originally was not called Codomannus as generally is inferred from Iustinus ... With that new evidence the facts fit in very well that the name Codomannus attested only in Iustinus is quite isolated, has neither resembling nor comparable names at its side, and has found rather suspicion than an evident etymological interpretation" (p. 90, with fn. 34): "In most recent times Harmatta [Az utolso Achaimenida, in: Antik Tanulmanyok 16] 1969 ... traced it back to an Old Iranian or even OP *Katu-manah- 'of warlike mind'...". "The apparent 'coexistence' of that *Rta-$ati- and Iustinus' Codomannus was not a fixed element of his titulature, but a surname given to him for some reason (perhaps because of some heroic deed in his youth like that mentioned by Iustinus and overlooked by Harmatta, loc. cit.), so that in the case of Darius III the surname Codomannus is to the original name *Rta$ati- as is ... Latin Mnemon 'remembering' to Arses in the case of Artaxerxes II" (p. 91). See also most recently P. Briant, Histoire de l'empire perse de Cyrus à Alexandre, Paris, Fayard, 1996 = Leiden, Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 1996, Chapter XVII/I "L'avènement de Darius III". Hope this helps. Regards, Giuseppe Del Monte - -------------- Prof. Dr. Giuseppe del Monte Cattedra di Storia del Vicino Oriente antico Dpt. Scienze storiche del mondo antico Università di Pisa via Galvani 1 - I-56100 Pisa Fax 39-050-500668 - E-mail delmonte@lunet.it ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 11:18:24 GMT From: mcv@wxs.nl (Miguel Carrasquer Vidal) Subject: Re: ane eme-SAL Alexis (manaster@umich.edu) wrote: >Specifically, I do not buy the suggestion of: >> >> Possible reflexes of distinct Proto-Sumerian phonemes: >> >> A: [*w ?] >> M2 m > g~ (5) inim > eneg~ >> G~1 g~ > m (20) dig~ir > dimmer >> >I think that the data suggest that the first change is >typical in final position, while the second is typical >in initial position. Hence there is no need for an >extra phoneme. Correct. No extra phoneme, we can just use *g~ to derive the Emesal and Emegir forms. I must admit my hidden agenda at the time was to support my contention that Sumerian /g~/ (pronounced something like [Nw]?) derives from earlier *w, for which I think I see some comparative evidence (dag~al "wide" ~ PS *t.awal, maybe g~is^ "tree" ~ Akk. is.u or even dig~g~ir "god" ~ PIE *diw-wir- "heaven-power[lightning]"). >> B: [*gw ?] >> G4 g > b (7) dug > zeb, igi > ibi > >This also looks like a conditioned sound change, >dependent on position in the word and/or the quality >of the adjacent vowels. Miguel Civil (Thomsen p. 44) suggests [in the context of g ~ b variations in Emegir] an allophone of /g/ before /u/ or a distinct phoneme *gw. The Emesal data does not support the allophone theory. >> C: [*L ?] >> N1 n > sh (9) nin > shen, nundum > shumdum >> >I think that the data point, with only scattered exceptions, >to the conclusion that n > sh occurs before front vowels, >while n > n occurs elsewhere. A counterexample like >nundum > shu.um.du.um "lip" either involves a vowel which >was really front but this is concealed by the orthography >or perhaps reflects a historical change (a front vowel which >became retraced for some reason, e.g., assimilation to the >following vowel)--or some other condition that needs to >be worked out. But what about an exception the other way: inim ~ eneg~ "word"? I believe it's likely that nundum ~ s^umdum is a loan from some Semitic form close to Akk. s'aptum, with an initial lateral fricative. I see a connection between s'ar and nir/s^er "king, prince" as less certain, but still possible. The possibility of a Pre-Sumerian phoneme *L (expressed as n ~ s^ alternation between EG and ES) looks promising to me. ======================= Miguel Carrasquer Vidal mcv@wxs.nl Amsterdam ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 09:51:16 AST From: Tom Simms Subject: ane KV-63? Fellow Listers - I've not forgotten the List, but I've been busy since I found out that the first new clearance in 76 years in the Valley of the Kings had a 30 day run over last November/December. It will begin again after Easter. The first trowel scoop took place without any notice or fanfare on the Anniversary date of unseal- ing the door at the steps in 1922, November 23rd. November 26th, of course is the day the first light entered the tomb in over 3 millennia when Carter broached the door to the antechamber. The clearance actually was broadcast on the BBC and a Web page of the month and what is to come is available: ........................................... >www.twplus.beeb.com/html/dig_egypt/diary/< ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ My own Web on this matter is: ................................................. >http://pami.uwaterloo.ca/~reda/kings/kings.html< ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The work is proceeding under the direction of Messrs Reeves and Martin whose publications and works are very well known. There are two Webs of interest associated with this venture: http://www.friesian.com/tombs.htm http://www.sis.gov.eg/egyptinf/history/html/akhen.htm They are digging right where the "X" is on my Web. Apparently they used the same Sonar soundings to suspect a tomb is there. They have found graffiti of a Royal Valley supervisor, Wen Nefer, indicating there are TWO tombs in the location and that the double