From: owner-ane@ (ANE Digest) To: ane-digest Subject: ANE Digest V2000 #24 Reply-To: Sender: owner-ane@ Errors-To: owner-ane@ Precedence: bulk ANE Digest Monday, January 24 2000 Volume 2000 : Number 024 Re: ane Redating the Qumran scroll deposits Re: ane Redating the Qumran scroll deposits ane Redating the Qumran scroll deposits RE: ane Redating the Qumran scroll deposits ane Urukagina, Ishtar/Inanna and tar(a) Etymologies? Re: ane Urukagina, Ishtar/Inanna and tar(a) Etymologies? Fw: ane Re: Legend vs. History: the chronological aspect ane Redating the Qumran scroll deposits Re: ane Urukagina, Ishtar/Inanna and tar(a) Etymologies? Re: ane Ziggurat and the step pyramid of Saqqara Re: ane Urukagina, Ishtar/Inanna and tar(a) Etymologies? Re: ane Urukagina, Ishtar/Inanna and tar(a) Etymologies? Re: ane Redating the Qumran scroll deposits ane Urukagina, Ishtar/Inanna, etc... Re: ane Shishak Re: ane Shishak ane Inanna ane Ishtar, etc. Re: ane Redating the Qumran scroll deposits Re: ane Redating the Qumran scroll deposits Re: ane Redating the Qumran scroll deposits ane Shishak the assaulter Re: ane Urukagina, Ishtar/Inanna and tar(a) Etymologies? ane Horses in Mesopotamia ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 07:26:24 -0400 From: "Peter T. Daniels" Subject: Re: ane Redating the Qumran scroll deposits > >> OK. I have followed it for well over three years. Do you think Greg should > >> not defend himself? > > > >He should defend his position without resorting to ad hominem attacks, > > Sorry, Peter, What ad hominem attacks?? I delete messages after reading them (or not), so I cannot provide quotes. > This is true in itself -- at least in my experience --, yet the problem of > lack of sufficient exemplars is a grave problem, for one cannot know the > temporal extent of usage of a script nor the overlap with others. At the If, as at Elephantine, we have documents written by the same person over several decades, we don't need a large number of them to see the lack of change over his career. > same time the various scripts have been given names that place them in a > period notwithstanding the fact that such placement is still up for grabs. The relative sequence of the forms is fairly self-evident, and I don't know that the order in which Cross presented them in BANE (1961) has been challenged. Is there sufficient time for all the observed changes to have happened before "63 BCE"? We probably can't know. > Does one normally call a palaeographic script by names such as Herodian or > Hasmonean? I don't know about "one," but Cross used those names, so they are the labels for what he identified as styles. They seem legitimate for labeling generations or even centuries. - -- Peter T. Daniels grammatim@worldnet.att.net ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 15:27:26 +0100 From: Ian Hutchesson Subject: Re: ane Redating the Qumran scroll deposits At 07.26 23/01/00 -0400, Peter T. Daniels wrote: >> >> OK. I have followed it for well over three years. Do you think Greg should >> >> not defend himself? >> > >> >He should defend his position without resorting to ad hominem attacks, >> >> Sorry, Peter, What ad hominem attacks?? > >I delete messages after reading them (or not), so I cannot provide >quotes. Better not said then. >> This is true in itself -- at least in my experience --, yet the problem of >> lack of sufficient exemplars is a grave problem, for one cannot know the >> temporal extent of usage of a script nor the overlap with others. At the > >If, as at Elephantine, we have documents written by the same person over >several decades, we don't need a large number of them to see the lack of >change over his career. I'm not up with the full range of texts from Elephantine, though I have noticed -- at least with the Mibtahiah related documents -- that scribes were consistently used and mentioned because these were local legal documents, which required it be part of the text. With other documents from Elephantine such a requirement may not have been necessary. But I would definitely like to hear more on the subject, so any thoughts you have there would be greatly appreciated. >> same time the various scripts have been given names that place them in a >> period