From: owner-ane@ (ANE Digest) To: ane-digest Subject: ANE Digest V1999 #152 Reply-To: Sender: owner-ane@ Errors-To: owner-ane@ Precedence: bulk ANE Digest Tuesday, June 1 1999 Volume 1999 : Number 152 Re: ane Ultimate Origin of Hebrew? Re: ane Is Beja Kushitic? Re: ane Omotic ane sharecropping, etc. ane:sharecropping Re: Weighing or Paying? (was ane sharecropping, etc.) ane silver content Re: ane sharecropping, etc. Re: Weighing or Paying? (was ane sharecropping, etc.) Re: Weighing or Paying? (was ane sharecropping, etc.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 07:19:40 -0400 From: "Peter T. Daniels" Subject: Re: ane Ultimate Origin of Hebrew? nyokabi@kingcon.com wrote: > >Culture areas ... > > > [E.A.] > I never knew lakes had cultures! If you want now to switch the > discussion from whether some "East Africanist" (who remains nameless), > actually published somewhere that the environs of Lake Chad lay in > East Africa, to a discussion of the PEOPLES surrounding Lake Chad, > now there's a different discussion... Talk about mountains and molehills ... > Now the Ency of Islam, which still expresses itself in the politically > incorrect terms Hamite and Negro, opines that the "Negro agriculturalists" > among the Chadic speakers probably go back to the ancient Negro population > of the Sahara [I take it he means the misleadingly labelled "Roundheads" > from c. 7000-6000 BC - cf Lhote, who coined the term?]. What article? John Huehnergard's on the Semitic languages (part of a brief entry s.v. shaam, IIRC) came out recently, and he wouldn't use archaic terminology like that. Or are you looking at EI1? - -- Peter T. Daniels grammatim@worldnet.att.net ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 07:40:02 -0400 From: "Peter T. Daniels" Subject: Re: ane Is Beja Kushitic? nyokabi@kingcon.com wrote: > > On Thu. May 27 P Daniels wrote: > > >> [E.A.] > >> PS M. Vidal has got it right, there are now seven branches of Af-As, > >> Beja having been booted from Kushitic. > >> > >> [P.D.] > >> >According to whom, on which day of the week? There is no agreement on > >> >the placing of Beja, or for that matter Omotic. > >> > >> I think I first ran into the argument in Hetzron, "The Limits of Cushitic" > >> in SUGIA 2, 1980, p.78-99 "The Position of Beja". My notes don't include > >> his footnotes on any predecessors who might have advanced the same > arguments. > >> I then went on to other matters for a space of years, and then noticed in > >> the early 90's that various things I read did not treat Beja as Kushitic. > >> I scrawled in the margin in big capitals on my notes - IS BEJA NO LONGER > >> KUSHITIC??? By then I had probably forgotten about Hetzron, but I got the > >> distinct impression that in the interim this had now become the accepted > >> classification. Perhaps M Vidal or Gene Gragg might be able to supply us > >> with the ultimate article or conference in which this matter was > >> discussed? resolved?, much as A. Zaborski in his "Historical Survey of > >> Cushitic Studies" referred to "the ultimate expulsion of former West > >> Cushitic > >> [i.e. Omotic] from Cushitic by H.C. Fleming [ 1976]." > >> > >> If you have refs to newer articles contesting the expulsion of either Beja > >> or Omotic(from Kushitic) or Omotic from Af-Asiatic, I would be > interested in > >> reading them. > > > [ P.D.] > >Every year, people come to NACAL with new proposals for the divisions > >and subgroupings of AA. This year it was both Bender and Fleming. I > >doubt most of them ever get into print. > > > [E.A.] > You make them sound like conference hopping floozies peddling the > flimsiest of theories rather than the pillars of their field. > Has anyone undone Fleming's excision of Omotic from Cushitic? Did Fleming ever present evidence for doing so? In 1999 his "argument" consisted of lexicostatistics performed on ca. 15 grammatical features and 10 vocabulary items compared from about 30 "representative" languages from throughout AA. As he himself emphasized, he's an anthropologist, not a linguist. > Whether Bender's and Fleming's latest ideas have yet received > widespread acceptance has little to do with whether Hetzron's > 1980 proposal has. I am working towards a July 1 deadline and > have no time to travel to a library and look up the latest 1998 > reference books on African languages to see if they still include > Beja in Kushitic or not, though I know I have seen it several times > listed as an independent branch. [I don't know why I am apologizing > for not having exact refs at the touch of a finger, since you have > failed to produce any for an East African Lake Chad or a Lake Chad > origin of Af-As! ] It's nice to know there are 1998 reference books on African languages -- care to share the references? And why would they be based on any different information than what is available to specialists like Bender and Gragg? > M. Vidal, what is the source from which you listed Beja separately, > and its date? > > [P.D.] > >The languages concerned are not well known, so each new accession of > >data can produce realignments in the classification. > > > [E.A.] > > Well you can certainly say that about Semitic too, in which so many > languages are dead! Dig up a