From: owner-ane@ (ANE Digest) To: ane-digest Subject: ANE Digest V1999 #362 Reply-To: Sender: owner-ane@ Errors-To: owner-ane@ Precedence: bulk ANE Digest Thursday, December 23 1999 Volume 1999 : Number 362 ane Goliath story Re: ane Dotan Festschrift Re: ane Dotan Festschrift Re: OT ane Legend vs. History ane Please add to ANEnews Re: ane Goliath story RE: ane Goliath story ane REPRINT of P. R. S. Moorey's ANCIENT MESOPOTAMIAN MATERIALS AND INDUSTRIES: THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE ane An identification for Tikunani? Re: ane Goliath story ane Alternative Goliaths Re: ane Goliath story Re: ane Goliath story Re: ane Goliath story ane Petrie Re: ane Artifacts, Copyright, and Cultural Heritage Re: ane Artifacts, Copyright, and Cultural Heritage Re: ane Artifacts, Copyright, and Cultural Heritage Re: ane Goliath story Re: ane Wheelies, but not in a rut Re: ane Alternative Goliaths Re: ane Drowning in messages Re: ane Artifacts, Copyright, and Cultural Heritage Re: ane Goliath story Re: ane Goliath story ane Fighting the Fringe ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 10:27:34 +0100 From: Kurt Oertel Subject: ane Goliath story Richard Stern wrote: > Could this be a different story that got syncretized > into the David history, borrowed from elsewhere, as > the Goliath story was? Dear Richard Stern, So, what's the origin of the Goliath story then? Where was it borrowed from? Is this another (!) Hurrian element since the biblical terms for Goliath's armour and weapons are Hurrian? Kindest regards, Kurt Oertel, Kiel, Germany ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 11:36:49 +0200 (IST) From: avigdor horovitz Subject: Re: ane Dotan Festschrift It is a festschrift for Moshe Dotan. Everyone on the list can find the details as easily as I can. Victor On Wed, 22 Dec 1999, Donald R. Vance wrote: > Would you post complete bibliographical information on the Dotan > Festschrift please? > > On 12/21/99 5:57 AM, avigdor horovitz at victor@bgumail.bgu.ac.il did pen > the following: > > >on the hero exposed at birth there is a cross cultural comparison in Brian > >Lewis, the Sargon Birth legend. By the way Superman is in his comparative > >material. > >You should also add Heltzer's article in the Dotan Festschrift where he > >brings evidence from non literary text about exposing infants in baskets > >in the river. > >Victor > > > >On Tue, 21 Dec 1999, Jonathan D. Safren wrote: > > > >> On the literary motif of the exposed child (Moses, Sargon, Oedipus, Snow > >> White), see: > >> Donald B. Redford, "The Literary Motif of the Exposed Child", Numen 14 > >> (1967), 209-228. > >> > >> -- > >> Jonathan D. Safren > >> Dept. of Biblical Studies > >> Beit Berl College > >> Beit Berl Post Office 44905 > >> Israel > >> > >> > > > > > > > Donald R. Vance, Ph.D. > Assistant Professor of Biblical Languages and Literature > Undergraduate Theology > Oral Roberts University > drvance@oru.edu > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 12:02:31 +0200 (IST) From: chaim cohen Subject: Re: ane Dotan Festschrift M. Heltzer, "Two Ancient Oriental Notes on Biblical Issues," in M. Heltzer et al. eds., STUDIES IN THE ARCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORY OF ANCIENT ISRAEL IN HONOUR OF MOSHE DOTHAN (Haifa University Press: Haifa, 1993), pp. 57-62 (the pages relevant to the Akk. parallel to the Moses birth story are pp. 59-62). All the best, Chaim Cohen On Wed, 22 Dec 1999, Donald R. Vance wrote: > Would you post complete bibliographical information on the Dotan > Festschrift please? > > On 12/21/99 5:57 AM, avigdor horovitz at victor@bgumail.bgu.ac.il did pen > the following: > > >on the hero exposed at birth there is a cross cultural comparison in Brian > >Lewis, the Sargon Birth legend. By the way Superman is in his comparative > >material. > >You should also add Heltzer's article in the Dotan Festschrift where he > >brings evidence from non literary text about exposing infants in baskets > >in the river. > >Victor > > > >On Tue, 21 Dec 1999, Jonathan D. Safren wrote: > > > >> On the literary motif of the exposed child (Moses, Sargon, Oedipus, Snow > >> White), see: > >> Donald B. Redford, "The Literary Motif of the Exposed Child", Numen 14 > >> (1967), 209-228. > >> > >> -- > >> Jonathan D. Safren > >> Dept. of Biblical Studies > >> Beit Berl College > >> Beit Berl Post Office 44905 > >> Israel > >> > >> > > > > > > > Donald R. Vance, Ph.D. > Assistant Professor of Biblical Languages and Literature > Undergraduate Theology > Oral Roberts University > drvance@oru.edu > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 11:58:07 +0100 From: "chris.cleutjens" Subject: Re: OT ane Legend vs. History Dear Jim the Third, The threads were about the historicy of figures, people mentionned in the Bible (Abraham, Hebrew, etc) Not the historicy of the Bible. And if you delete all the threads linked to the Bible you can delete 90% of the threads in this list. What is 'verboten' in this list? Calling Mr Cleutjens an insulter of religious people is 'verboten'. Asking for "inquiries" to find out if Mr Cleutjens is "qualified" is 'verboten'. Asking for the