From: owner-ane@ (ANE Digest) To: ane-digest Subject: ANE Digest V2000 #13 Reply-To: Sender: owner-ane@ Errors-To: owner-ane@ Precedence: bulk ANE Digest Thursday, January 13 2000 Volume 2000 : Number 013 ane two good old books ane Re: Postgraduate Studentships at Reading: Archaeology, Aegean, etc. ane Great Books ane Call for Papers, American Society of Papyrologists, San Diego, January 3-6, 2001 ane *btdwd* and *mlk.y$r'l* in the Mesha insc. (long) ane Re: Sabbath Years ane Yehud and figurines ane Israel Prize to Menahem Haran ane Redating the Dead Sea Scrolls RE: ane *btdwd* and *mlk.y$r'l* in the Mesha insc. (long) ane Yehud and figurines Re: ane Yehud and figurines Re: ane Redating the Dead Sea Scrolls RE: ane-Sabbath Years RE: ane *btdwd* and *mlk.y$r'l* in the Mesha insc. Re: ane *btdwd* and *mlk.y$r'l* in the Mesha insc. (long) ane bytyhwh ostracon =?iso-8859-1?Q?Re:_ane_Tel_Dan:=A0_To_scratch_or_not_to__scratch=3F?= Re: ane *btdwd* and *mlk.y$r'l* in the Mesha insc. Re: ane *btdwd* and *mlk.y$r'l* in the Mesha insc. (long) ane Afro-Mashriqian PPS ane New NB Texts ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 10:14:11 +0100 From: Elie Wardini Subject: ane two good old books I have argued earlier on ANE, much earlier!, that the following book: The Balaam text from Deir 'Alla re-evaluated: proceedings of the international symposium held at Leiden, 21-24 August 1989 edited by J. Hoftijzer and G. van der Kooij. Leiden : Brill, 1991 should be a must for evey student of Semitic studies. It is not the topic as such, but rather the level of discussion and insight that is exhibited by the participants. I have recently taken up again reading the articles in the following book: Hamito-Semitica : proceedings of a colloquium held by the Historical Section of the Linguistics Association (Great Britain) at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, on the 18th, 19th and 20th of March 1970 / edited by James and Theodora Bynon. The Hague : Mouton, 1975. Janua linguarum : Series practica ; 200 I would also add this book to my *must be read* list. Again it is not the subject in itself that is the main aim, though some on this list may well gain by reading this book due to its subject matter, it is mainly the level of discussion and the methodological discussions that are important, in my view. Two fine books i would say. Elie Wardini e-mail1: e.d.wardini@east.uio.no e-mail2: elie_wardini@mac.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 10:27:45 +0000 () From: Sturt Manning Subject: ane Re: Postgraduate Studentships at Reading: Archaeology, Aegean, etc. The University of Reading, UK, Faculty of Letters & Social Sciences PhD Research Studentships 2000 Applications are invited for up to twelve postgraduate research studentships (PhD Studentships) in the Humanities by the University of Reading. Applications from overseas, the EU, and the UK are sought. The Department of Archaeology at Reading invites applications for these PhD Studentships in all areas of 'Old World' Archaeology (Aegean, Mediterranean, Europe, Britain - earliest prehistory through to the Medieval period) and Archaeological Science. This includes Aegean prehistory, east Mediterranean prehistory and protohistory, central and west Mediterranean prehistory, and all areas of Greek and Roman archaeology and art. Archaeological Science applications in these or related areas are also very welcome. For the department, see: http://www.rdg.ac.uk/AcaDepts/la/Arch/index.html Please contact the Department to discuss areas of study, possible projects, etc., etc... Department of Archaeology, University of Reading, PO Box 218 Whiteknights, Reading RG6 6AA, UK. Tel. +44 118 9318132, Fax +44 118 9316718 E-Mail: archaeology@reading.ac.uk The Faculty Studentships cover UK/EU fees and maintenance at the rate paid by the UK research councils. Interdisciplinary applications and applications from overseas students are welcomed. Overseas applicants should also apply for the Overseas Research Students Fees Support Scheme (ORS). This covers the difference between home and overseas fees. The Faculty Studentship and an ORS award provide a complete funding package for an overseas student. (You will be sent information when you apply to Reading.) UK Applicants for the Faculty Studentships are expected to apply for, and accept if offered, AHRB or ESRC Studentships or other sources of external funding, although applications are welcome from candidates who do not have access to any other source of funds. Further information and application forms may be obtained from Margaret Pyle, Executive Assistant (Postgraduate), Faculty of Letters & Social Sciences, The University of Reading, Whiteknights, Reading RG6 6AA. Tel: +44 118 931 8067, fax: +44 118 931 0748, e-mail: letpg@reading.ac.uk Also http://www.rdg.ac.uk/Schools/html/studentships.html Please state research areas in which you are interested. Applications for all studentships should be received by Friday 3 March 2000. For information about the University of Reading, see: http://www.rdg.ac.uk/ For the general Postgraduate Prospectus for Reading, see: http://www.rdg.ac.uk/PG/ - -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sturt Manning, Department of Archaeology, University of Reading, PO Box 218 Whiteknights, Reading RG6 6AA, U.K. Tel. +44 118 9318132 Fax. +44 118 9316718 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 09:39:12 -0500 From: Robert Drews Subject: ane Great Books It's a couple of years old and probably has already won a book prize, but those of us who teach a course on the ancient Near East continue to offer daily prayers of thanksgiving for the four-volume edited by my Vanderbilt colleague, Jack Sasson, et al (I should spell out the "alii" as John Baines, Gary Beckman, and Karen Rubinson). Bob Drews Robert Drews (for spring of 2000) Department of Classical Studies University of Richmond Richmond, VA 23173 Telephone: (804) 289:8421 e-mail address: rdrews@richmond.