set of reflections is not from two walls of one chamber but from two passages into the rock, approximately 15 m SW of the Annex of the Tomb of Tut Ankh Amen (KV-62). I've titled this notice KV-63? for it may be KV-63 AND KV-64. The Excavator's candidate for the individuals in the tombs, if that's what they are, is Nefert Iti. My suspicions, now that it's two entrances, are that it's four - Kiya, Thothmes, the first born of Amen Hetep III and Tiye, and husband and wife Akhu En Aten and Nefert Iti. My only worry about the venture is that this ship is running without Sonar. Our system of Seismic Subsurface Imaging would have spared them the agony or uncertainty you will feel reading of them taking the first scoops BLIND to what they might find. So far, Wen Nefer's notices suggest success but my, didn't they take a chance doing it as they did. Tom Simms - - whose _Behind The Bible_ ISBN 0-9695425-0-X is on Amazon.com - where you find how far back my analysis of the Amarna Kings goes. Read Psalm 104 in its first cut. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 08:49:00 -0500 From: "Liz Fried" Subject: RE: ane status of dead Persian kings? My understanding is that fires are kept burning in homes and in other places in honor of Ahura Mazda. Cyrus is not being worshipped at his tomb, rather a perpetual flame is there -- a ner tamid? -- for the Lord of the World, Ahura Mazda. Liz Lisbeth S. Fried Department of Hebrew and Judaic Studies New York University 51 Washington Sq. S. New York, NY 10012 lqf9256@is3.nyu.edu lizfried@umich.edu > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ane@oi.uchicago.edu [mailto:owner-ane@oi.uchicago.edu]On > Behalf Of Giuseppe Del Monte > Sent: Thursday, February 18, 1999 6:01 AM > To: ane@oi.uchicago.edu > Subject: Re: ane status of dead Persian kings? > > > See most recently P. Briant, Histoire de l'empire perse de Cyrus à > Alexandre, (Paris, Fayard, 1996 =) Achaemenid History X, Leiden, > Nederlands > Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 1996, pp. 106-108 (tomb and > cult of Cyrus > at Pasargadae), p. 923 (bibl.), p. 182f. (tombs of Darius I and his > successors at Naq$-i Rustam and of Artaxerxes II and his successors near > Persepolis), p. 934 (bibl.). It seems that only Cyrus the Great received a > formal and regular cult at his tomb. > Best regards, > Giuseppe Del Monte > > At 15.25 17/02/99 +0100, libran@jet.es wrote: > >Dear fellow members: > > > >I have read that in an article called "The subject of the Achamenid tomb > >reliefs" (Proceedings of the Third Annual Symposium in Archaeological > >Research in Iran, Tehran, 1975, 233-42) iranologist P. Calmeyer claimed > >that, although Persian kings were not worshipped during their > >lifetimes, when dead they received a formal cult; and he goes on to > >state that Aeschylus, in setting his play The Persians before the tomb > >of Darius, reveals a deep knowledge of what the tomb of an Achaemenid > >king was: a place to visit the dead monarch, to venerate him and speak > >with him (p. 242) > > > >I am not an iranologist, but a classicist whose emphasis is Aeschylus´ > >Persae, and therefore I´d be immensely grateful to any of you if you > >could please either confirm of refute Calmeyer´s allegations, or if you > >know of thorough treatments of the issue of Achaemenid kings´ status > >after their death. I´d be very interested to hear about the possibility > >of dead kings´ tombs being utilized as council chambers. > > > >Thanks beforehand. > > > >Regards, Miryam Librán Moreno > > > -------------- > Prof. Dr. Giuseppe del Monte > Cattedra di Storia del Vicino Oriente antico > Dpt. Scienze storiche del mondo antico > Università di Pisa > via Galvani 1 - I-56100 Pisa > Fax 39-050-500668 - E-mail delmonte@lunet.it > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 10:16:01 -0500 From: Brian Betty Subject: ane emesal At 03:53 PM 2/17/99 -0500, you wrote: "The point which I think Miguel is trying to make, and certainly the one that I am, is that the way a language or dialect is used in literary texts does not have to reflect its real usage in speech. If women speak Prakrit while their menfolk speak Sanskrit in Sanskrit drama (and we know that this is a convention, not reality), then we must admit that, even if there is a body of Sumerian texts wherein females speak eme-sal and males eme-gir, this does not mean that this was the real distinction." Certainly in Indian texts, the use of Sanskrit by men is meant to reflect their education and importance. Or, to put it the other way around, women spoke Prakrt because they were not seen as educated and literate in Sanskrit, an artificial archaicised 'language' spoken only as a second language. People did not speak Sanskrit in daily life; perhaps at court, as Latin was used in the Middle Ages. It is an artificial distinction making the difference between genders greater, kind of like when Egyptians painted women a lighter colour than men in their art or the like. When women spoke Prakrt, they spoke the language that people spoke in their everyday lives, whereas men used the language associated with status, kingship, religion, etc. Artificial, but there is a grain of truth here. I am enclined to see emesal in use in real life; we know that many words, particularly household or non-status- associated words came into Akkadian from emesal. This could suggest its use on a