new city and branch of Semitic, and redo > the chart! Now tell me that if I had written that Eblaite was a branch of > NW Semitic, you would not have updated me immediately with "Eblaite > is Eastern Semitic." If you were feeling kind, you might have said "now" > to indicate that indeed Eblaite was once thought to be ancestral to some > part of NW Semitic and that perhaps some vestiges of disagreement still > persist? I would have pointed out that in an excess of biblicizing zeal, Pettinato and Dahood and Gordon jumped the gun and assumed that Eblaite was closely related to Classical Hebrew, and I would have directed you to Faber's and Krebernik's marshallings of the evidence that Eblaite shares innovations with Akkadian but not with WSem, and hence is an ESem language. I don't know that anyone has conducted such a detailed investigation of Beja. [But see the SUGIA ref. you provided.] > Beja has been known at least since Almquist's 1884 study of Tu-Bedawiye. > Unfortunately I have only notes on Hetzron's article, but I don't remember > his suggestion of reclassification being based on "new data" about Beja, > rather than a reassessment of the total picture of Kushitic. Hetzron says (p. 78) "Those features that seem to connect it with Cushitic in particular are of the type that do not convincingly show membership in the Cushitic family./91/ They may be parallel developments due to the fact that they evolved from the same basic AA system and they followed the same direction in conformity with typological universals. Others may be area features, gradually adopted (cf. Hetzron 1976b:91, footnote 3). On the other hand, Beja has a number of innovations not shared by any Cushitic language, and some pan-Cushitic features are not found in Beja." /91/ Plazikowski-Brauner (1957:7) actually declared it non-Cushitic, but constituting the "Noba" group. Unfortunately, to my knowledge, she presented no concrete arguments in support of this (cf. Palmer 1971:81). ... H 1976b = Lingua 38: 89-108 ("Two Principles") P 1971 = "Cushitic" in Current Trends in Linguistics, cited from the Hodge reprint P-B 1957 = ZDMG 107:7-30 In short, Hetzron argues for the not surprising position that a Stammbaum is not an adequate representation of the relationships among the languages in a family. Surely you're not, in 1999, expecting linguists to present you one with clearcut one? > Still waiting for a reference to articles by those who disagree with > the excision of Beja. Or is it that the Africanists themselves have > been quicker to accept, while the Afro-Asiaticists (?) are slower to > pass judgment on what to them is perhaps a more obscure subject matter > than the vacillations in the classification of Semitic? Surely these nameless "Africanists" of yours are looking for quick answers -- and Stammbaums -- rather than being content with the actual state of affairs, which, as with all language-related materials, is not so simple as they would like it to be? - -- Peter T. Daniels grammatim@worldnet.att.net ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 07:46:34 -0400 From: "Peter T. Daniels" Subject: Re: ane Omotic nyokabi@kingcon.com wrote: > [P.D.] > In his Leiden Inaugural Address (1980), Paul Newman suggests that Omotic > >may not be AA at all. > > > [E.A.] > > AH! a reference! I must have read this if he is the only person > who ever suggested it! I know I didn't make up the idea! Where > is this address published? I have only his "Chadic Classification > & Reconstructions" in AAL 5/1. Note that Fleming in "Omotic > Overview" in Bender (see below) had already in 1976 cast doubts > on the classing of Ometo (one Omotic language) as Afroasiatic... MCV gave you the complete reference, in Dutch, along with Paul's pers.comm. stating that his impression was based on very little material or study. It's a pamphlet (as Inaugural Adresses generally are), probably 32pp., and the cover is dark blue if it hasn't been bound. > [P.D.] > For the little that was known of Omotic, see Bender, ed., Non-Semitic > >Languages of Ethiopia (East Lansing, 1976), and various unpublished > >field notes of Bender, Fleming, etc. > >- -- > [E.A.] > > WAS known? Are they all extinct? Even Janjero and Kaffa?? Was known 25 years ago when the book was published. And the biggest Omotic language is Wolaytta. > I have the Bender but can't find the Egyptian thing in there, > wondering if its not from an old EB article. I was hoping > you had something newer... The EB is by Diakonoff in 1974, i.e. before Omotic was detached and named. > I have always wondered if Omotic is not a family descended from a > Mischsprache, stemming from the marriages of the Deserters from > Psammetichus' army to local wives. This is one migration we know > was all male, so we would not expect a Vatersprache to have been > transplanted kit and kaboodle. Seven days upstream from Meroe could > have meant up the Blue Nile, as a starting point for later retreats > to the S. The entire attested diversification of Omotic in 2500 years? Surely you're joking, Mr. Feynman! - -- Peter T. Daniels grammatim@worldnet.att.net ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 18:22:48 EDT From: JLBjorkman@aol.com Subject: ane sharecropping, etc. Another