removal of Mr. Cleutjens of this list is 'verboten'. Thinking this list is a private playground for conceited scholars is 'verboten'. Mentionning Mr Cleutjens name in whenever some conceited listmembers have the feeling that private playground is disturbed by other listmembers is 'verboten'. All that is 'verboten' in Mr Cleutjens' "Book of the Verboten Posts to ANE". It is 'verboten' because Mr Cleutjens wont take that and will not not mince his words when the 'verboten' does happen. Mr Cleutjens wishes Mr James P. Robinson III a good Ending and a beautiful Beginning, and that is not 'verboten'. Chris Cleutjens -------------------------------------------- - ----- Oorspronkelijk bericht ----- Van: James P. Robinson III Aan: Verzonden: dinsdag 21 december 1999 12:12 Onderwerp: Re: OT ane Legend vs. History > I find this a particularly interesting post because Mr. Cleutjens > lauds a series of threads which I have found of little or no utility and > have been systematically deleting. They are just the sorts of threads > which I had thought were verboten on this list (e.g., historicity of the > Bible, etc.). > > Jim > > As the clock struck 11:25 AM 12/21/1999 +0100, chris.cleutjens took pen in > hand and wrote: > >Dear List, > >Last weeks and this week postings - Legend vs. History - Historians are > >Empiricists? - Fighting the Fringe - Hebrew/Apiru - The Birth of Abraham - > >etc. convinced me again that this list is worth posting/reading. > >These postings must have an academic value. Or am I a little euphoric? > >Anyway I will "save" all of them. > > > >As a member of the "ignorant masses" (please recognize the irony in this > >remark), > >I would like to thank you all for these postings. > >I learned more in these last weeks than whole past year. > > > >The year 2000 looks good. > >A good ending bear a wonderful beginning. > > > >Kind regards to all > >Chris Cleutjens > > > >----- Oorspronkelijk bericht ----- > >Van: > >Aan: ; > >Verzonden: dinsdag 21 december 1999 3:05 > >Onderwerp: Re: ane Legend vs. History > > > > > > > There is much in history, especially ancient history, that is unknown > >because > > > there is insufficient data, n'est pas? Most historians attempt to fill in > > > the gaps in data with supposition. I find that practice both useful and > > > maddening. I began research into the Hittites with a book by McQueen that > > > contains several highly suspect assertions. The problem is that I didn't > > > know that until further study, and I wasted much time on internal > >confusion. > > > > > > Rather than debate historicity or lack thereof, wouldn't it be more > > > productive to categorize certain historical assertions into degrees of > > > credibility? Here is a rough model of how this might work in a five-point > > > Likert-scale model. > > > > > > 1. Nearly certain: This category would be reserved for those historical > > > facts and events with contemporary chroniclers, many cross-references, and > >or > > > physical evidence. For instance, it is a near certainty that a Hittite > >king > > > named "Hattusili" and an Egyptian pharaoh named "Ramses" existed and were > > > contemporaries, because we have much physical evidence (based on their > > > correspondence and treaty) that such a thing was so. Socrates is attested > >by > > > such unlike writers as Xenophon and Plato. > > > > > > 2. Probable: This category would include things that are not absolute, > >but > > > are close. Typically, there would be a small but respected minority > >opinion > > > that certain facts in this category are in error. Keeping with the > >Hittites, > > > it seems probable to me that the term "Ahhiyawa" refers to Mycenaean > >Greece, > > > all evidence considered. Yet, there are many respected scholars that > > > disagree. > > > > > > 3. Plausible: This category would include all those things that could > >well > > > have happened in a particular way, but there is insufficient evidence to > > > raise it to the "plausible" level. For instance, it is plausible that > > > someone named "Abraham" existed. There is simply not enough evidence, > > > negative or positive, to say for sure. > > > > > > 4. Improbable: This category would be reserved for those things that > >seem > > > unlikely, but could have happened given various unusual circumstances that > > > contradict much of what we think we know. For instance, it seems > >improbable > > > to me that the story of Abraham is factually correct in all aspects, since > > > there is evidence against the possibility of finding Hittites in northern > > > Syria during the time Abraham was supposed to have lived. > > > > > > 5. Highly unlikely/nearly impossible: Here we might put those things > >that > > > would be considered "miracles" and "legends." Personally, I would put > > > Atlantis, Noah's Ark, the creation stories of Genesis, Van Daniken, etc., > >in > > > this category. Things in this category would not only seem fantastic, but > > > would be refuted by a great deal of physical and/or historical evidence. > > > > > > A model like this one would allow us to debate "categories" rather than > > > "absolutes." It would be much more productive