day-to-day basis, either as a nonstatus dialect of Sumerian or a women's dialect. Sumerian written may have been a standardised literary language, but we know that people spoke it because of early texts where Akkadian is being explained to Sumerian speakers, from the point of view of Sumerian-monolinguals. "Hence, Diakonoff's comparison with Chukchee and other cultures with a men's dialect and a women's dialect is too facile. It also bothers me that we are comparing an urban, literate culture (Sumer) with nomadic hunter gatherers. It is not impossible that the Sumerians had a system like the Chukchee but we should be careful about positing it without very strong evidence." This, I'm afraid, smacks of prejudice. There are linguistic differences between male and female speakers, even in English; ask a male-to-female transgender. MTFs often study with speech therapists to learn how to speak 'like a woman;' this does not posit biological differences, but sociological ones. On a most facile level, when men use words like 'cute,' if it ain't their toddler daughter they're talking about, they're often perceived as gay (since here in America, anyway, 'gay' [inaccurately] connotes 'femininity'). And in my mother's day, women who swore like their brothers did were labelled 'too masculine,' 'tomboys.' "And now a question: while there are certainly Sumerian texts to be found wherein eme-sal is used by female characters, could this itself be a convention which arose secodnarily as a result of the folk etymology of eme-sal as 'women's language'? That is, how old are these texts? Are they among the oldest that we have that contain eme-sal?" I don't have the answer for this. I do know that the earlier texts have women speaking emesal, whereas the *later* texts have lamentations and prayers (spoken by men, or presumed (?) to have been spoken by men). I'm not entirely convinced eme-sal was a woman's language, but I don't think the evidence presented above negates the idea. Maybe emesal was a dialect that was used for women to show their lesser - educated status instead of a women's language; that is likely. I just think we should be careful not to drag our prejudices about our own societies back in time. BB They call me Coffee 'cause I grind so fine. God was my co-pilot, but we crashed in the Andes and I had to eat him. Only 319 shopping days left before the end of the world. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 09:43:52 -0600 From: "Charles E. Jones" Subject: ane Job: Associate Editor, American Journal of Archaeology Forwarded on behalf of the undersigned, to whom responses and inquiries should be directed. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx From: American Journal of Archaeology __________________________________________ Position Available April 1, 1999 Associate Editor, American Journal of Archaeology The Associate Editor is responsible directly to the Editor-in-Chief of AJA and works closely with the Assistant Editor in Boston at the headquarters of the Archaeological Institute of America. The position is 35 hours/week. Salary commensurate with experience, plus benefits. RESPONSIBILITIES: The Associate Editor is directly involved in the editing and production of each issue of AJA. The Associate Editor acts as a liaison between the press and authors, consults in a number of areas with the Editor-in-Chief, and supervises and works closely with the Assistant Editor. Duties include occasionally reading submitted manuscripts and suggesting reviewers, particularly when the subject matter of the article falls within the Associate Editor's range of expertise. The Associate Editor corresponds with authors, edits text and notes, sends edited version to authors for approval, marks up MSS for the press. He/she does a second edit of the Book Reviews and the Books Received list for each issue, collects and edits announcements to be run in the back of each issue, compiles the Table of Contents for each issue, in consultation with the Editor-in-Chief, and submits an estimate to the AIA Controller of the cost of producing and mailing each issue. The Associate Editor is also expected to attend the AIA Annual Meeting and on occasion Governing Board meetings. REQUIREMENTS: Ph.D. preferred in archaeology, ancient art, ancient history or a related field. Reading proficiency in one or more foreign and/or ancient languages is necessary. Word processing experience is essential; familiarity with desktop publishing desirable, but not necessary. Attention to detail in all matters is critical, but especially in matters of copyediting. Those interested in applying should send a letter detailing qualifications, a resume, a short writing sample, and the names of three references to: Prof. R. Bruce Hitchner American Journal of Archaeology 656 Beacon Street Boston, Massachusetts 02215-2010 Tel: 617-353-9364 Fax: 617-353-6550 e-mail: aja@bu.edu The deadline for applications is March 8, 1999. The Archaeological Institute of America is an affirmative-action, equal-opportunity employer. - ---------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 09:50:45 -0600 From: "Donald R. Vance" Subject: Re: ane Philistines Could this be because it is treated as a proper noun? George Athas (gathas@mail.usyd.edu.au), on 2/17/99 9:01 PM, did pen the following: >An interesting thing I've noted is that the word "Philistines" (Hb: >Pelishtim) is hardly ever given a definite article in the Bible, even >when the text is talking about "the" Philistines. It was a peculiarity >for which I can't find an explanation. Any theories? > >Regards, >GEORGE ATHAS >Dept of Semitic Studies, >University of Sydney >- Email: gathas@mail.usyd.edu.au >--------------------------------------------------- >Visit the Tel Dan Inscription Website at >http://www-personal.usyd.edu.au/~gathas/teldan.htm >--------------------------------------------------- > > > Donald R. Vance, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Biblical Languages and Literature Undergraduate Theology Oral Roberts University drvance@oru.