notwithstanding the fact that such placement is still up for grabs. > >The relative sequence of the forms is fairly self-evident, and I don't >know that the order in which Cross presented them in BANE (1961) has >been challenged. Is there sufficient time for all the observed changes >to have happened before "63 BCE"? We probably can't know. Agreed. >> Does one normally call a palaeographic script by names such as Herodian or >> Hasmonean? > >I don't know about "one," but Cross used those names, so they are the >labels for what he identified as styles. They seem legitimate for >labeling generations or even centuries. Calling a script Herodian places it -- at least in conceptual space -- after 37 BCE, even though we don't know when the style first emerged. Scholars have used the script labels as indications of absolute dating of the texts. This is unjustified. Cheers, Ian Ian Hutchesson mc2499@mclink.it http://www.geocities.com/Paris/LeftBank/5210/dss.htm ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 09:38:32 EST From: Virgbrown1@aol.com Subject: ane Redating the Qumran scroll deposits Ian, Two objections that I have raised are that some of the scrolls may be found in "Roman" jars and the dating of that patch that Greg mentions in his article in the Flint/ VanderKam volume. Both of these objections received responses. Greg and Fred Cryer responded that the dating of the jars by de Vaux just could not be right. And Greg responded to my query about the patch by pointing out that if I considered the two sigma range, there should be no problem dating it to a time before 63 BCE. Last time I looked, Jodi Magness upheld the dating of the jars. And although Greg has done far more work on C-14 dating than I have, his response seems to me to be a contri- vance designed to make the dating match the pre-63 BCE theory. Hopefully this topic will have a limited life on ANE. Best, Virgil ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 10:26:53 -0500 From: "David C. Hindley" Subject: RE: ane Redating the Qumran scroll deposits On 1/22/00 Peter T. Daniels said: >>It follows from the exchange between [S. Goranson and G. Doudna] over the last couple of days [that both have engaged in ad hominum attacks]. It hasn't been particularly civil on either side.<< Ever since I subscribed to the Orion and Ioudaios lists just over a year ago I have been encountering these attacks on Doudna (and not just coming from S. Goranson). Most have questioned his scholarship (e.g., comments like "do I have to do your homework for you?" etc) or ridiculed his background in order to discredit him. It is clear that most of these attackers do not like the positions he adheres to, but IMO I find the practice of attacking him on a personal level to be beneath the dignity of scholars of their rank. Doudna, I suppose, should not take these things so personally, but I really have not seen him do anything other than defend himself by pointing out that attacks on the person do not logically invalidate the person's argument. Is pointing that out what makes his replies "ad hominum?" C'mon... >>[U]ntil someone comes up with a stela or something saying something like "I conquered Qumran in Year x," the assignment of such a specific date [i.e., 63 BCE] is questionable. Certainly paleography gets you no closer than a generation (see my very first journal article, in JNES 1984).<< But you have made this statement on the assumption that the dating was based on paleography. Ian, I know, does not base his dating of 64 BCE (instead of the more common 62 BCE) on paleography at all, but on the reference to AEmilius Scaurus in MishC (4Q323-4) in relation to a datable event earlier in the same document concerning queen Salome Zion. In other words, it dates the event to Pompey's siege of Jerusalem in 64 BCE, in which AEmilius took part, rather than to an act of AEmilius after he became governor of Syria. Hutchesson's "[E]ssay proposing an early date for the depositation of the scrolls" is located at: http://www.geocities.com/Paris/LeftBank/5210/mismarot.htm Personally I think Hutchesson (and by extension, Doudna) makes a prima facie case for dating this document to circa 64 BCE. However, I think it is a great leap for them (Doudna and Hutchesson) to propose that ALL (or the greater part) of the Qumran documents were deposited immediately after this last datable event. This is where the paleography and c14 evidence comes into play. If one were to ask me, the dating of 4Q323-4 and the deposit date for the scrolls are two different issues entirely. Regards, Dave Hindley Cleveland, Ohio, USA A non-academic whose opinion on this matter can safely be ignored, except when seen as a reflection on what is going on in academia, in which case it should not be ignored. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 16:45:27 +0100 From: dima_01@t-online.de (Dieter Maurer) Subject: ane Urukagina, Ishtar/Inanna and tar(a) Etymologies? 1) What is the origin and meaning of the Sumerian king's name Urukagina? Is there any linguistic evidence for the resemblance with the Hebrew word "kohen" (priest), arab. "kahuna" ( to reveal), "kâhin" (priest, fortuneteller) and maybe even with the name of the Altai "Kachin" Shamans or the Burmese "Kachin" tribe? 2) What is the etymology of the Sumerian/Akkadian goddess Innana/Ishtar. Is tar (e.g in Ishtar, Astara, Namtar) somehow related to the Hindu and Buddhist goddesses Tara and other Indo words like "Avatara", arab. "tara" (to fly) and numerous tar(a)s in many different languages (eg. Ural Altaic Numtara)? Tar(a) is often associated with flying or stretching over, to descent, to come down and it is found worldwide also in traditional names of birds. Is there also a linguistic link to english "star" and the word "cataract" (a place where water is coming down)? 3) Can the widely spread goddess names Ina, Hina etc. be associated with the Sumerian Inanna? _____________________________ Dieter E. Maurer Nuernberg, Germany ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 18:45:12 +0200 (IST) From: avigdor horovitz Subject: Re: ane Urukagina, Ishtar/Inanna and tar(a) Etymologies? Dear Dieter, Unless someone says differently, I must dissapoint you and tellyou that UruKAgina no longer exists. The name is pronounced Uruinimgina. I don't know whether the Sumerologists are still arguing about it, but Uruinimgina is the form used in teh Pennsylvania Sumerian Dictionary. So forget any relationship with kohen and all the rest. Victor On Sun, 23 Jan 2000, Dieter Maurer wrote: > 1) What is the origin and meaning of the Sumerian king's name > Urukagina? > Is there any linguistic evidence for the resemblance with the > Hebrew word "kohen" (priest), arab. "kahuna" ( to reveal), > "kâhin" (priest, fortuneteller) and maybe even with the > name of the Altai "Kachin" Shamans or the Burmese "Kachin" tribe? > 2) What is the etymology of the Sumerian/Akkadian goddess > Innana/Ishtar. > Is tar (e.g in Ishtar, Astara, Namtar) somehow related to the > Hindu and Buddhist goddesses Tara and other Indo words like > "Avatara", arab. "tara" (to fly) and numerous tar(a)s in many > different languages (eg. Ural Altaic Numtara)? > Tar(a) is often associated with flying or stretching over, > to descent, to come down and it is found worldwide also in > traditional names of birds. > Is there also a linguistic link to english "star" and the word > "cataract" (a place where water is coming down)? > 3) Can the widely spread goddess names Ina, Hina etc. be associated > with the Sumerian Inanna? > _____________________________ > > Dieter E. Maurer > Nuernberg, Germany > > ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 09:00:56 -0800 From: "Chris Bennett" Subject: Fw: ane Re: Legend vs. History: the chronological aspect This message accidentally sent to Don without a Cc to ANE -- Chris - ----- Original Message ----- From: Chris Bennett To: Don Mills Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2000 8:58 AM Subject: Re: ane Re: Legend vs. History: the chronological aspect > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Don Mills > To: ANE List > Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2000 11:36 PM > Subject: Re: ane Re: Legend vs. History: the chronological aspect > > > > Regarding the equation of "Shishak" with "Sheshonq 1", Chris Bennett > wrote: > > ---------- > > |The phonetic equivalence seems reasonable of itself (or if not why not?) > > > > With this judgement ("reasonable") I must concur. However, many of > Immanuel > > Velikovsky's most beguiling historical reconstructions depended on > phonetic > > equivalences that were as good or better. But the > > example serves (like Frank Clancy's rereading of the Bubastite Portal > > toponyms referred to recently by John Bimson) to remind us of how frail > > phonetic equivalences may be. > > Agreed, and personally I find the whole line of argument about missing 'n's, > and whether 'Sessi' could be pronounced 'Sheshi' and where the 'k' might > come from, yadda yadda yadda, completely sterile. I'm perfectly happy to > concede, _for_the_sake_of_argument_ that 'Shishak' might _also_ be > derivable from 'Sessi', and leave the details to the linguistic > phonologists. As far as I am concerned, the proof of the pudding is in the > eating. > > Whichever equivalence you choose results in a proposed synchronism around > which one can then build a chronological reconstruction (or rather, a family > of reconstructions -- there is neither a single 'standard' chronology nor a > single 'new chronology'). The acid test is whether these reconstructions > work -- do they explain the data? Do they accommodate new data? The > central argument of CoD was that 'standard models' do not work because they > create gaps everywhere else in the Mediterranean that are not otherwise > necessary, i.e. its an objection based on the absence of data. But the > standard models are based on a great mass of actual data, most notably the > TIP genealogies, and while there are certainly some issues at the margins -- > leading to variations and refinements in the model -- the results seems to > be internally coherent and consistent. Unless there is a major flaw in our > understanding of the source material, it appears to me that the same cannot > be said of the alternate models. > > It may well be that Champollion made a lucky guess in the infancy of the > science, based on reasoning that today we would consider flawed and > indequate. If he submitted it to peer review today he might well be forced > to consider, analyse and show grounds to reject alternatives such as the > various Ramessids before he convinced the community. But that's just not > the way it happened. His guess appeared to work then, and with the vast > accumulation of data we have acquired in the interim, it still appears to > work. > > Chris > ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 18:09:05 +0100 From: Greg Doudna Subject: ane Redating the Qumran scroll deposits To P. Daniels, the date "63 BCE" refers of course to the accepted date of the Roman arrival under Pompey, and I use it as a sort of shorthand for that. In most cases I have a "c." before 63 BCE in my publication; if I do not, I intend a "c." to be understood. Many lines appear to point to the political event of the arrival of Pompey as the pivotal watershed, and "63 BCE" becomes a shorthand way of referring to this as the chronological terminus or a way of naming the theory. I would not a priori rule out a 55 BCE theory or a 65 BCE theory, both of which, to me, would be variants of the "63 BCE theory" since they are chronologically very close to it and likely integrally related to the same Roman arrival. But the arrival of Pompey itself--based on present, imperfect information-- seems to be the decisive watershed; that at least is the argument of Ian and myself. Can you suggest a better descriptive shorthand term? S. Goranson writes: > In part, the proposal appears to > arise from a false myth about Qumran scholarship and resentment of de > Vaux, > Cross, and others. > I deny that my argument for the 63 BCE theory arose from the myth about Qumran scholarship described earlier by Goranson on ane, or resentment of de Vaux, Cross, or others. This is a misunderstanding with no basis in anything I have published, and it is not accurate. In the QC article I make very clear my basis for the proposal. > In part, as Doudna has narrated it, the proposal came > from a thought that occurred to him while he was at Cornell: that Cornell > (assuming, I suppose, imagining that it were destroyed by war) remarkably > resembled Qumran, in that books dating from right before the destruction > must