to debate whether a > >particular > > > fact belongs in "plausible" or "probable" than to debate whether it did or > > > did not happen. > > > > > > BTW, I must release people of faith from this model. I am aware that many > >of > > > the things I place in category 5 are considered category 1 facts in their > > > internal models. I would suggest, though, that faith falls outside the > > > purview of the profession of history. > > > > > > Stuart O'Steen > > > Boulder, Colorado > > > > > -- > ******************************************************** > James P. Robinson III > > jprobins@ix.netcom.com > ******************************************************** > > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 12:24:35 +0100 From: Charlott Hoffmann Jensen Subject: ane Please add to ANEnews 2nd International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Copenhagen May 22- May 26 2000 : We are pleased to announce that it is now possible to register for the congress directly via the internet adress: www.hum.ku.dk/2icaane. Please notice that payment after January 1st is 120 US $. Any registration form send before January 1st will be charged the reduced fee of 100 US $. On behalf of the organizing committee Charlott Hoffmann Jensen ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 14:24:28 +0200 From: "Jonathan D. Safren" Subject: Re: ane Goliath story Kurt Oertel wrote: > Richard Stern wrote: > > > Could this be a different story that got syncretized > > into the David history, borrowed from elsewhere, as > > the Goliath story was? > > Dear Richard Stern, > > So, what's the origin of the Goliath story then? Where was it borrowed > from? Is this another (!) Hurrian element since the biblical terms for > Goliath's armour and weapons are Hurrian? Try The Iliad - Achilles and Hector. - -- Jonathan D. Safren Dept. of Biblical Studies Beit Berl College Beit Berl Post Office 44905 Israel ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 16:08:44 +0100 From: Niels Peter Lemche Subject: RE: ane Goliath story What is wrong with old Sinuhe and the giant from Retenu? NPL > -----Original Message----- > From: Jonathan D. Safren [SMTP:yonsaf@beitberl.beitberl.ac.il] > Sent: Wednesday, 22 December, 1999 13:24 > To: Kurt Oertel > Cc: ane@oi.uchicago.edu > Subject: Re: ane Goliath story > > Kurt Oertel wrote: > > > Richard Stern wrote: > > > > > Could this be a different story that got syncretized > > > into the David history, borrowed from elsewhere, as > > > the Goliath story was? > > > > Dear Richard Stern, > > > > So, what's the origin of the Goliath story then? Where was it borrowed > > from? Is this another (!) Hurrian element since the biblical terms for > > Goliath's armour and weapons are Hurrian? > > Try The Iliad - Achilles and Hector. > > -- > Jonathan D. Safren > Dept. of Biblical Studies > Beit Berl College > Beit Berl Post Office 44905 > Israel > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 09:57:02 -0500 From: "Charles E. Jones" Subject: ane REPRINT of P. R. S. Moorey's ANCIENT MESOPOTAMIAN MATERIALS AND INDUSTRIES: THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE From: Jim Eisenbraun Publisher, Eisenbrauns jeisenbraun@eisenbrauns.com Orders to: orders@eisenbrauns.com Web Site: http://www.eisenbrauns.com/ =============================================== NOW AVAILABLE: REPRINT of P. R. S. Moorey's ANCIENT MESOPOTAMIAN MATERIALS AND INDUSTRIES: THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE Pp. xxiii + 414. Cloth. Large format. ISBN 1-57506-042-6. $89.50 Reissue of the 1994 Oxford University Press edition. This is the first systematic attempt to survey in detail the archaeological evidence for the crafts and craftsmanship of the Sumerians, Babylonians, and Assyrians in ancient Mesopotamia, covering the period ca. 8000-300 B.C.E. As creators of some of the earliest farming and urban communities known to us, these people were among the first pioneers of many crafts and skills that remain fundamental to modern ways of life. Many of the raw materials for crafts had to be imported from outside the river valley of the Tigris and Euphrates, providing an unusually sensitive indicator of the commercial and cultural contacts of Mesopotamia. In this book, Dr. Moorey reviews briefly the textual evidence, and then goes on to examine in detail the material evidence for a wide range of crafts using stones, both common and ornamental, animal products--from hippopotamus ivory to ostrich egg-shells--ceramics, glazed materials and glass, metals, and building materials. With a comprehensive bibliography, this will be a key work of reference for archaeologists and those interested in the early history of crafts and technology, as well as for specialist historians of the ancient Near East. Acclaimed as a classic since it was originally published by Oxford University Press (at $125.00), this archaeological history of Mesopotamian crafts and industries is an irreplaceable compendium of ancient Near Eastern technologies. Moorey's detailed research unveils not only the items of invention, but the chemistries, processes, methodologies, and developments within each industry. A quality Eisenbrauns reprint. P. R. S. Moorey is Keeper of Antiquities at the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. Order from: Eisenbrauns P.O. Box 275 Winona Lake, IN 46590 USA Phone 219 269 2011 Fax (orders) 800 736 7921 email: orders@eisenbrauns.com web: www.eisenbrauns.