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 09:19:15 -0600 From: "Charles E. Jones" Subject: ane Call for Papers, American Society of Papyrologists, San Diego, January 3-6, 2001 The American Society of Papyrologists invites proposals for papers at its annual meeting to be held in San Diego on January 3-6, 2001 in conjunction with the American Philological Association and the Archaeological Institute of America. Papers on all aspects of papyrology as more traditionally defined (Greek documentary, literary, theological) as well as Coptic and Demotic studies and historical, religious, archaeological, and cultural studies related to Greco-Roman Egypt or involving documents on papyrus or tablet from other areas of antiquity are welcome. We wish to bring this call for papers to the attention of not only more seasoned scholars but also graduate students and other "newbies" who may be taking their first professional steps in the field. We also encourage authors to consider submitting for publication papers delivered at this annual meeting to the Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists. Normally, papers should be designed for delivery in about 20 minutes. Abstracts of no more than 600 words should be sent to me at one of the addresses below by February 15, 2000; electronic submissions are encouraged. The heading of the abstract should include title only, and not your name, as all abstracts will be refereed anonymously by the Society's program committee. Those who wish to give papers dealing with New Testament or other aspects of religious studies and papyrology may wish to consider submitting them to our panel to be held at the AAR/SBL in Nashville on Nov. 18-21, 2000. A separate call for such papers will posted to this list in the near future. Timothy Renner e-mail: rennert@mail.montclair.edu President, American Society of Papyrologists FAX: 973-655-7725 Dept. of Classics & General Humanities Montclair State University Upper Montclair, N.J. 07043 U.S.A. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 17:56:42 +0200 From: Naccache Subject: ane *btdwd* and *mlk.y$r'l* in the Mesha insc. (long) On Mon, 10 Jan 2000, Cynthia Edenburg wrote: >I would like to point out that Na'aman *is* of the opinion that bytdwd >indicated "House of David" ; although he does argue >that )r)l dwdh in the Mesha inscription has nothing to do with David more references>. Dear Cynthia Edenburg, I do not understand your mention of *)r)l dwdh* in the Mesha inscription. The only suggested occurence of *dwd* in the Mesha inscription I know of is A. Lemaire's proposed restoration ("'House of David' restored in Moabite Inscription", Biblical Archaeology Review, 20:3 (1994), 30-37). Please tell me what I am missing. As for Lemaire's restoration of *bt dwd* at the end of line 31, within the last three lines of the inscription that had "defeated reconstruction" between 1868 and 1994, it is not a compelling reading in its context and presents syntactical problems, as even Lemaire notes. Therefore its only status is that of a suggestion by Lemaire, an "extreme bibliocentrist," and it would be too easy a target for criticism. I would rather, hoping that the list members will take it as it is intended, i.e., as an exercise in critical reading, consider the evidence we have for the "King of Israel" in the Mesha stela. Yes, I am doubting the reading of the words *mlk y$r'l* in the Mesha inscription! How could I? Isn't it attested 3 times (ll. 5, 10/11 and 18), and *y$r'l* attested 3 more times (ll. 7, 14, and 26)? How could one doubt such an overwhelming evidence? Gibson (TSSI, Vol I, p.71) writes: "It (the stele) was broken by Bedouin while negotiations for its removal were going on, but fortunately not before a squeeze of the inscription had been made. Two large fragments and 18 smaller ones were recovered and pieced together, and with the help of the squeeze a tolerably complete text has been obtained." How reliable is this squeeze? Let us turn to Lemaire's description (from his BAR article cited above): "Clermont-Ganneau next dispatched a man named Ya'qub Karavaca to Dhiban to take a paper squeeze of the inscription. Despite what might be considered Clermont-Ganneau's indiscretion, in the end he provided a unique and invaluable aid to uncovering the stela's contents. The Bedouin allowed Karavaca to take a squeeze of the stone. A squeeze is made by placing a sheet of soft, wet paper on the inscription and pressing the paper into the incisions. After the paper dries, it is peeled off and contains a reverse replica of the inscription with the letters in a raised form. While Karavaca was waiting for his squeeze of the inscription to dry, a fight erupted among the Bedouin, and Karavaca with his two horsemen were forced to flee for their lives. One horseman was wounded in the leg by a spear. The second horseman, Sheikh Jamil, succeeded in snatching the still-wet paper from the stone, stuffing the seven ripped pieces into his robe pocket. In this condition, the seven pieces of the squeeze were presented to Clermont-Ganneau, who put them in front of a candle and sometimes the sun in an effort to decipher the letters. This squeeze remains the only evidence of the inscription in its original condition. ... The Bedouin hated the Ottoman pasha of Nablus and preferred to destroy the stone rather than comply with his wishes. This they did forthwith by heating the stone and then pouring cold water on it." If we accept this Indiana Jones' scenario and what it tells us about the nature of the squeeze, the minimally-critical attitude we have to adopt is that the fragments of the Mesha stela are genuine, but that the parts reconstructed on the base of the squeeze (snatched while wet and hastily stuffed in a pocket where it stayed till it dried) have to be considered as suggested restorations. With this in mind, let us turn to the text of the Mesha inscription. The following remarks are based on the reproductions in Lemaire's BAR article, which distinguish between fragments and squeeze-based reconstruction (which is not easy to do on the actual exhibit in Le Louvre): - Line 5: the 8 letters *mlk y$r'l* are the _only_ letters missing from the right-hand part of lines 4, 5 and 6 of this fragment, and are _restored_. - Line 7: *y$r'l* , like line 5, but at the lower edge of the fragment, is _restored_. - Line 11: the *mlk.y* on line 10, and the *$r'l* of line 11 are _restored_. - Line 14: *y$r'l* is _restored_. - Line 18: *mlk.y$r'l* is _restored_ (except for part of a "k"). - Line 26: *y$r'l* seems to be carved in the fragment, and not restored (though the previous word *'sry* =prisoners, is restored). However the sentence, included within two vertical strokes, is not easily understood: * 'nk krty hmkrtt lqrh.h b'--- y$r'l*. Lemaire translates: "and I dug the _ditches_ for Qeriho with prisoners of Israel". Gibson translates similarly, noting however that /mkrtt/ is an "anomalous" plural, and that a base KRY for /krty/ and /mkrtt/ is to be prefered to a base KRT, which would translate unsatisfactorily as 'I had beams hewn etc." So, to recapitulate: - - The _three_ instances of *mlk.y$r'l* are restored. - - Two of the three instances of *y$r'l* are restored. One has to be a true-believer to see in the Mesha stela "specific references to the 'King of Israel' (_melech yisrael_)" as does Lemaire, and so many people with him. There is no way such a reading would have been achieved without reference to the Bible. It cannot therefore be taken as supportive of the historicity of the Bible. Hoping not to be stoned, even with fragments of the Mesha or Tel Dan inscriptions, just corrected if/where mistaken, Albert Naccache Beirut, Lebanon anaccash@nidal.