be most numerous. Well, dear ane readers, just how similar would you > say Cornell and Qumran are? > This is wholly wrong. I have never narrated any such thing as described here, whether in print or on the internet or in any private conversation. > At > http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il , then Papers and Abstracts: Doudna, one can > read Doudna's Hebrew/Aramaic paleography argument (though note that the > characterization of Gezer archaeology publication is mistaken). Readers > can > decide for themselves whether it is persuasive. > There is no such paper posted from me on that web page. (There was a draft a while ago put up for discussion for the orion list.) I can see no mistaken characterization of the Gezer archaeology publication in my discussion of palaeography in in QC. If there is of course I would like to know. > Here is a sample of proposed Qumran post-63 allusions. (Remember, > Qumran texts make few clear historical allusions.) It is from M. O. Wise, > See the discussion of 1QpHab and 4QpNah and the issue of "ex eventu" prophecy in the QC article. > It is true, as Doudna wrote, that I have not yet endorsed all these > identifications. Yet are not these--and other publications of proposed > post-63 Qumran text allusions, some of them made by respected scholars in > peer-reviewed scholarly publications--worthy of consideration? > Truly they are worthy of consideration, case by case. In QC I have offered my considerations on most of the points named. These proposals might legitimately be regarded as "leads" or possibilities for falsification of the 63 BCE theory, and therefore useful on that basis. The question is whether any of the proposals hold up. Goranson has not yet embraced any of them. Here I agree with Goranson, for I have not yet seen a post-63 BCE allusion proposal which has convinced me either. To the list: I am sorry if this became more polemical than discussion ought to be. I originally meant to simply notify of Ian's publication, and also mine, and perhaps draw some fruitful discussion on the basis of those publications. But perhaps this is not the best forum for that, at least for now. Greg Doudna Copenhagen ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 19:03:19 +0100 From: "John T. Cunningham" Subject: Re: ane Urukagina, Ishtar/Inanna and tar(a) Etymologies? Dieter I am certainly no expert, but in response to 2) below, I have seen an etymology for Innana of "nin-anna," "Lady of Heaven." But, there seems to be a strong feeling among the experts that the names of Sumerian gods are in fact pre-Sumerian, perhaps like the names of the cities, and were eventually given suitable Sumerian etymologies by priests/scholars. Regards John near Stuttgart, Germany Dieter Maurer wrote: > 1) What is the origin and meaning of the Sumerian king's name > Urukagina? > Is there any linguistic evidence for the resemblance with the > Hebrew word "kohen" (priest), arab. "kahuna" ( to reveal), > "kâhin" (priest, fortuneteller) and maybe even with the > name of the Altai "Kachin" Shamans or the Burmese "Kachin" tribe? > 2) What is the etymology of the Sumerian/Akkadian goddess > Innana/Ishtar. > Is tar (e.g in Ishtar, Astara, Namtar) somehow related to the > Hindu and Buddhist goddesses Tara and other Indo words like > "Avatara", arab. "tara" (to fly) and numerous tar(a)s in many > different languages (eg. Ural Altaic Numtara)? > Tar(a) is often associated with flying or stretching over, > to descent, to come down and it is found worldwide also in > traditional names of birds. > Is there also a linguistic link to english "star" and the word > "cataract" (a place where water is coming down)? > 3) Can the widely spread goddess names Ina, Hina etc. be associated > with the Sumerian Inanna? > _____________________________ > > Dieter E. Maurer > Nuernberg, Germany > ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 13:09:33 -0500 (EST) From: Mata Kimasitayo Subject: Re: ane Ziggurat and the step pyramid of Saqqara ziggurat. assyr. ziqquratu = pennacle. related to zaqrum = high, tizqarum = high, exalted? (see i j gelb, >>glossary of old akkadian<< (1957), sub ZQR (p 309)). mata On Sat, 22 Jan 2000, Thérèse Ghembaza wrote: > Dear linguists