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 11:40:41 -0500 From: "Dr. Michael & Neathery Fuller" Subject: ane An identification for Tikunani? > THIS MESSAGE IS IN MIME FORMAT. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. - --MS_Mac_OE_3028707641_525970_MIME_Part Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Hi Bjarte, I saw your post at ANE mentioning Tikunani and wanted to propose an identification. Others at ANE are welcome to add their two cents worth, on-line or off-line. [Does this count as fringe?] Tuneinir is an urban site along the Khabur River (in the Gezira province of Syria) that has an occupation ranging from Ninevite V (ca. 2600 BCE) until AD 1401 (Tamerlane). Reading your post made me wonder if the name of Tuneinir might be a corruption of Tikunani. They both have the unusual n - n combination as well as the initial T value. The modern population calls the site Tuneinir and their are a couple of different transliterations by French, German and American scholars. I am not a linguist, but an archaeologist. We have the name Tuneinir inscribed on a large storage jar from around ca. ACE 1200 and it was not exactly same but something more like TAWAANIR. You have given me more reason to expand the excavation into the pre-Islamic layers. Thanks for any feedback. Best wishes. Michael ________________________________________ Dr. Michael Fuller Neathery Fuller Directors American Excavations at Tell Tuneinir http://www.stlcc.cc.mo.us/fv/tuneinir - --MS_Mac_OE_3028707641_525970_MIME_Part Content-type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable An identification for Tikunani? Hi Bjarte,
    I saw your post at ANE mentioning Tikunani and want= ed to propose an identification. Others at ANE are welcome to add their two = cents worth,  on-line or off-line. [Does this count as fringe?]

    Tuneinir is an urban site along the Khabur River (i= n the Gezira province of  Syria) that has an occupation ranging from Ni= nevite V (ca. 2600 BCE) until AD 1401 (Tamerlane). Reading your post made me= wonder if the name of Tuneinir might be a corruption of Tikunani. They both= have the unusual n - n combination as well as the initial T value. The mode= rn population calls the site Tuneinir and their are a couple of different tr= ansliterations by French, German and American scholars.

    I am not a linguist, but an archaeologist. We have = the name Tuneinir inscribed on a large storage jar from around ca. ACE 1200 = and it was not exactly same but something more like TAWAANIR.  Y= ou have given me more reason to expand the excavation into the pre-Islamic l= ayers.

Thanks for any feedback. Best wishes. Michael
    
________________________________________
Dr. Michael Fuller
Neathery Fuller

Directors American Excavations at  Tell Tuneinir
http://www.stlcc.cc.mo.us/fv/tuneinir - --MS_Mac_OE_3028707641_525970_MIME_Part-- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 19:22:25 +0200 From: "Jonathan D. Safren" Subject: Re: ane Goliath story Niels Peter Lemche wrote: > What is wrong with old Sinuhe and the giant from Retenu? > Nothing but the matter of the champions representing the two sides. - -- Jonathan D. Safren Dept. of Biblical Studies Beit Berl College 44905 Beit Berl Post Office Israel ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 12:58:20 -0500 From: "Richard Stern" Subject: ane Alternative Goliaths >>> Kurt Oertel 12/22 4:25 AM >>> Richard Stern wrote: > Could this be a different story that got syncretized > into the David history, borrowed from elsewhere, as > the Goliath story was? Dear Richard Stern, So, what's the origin of the Goliath story then? Where was it borrowed from? Is this another (!) Hurrian element since the biblical terms for Goliath's armour and weapons are Hurrian? Kindest regards, ======================================= No, there was a Mighty Man in HB, whose name I forget. (I think his name begins with I or Ish (=man).) He became assimilated into the group of mighty men serving David. But an earlier version with vestiges left in HB had _him_ knock off Goliath, rather than David. I can't go look this up now; perh. someone else on ane list will know this off the top of his head and answer your question. He must have been a hero of the same ilk as the minor judges. Anyway, David got his deeds in the course of redaction. All of this doesn't mean that Goliath story wasn't borrowed from Hurrians or elsewhere. Just that David didn't have it first, relative to HB sources. The suggestion that Hector:Achilles::Goliath:David is not a good idea. Timing is prob. off for diffusion. More important, Hector is not overdog to Achilles' underdog. Vice versa wouldn't work either since Hector gets it in the neck, like Goliath. ======================================= Best Wishes - Richard H. Stern rstern@computer.org 1150 18th St. NW, # 900 Washington DC 20036-4129 