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 11:32:14 -0500 (EST) From: manaster@umich.edu Subject: Re: ane emesal On Thu, 18 Feb 1999, Brian Betty wrote [i.a.]: > At 03:53 PM 2/17/99 -0500, you wrote: [snip] > > "Hence, Diakonoff's comparison with Chukchee and other cultures with a > men's dialect and a women's dialect is too facile. It also bothers me that > we are comparing an urban, literate culture (Sumer) with nomadic hunter > gatherers. It is not impossible that the Sumerians had a system like the > Chukchee but we should be careful about positing it without very strong > evidence." > > This, I'm afraid, smacks of prejudice. There are linguistic differences > between male and female speakers, even in English; ask a male-to-female > transgender. MTFs often study with speech therapists to learn how to speak > 'like a woman;' this does not posit biological differences, but > sociological ones. On a most facile level, when men use words like 'cute,' > if it ain't their toddler daughter they're talking about, they're often > perceived as gay (since here in America, anyway, 'gay' [inaccurately] > connotes 'femininity'). And in my mother's day, women who swore like their > brothers did were labelled 'too masculine,' 'tomboys.' > Of course, this is all true. All I mean is that the Chukchee comparison is too facile. We need to find out what emesal was used for, and jump to conclusions based on comparisons with other lgs and cultures which I suspect the "jumpers" do not know all that well. And to me it seems rather clear that certain kinds of linguistic systems do appear in certain kinds of cultures more than in others. Fully developed male/female diglossia does not seem attested in any urbanized literatre culture. So, while of course I am not saying that emesal could NOT be a women's lg, the discovery that it was would be a rather major development in our understanding of lg and culture. No prejudice there surely. AMR ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 14:23:55 -0500 (EST) From: Vincent DeCaen Subject: ane understanding meroitic? where exactly are we these days on understanding meroitic and its genetic affiliation? be interesting to know of any progress. some thoughts. nick millet's number words wi (one) and tbo (two): kind'a suggestive of proto-bantu, what say? indeed, looking at the king lists, kind'a look like swahili verbs: anybody been looking farther afield? re names: what are the likely verbal elements? on the basis of names in general? be easy to run comparisons. e.g., if looking for give, know, say, we'd get sets for niger-congo ba/de, n(y)a, ti/ta, and for khoisan ma, sa, ka. so...., if we have a likely list, be easy, i think to find the right family, after all, there aren't that many major classes: 3 or 4 excluding afroasiatic. in terms of typology, might think meroitic "q" should be /g/: just thinking out loud. cheers V - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Dr. Vincent DeCaen c/o Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations 4 Bancroft Ave., 2d floor University of Toronto Toronto ON, CANADA, M5S 1A1 Hebrew Syntax Encoding Initiative http://www.chass.utoronto.ca:8080/~decaen/hsei/ - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Scepticism is the chastity of the intellect, and it is shameful to surrender it too soon or to the first comer. --Santayana ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 14:38:54 -0600 From: "Charles E. Jones" Subject: ane Semitic Etymological Dictionary (SED) on-line Forwarded on behalf of the undersigned, to whom responses and inquiries should be directed. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx From "Alexander Yu. Militarev" The first issue, "Anatomy of Man and Animals", of the Semitic Etymological Dictionary (SED), is now placed on a www site. The web site address is: http://starling.rinet.ru Alexander Militarev ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 16:23:12 -0500 From: "Liz Fried" Subject: ane: Persian royal land Dear All: After the Achaemenid conquest, the land (of Babylonia at least) was taken over by the king and handed out as military fiefs to family of the king, his friends, his officials, and to those who had done him service (Dandamaev, 1967). To whom did these lands belong prior to the conquest? To Babylonian nobles? What happened to these original land-owners after the take-over? were they all killed? If they were nobles, some remained alive to spearhead the revolt in the first years of Darius. If these nobles had been removed from their land, how were they able to fund armies for the revolt? What am I missing here? I assume land belonging to the temples was not distributed, but remained with the temples. Thanks, Liz Lisbeth S. Fried Department of Hebrew and Judaic Studies New York University 51 Washington Sq. S. New York, NY 10012 lqf9256@is3.nyu.edu lizfried@umich.