of the ANE list , > > Considering the step pyramid of Djoser I found that the word Saqqara looks > like the word ziggurat... > What is the etymology of "ziggurat" in mesopotamian language ? > What is the etymology of "Saqqara"? in arabian language ? > Thanking you for your help. > > Thérèse Ghembaza > Paris, France > mata kimasitayo slreview@falstaff.ucs.indiana.edu -=+-=+-=+-=+-=+-=+-=+-=+-=+-=+-=+-=+-=+ >> nemo cum sarcinis enatat << -- seneca (epist. mor., xxii, par 12) -=+-=+-=+-=+-=+-=+-=+-=+-=+-=+-=+-=+-=+ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 20:02:32 +0100 From: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal Subject: Re: ane Urukagina, Ishtar/Inanna and tar(a) Etymologies? avigdor horovitz wrote: >Dear Dieter, >Unless someone says differently, I must dissapoint you and tellyou that >UruKAgina no longer exists. The name is pronounced Uruinimgina. I don't >know whether the Sumerologists are still arguing about it, but >Uruinimgina is the form used in teh Pennsylvania Sumerian Dictionary. So >forget any relationship with kohen and all the rest. What does mean? ======================= Miguel Carrasquer Vidal mcv@wxs.nl ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 13:43:32 -0600 (CST) From: Giuseppe Del Monte Subject: Re: ane Urukagina, Ishtar/Inanna and tar(a) Etymologies? The reading uru-inim-gi-na of the name written uru-KA-gi-na was proposed by W. Lambert in Orientalia 39 (1970) p. 419 and I still adhere to it in my lessons, even if in the textbook for my students (M. Liverani, Antico Oriente) he is named traditionally Urukagina. It must be stressed, however, that there is no real consensus about the reading: D.O. Edzard in the volume in honor of Miguel Civil, Sabadell (1991) (I'm quoting by heart) pleads a reading Irikagina. Best wishes, Giuseppe Del Monte At 18.45 23/01/2000 +0200, avigdor horovitz at wrote: >Dear Dieter, >Unless someone says differently, I must dissapoint you and tellyou that >UruKAgina no longer exists. The name is pronounced Uruinimgina. I don't >know whether the Sumerologists are still arguing about it, but >Uruinimgina is the form used in teh Pennsylvania Sumerian Dictionary. So >forget any relationship with kohen and all the rest. >Victor - -------------- Prof. Dr. Giuseppe del Monte Cattedra di Storia del Vicino Oriente antico Dpt. Scienze storiche del mondo antico Università di Pisa via Galvani 1 - I-56100 Pisa Fax 39-050-500668 - E-mail delmonte@lunet.it ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 22:02:53 +0100 From: Ian Hutchesson Subject: Re: ane Redating the Qumran scroll deposits There is one thing in Doctor Goranson's last post that I would like to deal with: >That Pliny's source M. Agrippa, among other evidence, locates Essenes at >Qumran in the time of Herod the Great has been argued in detail. See: >http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il/orion/programs/Goranson98.html >(and further bibliography in later posts). Doctor Goranson's article unfortunately does not deal with the most urgent problem of the Pliny text, that is, how it places the Essenes at Qumran, but he assumes that the text supports his position. While he looks at numerous phrases in N.H. 5.73, he does not deal with the key phraseology behind the location of the Essenes at Qumran which is actually based on the use of a single word -- translated without sufficient contextual justification -- to support an a priori assumption that the text refers to Qumran. This a priori approach to the text is typified in Roland de Vaux's "Archaeology and the Dead Sea Scrolls" (Oxford, '73), pp 134-135. First he eliminates the more obvious reading "below them [the Essenes] was the town of Engada" ("infra hos Engada oppidum fuit"), by taking the space to show that there was nothing known to be above En Gedi. (However, with the recent excavations of Yizhar Hirschfeld, a small village of numerous single person habitations has been found above En Gedi.) De Vaux then tells us that the key word "infra" can mean "to the south of" or "down stream". (It also has other meanings, such as "below" and "within".) Referring to "to the south of", de Vaux writes, "If this usage is contested, we still have the frequent use of the term