From: owner-ane@ (ANE Digest) To: ane-digest Subject: ANE Digest V1999 #250 Reply-To: Sender: owner-ane@ Errors-To: owner-ane@ Precedence: bulk ANE Digest Sunday, September 5 1999 Volume 1999 : Number 250 ane Canaan ane Of Mice And Emerods ane Canaan/Kinanu questions II ane Canaan/Kinanu questions I ane Canaan/ Kinanu III Re: ane Roman horses' backsides ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 4 Sep 1999 11:48:43 EDT From: PWENET@aol.com Subject: ane Canaan I truly don't believe we disagree here. Let us review the issue. My original response simply dealt with your reply (ane v.247) to E Adams' post in v246. You stated: "What the hell (if I may say so) are you talking about? There is a "curse of Cain (qyn)," who slew Abel; no connection with Canaan (kn`n). There is a "curse of Ham," who looked on his father Noah's nakedness, which is the one related subsequently to color, "Hamitic" being taken to refer to a dark race." I only wanted to say that Canaan was cursed which is what Adams meant with "accursed of Canaan." There is no curse of Ham except in larger scheme of his being the father and the cause of Noah's curse of Canaan. Just that simple. The literal, I repeat, literal reading of the Bible makes Ham the father of individual people: Canaan, Cush, Put (Pwnt?!), and Misraim (Egypt). I too believe that these names were allegorical for geographic locations. When I wrote "branch of the Black family of mankind," I basically meant the same as you when you stated: "one related subsequently to color, "Hamitic" being taken to refer to a dark race." Maybe I should have said: "dark family of mankind." Rod Jones ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 4 Sep 1999 16:26:02 EDT From: FucciXXV@aol.com Subject: ane Of Mice And Emerods In 1 Samuel 5 and 6, the Philistines are smitten with a plague of "emerods" ("t'chor," some kind of tumor or sore) because they have captured the Ark in battle. Their diviners recommend that they appease Yahweh by returning the Ark, along with golden: "images of your emerods, and images of your mice that mar the land" (1 Sam 6:5). The preceding story makes no mention of a plague of mice in the KJV et al, or (I gather) in the Masoretic text. The Septuagint, however, extends 6:1 to include the phrase "... and their land brought forth swarms of mice." Do any of the DSS Hebrew variants include a mouse plague? Does the Septuagint's extension of 6:1 appear to be the earlier text, or a harmonization? Just curious. Jim Thorn Chicago, IL ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 04 Sep 1999 21:58:22 -0400 From: nyokabi@kingcon.com Subject: ane Canaan/Kinanu questions II On Thursday Sept. 2 Peter Daniels wrote, >In the English language, there is no idiomatic expression "the curse of >Canaan." I'm not sure why we need an idiom to refer to the curse in Genesis 9 25, "Cursed be Canaan"; people have been discussing the curse on Canaan for centuries in the English language. Do you think the slaves were unaware of what was being taught in the slavemaster's church on the subject of why they were enslaved? Perhaps you could enlighten the list as to the proper way to refer to this curse in the English language? >There is a familiar expression "the mark of Cain," In your previous posting (Sept 2) you said >There is a "curse >of Cain (qyn)," who slew Abel; no connection with Canaan (kn`n). If there is no connection why do you keep bringing it up? No one else has mentioned him, is this a red herring or what?. And BTW I thought Cain was cursed by not being able to be a farmer any more because the earth would no longer yield its fruit to him. I thought Cain's mark was for his protection. When he complained to God that his banishment meant that "whosoever findeth me will slay me", God answers "Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold." "And the Lord set a sign for Cain, lest any finding him should smite him." (Genesis 4, 14-15). So Cain was to be left alive by divine command, whereas the Canaanites were to be enslaved, which also means they could be killed without incurring divine wrath. >and the >story of Noah's drunkenness is used by racists and others to justify the >oppression of the black "race," popularly supposed to descend from Ham, >whence also the meaningless but formerly popular ethnological(?), >pseudo-linguistic term "Hamite/Hamitic" (as opposed to the children of >Shem, the "Semites," and the children of Japheth, the inhabitants of >Eurasia as it was known to those who thought in such terms). In your previous post you spoke of the "Curse of Ham"; have you changed your mind? The Israelites would have been mad to include such a curse in their written texts! Curse Egypt, the land of Ham par excellence, tell them they are destined to be the slaves of the