useful reference on the general topic of money, to add to those of David Lorton, is the article by Marvin Powell: "Money in Mesopotamia," _Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 39_ (1996), p. 224 ff. Powell notes, "The most common money substances were barley as cheap money and silver as the more expensive, but other substances were also used." He also notes (as did Morris Silver) that at all times, even after the late advent of coinage in Mesopotamia, metal money substances were always weighed, not just counted. In regard to distinguishing between barter and prices, there have been price texts since the mid-third millennium BC, as Silver has already noted. One Mari text (ARMT 5, no. 20) illustrates quite nicely the "price" nature of silver. In the text, Ishi-Addu of Qatna complains to Ishme-Dagan that he had only received 20 minas of tin for two horses worth at least 600 shekels of silver. The horses' worth was expressed in silver, even though tin was what actually changed hands. Judy Bjorkman JLBjorkman@aol.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 22:24:51 -0400 From: "Liz Fried" Subject: ane:sharecropping Dear All, I am just now reading all the interesting replies to my question of last Fri. I had houseguests all weekend and was unable to get to my mail. Sorry. I appreciate all the fascinating comments! My question had to do with land contracts under Nabonidus and then under the Achaemenids. Several terms are used in these contracts. Among them are ikkaru and erre$u. What had puzzled me initially was that one of these was translated as a sharecropper and one as a tenant farmer. Both pay a share of the crop, in this case barley and dates. There is also a person called $a muhhi suti. In one contract I am studying, the person known as $a muhhi suti agrees to rent from the temple of Eanna a certain area of land on which he will grow barley and dates. He agrees to return to the temple a fixed amount of each of these crops each year (at the high water). From the comments Morris has made, I understand that the temple is concerned to get a fixed value to eliminate risk, and the $a muhhi suti plays the entrepreneurial role. He keeps everything grown over that amount. Now as part of this contract the temple gives to the $a muhhi suti 400 ikkaru to work the land. Who are these? They have been defined as sharecroppers. Yet they are simply assigned to this job by the temple. Perhaps they are really temple slaves, and receive rations for their work. The erre$u would be the tenant-farmers. Perhaps it is the French which I don't understand. Cocquerillat writes: Les teres `a cereales peuvent faire l'objet de deux sortes de baux: colonages partiares, le plus souvent metayage, ou bail `a ferme; dans le premier cas les beneficiaires sont les cultivateurs: erre$u; dans le second cas les laboureurs: ikkaru. I think I understand more now. In the first case, the recipient, the erre$u, receives a share of the harvest as payment, in the second case the ikkaru receives a fixed amount as salary or rations. Both of these are in the form of barley and dates. I had been looking at it from the wrong point of view. I'm still confused about the French. My dictionary defines "metayage" as "sharecropping, tenant farming." It defines `a ferme as tenant farming. It was this that sent me to all of you on the list. Cocquerillat associates the ikkaru with bail `a ferme. Tenant farming must not be the correct translation of this term. (But then what is???) Thanks for all your help. I appreciate it. 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: Mon, 31 May 1999 22:30:07 -0700 From: Morris Silver Subject: Re: Weighing or Paying? (was ane sharecropping, etc.) Dear Listmembers: On Monday, May 31, 1999 3:22 PM Judy Bjorkman made a number of important points. Here, I would like to focus attention on one issue in particular. > He [Powell] also notes (as did Morris Silver) that at all times, even after the late > advent of coinage in Mesopotamia, metal money substances were always >weighed, not just counted. Actually, what I meant to say was that coinage reduced transaction costs and, thereby, facilitated division of labor and economic growth by mitigating the need to expend labor and other resources in quality testing and weighing of the precious metal. Were metal substances always weighed? Even coins? Perhaps they were to make sure that they had not been "shaved". However, I would like to express some doubts on this score. In the Old Assyrian texts we sometimes find prices being expressed in terms of copper ingots, patallum "anklets" (?) and sada_lum. Dercksen notes that "the quantity is expressed only by giving the number of ingots instead of their weight [which] points to a more or less customary weight and size for this type." It may be added that the ingots would also be of a standard quality. More basically, with respect to "weighing," Balmuth has observed that many words used for an amount of money derive from roots meaning "to count" or "to weigh" or "to cut off." She points out, however, that the English pound and the Greek stater and talanton evolved from weights into coins, just as the meaning of Greek koptein and Aramaic prs changed from "to cut" to "to strike (coinage)". My point is that, seen in evolutionary perspective, the terms "weighed" (and "cut") comes to mean "paid." Thus, even in relatively early Sumerian or Akkadian texts, when silver is said to be "weighed" it might really be "paid". I would certainly appreciate comments on this hypothesis. An interesting example from the Bible has been discussed by Victor Hurowitz. I refer to Genesis 23.16 wherein Abraham "weighs" for Ephron's field the sum of 400 shekels of silver "current money of the merchant" [literally "silver passing for the merchant"]. [Please! I am making no claim about the date of this report.]There is no mention of a quality test. Perhaps Victor would comment on whether he thinks the silver was weighed or paid. Many thanks for your attention. Best wishes, Morris Morris Silver Department of Economics City College of New York ANCIENT ECONOMIES I http://members.tripod.com/~sondmor/index.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 04:55:10 +0200 (IST) From: Yonatan NADELMAN 972-2-620-4623 Subject: ane silver content I get the impression that the use of cut silver was far from simple. What is know about the ways in which its' quality (ratio of silver/copper) was dealt with on a daily market-place basis? Weighing is probably as important as knowing the actual silver (non-silver) content. I guess it's like buying barley but actually getting 20% chaff and pebbles with 80% barley. YONATAN NADELMAN Israel Antiquities Authority Jerusalem, Israel On Mon, 31 May 1999 JLBjorkman@aol.com wrote: > the article by Marvin Powell: "Money in Mesopotamia," > _Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 39_ (1996), p. 224 > ff. Powell notes, "The most common money substances were barley as cheap > money and silver as the more expensive, but other substances were also used." > He also notes (as did Morris Silver) that at all times, even after the late > advent of coinage in Mesopotamia, metal money substances were always weighed, > not just counted. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 12:05:38 +0900 From: lnessa Subject: Re: ane sharecropping, etc. Were coins ever more than convenient sized ingots, in the ancient world? Lester Ness lness@ivvy.nenu.edu.cn ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 07:32:59 +0300 (IDT) From: avigdor horovitz Subject: Re: Weighing or Paying? (was ane sharecropping, etc.) dear Morris, I didn't want to enter this conversation because I'm not an economist, but since you ask about my article I will make a comment or two. The verb used in the story is wayyi$qol, meaning that he weighed out. This would imply, I think, that we are talking about payment in metallic silver and not coinage, or that the silver was available in a form which would be weighed rather than just being counted out when removed from a purse. The story in which the incident is reported is attributed to P, which is generally assumed to date from the Persian period, although many especially in Israel dispute that. The silverinvolved must have been refined to a fixed standard, percentage or however things are determined, so that it could be used in commerce. This would assumedly be done before weighing it out. I would be interested in hearing some comments about the half sheqel poll tax recommended in Exodus 30. Exegetes usually assume this means coins of half sheqel weight, but since coinage is a development, as I understand it of the late Neo-assyrian period at the earliest and probably over a century later, reference to a coin in the desert census would obviously be anachronistic. I am not raising here a question of historicity, but I would like to know whether the narrator has in mind a coin or a piece of metal with given weight and quality. This is one of the places in which we can use the realia of a story to help date its composition. Since both the cave purchase and the census narratives are P, can we assume that weighing the silver in Genesis was what was done in the desert census? Some one else mentioned some maritext where a horse is purchased for some produce given a value in silver weight. I remember similar things in the MB texts edited in a volume of Oxford Middle Babylonian Economic Texts by Gurney. Checkit out. Victor On Mon, 31 May 1999, Morris Silver wrote: > > > Dear Listmembers: > > On Monday, May 31, 1999 3:22 PM Judy Bjorkman made a number of important > points. Here, I would like to focus attention on one issue in particular. > > > > He [Powell] also notes (as did Morris Silver) that at all times, even > after the late > advent of coinage in Mesopotamia, metal money substances > were always >weighed, not just counted. > > Actually, what I meant to say was that coinage reduced transaction costs > and, thereby, facilitated division of labor and economic growth by > mitigating the need to expend labor and other resources in quality testing > and weighing of the precious metal. > > Were metal substances always weighed? Even coins? Perhaps they were to make > sure that they had not been "shaved". However, I would like to express some > doubts on this score. > > In the Old Assyrian texts we sometimes find prices being expressed in terms > of copper ingots, patallum "anklets" (?) and sada_lum. Dercksen