From: owner-ane@ (ANE Digest) To: ane-digest Subject: ANE Digest V1999 #343 Reply-To: Sender: owner-ane@ Errors-To: owner-ane@ Precedence: bulk ANE Digest Wednesday, December 8 1999 Volume 1999 : Number 343 Re: ane u or w ane Re: ANE Dendro at Tell Brak Re: ane Adad-Nirari I at Tell Brak/Nawar Re: ane Left-handedness in ancient Egypt Re: ane The Classification of the Mashriqian "Language Family" Re: ane Left-handedness in ancient Egypt RE: ane Left-handedness in ancient Egypt Re: ane Left-handedness in ancient Egypt Re: ane Leibniz on "Language Families" ane e-mail address of Beno Rothenberg Re: ane Left-handedness in ancient Egypt ane Wadi-el Hol proto-alphabet inscriptions ane Email address for Othmar Keel Re: ane Leibniz on "Language Families" ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 10:37:04 GMT From: mcv@wxs.nl (Miguel Carrasquer Vidal) Subject: Re: ane u or w ECOLING@aol.com wrote: >Early in the Collier and Manley textbook for Egyptian >appear the vocabulary items distinguished by determinatives: > >i3w 'old' [man with cane] >i3w 'adoration, praise' [man with raised arms] > >Are these known to be etymologically distinct? > >If we substitute /ya/ for the initial "i", and /u/ for the "w", >we would obtain > >ya3u > >(with the "3" representing the raleph). > >I do not know the sound correspondences between >Egyptian and Semitic which would affect the raleph "3", >(??? *gamma ???) Egyptian <3> comes from Afroasiatic *r (occasionaly *l). Initial can represent PAA *j, *? or palatalized *g, *l (i.e. *g or *l followed by front vowel). [See e.g. Loprieno, "Ancient Egyptian", CUP 1995]. I do not know which etymologies have been proposed for the above Egyptian words, although I would imagine that from a "Nostratic" point of view, *girVw- "old" looks attractive. ======================= Miguel Carrasquer Vidal mcv@wxs.nl ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 11:19:56 -0000 From: "Harriet Martin " Subject: ane Re: ANE Dendro at Tell Brak Dear Peter James, There were only two tablets found in the palace, both clearly antique. (One corner of the palace had eroded away and I wonder if perhaps this had contained the main archives...) It is very helpful to have your synopsis of opinions since 1995 (AD) on the validity of the 1628 BC date for the Santorini explosion. As I understand it, however, it was the 1628 Santorini correlation which prompted Kuniholm to drop his dendrochonological dates by 39 years so that the Brak wood was dated to 1254 BC +/1 1 year when before he had originally dated it to 1293 + or - 37 BC, i.e., 1330 to 1256 BC A date of 1330 BC or 1293 BC for a wood post obtained to replace one destroyed in a raid by Adad-nerari I (1305-1274 "conventional" or 1295-1264 "low") would not be a problem. It would mean, as I pointed out originally, that we have two Late Bronze Age dates of about 1300 BC. It will certainly be interesting to see the dendrochonological sequence grow and hopefully "firm up" over the next few years. Harriet Martin - ---------- > From: Peter James <100735.1765@compuserve.com> > To: ANE LIST > Subject: ane ANE Dendro at Tell Brak > Date: 07 December 1999 01:01 > > Dear Harriet Martin, > > Many thanks for taking the time to provide further information for this > interesting thread. A couple of questions and comments: > > < It is probably that Tell Brak is probably ancient Nagar/Nawar. > Level 6 is the earliest level of the Mitanni temple and palace. It > follows Old Babylonian levels. The temple and palace may well have been > built at the time of the Mitanni king Parrattarna in the early fifteenth > century. > Finds in the destroyed palace include tablets heard "in the presence of" > the Mitanni kings Artashshumara and Tushratta (early 14th century), both > signed with the seal of Saustatar, an earlier Mitanni king (this sealing > also known from Nuzi). > Level 2 is the destruction level of the palace and the temple. It is from > this level that the wood sample came.>> > > When you say finds in the destroyed palace include a document witnessed by > Tushratta, am I right in thinking this comes from Level 2, the destruction > level of the palace. Do you happen to know if this is the latest datable > document from before the destruction? > > < "conventional" or "low" dates of the Mesopotamian chronology given are > valid, but it does require the door post to be cut down, trimmed with > little loss of its outer rings, and erected in the Brak palace some time > after any damage inflicted by Adad- nerari I but very shortly before the > palace's final destruction by Shalmaneser I. It does make one wonder if > either or both dating systems are perfect.