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 10:17:05 -0600 From: Nathaniel Segal Subject: ane Re: Sabbath Years B"H On Tue, 11 Jan 2000, Lloyd Thomas asked for help re Sabbath Years. > As I understand it, a Jewish Sabbath Year is determined by dividing the > Jewish year-date by seven. Not necessarily. The Sabbath Year is unlike the Sabbath day. The count- ing of 7 days is independent of having observed a previous Sabbath. In contrast, after 7 Sabbath Years there could be a Jubilee Year -- 50th - -- and the 51st year starts the count at 1 again. The determination was made by the Sanhedrin. There were no Jubilees in the Second Temple period, but it's not clear to me whether the 2nd Temple counting picked up where the pre-Babylonian exile count left off, or whether another rationale was used to start the counting. Once the Second Temple was destroyed and communication between communities of the exile/dispersion was disrupted, the Sabbatical Year defaulted to the division by 7 computation by agreement of the Rabbis (according to some Talmud authorities, at any rate). Incidentally, designating years from creation seems to be an anachron- ism in times earlier than the Mishnah (~200 CE) at least. At first, years were counted from the Exodus from Egypt and/or by kings' reigns. Then the so-called Seleucid count was adopted. Sorry that I can't provide any sources. Trying to be helpful, Nathaniel Segal Chicago, IL Yeshiva graduate (Lubavitch) computer programmer and polyhistor ________________________________________________________________ YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET! Juno now offers FREE Internet Access! Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 10:46:05 -0600 From: Keith Norman Schoville Subject: ane Yehud and figurines Colleagues, in the not too distant past I heard Ephraim Stern mention that archaeological sites in the area occupied by the province of Yehud after the return from the Babylonian exile were devoid of cultic or religious figurines, indicating that the population had broken completely with the practices of earlier occupants of the sites. Problem is, I can't recall if I read that or heard it in a lecture. Can anyone direct me to the appropriate source or sources on this subject? I will appreciate all the help I can get! Thanks, Keith N. Schoville ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 10:58:21 -0600 From: "Charles E. Jones" Subject: ane Israel Prize to Menahem Haran Forwarded on behalf of the undersigned, to whom responses and inquiries should be directed. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx From: Avigdor Horovitz Please inform colleagues that Menahem Haran, Professor emeritus of Bible at the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, has been selected for the Israel Prize which will be awarded on Israel Independence Day, 10 May, 2000. Professor Haran is a member of the Israel Academy of Sciences and recipient of the Bialik Prize and other awards and honorary degrees. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 18:40:24 +0100 From: Greg Doudna Subject: ane Redating the Dead Sea Scrolls I have followed with interest the exchanges on ane from Peter James et al concerning c. two centuries adjustment in the major ancient chronologies. More than the specific conclusions I am fascinated by the process by which structures of knowledge are built, defended, and the momentum and circularity such constructions can carry. I was an intern in Peter Kuniholm's dendrochronology lab at Cornell in 1992 when _Centuries of Darkness_ was first coming out. I recall both Kuniholm and James Weinstein telling me that although they thought the conclusions went too far, the arguments in _Centuries_ themselves were serious ones. Kuniholm was at that time helping suggest the contacts to me in an initiative I undertook that resulted in the second battery of radiocarbon datings on the Qumran texts, at the AMS facility at Tucson, Arizona, USA, 1994-1995. The question I was beginning to consider even that early was a simple one: was there, in fact, evidence for the existence of textual activity among the Qumran finds as late as the 1st century CE (AD)? For the virtually unanimous scholarly view is that the Qumran scrolls were either deposited or finally abandoned in the caves around Qumran at the time of the First Revolt, c. 68 CE. An argument by Ian Hutchesson, an independent scholar in Italy, that all of the Qumran texts were deposited in the caves no later than 63 BCE, appears in print in the current, Dec 1999 issue of _Qumran Chronicle_. I also have an article ("The Case for 63 BCE") which comes out this month, Jan 2000, in _Qumran Chronicle_, which gives my argument for the 63 BCE theory. My article discusses palaeography and radiocarbon (both of which I argue are ambiguous in establishing post-63 BCE Qumran textual activity) and particularly a treatment of the archaeology of Qumran (for the issue of the deposit date or dates of the texts is fundamentally an archaeological issue). I argue that there was a significant temporal gap between Qumran Period Ib and Period II; that there was no continuity between Period Ib and II; that all of the text deposits are associated exclusively with Period Ib; and that Period Ib can be shown independently to have ended most probably about 63 BCE. Although radiocarbon is the best means for resolving this dating issue one way or the other, the problem with the existing data is there is a lack of security that individual datings are free from contamination. If the dates are accurate the issue would be settled (we would know there was post-63 BCE textual activity). But the issue is whether the dates are accurate. I believe now I underestimated both the incidence and potential effects on datings of contamination of samples in my article, "Dating the scrolls on the basis of radiocarbon analysis", in P. Flint & J. Vanderkam, eds., _The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years_, Vol. I, Brill: Leiden, 1998, pp. 430-471. This assessment of the existing radiocarbon data is based upon specific reasons and information. For full discussion see the