From: owner-ane@ (ANE Digest) To: ane-digest Subject: ANE Digest V2000 #15 Reply-To: Sender: owner-ane@ Errors-To: owner-ane@ Precedence: bulk ANE Digest Saturday, January 15 2000 Volume 2000 : Number 015 Re: ane Afro-Mashriqian PPS ane Redating the Dead Sea Scrolls Re: ane Redating the Dead Sea Scrolls ane Arabian History Re: ane Yehud and figurines ane Fw: Nebucadnezzer... ane Afro-Mashriqian PPS ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 10:54:34 +0100 From: Banyai@t-online.de (Banyai) Subject: Re: ane Afro-Mashriqian PPS I observed a formulation error in my previous mail: >BTW Kush=Joktan is a direct ancestor of biblical Noah in the same way, as >misteriously derived Gilgamesh of Uruk himself in last instance from >Ut-Napishtim, the babylonian Noah. Of course is direct descendant meant and not ancestor of Noah. But this is not the main ground, why I come back on my words. Following kept me thinking: >Probably anyway is the name of Kush in both lists but an error and the sentence >refered previously to Enmer-Kar/Nimrud, first Sumerian king of Uruk, builder of >Uruk, who divided the empire of Kush/Kash. Since the dynasty of Kish is the >first dynasty after the flood, on which the first dyn. of Uruk followed, would >such a supposition make sense. and >An explication of the first part of his name, Meskiag-´, hero dividing the >world, would give the following misterious sentence:"Meskiag-Kash(er) came over >the sea and settled in the mountain...", pertaining to the arrival of the >Sumerians into Babylonia? >The parallel runs still further (this is now my conjecture): >appart of the Sumerian Meskiag-Kasher (who divided the world) there is also in >Genesis X,25 a Peleg during whom the world was divided. I do not any more see a reference to the arrival of the Sumerians to Babylonia. In fact are both Meskiag (hero dividing the earth) and Peleg (during whom the earth was divided) but foreign glosses to the word Kash(er) respectively Kush. I´ll go in detail. The Babylonian kings-list was made up of heterogenous dynastic lists: one of them dealt in short with dynasty 1 of Kish and on large with dyn. 1 of Uruk in following form. first Dyn. of Kish=Kash(er) meaning hero who divided the earth because he came over the sea and settled in the mountain than a kings list of dyn. 1 Uruk. As this list was later colated with others, among them a complete 1-st dyn. of Kish list, got this little gloss catched at wrong place. In the same way is Peleg an imaginary name, in fact a hebrew gloss for his alleged brother Kush/Joktan. BTW Joktan is the same, probably as Qatan father of Yarob of the Arabian genealogies. Since Kash(er)/Kush ought be a word in the dialect of Kish, which proved to be semitic, we have to see if there is any possibility to read in it something like separate/divide in a semitic language. We find a gloss in el-Massoudi "Le livre de l´avertissement": "Le nom de Khozáa vient de ce que cette tribu se sépara,..., emigrant de Marib..." and just before "Amr...sortit de Marib a la téte des tribus de Gassan". We see this tribe, whose name is derived from to separate, divide, called in two variants Khozáa and Gassan. We see the names Kush (Numeri XII were the wife of Moses is called Kushite instead of Midianite, or 2 Samuel XVIII, 21, Joab is sending a Kushite as messenger, while being in the plain of Midian), Kushan (Habakuk III,7) as alternative names for Midian. Probably has Kush/Kushan a larger meaning than Midian. Thus probably the arabic Khozaa/Gassan roughly corresponds linguistically the hebrew Kush/Kushan. This was the object of the independent sumerian and hebrew glosses... Have we come to an end? Best regards, Banyai Michael Leonberg Banyai@t-online.de ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 12:21:23 +0100 From: Greg Doudna Subject: ane Redating the Dead Sea Scrolls In response to Mark Hall, the radiocarbon dates are very much to the point. Prior to 1991 there was no sound basis underlying the unanimous 1st century CE Qumran text deposit date assumptions. There was a story surrounding the First Revolt which seemed plausible, but the strength of the construction was not stronger than the appeal of the story. There was no actual evidence underlying the construction. In 1991 and 1995 two of the best radiocarbon facilities in the world, at Zurich and Tucson, published datings on a total of 19 Qumran texts. Five of these 19 gave datings whose entire