>> > > I can only agree. > > < original > palace construction about 230 years earlier in which case one or both of > the dating methods would be very seriously off.>> > > Even more so! > > < date of 1254 +/- 1 BC (Late Bronze Age) without also accepting his Middle > Bronze Age date of 1628 BC for the Santorini eruption. If both dates are > accepted, it means we have 374 years from the "middle" of the EBA to the > "middle" of the LBA. Is Peter James really wanting to add another 250 > years to this? Surely neither the historical events and dates nor the > archaeology could be stretched out like this?>> > > A good point. But to work with Kuniholm's present dates does not mean one > has to accept his date for Thera. Which is why I said in an earlier post > that he connects 1628 "with a climatic event ostensibly connected with the > explosion of Santorini". > > I have accepted Kuniholm's dating for the Gordion Master Sequence, as I > have little choice - that's what he gives us, and in that some people have > used them to argue that the conventional chronology has received a "shot in > the arm" (Anthony Snodgrass), I have to work with the same results to > argue my belief that this is simply a misunderstanding. While the > precision > (+/- 1 year) given to Kuniholm's latest calibration of the GMS depends on > his linking of a 1628 weather event with that known from other > dendrochronologies, the result cannot be far off, as the end of the Gordion > Master Sequence is pegged by the Phrygian tombs, where the bulk of the wood > samples came from, to the late 8th century. (Of course everyone will be > more confident if and when Kuniholm manages to complete the sequence up to > classical or Roman times, so that the Bronze-Iron age stretch is no longer > floating.) As refinements such as new C14 calibrations come in, the dates > may well be slightly adjusted again, up or down. > > Re theThera date Kuniholm found a sharp surge in growth (tree-ring > thickness) at one point in the 17th century BC, indicating an event or > anomaly in climate (or weather, to be more pedantic). Tree-rings from > Ireland and California show frost-damage around 1628 BC, so he linked the > two events, arguing that a volcanic eruption could have produced both > anomalies. On this basis he calibrated his GMS dates to match the event he > had found to 1626 +/- 1 year BC. There may be some connection, though this > is unproven. As Colin Renfrew remarked (Nature 381, 27 June 1996, 734) the > idea that a volcanic dust mantle that could have caused frost-damage could > also produce enhanced growth in Turkey is "not sufficiently explained". > But for argument's sake Kuniholm may be right in linking the various > 17th-century events, and in calibrating his GMS dates accordingly. (Of > course he may not be!) But the question here is, if there was a common > volcanic cause, which volcano was involved? Kuniholm naturally thought it > was Thera, as this has long been argued by other dendrochronologists to be > the cause for the frost-ring damage in other areas. > > Using tree-ring and ice-core "events" to date Thera to c. 1628 BC has of > course been quite popular over the last couple of decades, but the authors > of Centuries have always remained sceptical of such "remote dating". > Kuniholm, and other dendrochronologists, have no direct evidence to their > 1628 events with the Thera explosion. Vulcanologists have always expressed > caution about making such speculative links. Despite this, some > dendrochronologists and archaeologists have zealously argued the case for > raising the date of the Thera explosion from c. 1500 to c. 1628 BC. It now > appears that their arguments were completely baseless. For some years they > insisted that Thera was the only known explosion in the 2nd millennium > great enough to have caused the frost-ring damage, and another anomaly from > the Greenland ice-cores - a peak in the amount of sulphuric acid in the ice > layer for c. 1628 BC. This is simply not true. Geologists have dropped > their estimates of the magnitude of the Thera eruption, while evidence has > accumulated that there were other major eruptions in the mid 2nd millennium > - it has been argued from C14 that both Mt St Helens and Vesuvius blew in > the 17th