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 16:00:09 -0600 From: "Charles E. Jones" Subject: ane Book: Texts from the Babylonian Collection III Forwarded on behalf of the undersigned, to whom responses and inquiries should be directed. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx From: "Mark E. Cohen" The Yale Babylonian Collection is pleased to announce the availability of: Texts from the Babylonian Collection III A Reconstruction of the Assyro-Babylonian God-Lists AN: A-nu-um and AN: Anu sa ameli by Richard L. Litke The volume contains the original dissertation, including text copies, of Richard L. Litke, with a preface by William W. Hallo. Hardback; size 8.5 x 11; pp. vxi + 282 + XLVII plates The volume may be purchased for $55 + $5(S&H) = $60 and is distributed by: CDL Press PO Box 34454 Bethesda MD 20827 Orders may be placed by e-mail to cdlpress@erols.com with a credit card number and expiration date, or by a check on a U.S. bank made out to CDL Press. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 22:58:11 +0100 From: Banyai@t-online.de (Banyai) Subject: Re: ane Priamos and Aeneas in Hettite sources Dear Prof. Del Monte, thank you for your correctives. My hettitological information is quite outdated, mostly allready 10 years old. My answer was surely only a draft, since I must myself make little modifications on my mail here and there. The most important, and what I didn´t mention, was the fact that one has allready proposed a reduction of the date of the Tawagalawas letter (but to the time of Hattusilis) on simmilar reasons, by stretching the vita of Manapa-Dattas (thanks Manapa-Tarhuntas). This seems to me insufficient and causing new problems: there are no signs of a conflict between Wilusa and Hatti (leading eventually to the deposing of Pijamaradus) during the reign of Hattusilis but early in the reign of Tutchalijas, his son. Later again at his reigns end. I am admiring the way most other ANE fellows write their mails, almost ready for print. I am clearly a coloquial guy. BTW as a little "picanterie", having Memnon and Sargons death, 705 in Anatolia, in mind, I propose Jesaias XIV to your scrutiny. A joke: is Jesaias Greek pen-name Homer? I don´t expect any comments. But you might understand why some people are crazy about a revised chronology. Best regards, Banyai Michael Leonberg Banyai@t-online.de ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 18:10:17 -0600 From: "Charles E. Jones" Subject: ane Image index... As Web sites like the one at the OI get larger and larger it becomes more and more difficult to remember what's where. In the hope of assisting users to find images, I have cobbled together a sort of "visual index" of the images of Iran on this server. It means that there are a large number of thumbnails loading into a single document which may be a problem for some users, particulalry those working over slow connections. But it means that all the images are in one place, and because each of them is linked to the page(s) where it is normally contextualized. If this works, it will be no trouble at all to prepare additional documents for Mesopotamia, Egypt, etc. So have a look if you can, at: http://oi.uchicago.edu/DEPT/RA/Iranthumbs.html and let me know, off list, whether this is successful or not, and particularly whether it is possible to load such a page on a slow connection. We already have another page which works in a similar way, Alex O'Brien's index to demotic text published on the Web: http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/DEPT/RA/ABZU/DEMOTIC_WWW.HTML but that one collects and links to images from other sites where Demotic texts are catalogued or illustrated. - -Chuck Jones- cejo@midway.uchicago.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 11:26:14 +1100 From: George Athas Subject: Re: ane Philistines Donald R. Vance wrote: > Could this be because it is treated as a proper noun? I thought about that, Donald. All genitilic nouns are (theoretically) proper nouns. It's interesting, though, that some are given definite articles and others are not. Perhaps those with definite articles should be taken, not as gentilic nouns, but as adjectival labels? For example: "The Canaanites" may perhaps be rendered "The Subdued"? Or: "The Amorites" may be "The Westerners"? Or: "The Jebusites" may be "The Trampled"? Or: "The Edomites" may be "The Reds"? - -- GEORGE ATHAS Dept of Semitic Studies, University of Sydney - - Email: gathas@mail.usyd.edu.au - --------------------------------------------------- Visit the Tel Dan Inscription Website at http://www-personal.usyd.edu.au/~gathas/teldan.htm - --------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 18:41:47 -0600 (CST) From: "Clyde A. Winters" Subject: Re: ane understanding meroitic? On Thu, 18 Feb 1999, Vincent DeCaen wrote: > where exactly are we these days on understanding meroitic and its > genetic affiliation? be interesting to know of any progress. > > some thoughts. > > nick millet's number words wi (one) and tbo (two): kind'a suggestive > of proto-bantu, what say? > > indeed, looking at the king lists, kind'a look like swahili verbs: > anybody been looking farther afield? > > re names: what are the likely verbal elements? on the basis of names > in general? be easy to run comparisons. e.g., if looking for give, > know, say, we'd get sets for niger-congo ba/de, n(y)a, ti/ta, and for > khoisan ma, sa, ka. so...., if we have a likely list, be easy, i > think to find the right family, after all, there aren't that many > major classes: 3 or 4 excluding afroasiatic. > > in terms of typology, might think meroitic "q" should be /g/: just > thinking out loud. > > cheers > V > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > Dr. Vincent DeCaen > c/o Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations > 4 Bancroft Ave., 2d floor > University of Toronto > Toronto ON, CANADA, M5S 1A1 > > Hebrew Syntax Encoding Initiative > http://www.chass.utoronto.ca:8080/~decaen/hsei/ > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > > Scepticism is the chastity of the intellect, and it is shameful to > surrender it too soon or to the first comer. --Santayana > My research indicates that the cognate language of Meroitic is Kushana (or Tokharian). I have found that we don't have to make any changes in the agreed upon pronunciation of the Meroitic characters. Using Kushana you can read all of the Meroitic inscriptions. The immediate constituent parts or pattern of Meroitic sentences vary from one period of the language to the next. The sentence pattern in archaic Meroitic is SVO , e.g., Tnidmni w-t el h_-t e: "Tanyidamani, you guide the gift of your almsgiving. Give (alms now!). The sentence pattern in late Meroitic is VSO, e.g., w to shi lit. to guide you satisfaction "You guide (me) to satisfaction" Cheers C.A. Winters ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 20:59:53 EST From: FucciXXV@aol.com Subject: ane Diglossia In a message dated 2/18/99 10:38:10 AM Central Standard Time, manaster@umich.edu writes: > Fully developed > male/female diglossia does not seem attested in any urbanized > literatre culture. Wasn't there a fully developed male/female diglossia among the Japanese nobility several centuries ago? That culture was certainly literate and urbanized, and I seem to recall reading about such a diglossia, with the men (I think) speaking a dialect more heavily influenced by Chinese. Jim Thorn Chicago, IL ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 03:02:25 GMT From: mcv@wxs.nl (Miguel Carrasquer Vidal) Subject: Re: ane understanding meroitic? "Clyde A. Winters" wrote: > My research indicates that the cognate language of Meroitic is >Kushana (or Tokharian). A or B? >I have found that we don't have to make any >changes in the agreed upon pronunciation of the Meroitic characters. >Using Kushana you can read all of the Meroitic inscriptions. > The immediate constituent parts or pattern of Meroitic sentences vary >from one period of the language to the next. The sentence pattern in >archaic Meroitic is SVO , e.g., Tnidmni w-t el h_-t e: "Tanyidamani, you >guide the gift of your almsgiving. Give (alms now!). The sentence pattern >in late Meroitic is VSO, e.g., > w to shi >lit. to guide you satisfaction > "You guide (me) to satisfaction" So what has any of this to do with Tocharian? ======================= Miguel Carrasquer Vidal mcv@wxs.nl Amsterdam ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 19:47:32 PST From: "William Black" Subject: Re: ane Josephus > > >> Jim Thorn proposes that, contrary to the majority view (of some >>centuries now), Josephus wrote absolutely *nothing* about Jesus of >Nazareth >>in the place where the testimonium now stands (Ant. 18.63-64, Niese >>numbering). IMO, he begins to tackle the historical problem in just > > >> There are, I think, two chief problems with Jim's proposal. >The >>first concerns what Origen says. In C. Celsum 1.47, it is not the Jews >but >>Josephus himself whom Origen criticizes. Thus: Jos. (i) did not believe >in >>Jesus as Messiah and (ii) allegedly traced the fall of Jerusalem to > >What is the latest word about the so-called "Slavonic Josephus" and its >testimony of a wonder-working Jesus? It seems that a few scholars think >it is genuine, excerpted from a pre-war work of Josephus. But it is hard >to find any good information about the work. > >Bill > > > >______________________________________________________ >Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 22:51:25 -0600 (CST) From: "Clyde A. Winters" Subject: Re: ane understanding meroitic? On Fri, 19 Feb 1999, Miguel Carrasquer Vidal wrote: > "Clyde A. Winters" wrote: > > > My research indicates that the cognate language of Meroitic is > >Kushana (or Tokharian). > > A or B? > > >I have found that we don't have to make any > >changes in the agreed upon pronunciation of the Meroitic characters. > >Using Kushana you can read all of the Meroitic inscriptions. > > The immediate constituent parts or pattern of Meroitic sentences vary > >from one period of the language to the next. The sentence pattern in > >archaic Meroitic is SVO , e.g., Tnidmni w-t el h_-t e: "Tanyidamani, you > >guide the gift of your almsgiving. Give (alms now!). The sentence pattern > >in late Meroitic is VSO, e.g., > > w to shi > >lit. to guide you satisfaction > > "You guide (me) to satisfaction" > > So what has any of this to do with Tocharian? > > ======================= > Miguel Carrasquer Vidal > mcv@wxs.nl > Amsterdam > It means that I am using Tocharian/Tokharian/ Kushana to read Meroitic inscriptions. C.A. Winters ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 