infra in the sense "down stream of" in relation to a valley or a river." De Vaux is covering his bets and showing that his interest is in justifying his use of "infra hos Engada oppidum fuit" to place the Essenes at Qumran: "to the south of/down stream of them was the town of Engada". He is not talking about what the text says, but what he can get it to say, by hook or by crook. But if we examine the text under question we will find that neither translation of "infra" is satisfactory. If we read the text in context we see that Pliny describes the Jordan at the beginning of 5.72, saying how it flows into the Dead Sea (Asphaltitis). Leaving the Jordan he goes back and mentions some of the places in central Palestine before moving on in 5.72 to give more description of the sea and to deal with places on the east side of the Dead Sea, telling us that Machaerus, in the mountains of Moab, was the second strongest fortress in the land and that Callirrhoe's waters were beneficial. His description then crosses the sea to deal with the Essenes and other interests on the western shore. One can see that there can be no notion of "down stream" here, especially considering that we have crossed from the mountainous Machaerus down to and over the sea to En Gedi. We are not following the Jordan at all, so a notion of "down stream" cannot be justified. Further, when one used "infra" to mean "down stream", a conducting medium, a valley or river, is invariably close at hand. There doesn't seem to be anything in the text to suggest what En Gedi was "downstream of" -- the Jordan was finished with at the beginning of 5.71 so cannot be related as downstream, the Dead Sea does not allow the notion "down stream" at least from a reader's point of view, and there is no indication of any valley in the text --, so a translation of "infra" as "down stream" does not arise from the text, though without a context it is a possible reading. The suggestion of "south of" has even less credibility, when you think that the progress of Pliny's description follows the river south, then goes north again, then goes east, then goes west to arrive at where the Essenes were. Well, it could still mean "south of" although there is nothing in the text to suggest it. Yet, in his description of Judaea Pliny does actually use a term that means "south" -- twice -- in 5.71 "ab oriente Iuliade et Hippo, a meridie Tarichea..., ab occidente Tiberiade", and in 5.72 "ab oriente Arabia Nomadum, a meridie Machaerus". These are expressions that Pliny may be using from the source that Doctor Goranson hypothesizes, ie M. Vipsanius Agrippa, when he wants to refer to the south. So, not only are there no contextual clues for a reading of "infra" indicating "to the south of", but the writer already uses a word meaning "south" twice in the description of Judaea in which some would like "infra" to take on that meaning as well. (This reading of "infra" is that supported by James VanderKam, "Dead Sea Scrolls Today", p 72: "Some have argued that Pliny's words "lying below" [the Loeb's translation of "infra"] imply that the settlement should be sought on the hills above En-gedi, buthis words appear to mean "to the south of." Furthermore, these hills have no trace of communal occupation.") The only conclusion that I can come to is that, like de Vaux (and VanderKam), Doctor Goranson wants the text to mean what he would like it to rather than dealing with what Pliny actually says. However, without contextual clues, the simplest reading, the one that de Vaux attempted to discredit, ie that "infra" meant "below", should be strongly considered, especially given the existence of a communal settlement above En Gedi. The most conciliatory approach is that no-one can build a case either way on Pliny's passage, yet the "south of/down stream" reading of "infra" in N.H. 5.73 is a necessary condition of the Essene Hypothesis. Without "infra" being thus translated there is nothing substantial at all to link the Essenes with Qumran. I append the relevant part of Pliny below for anyone interested to see just what the full original passage on Judaea actually said. (Having the full context also helps clarify the significance of "nocent" as a description of