two-sigma ranges were entirely post-63 BCE, at 95% confidence. The date on one of the texts, 4QpPsA, if accurate, would be evidence for the first time for Qumran text activity as late as the 1st century CE. In addition to the five clearly post-63 BCE datings, there were three others which were entirely post-63 BCE at one-sigma, or 68% confidence. And there were other datings whose ranges extend both before and after 63 BCE, and are therefore ambiguous and not useful in answering this question. (For an accurate radiocarbon dating does not tell when the true date is; it tells when the true date isn't.) That 3 of 19 texts are post-63 BCE at 68% confidence is not a particularly strong claim considering the total (19) dated. But the 5 which are entirely post-63 BCE at 95% confidence are strong claims, individually and cumulatively. It has seemed that this is clear evidence of post-63 BCE text activity. But it is not so simple. See the article by E. Boyd-Alkalay & E. Libman, "Preserving the Dead Sea Scrolls and Qumran Artifacts" in P. Flint & J. Vanderkam, eds., _The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years_, vol. I, Leiden: Brill, 1998, pp. 535-544. Boyd-Alkalay and Libman work for the Israel Antiquities Authority doing conservation on the scrolls and report a series of massive exposures to largely modern-carbon-bearing contaminants over the past fifty years (for the purpose of preserving and conserving the fragments). These exposures were not sporadic or selective but indeed massive covering entire surface areas in many if not "all" cases. THE critical issue--and this is the issue--is whether the reported lab pretreatments on the Qumran text samples conducted by the Zurich and Tucson labs were sufficient to remove these contaminants, if any had been present to begin with. For if modern carbon-bearing contaminants were both undetected and unremoved, a radiocarbon dating which is inaccurately "modern" by some factor would be produced. That is the basic issue. To be very explicit, I do not claim the post-63 BCE radiocarbon dates are wrong. I simply claim that we cannot, on the basis of present information, in confidence trust that they are right. In 2 of the 19 Qumran texts dated in the two batteries, 4QTQahat and the first sample of 4QS(d), problems with sample contamination, which the pretreatments of the respective labs, Zurich and Tucson, were not able to defeat, are considered so likely that few dispute those two datings were affected by contamination. Yet the logic has been that the remaining 17 can be considered individually reliable, simply because there is not evidence that they aren't (as there is suggesting 4QTQahat and 4QS(d) #1 is erroneous). It is a general problem in the Qumran field, as in ancient history in general, that sweeping conclusions are often leapt to on the basis of insecure and tenuous underlying data. Radiocarbon has a mystique, partly deserved. I am a believer in the method, and furthermore there are radiocarbon labs right now working on solving these problems. The issue of pretreatment and cleaning of samples in order to ensure reliable individual Qumran text datings is a technical issue that is solvable. If there have been problems in the first two batteries--possible problems perhaps might be the more nuanced wording--however unfortunate this is we need to find out now and correct them. In the meantime, the existing data may not be as secure as it was first billed. I add that this is not a criticism of the two labs involved; they gave their best routine procedures to the Scrolls. Unfortunately the Scrolls are possibly an extraordinary case due to the extent and scale of the contaminants applied to the fragments, and the best routine procedures may not have been good enough. Yet there is research underway designed to establish reliable procedures capable of ensuring individually reliable text datings. Whatever the problems in radiocarbon dating, there is no other scientific means in existence capable of precision dating of the Qumran texts, and there is no other alternative than to find solutions to any problems and move forward with continued batteries on the Qumran texts. Therefore I do not "reject" the existing C14 data. I am simply not willing to "accept" it, in the case of the post-63 BCE datings, in the absence of further understanding of this data. There is a third category which is neither rejection (cause to presume data is