forthcoming _Qumran Chronicle_ article. There are basically four methods of dating the deposits of the Qumran texts. The first, internal references, gives a _terminus a quo_ of c. 63 BCE, but does not in principle rule out a later deposit date. (After c. 63 BCE it is as if the lights go out in the Qumran texts. Not a name, battle, event, or historical contact of any kind can be securely identified by direct or indirect allusion for the entire next 130 years until the assumed end of the texts in c. 68 CE.) The second, palaeography, is ambiguous (per my discussion) and I see no realistic hope that palaeographic means will produce a clear or decisive answer on the 63 BCE issue. The third, radiocarbon, is also presently ambiguous (per my discussion) but is the best hope for a clear resolution of the 63 BCE issue. The fourth, Qumran archaeology, has a fairly good argument (in my opinion, being the author of the argument) for the 63 BCE case, but in the absence of a publication of the excavation in a real sense all of us who discuss Qumran archaeology aren't playing with a full deck, and arguments over interpretation can be expected to continue. For what it is worth, there is little doubt to me at this point that the virtually unanimous scholarly consensus of the c. 68 CE dating is a mistake, and the c. 63 BCE theory in some form appears likely to be ultimately correct. I argue in the _Qumran Chronicle_ study that the 1st century CE dating of the text deposits at Qumran originated in an error in archaeological interpretation and that the c. 68 CE construction was never subsequently established on a sound basis. I think the lengthy duration of the c. 68 CE construction in the history of Qumran scholarship can be attributed in large part to the lack of a full publication of the excavation of Qumran all these years, which allowed in basic ways de Vaux's original, flawed interpretations to go without the means for significant challenge to them. Greg Doudna Copenhagen ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 18:51:46 +0100 From: Niels Peter Lemche Subject: RE: ane *btdwd* and *mlk.y$r'l* in the Mesha insc. (long) > From: Naccache [SMTP:anaccash@nidal.com] > Sent: Wednesday, 12 January, 2000 16:57 > To: ane@oi.uchicago.edu > Subject: ane *btdwd* and *mlk.y$r'l* in the Mesha insc. (long) > > On Mon, 10 Jan 2000, Cynthia Edenburg wrote: > > >I would like to point out that Na'aman *is* of the opinion that bytdwd > >indicated "House of David" ; although he does argue > >that )r)l dwdh in the Mesha inscription has nothing to do with David > >more references>. > > Dear Cynthia Edenburg, > > I do not understand your mention of *)r)l dwdh* in the Mesha > inscription. > The only suggested occurence of *dwd* in the Mesha inscription I know of > is A. Lemaire's proposed restoration ("'House of David' restored in > Moabite > Inscription", Biblical Archaeology Review, 20:3 (1994), 30-37). Please tell me what I am missing. [Niels Peter Lemche] Dear Albert, you are mising the content of the inscription l. 12, and the notes referring to it in Gibson, Textbook, I, p. 79 f.; KAI II, p. 175, and Dearman pp. 112 f. among other writers. > As for Lemaire's restoration of *bt dwd* at the end of line 31, within the > last three lines of the inscription that had "defeated reconstruction" > between 1868 and 1994, it is not a compelling reading in its context and > presents syntactical problems, as even Lemaire notes. Therefore its only > status is that of a suggestion by Lemaire, an "extreme bibliocentrist," > and > it would be too easy a target for criticism. I would rather, hoping that > the list members will take it as it is intended, i.e., as an exercise in > critical reading, consider the evidence we have for the "King of Israel" > in > the Mesha stela. > > Yes, I am doubting the reading of the words *mlk y$r'l* in the Mesha > inscription! How could I? Isn't it attested 3 times (ll. 5, 10/11 and > 18), and *y$r'l* attested 3 more times (ll. 7, 14, and 26)? How could > one doubt such an overwhelming evidence? [Niels Peter Lemche] l. 5: /y.mlk.isr'l fair and square; ll.10/11 mlk y/sr'l, with a circel above the y in Israel; l. 18: wmlk.isr'l fair and square. But if you can show that it has been put incorrectly together, OK for me, but I think that that will a hard job. We have a copy of the stone at the department, but i will not there before next week to check. [Niels Peter Lemche] By the way, the Mesha stone also has a definite form. It says that the various part should not only go together individually, they should also fit the general framework. Try a look at a photo of the stone. > Gibson (TSSI, Vol I, p.71) writes: "It (the stele) was broken by Bedouin > while negotiations for its removal were going on, but fortunately not > before a squeeze of the inscription had been made. Two large fragments > and > 18 smaller ones were recovered and pieced together, and with the help of > the squeeze a tolerably complete text has been obtained." > How reliable is this squeeze? Let us turn to Lemaire's description (from > his BAR article cited above): > "Clermont-Ganneau next dispatched a man named Ya'qub > Karavaca to Dhiban > to take a paper squeeze of the inscription. > Despite what might be considered Clermont-Ganneau's > indiscretion, in the > end he provided a unique and invaluable aid to uncovering the stela's > contents. The Bedouin allowed Karavaca to take a squeeze of the stone. > A squeeze is made by placing a sheet of soft, wet paper on > the > inscription and pressing the paper into the incisions. After the paper > dries, it is peeled off and contains a reverse replica of the inscription > with the letters in a raised form. > While Karavaca was waiting for his squeeze of the > inscription to dry, a > fight erupted among the Bedouin, and Karavaca with his two horsemen were > forced to flee for their lives. One horseman was wounded in the leg by a > spear. The second horseman, Sheikh Jamil, succeeded in snatching the > still-wet paper from the stone, stuffing the seven ripped pieces into his > robe pocket. In this condition, the seven pieces of the squeeze were > presented to Clermont-Ganneau, who put them in front of a candle and > sometimes the sun in an effort to decipher the letters. This squeeze > remains the only evidence of the inscription in its original condition. > ... > > The Bedouin hated the Ottoman pasha of Nablus and preferred > to destroy > the stone rather than comply with his wishes. This they did forthwith by > heating the stone and then pouring cold water on it." > > If we accept this Indiana Jones' scenario and what it tells