century. It was presumably for these reasons that Renfrew, once a > firm supporter of the high date for Thera, recommended more caution in > 1996: "Kuniholm et al. complicate the story further by reasserting the > long-standing suggestion that the special Northern Hemisphere marker event > of 1628 BC was itself caused by the eruption of Thera, conventionally dated > more than a century later than this. The alternative cause might be an as > yet unidentified volcano, whether in Iceland or Alaska or elsewhere in the > Northern Hemisphere." > > The second argument used by the high Thera daters was from the ice cores. > There was a peak of sulphuric acid c. 1628 BC, but apparently nothing else > of any significance in the second millennium. Therefore they argued that, > assuming that Thera would have had an effect on the ice-cores, that the > 1628 peak must be it. This argument has completely fallen through. As > became clear from later publications, 1628 only seemed so special because > of budget constraints on the analysis of ice layers. Now they have been > more thoroughly analysed, many sulphuric acid peaks are known for the > second millennium - any of these could represent Thera. > > As Renfrew stated more direct evidence is needed: "One grain of Theran > tephra at the appropriate point in a single Greenland ice core would be > enough to establish a sound link going beyong mere supposition." Since he > wrote, painstaking work has isolated volcanic particles from the 1628 layer > (with sulphuric acid spike) of one of the Greenland cores previously used > by the high Thera daters to support their case. The conclusion of the ice > core scientists was that the particles came from an unknown source, but > that it was not Thera. (Zielinski, G. A. & Germani, M. S., 1998. "New Ice > Core Evidence Challenges a 1620s B.C. Age for the Santorini (Minoan) > Eruption", Journal of Archaeological Science 25, 279-289.) While they > cannot state that this disproves that Thera exploded in 1628 it throws cold > water on the possibility, to say the least. More than that, the concensus > among high Thera daters has now completely broken down. The main strength > of the 1628 case was that the dendro and ice people agreed. Now they are > squabbling merrily amongst themselves. Some dendrochronologists are > arguing that Zielinski and his team have their ice dates wrong, while > archaeologist Sturt Manning (the most vociferous promoter of the high date) > questioned the analyses of Zielinski & co. In response he was given very > short shrift. It has all been highly entertaining. > > My apologies for the long-winded and rhetorical response. But we now feel > vindicated in the sceptical position we have long maintained re "remote > dating" of the Thera explosion to 1628 BC. In short, while I do, for the > sake of discussion, work with Kuniholm's present dates for his tree-ring > chronology, there is no reason to accept his date for Thera. There is not > one sound argument or piece of evidence for assuming that Thera exploded in > the 17th century BC. (Because it didn't.) So we can safely lower the end > of the Late Bronze Age without stretching it at the other end at the same > time. > > Best wishes, > > Peter James ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 10:57:06 GMT From: mcv@wxs.nl (Miguel Carrasquer Vidal) Subject: Re: ane Adad-Nirari I at Tell Brak/Nawar "Peter T. Daniels" wrote: >Cooper, Marc wrote: >> >> As long as we have a Mitanni thread, and I have been talking about the >> subject in class, what is the status of the royal Mitanni personal names? >> Are they derived from an Indo-Iranian language or are they Hurrian? The >> latest scholarship on the subject I have read, challenging the Indo-Iranian >> theory, is now 30 years old. > >All the recent Indo-European materials I've had to look at this summer >agree and demonstrate that the IE words in Hurrian are specifically >Indic. (The names, IIRC, reflect Indic rather than Iranian DNs as well.) On the other hand, Gamkrelidze and Ivanov ("Indoeuropean language and Indoeuropeans") try, not entirely convincingly, to demonstrate that the words are closer to Iranian. They have a point in that the DNs are probably irrelevant (before the Zoroastrian reform, Indic and Iranian religion were largely identical), and that at the time of the Mitanni kingdom (which is really a terminus ante quem: the "Aryan" words in Mitanni Hurrian represent a layer of vocabulary borrowed at