false) nor acceptance (cause to presume data is true), but rather "uncertain". One cannot base sweeping, mega-scale historical conclusions on "uncertain" data. This is simply basic. The burden of proof is on the establishment of text activity or dates of deposit in the caves later than the latest internal historical allusions in the Qumran texts, which go up to c. 63 BCE, at the time of the first Roman invasion. See the discussion in my article in _Qumran Chronicle_ out in the next couple of weeks. Greg Doudna Copenhagen > While I've yet to read your article, a pretty thorough review of the C14 > evidence > has appeared in RADIOCARBON Vol. 41, No. 2 in the article by Rodley, et. > al. It reviews > both the Zurich and Arizona dates. Out of the 8-10 published dates, only > 4Q267 would support the 63 BCE dating you propose. All the rest would > support a dating post 20 BCE, and most would support a dating of 1 CE to > 60 CE. > > I don't see how you can dismiss over 8 C14 dates done by two different > labs..... > > Just my two yen's worth for today, > Mark Hall > mhall@rekihaku.ac.jp > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 07:16:45 -0500 From: Stephen Goranson Subject: Re: ane Redating the Dead Sea Scrolls Greg Doudna wrote that "One cannot base sweeping, mega-scale historical conclusions on 'uncertain' data. This is simply basic." Well, then, how might one characterize Doudna's advocacy of the proposal made by Ian Hutchesson (who has posted under false identities on this and other lists) that all 900 or so Qumran mss were deposited in 63 BCE, proposed despite strong counterindications from C14 measurements, paleography, Qumran archaeology, a Qumran Essene Herodian deed of gift, Qumran text criticism, proposed post-63 historical references in the texts, and Essene history? Stephen Goranson goranson@dke.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 08:37:51 EST From: Brianscout@aol.com Subject: ane Arabian History Is there anyone who could inform me of some good Arabian history sites? Brian ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 12:10:28 -0500 From: "Richard Stern" Subject: Re: ane Yehud and figurines Could one of you please summarize for the rest of us (who have difficulty getting hold of 1989 issues of BAR) what happened to the cult figurines after all heterodoxy was stamped out (if it was) in 500 BCE? ======================================= 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 ======================================= >>> 01/12 1:17 PM >>> 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: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 16:18:45 -0000 From: "Mikey" Subject: ane Fw: Nebucadnezzer... This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_01B2_01BF5EAB.0873F960 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Nebucadnezzer...Can anyone help this person out regarding websites = discussing this Babylonian leader? Cheers, Michael Brass, Archaeology BA (Hons), University of Cape Town History BA, UCT, Member: The Egyptian Society of South Africa The Archaeological Society of South Africa URL: co-owner (with Frankie [Francesca] Jourdan) of "Ancient Egypt and = World Prehistory" - ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Kevin Haynes=20 To: ancient_wisdom@lists.io.com=20 Sent: Friday, January 14, 2000 9:40 AM Subject: Nebucadnezzer... Hi All, Does anyone have any information/insights concerning the Babylonian/Summerian (unsure which) ruler Nebucadnezzer... whether historical, mythical, biblical, or anecdotal...??? Kevin - ------=_NextPart_000_01B2_01BF5EAB.0873F960 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Nebucadnezzer...
Can anyone help this person out = regarding websites=20 discussing this Babylonian leader?
 
Cheers,
Michael Brass,
Archaeology BA = (Hons), University=20 of Cape Town
History BA, UCT,
Member: The Egyptian Society of = South=20 Africa
          &nb= sp;   =20 The Archaeological Society of South Africa
URL: co-owner (with = Frankie=20 [Francesca] Jourdan) of "Ancient Egypt and World Prehistory" <http://users.iafrica.com/m/= mi/mikeyb>
 
 
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Kevin Haynes =
Sent: Friday, January 14, 2000 9:40 AM
Subject: Nebucadnezzer...

Hi All,

Does anyone have any information/insights=20 concerning the
Babylonian/Summerian (unsure which) ruler = Nebucadnezzer...=20 whether
historical, mythical, biblical, or=20 anecdotal...???