us about the > nature of the squeeze, the minimally-critical attitude we have to adopt is > that the fragments of the Mesha stela are genuine, but that the parts > reconstructed on the base of the squeeze (snatched while wet and hastily > stuffed in a pocket where it stayed till it dried) have to be considered > as > suggested restorations. > > With this in mind, let us turn to the text of the Mesha inscription. The > following remarks are based on the reproductions in Lemaire's BAR article, > which distinguish between fragments and squeeze-based reconstruction > (which > is not easy to do on the actual exhibit in Le Louvre): > - Line 5: the 8 letters *mlk y$r'l* are the _only_ letters missing > from > the right-hand part of lines 4, 5 and 6 of this fragment, and are > _restored_. > - Line 7: *y$r'l* , like line 5, but at the lower edge of the > fragment, > is _restored_. > - Line 11: the *mlk.y* on line 10, and the *$r'l* of line 11 are > _restored_. > - Line 14: *y$r'l* is _restored_. > - Line 18: *mlk.y$r'l* is _restored_ (except for part of a "k"). > - Line 26: *y$r'l* seems to be carved in the fragment, and not > restored > (though the previous word *'sry* =prisoners, is restored). However the > sentence, included within two vertical strokes, is not easily understood: > * > 'nk krty hmkrtt lqrh.h b'--- y$r'l*. Lemaire translates: "and I > dug the _ditches_ for Qeriho with prisoners of Israel". Gibson translates > similarly, noting however that /mkrtt/ is an "anomalous" plural, and that > a > base KRY for /krty/ and /mkrtt/ is to be prefered to a base KRT, which > would translate unsatisfactorily as 'I had beams hewn etc." > > So, to recapitulate: > - The _three_ instances of *mlk.y$r'l* are restored. > - Two of the three instances of *y$r'l* are restored. > > One has to be a true-believer to see in the Mesha stela "specific > references to the 'King of Israel' (_melech yisrael_)" as does Lemaire, > and > so many people with him. There is no way such a reading would have been > achieved without reference to the Bible. It cannot therefore be taken as > supportive of the historicity of the Bible. > > Hoping not to be stoned, even with fragments of the Mesha or Tel Dan > inscriptions, just corrected if/where mistaken, > [Niels Peter Lemche] Although from a Copenhagen perspective, we would not object such a conclusion, I believe it to be way out. I suggest that you are weakening your case by denying the obvious. NPL > Albert Naccache > Beirut, Lebanon > anaccash@nidal.com > > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 13:17:42 EST From: ADAT100@aol.com Subject: ane Yehud and figurines Dear Keith, You might wish to consult the following article: Stern, E. What Happened to the Cult Figurines? Israelite Religion Purified After the Exile. Biblical Archaeology Review 15 (4): 1989, pp.22-29, 53-54. Hope this helps. Andy Townsend. Dr Andrew Townsend, Bristol, United Kingdom. ADAT100@AOL.COM ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 12:50:21 -0600 From: "Loren Crow" Subject: Re: ane Yehud and figurines This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_0066_01BF5CFB.968616E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Keith, I'm not sure what you're thinking about, but I don't think he can have = said that unless his interpretation of the evidence has significantly = changed in recent years. In his Material Culture of the Land of the = Bible in the Persian Period, 538-332 B.C. (Warminster and Jerusalem: = Aris & Phillips; Israel Exploration Society, 1982) p. 160, he states = that Persian-era figurines were found at Gibeon and En-Gedi, both of = which he identifies (pp. 247-249) as belonging to the province of Yehud. = =20 All the best, Loren Crow =20 - -------------------------------------------------------------------------= - ------- - -------------------------------------------------------------------------= - ------- Loren D. Crow, Ph.D. Department of Religion Wiley College 711 Wiley Avenue Marshall, Texas 75670 VOX: (903) 927-3219 FAX: (903) 927-3336 lorencrow@earthling.net http://www.texramp.net/~lorencrow=20 The unexamined life is not worth living. - Socrates ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Keith Norman Schoville=20 To: ane@oi.uchicago.edu=20 Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2000 10:46 AM Subject: ane Yehud and figurines Colleagues, in the not too distant past I heard Ephraim Stern mention = that archaeological sites in the area occupied by the province of Yehud = after the return from the Babylonian exile were devoid of cultic or = religious figurines, indicating that the population had broken completely with = the practices of earlier occupants of the sites. Problem is, I can't = recall if I read that or heard it in a lecture. Can anyone direct me to the appropriate source or sources on this = subject? I will appreciate all the help I can get! Thanks, Keith N. Schoville=20 - ------=_NextPart_000_0066_01BF5CFB.968616E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Keith,
 
I'm not sure what = you're thinking=20 about, but I don't think he can have said that unless his interpretation = of the=20 evidence has significantly changed in recent years.  In his = Material=20 Culture of the Land of the Bible in the Persian Period, 538-332 = B.C.=20 (Warminster and Jerusalem: Aris & Phillips; Israel Exploration = Society,=20 1982) p. 160, he states that Persian-era figurines were found at Gibeon = and=20 En-Gedi, both of which he identifies (pp. 247-249) as belonging to the = province=20 of Yehud. 
 
All the = best,
Loren = Crow

 

=
Loren = D. Crow,=20 Ph.D.
Department of=20 Religion
Wiley=20 College
711 = Wiley=20 Avenue
Marshall, Texas=20 75670
VOX: = (903)=20 927-3219
FAX: = (903)=20 927-3336
lorencrow@earthling.net
http://www.texramp.net/~lorencrow

The unexamined=20 life is not worth living.

-=20 Socrates

----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Keith Norman Schoville
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, = 2000 10:46=20 AM
Subject: ane Yehud and = figurines

Colleagues, in the not too distant past I heard Ephraim = Stern=20 mention that
archaeological sites in the area occupied by the = province of=20 Yehud after
the return from the Babylonian exile were devoid of = cultic or=20 religious
figurines, indicating that the population had broken = completely=20 with the
practices of earlier occupants of the sites. Problem is, I = can't=20 recall if
I read that or heard it in a lecture.

Can anyone = direct me=20 to the appropriate source or sources on this subject?
I will = appreciate all=20 the help I can get!