an earlier time, not a living language), certain Iranian phonological developments (s > h as in sapta > hapta "7", s'w > sb/sp as in as'wa > asba/aspa "horse") need not have taken place yet. The main argument for seeing the words as Indic rather than Iranian remains the numeral aika "1", Skt. e:ka, as opposed to general Iranian *aiwa- (Avestan aeva) or *aiwaka- (Pahlavi e:vak, Farsi yak). ======================= Miguel Carrasquer Vidal mcv@wxs.nl ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 08:14:54 EST From: VirgBrown@aol.com Subject: Re: ane Left-handedness in ancient Egypt Liz, > We just came back from the Egyptian exhibit in Boston. I think one of the > statues is of a scribe writing with his left hand. > I'm not sure if I remember correctly tho. I had a similar idea so I looked back through the book _Pharaohs of the Sun_. Found a couple of scribes but neither held writing utensils. In this regard, the Private Stela was interesting. Menena and Yaya are enjoying the attentions of Tashety and Mery. All four are doing something or another and all four are using only their right hands. On the other hand sometime in the past I read that in non-industrial societies, the percentage of left-handed people increases to about a third of the population and ambidexterity increases to about 15%. Best, Virgil ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 16:29:09 +0200 From: Naccache Subject: Re: ane The Classification of the Mashriqian "Language Family" On Mon, 06 Dec 1999, Peter T. Daniels wrote: >Naccache wrote: >... >> classification scheme used for the Semitic languages was useless, because >> it ignored both the historical and as well as the social nature of >> language, he agreed and enjoined me to come up with a better one. >> I dutifully complied, ... > >Taking into account, I trust, the century or so of discussion that this >question has stimulated. > >See any textbook for Stammbaum vs. Wellentheorie, Neogrammarians vs. >dialectologists, and quite a few other labels and slogans under which it >has been prosecuted. Dear Sparring Partner (oups!) Peter Daniels, Perusing the century or so of discussions (as represented in textbooks for Stammbaum or Wellentheorie, Neogrammarian etc.) is what persuaded me that the classification of the "Semitic Languages" displayed a supreme disdain for the historical and social nature of language, and that, furthermore, the results achieved for the Indo-European language family could not be transposed and used to construct a taxonomy of the Mashriqian linguistic instances. Labov had stated he did not think progress could be achieved "simply by re-shuffling the data already accumulated, or by manipulating and re-organizing a set of known data points --in a word, by trying to be more intelligent than our predecessors," but required "broader and richer data, drawn from a wider variety of sources and measured by more precise techniques" (W. Labov, "Resolving the Neogrammarian Controversy", Language, 57:2 (1981), 267-308) Not wanting to be at the mercy of archaeological discoveries, or of the availability of a "time machine", and without any pretense at being more intelligent than our predecessors, I relied on the intelligence and diligence of our contemporaries. So, I mixed in sociolinguistics and "language acquisition and use" with the general principles of taxonomy, infused the whole with the emerging awareness of the complexity of human social history, and, oh! miracle, something nice popped up... Cheers, Abu Nidal Na''aash el-Beyrooteh anaccash@nidal.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 09:08:30 -0500 (EST) From: Sarah Boling Subject: Re: ane Left-handedness in ancient Egypt In The First historians (Baruch Halpern), there's an essay about the Ehud episode. The author identifies left-handedness with a sort of special-forces commando training. Men trained to wield a weapon with the left hand were confusing to soldiers whose fighting reflexes assumed a right-handed swing from their opponent. The author also claims that the king's guard would look only at a visitor's right side for a hidden knife, thus waving through an assassin packing on the left, but that makes the king's guard sound like whoever trained them should be in some other line of work. S.J. Boling sboling@nesl.