http://www.law.gwu.edu/facweb/claw/rhs1.htm ======================================= ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 13:43:22 -0800 From: "morris silver" Subject: Re: ane Goliath story Dear Jonathan, Richard and Listmembers: McCarter, citing various authorities, states that the name golyat is not Semitic but "Philistine," perhaps Anatolian. (Note is taken of the terminative element -yat in Hittite). With respect to how the story found its way into the story of "David," note that it was probably imported from 2 Samuel 21.19 where the victory is credited to Elhanan, one of David's men. I am attracted by Honeyman's suggestion that "David" was the throne name of Elhanan. I have previously put forward (with great rersistance from several listmembers) the hypothesis that David=basket is best understood as Saul's chief of forced labor. Best wishes, Morris Morris Silver Department of Economics City College of New York ANCIENT ECONOMIES I http://sondmor.tripod.com/index-html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 21:31:28 +0100 From: Banyai@t-online.de (Banyai) Subject: Re: ane Goliath story I perfectly agree with Niels Peter Lemche as he wrote: > What is wrong with old Sinuhe and the giant from Retenu? A fact resulting from any bible lecture is, David was a notoric non-combatant, an unconvenient aspect of his character for his "biograph". So he looked after a fitting name, it was Goliath, whose weapons still probably decorated the temple as a votive gift (but killed by some Elchanan), and after a fitting story. He found the jewish version of Sinuhe (don´t forget Sinuhes sons inherited the position of their father in Retenu), about an unnamed prince of Juda killing his enemy in single combat and getting the hand of the daughter of the reigning king of "Retenu". Why should have Sinuhe circulated in Palestine in the form of a story about a Judahite prince? Simply (maybe) because the "land" Sinuhe received was called Iaa (in middle Egyptian to be read Arru), just like Ar and Onan the sons of Juda, who became extinct. Ar and Onan were replaced by the sons of Tamar with Juda. Since the Genesis calls for all persons except Tamar explicitely their ethnic origin (Genesis deals in first line with the question who we are), Tamar, her name, could eventually simply mean Egypt, as one of the names the Egyptians usually used for themselves. Tamar could of course have also a good hebrew ethimology, but than would leave the question why the Genesis doesn´t offer any clue to her ethnic origin. Best regards, Banyai Michael Leonberg Banyai@t-online.de ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 20:49:25 GMT From: mcv@wxs.nl (Miguel Carrasquer Vidal) Subject: Re: ane Goliath story "morris silver" wrote: >McCarter, citing various authorities, states that the name golyat is not >Semitic but "Philistine," perhaps Anatolian. (Note is taken of the >terminative element -yat in Hittite). I suppose the reference is to the abstract noun forming suffix - -att- (-ijatt- when made from an -i/-ai verb), as in kartimmijatt- "anger", from kartimmija- "to be angry". Could be, but abstract nouns are not usually used as personal names. If there was an Anatolian element among the Philistines, it would probably have been Luwian instead of Hittite, and in that case the suffix -ant- (-ijant-), which can mean almost anything in the Anatolian languages, and is commonly used for personal names (cf. also Greek names like Atlas, Atlant-), would fit the bill much better, if we consider the development -nt- > - -t(t)- in Hieroglyphic Luwian (?) and its successor Lycian. If we take Hebrew as derived from /a:/, the name we're looking for might be something like Ka:l(l)i(j)ant-. ======================= Miguel Carrasquer Vidal mcv@wxs.nl ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 21:59:56 +0100 From: "Elisa Castel" Subject: ane Petrie This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_0031_01BF4CC7.E253AA40 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear friends, I am searching for sea houses in Ancient Egypt. At the moment I foun one = in a little bronze in Spain and other one in a sarcophagus placed in = ouvre Museum. I have got the reference that Petrie could find a = fragmentary thrid one. That was published in his book "Tanis II", lam = 31.11 I can not find this book in Spain and I ask myself if will be posible of = someone had this. In that case, please, could you send me this picture = by email (attachment) or by mail? Lots of thanks in advance Elisa Castel ecastel@arrakis.es=20 - ------=_NextPart_000_0031_01BF4CC7.E253AA40 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear friends,
 
I am searching for sea houses in Ancient Egypt. At the moment I = foun one in=20 a little bronze in Spain and other one in a sarcophagus placed in ouvre = Museum.=20 I have got the reference that Petrie could find a fragmentary thrid one. = That=20 was published in his book "Tanis II", lam 31.11
 
I can not find this book in Spain and I ask myself if will be = posible of=20 someone had this. In that case, please, could you send me this picture = by email=20 (attachment) or by mail?