Thanks,
Keith N. Schoville=20
- ------=_NextPart_000_0066_01BF5CFB.968616E0-- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 14:47:26 -0500 From: goranson@duke.edu Subject: Re: ane Redating the Dead Sea Scrolls Assuming the Qumran Chronicle arrives at the library, I plan to read the articles, but I suggest that C14 dating has already disproved the proposal that all Qumran scrolls were deposited in 63 BCE (in fact, more scrolls may date after 63 than before 63 !), and that paleography, Qumran archaeology, and text criticism of the scrolls all go against the proposal. Details have been given on the archived orion list: http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il Of course, de Vaux's work can usefully be reexamined; and in fact, some excellent archaeologists, such as Jodi Magness, have offered some revisions of his conclusions; she also notes, though, for example, that the type of jar associated with the scrolls is not yet attested earlier than the latter portion of the rule of Herod the Great. That Pliny's source, Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa, attested to Essenes living in the area including Qumran (not Ein Gedi) during the time of Herod the Great, has been shown, e.g., in a paper at the orion web site (see Papers and Abstracts: Goranson). Some of the Qumran scrolls (e.g., serek hayahad and pesharim) are Essene texts; and some Qumran Essene texts, in my view, are self-identified as Essene by their characteristic usage of Hebrew 'asah (e.g., 'osey hatorah, from which the name came). It may be that such a proposal as the 63 BCE deposit date for all eleven caves would not have arisen had there not been constructed a misleading perspective or false myth concerning the history of Qumran scholarship. The sometime monopoly on editing Qumran Cave 4 texts--now, thankfully, ended--inclined some to suppose that not only was the Cave 4 editing process formerly poorly handled, but that there had been also a monopoly on interpretation of Qumran history; some who hold to this view practically demonize de Vaux, Cross, and others. For example, it was claimed by some (e.g., Norman Golb, whose Dead Sea Scroll book I find inaccurate, but, on the other hand, whose recent web article on a name in a Bar Kochba papyrus text I find quite interesting) that the "Essene hypothesis" was a false scholarly construction. In fact, the recognition that some scrolls were Essene texts and that some Essenes had lived at Kh. Qumran arose, quite simply, from evidence, evidence which has grown over the past five decades. Such evidence was independently recognized by scholars from quite different backgrounds (Sukenik, Brownlee, Dupont-Sommer, Sowmy, and, only later than these and others, de Vaux; even John Allegro). I discussed this in The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment [vol. 2; ed. P. Flint & J. VanderKam; Leiden: Brill, 1999). In short, the 63 BCE deposit proposal may have more to do with the dynamics of scholarly social psychology than with credible ancient historical data. best wishes, Stephen Goranson goranson@duke.edu - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 20:18:27 +0100 From: Aayko Eyma Subject: RE: ane-Sabbath Years >>As I understand it, a Jewish Sabbath Year is determined by dividing the Jewish year-date by seven. Josephus refers to the population's difficulty in resisting Herod's conquest of Jerusalem as caused by it being a sabbath year. The consensus, I believe, is 37 BCE (3725 Jewish). On a division by 7 the previous year would have been sabbatical. Lloyd Thomas<< **AFAIK, in the cycle adopted by rabbinical judaism, the last sabbathical year was 5754 AM i.e. Fall 1993/Fall 1994 CE Now that cycle is one of three(?) proposed reconstructed cycles (all differing one year) - does someone have the full references for such sabbathical cycle studies (in an European language)? (And I'm not talking the DSS material) I've heard the names Zuckermann and Watcholder attached to such studies, but don't know the details. Josephus mentions several sabbathical years, but unfortunately not very easily pinpointed in time (not by me at least) kind regards, Aayko Eyma ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 23:41:10 +0200 From: Naccache Subject: RE: ane *btdwd* and *mlk.y$r'l* in the Mesha insc. On Wed Jan 19, 2000, Niels Peter Lemche wrote: > Dear Albert, you are mising the content of the inscription l. 12, >and the notes referring to it in Gibson, Textbook, I, p. 79 f.; KAI II, p. >175, and Dearman pp. 112 f. among other writers. Dear Niels, Touché! I could try to explain why it slipped my mind. Thrown off by Cynthia Edenburg writing the alephs with *)* I assumed that she mean *bt dwd*; I relied on my memory that seeing *dwdh* as a reference to David is a "dead horse" -reinforced by reading Lemaire's translation as "_the altar-hearth of his Beloved_". Still, I did not reread Gibson's translation which has, quite plainly "the lion figure of David". And this interpretation is probably what Na'aman argues against. I should have been more cautious and attentive while making such a brutally iconoclastic claim :-{ > [Niels Peter Lemche] l. 5: /y.mlk.isr'l fair and square; ll.10/11 >mlk y/sr'l, with a circel above the y in Israel; l. 18: wmlk.isr'l fair and >square. But if you can show that it has been put incorrectly together, OK >for me, but I think that that will a hard job. We have a copy of the stone >at the department, but i will not there before next week to check. I am not trying to show that the fragments have been put together incorrectly. Only that the instances of *mlk.y$r'l* appear in the parts reconstructed from the squeeze, and not on the preserved fragments. And yes, I can be mistaken, all I have to work with is Lemaire's reproduction and correction of Lidzbarski's drawing that distinguishes between the fragments and the reconstructed parts. > [Niels Peter Lemche] > Although from a Copenhagen perspective, we would not object such a >conclusion, I believe it to be way out. I suggest that you are weakening >your case by denying the obvious. I was not trying to state a conclusion. Studying Gibson many years ago I had wondered at the absence of brackets to indicate the reconstructed parts of the Mesha stela. In 1994 I had the opportunity to stand in front of the famous stela for 20 minutes and be astonished at how hard it was to make out what where the actual fragments from what was reconstructed. Back in Beirut, while reading Lemaire's BAR article, I tried to work out these reconstructed parts, and came out with what I posted earlier. Instead of presenting my questions as such, I played my role on the list, and came out with a "shocker"... Basically my "case" here, if there is one, would be, first, to ask that, as is customary, the reconstructed parts of the Mesha stela be bracketed, without assuming that the squeeze was satisfactory, and second, to show that there is a need to review readings based on "biblio-centrist" 19th century scholarship. I can only hope that my mistakes, like the one you pointed out, and other possible ones (Lemaire's illustrations clearly shows that *mlk.y$r'l* in ll 10/11 and 18 are in reconstructed parts, but is ambiguous for line 5, and yet, I took the plunge, for the sake of the argument), will not weaken _that_ case. Cheers, Albert Naccache Beirut, Lebanon anaccash@nidal.