notes that > "the quantity is expressed only by giving the number of ingots instead of > their weight [which] points to a more or less customary weight and size for > this type." It may be added that the ingots would also be of a standard > quality. > > More basically, with respect to "weighing," Balmuth has observed that many > words used for an amount of money derive from roots meaning "to count" or > "to weigh" or "to cut off." She points out, however, that the English pound > and the Greek stater and talanton evolved from weights into coins, just as > the meaning of Greek koptein and Aramaic prs changed from "to cut" to "to > strike (coinage)". > > My point is that, seen in evolutionary perspective, the terms "weighed" (and > "cut") comes to mean "paid." Thus, even in relatively early Sumerian or > Akkadian texts, when silver is said to be "weighed" it might really be > "paid". I would certainly appreciate comments on this hypothesis. > > An interesting example from the Bible has been discussed by Victor Hurowitz. > I refer to Genesis 23.16 wherein Abraham "weighs" for Ephron's field the sum > of 400 shekels of silver "current money of the merchant" [literally "silver > passing for the merchant"]. [Please! I am making no claim about the date of > this report.]There is no mention of a quality test. Perhaps Victor would > comment on whether he thinks the silver was weighed or paid. > > Many thanks for your attention. > > Best wishes, > > Morris > > Morris Silver > Department of Economics > City College of New York > > ANCIENT ECONOMIES I > http://members.tripod.com/~sondmor/index.html > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 07:43:54 +0300 (IDT) From: avigdor horovitz Subject: Re: Weighing or Paying? (was ane sharecropping, etc.) dear Morris, Just one more comment. In Exodus 38:24 the gold used in the Tabernacle, which was gathered from a collection of jewelry and trinkets (Ex. 35:22) is said to have been "made for the work" `asuy lemmelakah. Since this line is at the beginning of a balance sheet recording the income and outlays for the tabernacle project I understand the expression as refering to refining the gold, for only gold to a fixed standard could meaningfully be recorded in the ledgers. In general, I think much economic information can be gleaned from the Bible if read carefully- especially the Priestly source. Victor On Mon, 31 May 1999, Morris Silver wrote: > > > Dear Listmembers: > > On Monday, May 31, 1999 3:22 PM Judy Bjorkman made a number of important > points. Here, I would like to focus attention on one issue in particular. > > > > He [Powell] also notes (as did Morris Silver) that at all times, even > after the late > advent of coinage in Mesopotamia, metal money substances > were always >weighed, not just counted. > > Actually, what I meant to say was that coinage reduced transaction costs > and, thereby, facilitated division of labor and economic growth by > mitigating the need to expend labor and other resources in quality testing > and weighing of the precious metal. > > Were metal substances always weighed? Even coins? Perhaps they were to make > sure that they had not been "shaved". However, I would like to express some > doubts on this score. > > In the Old Assyrian texts we sometimes find prices being expressed in terms > of copper ingots, patallum "anklets" (?) and sada_lum. Dercksen notes that > "the quantity is expressed only by giving the number of ingots instead of > their weight [which] points to a more or less customary weight and size for > this type." It may be added that the ingots would also be of a standard > quality. > > More basically, with respect to "weighing," Balmuth has observed that many > words used for an amount of money derive from roots meaning "to count" or > "to weigh" or "to cut off." She points out, however, that the English pound > and the Greek stater and talanton evolved from weights into coins, just as > the meaning of Greek koptein and Aramaic prs changed from "to cut" to "to > strike (coinage)". > > My point is that, seen in evolutionary perspective, the terms "weighed" (and > "cut") comes to mean "paid." Thus, even in relatively early Sumerian or > Akkadian texts, when silver is said to be "weighed" it might really be > "paid". I would certainly appreciate comments on this hypothesis. > > An interesting example from the Bible has been discussed by Victor Hurowitz. > I refer to Genesis 23.16 wherein Abraham "weighs" for Ephron's field the sum > of 400 shekels of silver "current money of the merchant" [literally "silver > passing for the merchant"]. [Please! I am making no claim about the date of > this report.]There is no mention of a quality test. Perhaps Victor would > comment on whether he thinks the silver was weighed or paid. > > Many thanks for your attention. > > Best wishes, > > Morris > > Morris Silver > Department of Economics > City College of New York > > ANCIENT ECONOMIES I > http://members.tripod.com/~sondmor/index.html > ------------------------------ End of ANE Digest V1999 #152 **************************** Back issues are available on the Oriental Institute World-Wide Web (WWW) site at: http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/ANE/OI_ANE.html