 
Lots of thanks in advance
 
Elisa Castel
ecastel@arrakis.es=20
- ------=_NextPart_000_0031_01BF4CC7.E253AA40-- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 17:36:20 EST From: JDe2129629@aol.com Subject: Re: ane Artifacts, Copyright, and Cultural Heritage In a message dated 12/22/99 5:22:22 AM !!!First Boot!!!, ggreenberg@email.msn.com writes: > Copyright usually has a limited time period. Something like the life of the > creator plus some number of years. Ancient artifacts would be out of > copyright and in the public domain. But, and here I'm guessing, pictures > that other people take of the artifact, can be copyrighted by the picture > taker. You can't copy that photo without permission. > Gary Greenberg Dear Gary Greenberg: First let me clearly state that I am not a lawyer. What follows is my impression of the laws based on my memory and understanding of what I read twenty-five years ago. Most of the artifacts to which you make reference, are in foreign (not USA) countries and museums. I believe that the international laws signed by many countries (including the USA) would be the operative laws in most of the cases under discussion. As I understand it, Museum, institutions and private collectors have a right to the own the reproduction of images of the artifacts; manuscripts and notes they have made on the same, unless they have waived the right. Let me give an example to illustrate this point. In 1997, I went to Egypt to research some texts. I was given permission to photograph some texts, by the Director of the Egyptian Museum, in Cairo. Some of these religious texts were on the inside of a Middle Kingdom coffin. This required the opening of the case and the removal of the coffin lid. Now, I own the photographs taken and I could have them copyrighted but I would not have the right to publish them if I had not received written permission from the Director to do so. I hope this clarifies the issue to some extent. I am, most sincerely yours, J. C. Deaton. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - -------------------------------------------- Author of the following articles, that can be obtained by interlibrary loans: 1) "The Old Kingdom Evidence for the Function of Pyramids" Varia Aegyptiaca, Volume IV, (1988, San Antonio) PP 193-200. 2) "The Post Old Kingdom Evidence for the Function of Pyramids" Varia Aegyptiaca, Volume V, (1989, San Antonio) PP 183-188. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 16:42:50 -0800 From: "David Maltsberger" Subject: Re: ane Artifacts, Copyright, and Cultural Heritage > As I understand it, Museum, institutions and private collectors have a > right to the own the reproduction of images of the artifacts; manuscripts and > notes they have made on the same, unless they have waived the right. Since I began the thread, let me further clarify or muddy the water: When I wrote my dissertation in 1991, I was asked to include a note that indicated that any publication or copying of the scarabs and cylinder seals under discussion were the property of the expedition and requests for such should be directed to etc etc. Now, does the Expedition itself truly own the copyright to the materials or only the reproduction rights to images the expedition itself created? Thus, could I make a new drawing of a particular find and publish that? Does possession of the copyright apply to the artifact or to particular images created from it? David Maltsberger N Vancouver, BC ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 20:08:39 -0500 From: "Gary Greenberg" Subject: Re: ane Artifacts, Copyright, and Cultural Heritage Because, as I said, the owner of the photo has a copyright. In the case of the museum, they also have possession, and can limit the terms of viewing. Gary Greenberg > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Sakkie Cornelius > To: Gary Greenberg > Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 1999 2:01 AM > Subject: Re: ane Artifacts, Copyright, and Cultural Heritage > > > > Okay, but why do some museums charge a fortune to get > > photographs. They will not allow you to take photos yourself which is > > in most cases not possible ... > > > > best, > > > > > > On 21 Dec 99, at 22:13, Gary Greenberg wrote: > > > > Copyright usually has a limited time period. Something like the life > > of the creator plus some number of years. Ancient artifacts would be > > out of copyright and in the public domain. But, and here I'm > > guessing, > > pictures that other people take of the artifact, can be copyrighted by > > the picture taker. You can't copy that photo without permission. Gary > > Greenberg > > > > PS: a small ANE lawyer joke. > > A doctor, engineer, and lawyer were arguing about who had the > > oldest > > profession. The doctor, citing the bible (sorry NPL) said God made > > Eve > > from the rib of man, an amazing medical feat, Medicine, therefore is > > the oldest profession. The engineer said "wait. The bible says that > > God made the heavens and earth and all that was on them in six > > days. > > That's engineering. WE have the oldest profession." > > > > "Hold on," said the lawyer. "Law is the oldest profession." > > "How can that be?" asked the engineer. "Nobody existed before > > Creation." Thee lawyer responded, "What does the bible say there was > > before Creation?" "Chaos" said the doctor. "See," said the lawyer. > > "Even then we were there." > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: David Maltsberger > > To: > > Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 1999 2:51 PM > > Subject: ane Artifacts, Copyright, and Cultural Heritage > > > > > > > Since we have several lawyers lurking among us, I have a question > > > that > > spans > > > several fields. > > > > > > Artistic works created in the modern era are protected by > > > International Copyright agreements. Museums make substantial income > > > from selling reproductions and prints of individual items in their > > > collection. However, does the right to reproduce an artifact or an > > > artistic detail from an artifact uncovered in controlled > > > circumstances rest with the national government overseeing > > > excavation, the supervising institution, or is it in the public > > > domain? > > > > > > For example, let us suppose that for some reason one decides to > > > create a line of clothing featuring a logo from