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 18:55:18 -0400 From: "Peter T. Daniels" Subject: Re: ane *btdwd* and *mlk.y$r'l* in the Mesha insc. (long) Naccache wrote: > With this in mind, let us turn to the text of the Mesha inscription. The > following remarks are based on the reproductions in Lemaire's BAR article, > which distinguish between fragments and squeeze-based reconstruction (which > is not easy to do on the actual exhibit in Le Louvre): I don't understand this claim. The distinction is perfectly clear on the cast in Chicago, and in Lidzbarski's plate (HNE, Tafel I) and in Birnbaum's photo (The Hebrew Scripts). AFAICT neither Donner & Röllig in KAI nor Gibson in SSI mark the distinction. - -- Peter T. Daniels grammatim@worldnet.att.net ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 13:21:57 +1100 From: "George Athas" Subject: ane bytyhwh ostracon Does anyone have any information on the recent research conducted into the BYTYHWH Ostracon - an unprovenanced sherd in the Moussaieff Collection? I recall being told that some more work had been done to validate its authenticity. Does anyone know the particulars or the relevant references? Many thanks. 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: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 13:55:30 +1100 From: "George Athas" Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Re:_ane_Tel_Dan:=A0_To_scratch_or_not_to__scratch=3F?= > Dear George Athas, > I am very happy for you that you completed your PhD. However, you surely > realize that your completing a PhD is not an argument in favor of the > authenticity of the fragments, as you refer to them. > This is a serious matter, and vague personal impressions do not make an > argument. I was not referring to any vague impressions I had about the fragments - I was referring to the results and conclusions of the cold hard research I conducted on the fragments. Of course my writing of a thesis is no proof that they are authentic - I'm not stupid and I'm not saying that. I'm saying that among the results of my research is that the fragments are authentic. Part of my research was specifically aimed at answering this question - are they authentic or not? I didn't assume they were authentic to start with and neither did I assume they were fakes. I set out to investigate the question without any leaning one way or the other. The main reason I went over to see the fragments was to inspect the evidence for forgery. I went quite prepared to see a forgery if that's what the evidence pointed to. However, my analysis of the actual fragments convinced me of their authenticity. I can prove that the fragments all came from the same inscription, that they were all carved in the same way, that they all come from a particular building phase in the stratigraphy of Tel Dan, and that the 'scratches' are not proof of forgery. > Of course there would not be "deliberate chisel marks" on them. Did you > expect the forger -however masterly he/she is- to sign his forgery? > The "sinister" tell-tales of a forgery are neither scratches, nor naturally > sustained blemishes, but apparently the _unavoidable_ results of engraving > with a chisel on already broken fragments. They are not obvious, but once > you know what you are looking for, they make an extremely strong case for a > forgery. I am quite aware of the scratches and chips in question and had a good look at them. I repeat my previous statement, which you seem to want to write off quite wantonly. The scratches and chips which might suggest that the fragments are forgeries, are not chisel marks. They are the result of naturally inflicted wear, sustained during either breakage, relocation or recylcing. The chisel mark which seem to look like a continuation of a letter on Fragment B onto the exposed surface is actually not as it looks in the photographs. The written surface has been shaved away so subtly in the breakage, that the stalk of the letter (a resh) has also been shaved off at a very subtle angle. What looks like a chisel mark on the exposed surface in the photos is actually a normal and legitimate chisel mark on the written surface - a fact you can verify when you see the actual fragments (rather than just a 2D photo) for yourself. Have you seen the actual fragments, Albert? By your comments, I would say you haven't. I'm sure your estimation of the fragments would be quite different if you had the time to thoroughly work over the fragments as I did. > In any case, waiting for you to publish your new findings on your webpage. I hope to in the not too-distant future. However, it will be hard to publish on the website because of the sheer volume of information. I'm preparing a paper for SJOT on my conclusions. Some of them include: - - The fragments are authentic. - - The fragments belong to the one stele. - - The current arrangement of the fragments and the current text proposed by Biran & Naveh are incorrect and demonstrably so. - - There are some extra letters which have previously not been deciphered or completely overlooked on Fragment A. As a result, the text is somewhat different to what we first expected. - - The word BYTDWD is a toponym, referring to a town. It can't really be a dynastic title or a reference to a temple. We can also identify this town. - - Neither Hazael, nor Jehu, are the author. It's someone else we know of (but certainly not David!!!) - - The inscription does not refer to the events of Jehu's coup. It refers to events which occured at another time with different people. These events confirm some long held suspicions about the biblical text. 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: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 14:55:22 +1100 From: "George Athas" Subject: Re: ane *btdwd* and *mlk.y$r'l* in the Mesha insc. > I am not trying to show that the fragments have been put together > incorrectly. Only that the instances of *mlk.y$r'l* appear in the parts > reconstructed from the squeeze, and not on the preserved fragments. And > yes, I can be mistaken, all I have to work with is Lemaire's reproduction > and correction of Lidzbarski's drawing that distinguishes between the > fragments and the reconstructed parts. Albert, I'm looking at a photograph I took of the Mesha Stone at the Louvre. You can see quite clearly the parts of the inscription which have been preserved, and which parts have been reconstructed. The mention of mlk.ysr'l on Line 5 occurs on one of the original preserved parts. Some of the Line 11 occurence is on the original stone. Some of the line 18 reference is on the original stone, though not much. In Line 7, the word ysr'l is on the original stone. On line 14, ysr'l is on one of the reconstructed parts. One line 26, it occurs on an original part of the stone. Add to these data the fact that the reconstructed parts of the Mesha stone were all on the actual squeezes and the parts which were irrevokably lost have still not been reconstructed on the inscription as displayed at the Louvre. The greatest gaps appear at the beginning of lines 28-34. No attempt has been made to reconstruct these portions as we have nothing to go on. All the other words which appear on the inscription are attestable and accounted for from the original, even if the original stone on which they belonged is no longer extant. Other than the beginning of lines 28-34 and the end of some lines, all the other parts, although not on original stone anymore, are reconstructed with near exact accuracy from the original. The squeeze which was ripped into 7 parts does not really do much to lower the accuracy of the reconstruction. Seven pieces of paper, from such a large inscription, are not very hard to piece together, especially considering that it was a meaningful text with a clear train of thought. Add to this the fact that the squeeze that was ripped up (it was not the entire squeeze) probably overlapped with some parts of the original stone which we still have. In other words, some of the squeeze that was ripped covered parts of the original stone and some parts that have been reconstructed. The location of these reconstructions would have been aided by the overlaps with the original stone that the squeeze probably preserved. As such, the Mesha stone has been reconstructed to almost exactly what was discovered. Your attempt to discredit the reconstruction and the occurences of mlk.ysr'l and ysr'l are not valid. 