00:10:49 -0500 From: nyokabi@kingcon.com Subject: ane Philistim - KasluHim On Thu Feb 18 George Athas asked: >An interesting thing I've noted is that the word "Philistines" (Hb: >Pelishtim) is hardly ever given a definite article in the Bible, even >when the text is talking about "the" Philistines. It was a peculiarity >for which I can't find an explanation. Any theories? That's very interesting. I'll bite the hook. It might be possible that the Israelite scribes were regarding the Pe- as the Egyptian article, as in PeNehesi, the Nubian, etc. Another possibility, which wouldn't, however, explain the lack of an article in Hebrew, is that the Pe was Pi[r] and actually meant "House of" {as in Pithom, PiRamsses). Compare the Semitic usage where an eponymous PN becomes a gentilic Bit X, which then becomes a geographic name of the territory where this group lives. The Egyptian spelling of Gaza, P3kn'n, lools to me like it could be rendered in Hebrew as Pi-Kanaan? ( Helck, Beziehungen, p 279-280?). This totally fits with the quote P Daniels just gave us from R. Drews: >See "Canaanites and Philistines," by Robert Drews (JSOT 81: 39-61). It >just arrived today. The opening sentence: "The thesis of this paper is >that 'Philistines' is one of the Iron Age names for people who in the >Late Bronze Age would most often have been called 'Canaanites'." > This reminds me of the posterity of the Phoenicians in Carthage, who centuries later had no knowledge of "Punic", "Phoenike", "Fenkhu", all externally imposed labels, but only said they were Kinahni. This brings up the connection with The Pelasge, an idea that goes back to Fourmant in 1747(MacAlister, The Philistines, 1913). The Pelasge might have left Greece and/or Crete or Cyprus and arrived in Kanaan via Ugarit or as part of the Sea Peoples migrations. The Semitic etymologies might have been popular ones, and even the interpretation of Pe as an Egyptian prefix might be the same. If the Philistines were Pelasgians from the islands, they could be called Kaptarans: they are derived from the originally Egyptian people of KasluHim in Genesis 10, while in Amos 9/7 the Most High claims he brought them from Kaphtor, and Jeremiah calls them "the remnant of the isle of Kaphtor" (47/4). In Deut. 2/23 conquering Kaphtorim take away the coast as far as Gaza from the native Avvim, and wipe them out. Because KasluHim seems to be outvoted 3 to 1, with even God on the side of "Kaphtorim Philistim," commentators have made the unwarranted assumption that "the Philistines who came out of KasluHim" was a scribal error in Genesis 10. [One that is repeated, by the way in 1 Chronicles.]I say unwarranted because a geneaology of a people's ultimate derivation is quite different than a history which records where they last lived before they arrived in their current home. An Ananse web spun across the Abyss of our ignorance about the KasluHim, as a memnonic [sp??] device to remember the crumbs we do have: Once upon a time an Egyptian tribe named KasluHim migrates at some point to the Aegean, perhaps in the predynastic era, or any of a number of later invasions by land and sea which might have led to colonizations. As Diodorus remarks: (Bk I 28-30):" In general the Egyptians say that their ancestors sent forth numerous colonies to many parts of the inhabited world, by reason of the pre-eminence of their former kings and their excessive population, but since they offer no precise proof whatsoever for these statements and since no historian worthy of credence testifies in their support, we have not thought that their accounts merited recording."(What a loss! Thank god today's oral history researchers, probing all over Africa, do not exercise such a criterion of recordability. Historians haven't even heard of most of the history of inner Africa, how could they testify about it??) The ancient KasluHi could have crossed over the Levant, their traces covered by later population strata, till they reached pre-IE Greece, the islands and probably parts of Anatolia. Perhaps they perfect their metal working skills, or learn metal working skills while on the island of Kaptara- Crete or Cyprus. Then Mycenaean? or Dorian? conquerors arrive and start acting uppity, forcing them to do their smithing for free, calling them "darkies" [just a reminder of the speculative etymologies which have been proffered based on Greek pelas/swarthy, dusky, for Pelasge] etc. So they leave. God "brings them out" of an untenable situation in Kaptara. One section of them (the "remnant of Capthor") migrate to the Levant. We have a couple of isolated refs in Ugaritic texts to a place named KhasiluHe, which Astour located just east of Aleppo, North of Gebel Hass on his map in OR 38, 1969 "The partition of the Confed. of Mukish-NuHashshe- Nii by Suppiluliuma". Whether pre Palestinian Casluhim would have spoken Hurrian, W Semitic, or what is unknown...maybe they spoke Linear A! [:-) Speaking of Hurrian contexts, if Pelasge was actually Pi-Lasge, we might turn up their language in the same NE. Caucasic language family which Diakonoff has, with some seeming acceptance, proposed to place Hurrian: Lesgian...Some of the languages in the Lesgian family are Akoucha, Dido, Qazi-qumuq, Aware, Antsoukh, Andi, Tchari, almost all names with echoes in Nubia and the ANE. It's interesting that one of the Lesgian words for people is Jamkhad. Don't know