a seal uncovered in > > > the City of > > David > > > excavations. To whom does ownership of the seal and its art belong? > > > The Israel Antiquities Authority? The Hebrew University? The > > > Municipality of Jerusalem? The public domain? > > > > > > If we conclude that copyright (?) resides with a national entity, > > > what > > about > > > those pieces that are disputed? If I reproduce an artifact from Troy > > > am I indebted to Turkey, Germany, Russia, or the heirs of > > > Schliemann? > > > > > > Who possesses control of images uncovered in excavation? > > > > > > > > > David Maltsberger > > > North Vancouver, BC > > > > > > > > > > > SAKKIE CORNELIUS > > Professor in Ancient Near Eastern Studies > > Department of Ancient Studies > > UNIVERSITY OF STELLENBOSCH, PRIVATE BAG X1 MATIELAND ZA-7602 > > SOUTH AFRICA > > TEL:(021) 8083203; 8083210 > > FAX: (021) 8083480 > > E-mail: ic@akad.sun.ac.za > > HOMEPAGES: > > http://www.sun.ac.za/as (Ancient Studies) > > http://www.sun.ac.za/as/macu (Mosaic of Ancient Cultures - online course) > > http://www.sun.ac.za/as/journals/jnsl (Journal of Northwest Semitic > Languages) > > > > "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious; > > it is the source of all true art and science. > > He to whom this emotion is a stranger, > > who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, > > is as good as dead: his eyes are closed"- ALBERT EINSTEIN > > > > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 20:07:43 -0500 From: "Gary Greenberg" Subject: Re: ane Goliath story Actually, the bible has two very different stories about who killed Goliath. In the lesser known version, David is already an old and feeble king, and Elhanan, one of his soldiers and a member of "The Thirty", kills Goliath. Gary Greenberg > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Kurt Oertel > To: > Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 1999 4:27 AM > Subject: ane Goliath story > > > > Richard Stern wrote: > > > > > Could this be a different story that got syncretized > > > into the David history, borrowed from elsewhere, as > > > the Goliath story was? > > > > Dear Richard Stern, > > > > So, what's the origin of the Goliath story then? Where was it borrowed > > from? Is this another (!) Hurrian element since the biblical terms for > > Goliath's armour and weapons are Hurrian? > > > > Kindest regards, > > > > Kurt Oertel, > > Kiel, Germany > > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 17:57:45 -0700 From: "Bruce Rabe" <73766.637@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: ane Wheelies, but not in a rut Was the potter's wheel invented before or after the wagon wheel? Bruce Rabe Broomfield CO USA 73766.637@compuserve.com - ----- Original Message ----- From: Bruce Williams To: Sent: Monday, December 20, 1999 8:19 PM Subject: ane Wheelies, but not in a rut > > Morris Silver's points and examples are well put. We should add the famous > carts of the Sea Peoples which they used on quite an impressive trek. In > fact, if you look up the Kushite wagons, they are impressive in size and well > developed. However, the general role of the wheel was pretty limited in the > pre-Roman and post-Roman world. > Bruce Williams > > > ____________________________________________________________________ > Get your own FREE, personal Netscape WebMail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 20:13:29 -0500 From: "Gary Greenberg" Subject: Re: ane Alternative Goliaths Richard Stern wrote, > The suggestion that Hector:Achilles::Goliath:David is not a good idea. Timing is prob. off for diffusion. More important, Hector is not overdog to Achilles' underdog. Vice versa wouldn't work either since Hector gets it in the neck, like Goliath. Well, the Philistines were apparently from Mycenaean Greeks and would have known the basic Greek traditions of that time, including any pre-homeric accounts of the Trojan War. David was a Philistine servant and vassal for quite a while, according to the biblical text, so he and his followers would have been familiar with such stories. (And this doesn't require another round of whether or not King David lived. We know all the arguments and they needn't be reposted every time David is mentioned. Just disregard the note if you think it irrelevant.) Gary Greenberg ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 20:14:26 -0500 From: "Bharani" Subject: Re: ane Drowning in messages Exactly. And I asked a relevant question which has been completely ignored by the non-fringe academics on the list who were busy bad-mouthing each other self-righteously. Bharani - ---------- >From: ECOLING@aol.com >To: ane@oi.uchicago.edu >Subject: ane Drowning in messages >Date: Wed, Dec 22, 1999, 00:47 > >Following Peter T. Daniels's post on December 14th >about "Crackpot Alert", >we have had a total of 216 messages (not a complete count) >which are focused more on claims for evidence or belief >rather than on content. >(I am counting messages which were >saved to my archive disks on dates after December 14th, >so my numbers will not exactly match someone else's count, >but no matter.) > >These are drowning out the far fewer messages on actual content. > >Contrast that with 20 messages since Dec. 14th >on the spread of the IndoEuropeans >(the end of a time during which there were many messages on that topic), > >and a mere 54 messages since Dec. 14th on all other substantive >topics combined (including ! administrative and publication notes etc.). > >********************************************************* > >The 216 message on crackpot-alert and historical vs. belief status >divide more or less as follows: > >63 items on "the Fringe", "Fighting the Fringe", or "Crackpot" > >9 other items more focused on educational issues >(almost the only ones which I believe contributed substantially). > >37 messages on Abraham > 9 messages comparing Sargon > >18 messages on validation of biblical texts > 5 messages specifically on validating Nehemiah > >52 message on legend and history, > philosophy of history, etc. > (the mentions of Socrates were tallied in this group) > >23 messages on Hapiru / Hebrew etc. > >Many of these messages have also quoted very very long passages >from prior messages, if not the whole of prior messages, >which is a waste of bandwidth and a waste of time to >read through them searching for anything