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: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 15:00:01 +1100 From: "George Athas" Subject: Re: ane *btdwd* and *mlk.y$r'l* in the Mesha insc. (long) > Naccache wrote: > > > With this in mind, let us turn to the text of the Mesha inscription. The > > following remarks are based on the reproductions in Lemaire's BAR article, > > which distinguish between fragments and squeeze-based reconstruction (which > > is not easy to do on the actual exhibit in Le Louvre): > > [...] It most certainly is easy to tell the differences on the exhibit at the Louvre. The original stone and the reconstructed portions are as different as chalk and cheese. The original stone makes up about two-thirds of the written text on the exhibit. 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, 12 Jan 2000 23:25:17 -0500 From: nyokabi@kingcon.com Subject: ane Afro-Mashriqian PPS On Jan 10 grammatim wrote: >nyokabi wrote: > >> I couldn't pass up this chance to bring up again what might be the >> most important reason to get rid of the name "Semitic": not just >> that it is derived from a Biblical term, but that, due to a modern >> misunderstanding, it may be attached to the wrong language family! > >Words change their meaning -- an American "robin" isn't the same bird at >all as an English "robin." So what? > Precisely my point, when I teased J. Safren for saying that the author of Gen 10 was "mistaken" because he did not understand by "son of Ham" the same thing Safren understands by "Hamitic". As far as what it matters for us to call Semitic what ancients understood as a part of Hamitic, would it matter if future scholars (from another planet?) called English, French, and Portuguese the Afric family because they first discovered them in African texts, then later finding their distant relatives and making up theories about African colonies in Europe? When they finally figured out the world wide extent of the mega family they might hang on to the African nomenclature for another century or so even after admitting that the various Afric languages travelled to Africa with European conquerors, causing the ultimate extinction of the "real" African languages. [God Forbid!!] Maybe it wouldn't matter, but it would certainly be an interesting twist... >> My question is, rather than assuming that this author is "mistaken", >> why not ask: what if he means by "Hamitic"( sons of, or languages >> of, Ham) exactly what modern linguists now mean by Afro-Asiatic >> (Afro-Mashriqian!)? He recognizes that of all the major language >> types he has encountered in his day and age in the ANE, it is the >> Mashriqian family alone (which he might have called "the lip of >> Canaan") which bears some linguistic relationship to Egyptian, >> the language of the land of Ham. Luwian does not, Hurrian does not, etc. > >It's rather unlikely that s/he was aware of any Chadic language, or even >Omotic, Cushitic, or Berber. >- -- Excuse me, I shouldn't have said "exactly". Nor did linguists who spoke of Hamito-Semitic in the early decades of this century before the inclusion of Omotic and Chadic mean "exactly" what we mean by Afro-Asiatic/-Mashriqian. But they had the heart of it, even if they were unaware of the outliers. But Libyan/Berber is a different matter. Josephus and the rabbinical interpretation of "Libyan" for Phut of Genesis 10 has been repeated as lately as 1997 by D. Goldenberg, in Jack Salzman and Cornel West, ed., Struggles in the Promised Land, p.30. Whether a Libyan language perceived by ancients to be distantly related to Egyptian has any connection to modern Berber has been a subject of controversy, hasn't it? Hasn't the tide been turning toward regarding ancient Libyan of the scattered inscriptions of the classical era as being a form of proto-Berber? Going back another two thousand years we have anc Eg Tamahu/ Libyans to compare with Tamahakk or Tamazikht the modern name of the Berber language. Others have seen Lehabim, a subtribe of Mizraim in Gen 10, as representing the ancient linking of Libya with Egypt. As for Kushitic, one almost supposes the Taanach author had first hand info from the lands of Teman and Punt (via the spice traders?) because of the resemblance of so many of these names to Kushitic ethnonyms/toponyms or Kushitic words for "man, people": Havilah - Beja Awili, land W of Red Sea Hills; anc.land of the Avalites on Af. Gulf of Aden shore; Agau language called Awiya; Hawiya, the N. Somalis . Sba - Sab - the S.Somali and non-Hawiya lower castes in the N; Note that Isaiah 45 calls the Sabaeans "men of stature", which suggests a Somali rather than a Yemenite Sabaean, though who knows who lived on which coast/side when? Geez/Ethiopic family sab/man (from a Kushitic substratum?) Masudi claims that Sabi is an Arabic word applied to all "Gentiles" (Meadows of Gold tr by A Sprenger, 1841, p. 216.)(cf. Subir for non-Mashriqian speakers in the north). Oromo of Wollega trace descent from Saper, who came out of the sea and settled on Awash river. Sabta? -Sabta, coastal town north of Adoulis Sabota? in Hadramaut, where Islamic traditions place the remnant of Cushitic Sabaeans, driven out by Yarob b. Qatan. Acc to Fattovich the majority of S Arabian connections found in archaeolog excav in Pre-Axumite strata in N Eth (of which there are not a lot) are with Hadramaut & Qataban, not Saba. Sabteka? the eponymous ancester of Pharoah Shabataka? cf the Taka/Tangaitae in Axum bilingual inscriptions, a people mentioned with the Beja (Beja: tak/man). cf. the Takazze river? Rama - OROMO, Konso, Gidole nama/man , Burji lammi/man (pl. meena) *PEC nam- (Josephus gives this name as Ragmus - cf Somali rag-/ man, male) cf. Ragmat, a C.Yemenite town in Minaean inscriptions Dedan - *Proto-Sam (Somali et al) dad/man,person; d-Dedun as Nubian god of spice trade, lord of Punt? Wellega Oromo trace origin to sons of Dadi [Nimrod - for fun!] *PEC nam/man; *HEC Sidamo: rodo/brother, Burji rud-aa/brother. Brother man! :-} [cf nam-/lam- man; some W. Af ruling caste traditions of descent from Lamrudu ben Kush in Baghdad/Babel, followed by expulsion from Arabia by Yarob ben Qatan.] E. Adams ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 20:42:48 +0000 From: "Everling Janos" Subject: ane New NB Texts Dear Listmembers, New topics were added to the "Babylonian Texts of the First Millennium B.C." (http://www.nexus.hu/enkidu/enkidu.html). The Archive is based on 24230 transcribed texts. It covers the Neo-Assyrian, Neo-Babylonian, and Achaemenid periods, Time of Alexander, Seleucid and Arsacide Eras. The following lists are available on this periods: 1. General lists - - reference list of all text editions, - - chronological lists, - geographical lists by towns in chronological order (Babylon, Sippar, Uruk, Borsippa and so on.) 2. Text editions - BRM 2, BibMes 24, GCCI 1, GCCI 2, YOS 17, - for each text editions were added: - chronological list, - provenience list, - geographical list, - list of words, - list of personal names, - list of divine names, - list of professions, 3. Familial and individual archives - Egibi family (Babylonian, Urukean branches, miscellaneous texts) - Archive of Ardiya (Uruk), Marduk-remanni (Sippar), Nabu-ah-iddin (Uruk) and Tab-sil-Marduk (Babylon). Any correction or suggestion is welcome. Everling Janos enkidu@matavnet.hu www.nexus.hu/enkidu/enkidu.html ------------------------------ End of ANE Digest V2000 #13 *************************** Back issues are available on the Oriental Institute World-Wide Web (WWW) site at: http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/ANE/OI_ANE.html