Asiatics?? Curse Ethiopia? Curse ShanHara/Shinar, the land of Nimrod? This reminds me of the joke where Mussolini announces with much bombast that he has just declared war on England. The crowd falls dead silent, and a lone voice is heard to gasp, "Mama mia!!!" Cursing Canaan to servitude was a justification for Israelite enslavement of them, according to Graves and Patai, Hebrew Myths, Genesis, p.122. This is the short sighted view of the history of the curse, which may indeed be far more ancient. As for the modern scholarly contortions about the word Hamitic they fall in two groups, linguistic and ethnic. What was wrong about the linguistic use was the idea that all the other non-Semitic branches of Afro-Asiatic were one subfamily opposed to Semitic called Hamitic. If we ever get this Af-As family organized, so that we have a sub-family of say Egyptian, Berber, Kushitic we could stick the label Hamitic on it with just as much appropriateness as the suggested Erythraic. It would be no more inappropriate than the pseudo-whatever label Semitic stuck on what may in fact be the Canaanite family of languages. [This goes back to earlier discussion about Schlozer's possible gaff in naming that language family Semitic, when the true ancient languages of Shem may not even have been Afro-Asiatic.] What was wrong about the racial use of Hamitic, was not its reference to dark skinned people in general, but the fact that it was used to refer to people thought to more "caucasoid" than "pure Negroes" - Egyptians were called Hamites, Somalis and Oromo, etc. were called Hamites, Berbers were called Hamites, etc. The Nilotic speakers who had absorbed a Kushitic speaking substratum, such as some of the E Nilotes and S. Nilotes [but NOT the W Nilotes, who absorbed a C. Sudanic substratum] were called Nilo-Hamites, because they sometimes had thinner noses, slightly reddish color to their blackness, etc. (and because their grammar was thought to be "less primitive" than that of Niger-Kongo or C. Sudanic/E Sudanic speakers.). So Hamitic was being used to mean non-Black or less-Black, rather than Black. In this stage of European contortions over the name Ham, full Negroes, typified by Niger- Kongo and Central Sudanic speakers, were never referred to as Hamites, which would have, God forbid!, equated them with the Egyptians from Khem, the Hamites par excellence, both in the Bible and in this unabashedly racist, not yet politically corrected stage of western scholarship. >"Canaanites" are not popularly supposed to have any descendants in the >modern or the pre-Modern world. "Popularly"? Who are the populos here, European academics? The Yoruba derive themselves from Arabia, from Lamurudu ben Kanaan. The Hausa nations trace themselves back to a founding dynasts descended from an immigrant prince of "Baghdad" and a queen descended from ancient immigrants from Canaan. Dierk Lange's many studies of the ANE connections of these most influential dynasties in West Africa conclude that the connections are real for the ruling elements. Yet, perhaps not wanting to offend by branding anyone as "Canaanites" even though their own traditions specifically make this claim, he concludes they were Hebrews! This in spite of the fact that almost all of the cultural and religious connections are to Canaanite cultures such as Ugarit or Byblos or even to Mari and not to Israel! I findthis very contorted. West Africans know that they were branded Canaanites and carried away into slavery by being accused to be of the same race as the accursed Canaan. They also know that their own oral traditions are replete with connections to this area. The Phoenicians-Kinanu also explored and traded down the West Coast of Africa, and Berbers who also traced their origins to Canaanites played a role in several dynasties.The Berber traditions commonly refer themselves back to Canaan. Acc to Ibn Khaldun, Histoire des Berberes, p 185 : "Tous les genealogistes arabes s'accordent a regarder les diverses tribus berberes...comme apartenant reellement a cette race. Il n'y a que les Sandhadja et les Ketama don't l'origine soit pour eux un sujet de controverse." These Canaanites were supposed to have arrived with the hordes of Ifricos en route from Arabia to the Maghreb, after having been expelled by King David. Or they arrived somewhat later with the Kinanu/Phoenicians. All these N & W African Canaanite genealogies are quite distinct connections to Canaan, as opposed to Arabia, Misr, or Habesh. So Canaan was never lost sight of. It was a subset of Ham, it was not replaced by, or equal to, the term Ham in "the modern age". Many of these African traditions about Kanaan were only collected and written down "in the modern age". One of my unresearched suspicions is that the derivation of Guinea/ Kini? from