that might be new. > >Does anyone really believe this has been appropriate >to the ANE list? >We have been through almost all of this before. >The vast outpouring is motivated at least in great part >by emotional attachment to world views, >more than clarification of empirical facts. >That is precisely what makes this topic so unmanageable >on a list which is supposed to handle a wide range of topics. > >I believe we need a separate list for the kinds of topics >which have deluged us recently. >I suspect such a list already does exist. > >When I signed onto the ANE list, >I did not intend to sign onto a list for debates in the philosophy >or theology of history, evidence, scientific method, etc. >Those really do belong elsewhere. > >********************************************************* >Frustrated by the overflow, >(and I do not regard "just delete it if you don't like it" as an adequate >answer, >that is avoiding any concern with the actual value or lack of value >of the deluge of messsages, or with the time it takes to sort through >such "mass mailings" to find what one actually does want). > >Lloyd Anderson > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 20:55:06 -0500 From: "Gary Greenberg" Subject: Re: ane Artifacts, Copyright, and Cultural Heritage The copyright applies to images made of the artifact. What you can do after viewing the artifact itself depends on the contractual arrangements that exist between you and the person in possession (or owning) the artifact. There was an interesting legal case in Israel, extensively discussed in back issues of BAR, in which the translator of a Dead Sea Scrolls text successfully sued someone for copyright violation for reprinting his translation of the text. The case opens many questions that I lam not qualified to comment on. Gary Greenberg > ----- Original Message ----- > From: David Maltsberger > To: > Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 1999 7:42 PM > Subject: Re: ane Artifacts, Copyright, and Cultural Heritage > > > > > > > As I understand it, Museum, institutions and private collectors have > a > > > right to the own the reproduction of images of the artifacts; > manuscripts and > > > notes they have made on the same, unless they have waived the right. > > > > Since I began the thread, let me further clarify or muddy the water: > > > > When I wrote my dissertation in 1991, I was asked to include a note that > > indicated that any publication or copying of the scarabs and cylinder > seals > > under discussion were the property of the expedition and requests for such > > should be directed to etc etc. Now, does the Expedition itself truly own > the > > copyright to the materials or only the reproduction rights to images the > > expedition itself created? Thus, could I make a new drawing of a > particular > > find and publish that? Does possession of the copyright apply to the > > artifact or to particular images created from it? > > > > > > > > David Maltsberger > > N Vancouver, BC > > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 18:52:02 -0800 (PST) From: dr-e-m-winocur@webtv.net (Dr. Emanuel M. Winocur) Subject: Re: ane Goliath story Where in the Bible is this other story of a soldier killing Goliath? ¿? Thank you, Emanuel Winocur ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 22:00:43 -0600 From: "Charles David Isbell" Subject: Re: ane Goliath story See 1 Chronicles 20:5 and compare it with 2 Sam 21:19. Charles David Isbell - ----- Original Message ----- From: Dr. Emanuel M. Winocur To: Gary Greenberg Cc: ANE list Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 1999 8:52 PM Subject: Re: ane Goliath story > Where in the Bible is this other story of a soldier killing Goliath? > ¿? > Thank you, > Emanuel Winocur > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 23:02:18 -0800 From: "Rick and Sandy Baude" Subject: ane Fighting the Fringe This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01BF4CD0.987B7700 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Don wondered when I was being deliberately ironic when I said "the moment a new discovery is made that contradicts the 'fringe', the fringe immediately declares it is a fraud, a mistranslation, an intrusive burial, or something that was recycled from a previous dynasty etc. etc". I wasn't, I'm quite serious. Unfortunately he's also right about the established archeological circles. But there's a major difference and this was the point I was trying to make. For instance "everybody knew that the Valley of the Kings was exhausted." And then Carter and Carnavon dug up King Tut. After that nothing was found for over 50 years. Once again th valley was declared exhausted. Until KV 5 was reexplored and the largest tomb ever was discovered there. Now, nobody is making a prediction about the valley. But with the fringe it never stops, they just get loonier and loonier. I hope this clears up the matter of my comments. Rick - ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01BF4CD0.987B7700 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Don wondered when I was being deliberately ironic when I = said =20 "the moment a new discovery is made that contradicts the 'fringe', = the=20 fringe immediately declares it is a fraud, a mistranslation, an = intrusive=20 burial, or something that was recycled from a previous dynasty etc.=20 etc".  I wasn't, I'm quite serious.  Unfortunately he's = also=20 right about the established archeological circles. But there's a major=20 difference and this was the point I was trying to make. For instance=20 "everybody knew that the Valley of the Kings was exhausted." = And then=20 Carter and Carnavon dug up King Tut. After that nothing was found for = over 50=20 years. Once again th valley was declared exhausted. Until KV 5 was = reexplored=20 and the largest tomb ever was discovered there. Now, nobody is making a=20 prediction about the valley.
 
But with the fringe it never stops, they just get loonier and = loonier. I=20 hope this clears up the matter of my comments.
 
Rick 
- ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01BF4CD0.987B7700-- ------------------------------ End of ANE Digest V1999 #362 **************************** Back issues are available on the Oriental Institute World-Wide Web (WWW) site at: http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/ANE/OI_ANE.html