if these lists came from an originally German source, but it recalls the kingdom of which Aleppo was the capital, Yamkhad. KasiluHi is located just east of Aleppo/Khalab, the Birmingham of ANE metalworking. One wonders if the famous Khalybe iron- workers of E. Anatolia and Pontus might not be KhasluHe who dropped their sibilant and were given a Colchian suffix in place of the Hurrian one! The Philistines were ironworkers ( or had a caste of Khalab ironworkers in their midst) to whom the Israelites brought their tools to be mended and sharpened, another example of an avoidance custom they may have picked up among the Midianites, who had Kenites in their midst as smiths (i.e. smithing as unclean or polluted work, belonging to a special caste). In commenting on KasluHim Redford says in Eg, Is, Canaan, p 407: "Kasluhim is utterly obscure... one would like to see in Kasluhim a garbled form of Kalasiri, the warrior class mentioned in demotic and classical authors." Now of course the KhasiluHe in Ugaritic texts is at least a thousand years before the Kalasiri of the Late Period in Egypt, so I dare say it would be the other way around, complete with metathesis. But it is a good thought, because the Kalasiri warrior caste were believed to be from the West, viewed as some tribe or caste of "Libyans". But they could well be an ancient substratum, some of the westerners who left when Narmer started smiting the delta folks. Just the other day I stumbled on a tradition that the Berbers of North Africa were derived from the KasluHim. Ibn Khaldoun's 14th c History of the Berbers quotes es-Souli-el Bekri, writing in the mid 10th century, to the effect that the Berbers descend from Kesloudjim son of Mesraim, son of Cham. "Satan sowed discord between the children of Cham and those of Sem, so the former had to retreat to the Maghreb where they left a numerous prosperity. Ham, who had become black as a result of the malediction pronounced against him by his father, fled to the Maghreb to hide his shame, and he was followed by his sons. He died at the age of 400 years. Berber, son of Kesloudjim, one of his descendants, left a numerous posterity in the Maghreb." Ibn Khaldoun himself subscribes to this opinion, that the Berbers are Canaanites and that the Philistines are their relatives. This would explain the near disappearance of the name KasluHim as his posterity had left the ANE horizon: who knew about the Maghreb till the Iron age? It would also explain why the Philistines are usually included as having joined the mass migration of Ifricus or Epher and Japhran, sons of Midian, at the head of an exodus of Troglodytes from the coast of Southwestern and Western Arabia, to North Africa. Their posterity, the Banu Ifran, were major players in the later Berber-Arab wars of resistance, and were known as Troglodytes like their Midianite ancestors - cf Berber ifra/afra, cave, cavern. Incidentally they also lent their name to the land of Carthage, Ifrikiya, and then to the continent, few of whose inhabitants have the faintest idea who Epher and Japhran were and how this sobriquet got stuck on them. Well it's no more absurd than the name Ameriga!! Both named after immigrants or foreign visitors who, were it not for the survival of their name grafted onto such massive "new" worlds, would have long ago been forgotten! [The Ifrikiyan-Midianite migration cycle from Josephus, Ibn Khaldoun, Ency Islam et al.] E. Adams ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 08:51:26 +0200 (IST) From: avigdor horovitz Subject: Re: ane Josephus I am no Josephus scholar so what I say may be wrong. Anyway, the late professor Solomon Zeitlin of Dropsie College climed for years that the Slavonic Josephus was a forgery, and despite early opposition, he won the argument and made his reputation. It was his scholarly victory on this issue which prompted and encouraged him to vociferously challenge the authenticity of the Dead Sea Scrolls, a battle which he lost. Victor Hurowitz On Thu, 18 Feb 1999, William Black wrote: > > > > > > > > >> Jim Thorn proposes that, contrary to the majority view (of some > >>centuries now), Josephus wrote absolutely *nothing* about Jesus of > >Nazareth > >>in the place where the testimonium now stands (Ant. 18.63-64, Niese > >>numbering). IMO, he begins to tackle the historical problem in just > > > > > >> There are, I think, two chief problems with Jim's proposal. > >The > >>first concerns what Origen says. In C. Celsum 1.47, it is not the Jews > >but > >>Josephus himself whom Origen criticizes. Thus: Jos. (i) did not > believe > >in > >>Jesus as Messiah and (ii) allegedly traced the fall of Jerusalem to > > > >What is the latest word about the so-called "Slavonic Josephus" and its > >testimony of a wonder-working Jesus? It seems that a few scholars think > >it is genuine, excerpted from a pre-war work of Josephus. But it is > hard > >to find any good information about the work. > > > >Bill > > > > > > > >______________________________________________________ > >Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com > > > ______________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com > ------------------------------ End of ANE Digest V1999 #49 *************************** Back issues are available on the Oriental Institute World-Wide Web (WWW) site at: http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/ANE/OI_ANE.html