Berber might be a popular or academic etymology, and not the actual origin of this name by which the slaves referred to their homeland of West Africa, the name Africa having been learned from the slave traders. Note that al-Dimashki lists Canaan as a son of Kush son of Ham. Many Islamic traditions also consider Nimrod to be a son of Canaan ben Kush ben Ham. It is unclear whether this transfer of Canaan from being a son of Ham to being a son of Kush b. Ham antedates or postdates the midrashic traditions finally reduced to writing in the 4th and 5th c. CE, which link the curse of Canaan to physical traits, such as kinky hair, swollen lips, inky black skin, and long members. Most likely both traditions are much older than their appearance in writing. But the crux of the message is still that Shem and Japeth shall enslave Canaan. It is important to point out that the very first transfer of this racist ideology about the curse of Canaan from Palestine to another scenario of ethnic dominance, enslavement, and conquest, may be its use in Ethiopia, where it is documented as early as the 8th c AD? in reference to the Shanqella or Nilo-Saharan speakers who were being enslaved.I can't swear to the date because I would have to search for my notes, but I remember the day I learned this fact twenty years ago. I was very unsettled because I realized that the modern western slave traders had not been the first to use this myth in a post-Biblical context to rationalize crimes against black(er) people. There is no way the Ethiopians, who derived themselves from a founding Ityopi son of Kush son of Ham, would have been enslaving people in the name of an accursed Ham, but rather an accursed Canaan, whom they perceived as referring to people blacker or more Negroid than they, covered by their contemptuous term Shanqella. E. Adams ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 04 Sep 1999 21:57:58 -0400 From: nyokabi@kingcon.com Subject: ane Canaan/Kinanu questions I Apologies for my late replies. On Wednesday Sept 1, P Daniels wrote: >What the hell (if I may say so) are you talking about? I guess Chuck Jones decides what is profanity on the list. The hell was that lived in for centuries by the peoples on whom the curse of Canaan in Genesis 9/25-27 was projected. There is a "curse >of Cain (qyn)," who slew Abel; no connection with Canaan (kn`n). There >is a "curse of Ham," who looked on his father Noah's nakedness, which is >the one related subsequently to color, "Hamitic" being taken to refer to >a dark race. I guess the amnesia on this subject is even worse than I thought! Here's a couple of lines from Uncle Tom's Cabin, 1852, ch. XII: "It's undoubtedly the intention of Providence that the African race should be servants, kept in a low condition, " said a grave-looking gentleman in black, a clergyman, seated by the cabin door. " 'Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be' the scripture says." "I say stranger, is that ar what that text means?" said a tall man standing by. "Undoubtedly. It pleased Providence, for some inscrutable reason, to doom the race to bondage ages ago; and we must not set up our opinion against that." "Well, then, we'll all go ahead and buy up ni***rs" said the man, "if that's the way of Providence, - won't we Squire?" [merciful snip] Raphael and Patai in Hebrew myths, Genesis volume, p.121-2, conclude from the fact that it is clearly only Canaan who is cursed, that something was suppressed in the original text, which is a castration of his grandfather by Canaan. We discussed this a year or so ago, and its possible relevance to the father/son castrations in the Hurrian Anu/Kumarbi myths, and their Greek parallels. [P.D.] >I have never heard of any purple people. I would imagine that the actual dyers became quite stained in the process, so that - if they were light skinned enough! - they might look quite purple. D. Harden in the Phoenicians (ch 1) simply extended the color range of the term Phoenikes: "The Canaanites did not invent the name Phoenicians for themselves. It seems to have been given to them by Greeks, presumably Mycenaeans, who came into trading contact with them in the early 2nd milennium. At first it was no doubt used for all Canaanites; later it was confined to those who lived on the coastal belt and retained their independence. "The word is first found in Homer and appears to denote originally a dark red or purple or brown color, whence it was transferred both to the date palm and to the brown-skinned Canaanites." Oh well, even Liddell's says the color word phoinix was applied to bay horses - so dark red did not literally have to be red, but also red-brown... E. Adams PS Interesting to look at the roots for date/ date palm on the Nile: cf Nubian: Old Nubian: pente/ date, date palm; Mahass: fetti/fenti = ditto; Kenuzi/Dongolawi: betti/benti = ditto. Egyptian: bnr/date, bnrt/date palm. But see also 'H3nnt, for date palm. Looks like some kind of -t suffix instead of the -ke suffix on the Greek forms, but still an ancient root pn- (p/b; p/f). ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 04 Sep 1999 21:58:43 -0400 From: nyokabi@kingcon.com Subject: ane Canaan/ Kinanu III On Friday Sept 3 Peter Daniels stated: >"Canaan" is a geographic term for a small >portion of the Mediterranean Levant. > On what evidence do you base your statement that this is only a geographic term. To whom was this a term "for a small portion of the Mediterranean Levant"? To the Israelites the term had a much more extended meaning, from the borders of the Negev up to Tyre and Sidon, then Arvad and probably? to Ugarit [which is never mentioned in OT, is it?]. According to Weippert in RLA Kanaan was in the Amarna letters an Egyptian province which stretched from the border of Egypt to the northern provinces of Amurru and Upe [Damascus area and the Biqa']. He also points out that in EA 162, Amurru is included in Kanaan , and that in EA 151 the name Kanaan also includes Kilikia (Danuna), Ugarit, Kadesh on Orontes, Amurru, and Upe. This is hardly a "small portion" of the Mediterranean Levant! And it is quite a coincidence with the Genesis 10 genealogy of the sons/tribes of Canaan as including Heth (Kilikia, cf. the tradition preserved in Bar Hebraeus that the Canaanites took possession of Southern Anatolia) and Hamath (Kadesh), and the Amorites. To the Phoenicians and the Israelites the term was ethnic, Kinanu or Kanaanim, not named after the land, but after the people, who were thought to descend from their eponymous ancestor Kanaan or Khna. In a Mari text from the 18th c BC we find some Canaanites described as lu-KinaHnum-mesh, in the phrase "robbers and Canaanites". Weippert, in RLA Kanaan calls this the "nom. sg [kollectiv] des Gentiliziums", and suggests that they were "rebellious Assyrian mercenaries". In the 15th c. we find Idrimi of Alalakh speaking of mat-Kinanim-ki. How do you know this is not "the country of the Canaanites"? In Amarna letter # 9, there is a Babylonian reference to the gentilic Ki-na-Ha-au. In the 14th c. we find Amenhotep II importing hm.w Knn'n3w/ K3'nmu n Kh3rw, "Canaanite slaves from Kharu" acc. to Weippert. This sounds as if Kh3rw is the toponym, while Canaanites is the gentilic. That is exactly the consequences of the unconscious acceptance of the discredited etymology "land of purple" - it necessarily restricts it to the Coast, and it makes it geographical rather than ethnic. Which is earlier in the Greek corpus, Phoenicia or Phoenicians. Was the land named after the people, or the people after the land? What makes you so sure, especially when you do not know the ancient era from which the term originally derived. Why not go along with Moscati and be an agnostic? As Astour points out, "S. Moscati, rejecting for good reasons all of the previously suggested etymologies "Canaan" did not adduce any of his own." (JNES 24). For when you authoritatively quell young people's questions by telling them that the people are simply named after the land, you are in effect trying to shut a door. Don't ask questions about their ethnicity as expressed in their name, because their name has no connection to their ethnicity. If you admit that you do not know whether the name was first a gentilic or a toponym, then you allow them to open that door and begin a search for their own answers, so that when new material is discovered, perhaps long after you are dead, they will look at it with open minds instead of closed ones. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 4 Sep 1999 22:03:12 -0500 From: Steve Zoraster Subject: Re: ane Roman horses' backsides ... > From: "Don Mills" > To: "ANE List" > Subject: ane Roman horses' backsides ... > Date: Sat, 4 Sep 1999 10:40:48 +1200 > The first long distance roads in Europe were built by Imperial > Rome for the benefit of their legions. > The roads have been used ever since. And the ruts? The initial ruts, which > everyone else had to match for fear of destroying their wagons, were first > made by Roman war chariots. Since the chariots were made for or by Imperial Rome > they were all alike in the matter of wheel spacing. Ahhhhh..... Roman "war" chariots? What exactly was a Roman war chariot? War chariots in the Mediterranean world went out of style with the collapse of the first Persian Empire around 333BC. SZoraster ------------------------------ End of ANE Digest V1999 #250 **************************** Back issues are available on the Oriental Institute World-Wide Web (WWW) site at: http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/ANE/OI_ANE.html