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 12:15:11 -0500 From: "Liz Fried" Subject: RE: ane Left-handedness in ancient Egypt Mea culpa, to all who've written to me about this topic. It was not the Boston museum's exhibit on the Amarna Age where I saw a left-handed someone as I had insisted earlier. I think now it was in the NY Met's Egyptian exhibit on Egypt during the 3rd-6th dynasties. I remember staring at a statue and thinking, wow! he's left-handed! On the other hand, I wandered up to the Met's ane exhibit, and it may have been there. Sorry, I shoulda taken notes. ruefully, Liz ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 15:16:28 EST From: SheMichael@aol.com Subject: Re: ane Left-handedness in ancient Egypt In a message dated 12/6/99 5:58:14 PM Eastern Standard Time, rwhiteke@calvin.edu writes: << Forgive me if this is too salacious for the list, but, if the left hand is used during sex, what is the right hand doing? Channel surfing with the remote? Seriously, is there any anthropological/historical evidence for handedness in sexual activity or for a particular hand to be associated with sexual activity such that that hand would be considered demonic, or unclean, or defiling to other objects. I know that hands are considered demonic, or unclean, or defiling for other reasons (e.g., toilet activities) but I've never come across a connection with sexual activity. I'd be interested to know. Thanks Richard Whitekettle >> It is my thinking that the right hand would be engaged in supporting the person in question, or for gestures of affection. You would have to ask people from the Middle East, Africa, or India. That's where I got my information. Better yet, try eating from the common pot with your left hand & watch the table empty. Sheila Shiki y Michaels ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 22:21:23 +0200 From: Naccache Subject: Re: ane Leibniz on "Language Families" On Tue, 7 Dec 1999, Brian Colless sent a message signed by Martin Baasten (!), in which Martin Baasten promised to post quotes from Leibniz and Schlozer. Please, dear Martin, make these quotes long, and have pity on us who only make a pretense at reading Latin! For instance I could not really be sure of my understanding of the quote from the "Brevis designatio.." that was provided (though I was happy to see the name of Bochart/Bocharti/Bochartus) >"Carthaginem Phnicibus conditam constat, & linguam >_Punicam_ (cujus scena mox latine versa apud Plautum exstat) ex >Hebra & cognatis Reinesius, Bochartus aliique egregi >illustravre." Thanking you in advance, Best, Albert Naccache Lebanese University anaccash@nidal.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 00:13:34 +0100 From: mjasmin@magic.fr (michael jasmin) Subject: ane e-mail address of Beno Rothenberg Dear list members, I am looking for the e-mail address of Beno Rothenberg Thank you. +---------------------------------+----------------------------------+ | Michael Jasmin | | * Maison de l'Archéologie | | et de l'ethnologie. Boite 14. | | 21 allée de l'Université. | | 92023 Nanterre Cedex. | | * 22 bis rue Ledion. 75014. Paris | | Tel. (H) : 01.40.44.63.91 | | Fax : 01.43.78.34.44 | | e-mail : mjasmin@magic.fr | +---------------------------------+----------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 13:20:32 +1100 From: "George Athas" Subject: Re: ane Left-handedness in ancient Egypt > It's my feeling about that Judges story that Ehud's left-handedness > signals this will be a comic, dirty story. > Left-handedness is discouraged in societies where people eat with their > hands. The left hand is used during sex & for cleaning oneself in the > toilet. The implication in the text is that Eglon, who was enormously fat, > was killed on the toilet. I think that whenever we find a specifically > left-handed character, we should be aware of this potential, in any ANE > culture. > Sheila Shiki y Michaels Left-handedness is usually associated with trickery and cunning. In Jdg 20:16 refers to seven hundred select left-handed slingers who had deadly accuracy. The implication here is not, I think, comic or dirty. Actually, quite the opposite. It implies that they were masterful, but in a cunning way, in an episode that has nothing comic about it. Ehud is certainly a cunning and tricky character. The comedy of the Ehud episode has, I think, more to do with Eglon than Ehud. There is also perhaps an implication that left-handedness was characteristic of lacking coordination. The irony of this is that both Ehud and the seven hundred slingers were very swift and had brilliant coordination. Best regards, George Athas Dept