Kevin - ------=_NextPart_000_01B2_01BF5EAB.0873F960-- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 22:59:39 -0500 From: nyokabi@kingcon.com Subject: ane Afro-Mashriqian PPS grammatim@worldnet.att.net wrote: >nyokabi@kingcon.com wrote: >> >> 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. >> > [P.D.] >> >It's rather unlikely that s/he was aware of any Chadic language, or >> >even Omotic, Cushitic, or Berber. >> >- -- [E.A.] >> Excuse me, I shouldn't have said "exactly". >[P.D.] >Exactly. [E.A.] >> 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. >[P.D.] >Incorrect. What has been called Omotic since ca. 1970 was previously >considered part of Cushitic (and Greenberg claims that in 1955 he >simply lacked the courage to make it a separate family!); >and M. Cohen (1948), e.g., discusses why he excludes Hausa from his >chamito-sémitique. (For that matter, in the opening pages of GVG, >Brockelmann discusses why he doesn't include Hausa material for >comparison; Zimmern (1898) *does* when he has any.) [E.A.] Right, thanks for the correction. Fleming's "Omotic overview" in Bender, 1976, says that the arguments about it began in 1845. I should have said "before the final acceptance of Omotic and Chadic as separate branches". According to the Ency Brit. 1973 "African Languages", vol 1, p 312: "On the other hand Hausa in W Africa and numerous less important languages of the same general area are now acknowleged, following the investigations of Lukas and Greenberg to form an additional Chadic branch of Hamito-Semitic." (It also of course dates to Greenberg the rejection of "Nilo-Hamitic", E and S Nilotic, from the status of bastard relatives of Hamito-Semitic to that of totally rejected non-members.) Greenberg, in commenting on his own role in this matter in the intro to his chapter on Afroasiatic languages (in his Langs. of Africa,1963) points out that "Lepsius in 1863 put Hausa in the same Hamitic group as Berber" and that in 1866 F Mueller declared Musgu to be be Hamitic. He gives Lukas the credit for first (1936 & 1938) pointing "to an entire group of languages which he calls Chad-Hamitic and which includes Hausa and Musgu along with a number of other languages in this area." Greenberg then goes on to summarize his own role in finally resolving this matter: "Up to now Hausa forms have been cited in isolation and without much consideration of the other languages in the area to which Hausa is clearly related.... The bringing in of other languages of the Lake Chad area greatly strengthens the case for the entire group of languges as forming a branch of Hamito-Semitic... The Chad family is, in my opinion, more extensive than that outlined by Lukas in his various discussions. Here once again we meet the typological thinking which has produced such confusion in regard to linguistic relationships in Africa. Lukas excludes languages which do not have sex gender. Thus Mubi is considered to be Chad because it has a gender system, while the other closely related languages of the eastern subgroup are rejected." So whether one credits the final seal of approval on a separate Chadic branch to Lukas in the late 30's or to Greenberg in the 60's, I still think it fair to say that "in the early decades of this century" Hamito-Semitic did not mean "exactly" what it means today . Hausa was either stuck into a branch with Berber or left hanging there isolated, with only one or two of its 150 or so relatives, rather like Put hangs isolated and childless in the schema of the Taanakh author. And at that time there was no outlying divergent Omotic branch against whom the other five branches were suggested by Bender to constitute a unity. Ehret in Hess, ed,(1979) Proc of 5th Internat Conf on Ethiop. Studies, chart p 61 upheld Bender's classification and labelled the non-Omotic branch Erythraic, resurrecting Reinisch's 1873 term in a slightly altered application. Ehret's Erythraic actually consisted of only three families, as he considered Egyptian-Semitic-Berber to be one family, "Northern Afroasiatic". He judged those three to be as close in percentage of isoglosses as are the various branches of Cushitic and therefore as qualified to be a single "genetic subgroup". With one swipe he unceremoniously erased those three hoary "Northern" names from even appearing on the now simplified family chart on p 61. Did he later recant of this classification? It seems to have sunk into oblivion. To bad he didn't dare come up with a more colorful, less politically correct name than "Northern", such as Gebitic! or Belosic! or Hamitic! One final twist: Phut of the Taanakh once seems to be rendered as Pul (Isaiah 66/19 cf Ezekiel 27/10), and thus the early literature on Africa included suggestions of an identification with the Fulani for the archers of Pul. At the same time there were many who were certain that the Fulani were "Hamites" or "Afro-Berbers" both because of their phenotypical variation from their darker West African neighbors and because their language seemed to be so aberrant from its neighbors as to defy classification. I think this is one more "membership question" which Greenberg finally laid to rest by demonstrating the Niger-Kongo West Atlantic affiliation of Fulani. (BTW this position had already been taken 8 years earlier by CA Diop in 1955 in Nations Negres et Culture who stressed the relationship of Peul, Wolof, and Serer.) E. Adams ------------------------------ End of ANE Digest V2000 #15 *************************** Back issues are available on the Oriental Institute World-Wide Web (WWW) site at: http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/ANE/OI_ANE.html