of Semitic Studies, University of Sydney ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Tel Dan Inscription Website http://members.xoom.com/gathas/teldan.htm ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: < gathas@ mail.usyd.edu.au > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 17:58:40 +1300 (NZDT) From: b.e.colless@massey.ac.nz (Brian Colless) Subject: ane Wadi-el Hol proto-alphabet inscriptions Kia ora ("Be alive", Maori all-purpose greeting, including Thankyou) [Explanatory note for Albertus Gnashgnashe Magnus in Beirut] You have all heard about the two new ultra-ancient (Middle Kingdom Egypt) Canaanite proto-alphabetic graffiti, from Wadi el-Hol ("Wadda Hell-Hole", Valley of Horrors) between Abydos and Thebes. And I have discussed one of them in two previous postings, in November 99. The one graffito I have (the only one on the NY Times website now, but on Sunday 14 Nov they published both on their front page) can be deciphered by my system; but it is ambiguous, like a quadratic equation with two solutions: m sh t r b h. g b ` l t y (Hebrew h. g = Arabic h.aj, pilgrimage festival) (1) Great drinking-party, the feast of my Lady (2) Moses, thou shalt magnify the feast with my burnt-offerings. (Hbr `olah) Take your pick! But wait there is more! (3a) Water (m) of the Lady (sh t), rain-shower (rb) of the feast (h.g) of my Mistress (b`lty). (3b) From (m) the Lady, a rain-shower, feast of my Mistress. This one reminds me of my continual assertion to students that it never rains in Egypt. But one day, on my one sortie into the western desert to visit monasteries, it rained on me! And of course the Canaanite inscriber would need to be wary if he was standing in a torrent-valley with rain coming down! For a goddess supplying water see Abr-Nahrain 28 (1990) p.13 (Sinai 377: `[ayin] 'm, "Spring of the Mother(-goddess)", label on rock-face at a well); p.37-39 (Sinai 357, "ditto",another instructive example of of a multi-valent inscription); p. 44-45 (Sinai 381, r q ' l t. "outpouring of the Goddess"?, with falling rain depicted, apparently) (4) M-sh-t, chief (rb) of the feast/circle of my Lady. (Is this where the finders and Kyle McCarter recognize the title "chief"?) We need more context, and a copy of the other one, before any feeling of certainty can arise! And now you know why anyone who is terrified of their "career" crashing in flames will not handle any of these hazardous materials. But I survived WW2, so I am fearless. Shalom Brian Brian Colless PhD ThD Religious Studies School of History, Philosophy, and Politics Massey University Palmerston North New Zealand ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Dec 1999 07:30:19 GMT From: "P. James Cowie" Subject: ane Email address for Othmar Keel Dear ANE List Members, Can anybody pass on the email address for Dr Othmar Keel, University of Freiburg, Switzerland? Thanks in advance if you can help, P. James Cowie - ------- PhD Candidate, Dept of Egyptology & Ancient History, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia PO Box 16700, London WC2N 6NH, UK Beth Shean Valley Archaeological Project (Visit www.rehov.org) Yafo Excavations ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Dec 1999 08:45:09 +0100 (MET) From: "M.F.J. Baasten" Subject: Re: ane Leibniz on "Language Families" Albert Naccashe asked for a translation of the following quote from Leibniz, "Brevis designatio" (1710:4): > >"Carthaginem Phnicibus conditam constat, & linguam > >_Punicam_ (cujus scena mox latine versa apud Plautum exstat) ex > >Hebra & cognatis Reinesius, Bochartus aliique egregi > >illustravre." "It is certain that Carthago was founded by the Phoenicians, and the _Punic_ language (the stage/theatre of which has been preserved in Plautus, with subsequent translation into Latin) was eminently illustrated by Reinesius, Bochartus and others on the basis of Hebrew and its cognates." bi-taHiyyaat wuddiyya, --Martin Baasten --------------------------------------------------------- M.F.J. Baasten -- Talen en culturen van het Nabije Oosten Universiteit Leiden ---- Postbus 9515 --- 2300 RA Leiden Tel +31 (0)71.527.2255 - Fax +31 (0)71.527.2042 - E-mail: Baasten@rullet.LeidenUniv.nl ---------------------------- ------------------------------ End of ANE Digest V1999 #343 **************************** Back issues are available on the Oriental Institute World-Wide Web (WWW) site at: http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/ANE/OI_ANE.html