the Dead Sea and allows us to see that the first half of the paragraph is quite different in style and interest from the rest.) There are in fact other problems with the usage of N.H. 5.73 to apply to Qumran, but the most essential one, which I have attempted to focus on here, is that there is no way to justify what James VanderKam describes as "seemingly clear testimony" (p 73). I once said to Doctor Goranson that without the "special" reading of this passage there is no hope of sustaining the Essene Hypothesis, "no Pliny, no Essenes". The proposal of Essenes at Qumran hangs on the dubious translation of one word. Would any of the Latinists on the list care to take the risk of supporting the necessary interpretation of "infra" here? Yours, Ian Ian Hutchesson mc2499@mclink.it http://www.geocities.com/Paris/LeftBank/5210/dss.htm N.H. 5.71 - 73 71. Iordanes amnis oritur e fonte Paneade, qui cognomen dedit Caesareae, de qua dicemus. amnis amoenus et, quatenus locorum situs patitur, ambitiosus accolisque se praebens velut invitus Asphaltiten lacum dirum natura petit, a quo postremo ebibitur aquasque laudatas perdit, pestilentibus mixtas. ergo ubi prima convallium fuit occasio, in lacum se fundti, quem plures Genesarem vocant, XVI p. longitudinis, VI latitudinis, amoenis circumsaeptum oppidis, ab oriente Iuliade et Hippo, a meridie Tarichea, quo nomine aliqui et lacum appellant, ab occidente Tiberiade, aquis calidis salubri. 72. Asphaltites nihil praeter bitumen gignit, unde et nomen. nullum corpus animalium recipit, tauri camelique fluitant; inde fama nihil in eo mergi. longitudine excedit C p., latitudine maxima LXXV implet, minima VI. prospicit eum ab oriente Arabia Nomadum, a meridie Machaerus, secunda quondam arx Iudaeae ab Hierosolymis. eodem latere est calidus fons medicae salubritatis Callirrhoe, aquarum gloriam ipso nomine praeferens. 73. Ab occidente litora Esseni fugiunt usque qua nocent, gens sola et in toto orbe praeter ceteras mira, sine ulla femina, omni venere abdicata, sine pecunia, socia palmarum. in diem ex aequo convenarum turba renascitur, large frequentantibus quos vita fessos ad mores eorum fortuna fluctibus agit. ita per saeculorum milia -- incredibile dictu -- gens aeterna est, in qua nemo nascitur. tam fecunda illis aliorum vitae paenitentia est! infra hos Engada oppidum fuit, secundum ab Hierosolymis fertilitate palmetorumque nemoribus, nunc alterum bustum. inde Masada castellum in rupe, et ipsum haut procul Asphaltite. et hactenus Iudaea est. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 17:26:54 -0500 (EST) From: sbudin@sas.upenn.edu (Stephanie Budin) Subject: ane Urukagina, Ishtar/Inanna, etc... Dieter Maurer wrote: > 2) What is the etymology of the Sumerian/Akkadian goddess > Innana/Ishtar. > Is tar (e.g in Ishtar, Astara, Namtar) somehow related to the > Hindu and Buddhist goddesses Tara and other Indo words like > "Avatara", arab. "tara" (to fly) and numerous tar(a)s in many > different languages (eg. Ural Altaic Numtara)? > Tar(a) is often associated with flying or stretching over, > to descent, to come down and it is found worldwide also in > traditional names of birds. To the best of my knowledge, Inanna and Ishtar have different etymologies and cannot really be compared. The name Ishtar appears to be the masculine form of a Semitic name for a female divinity who was originally male. 'Athtar (aka Ashtar) is a south-west Semitic deity. In Arabia he seems to be some manner of warrior god; in Ugarit he's some wimpy god who cannot fill Baal's throne. Heimpel suggests that he was also the SW Semitic deity of the "star" Venus. When the masculine Venus deity crashed into the female Sumerian Veuns deity (Inanna), the gender switched, yielding the feminine form 'Ashtart (Astarte) in the western regions (Ebla, 'Athtart in Ugarit) along side her male parallel ('Ashtar), while in Mesopotamia the form Ishtar was adopted. If I remember correctly, there seems to be a fair amount of ambiguity between the names at Emar, where the name 'Ashtar can be either masculine or feminine (the prosopography shows the names 'Ashtar-abi and 'Ashtar-umi "Ashtar is my father", "Ashtar is my mother") I imagine that Ishtar crashed right on into 'Ashtart, leading to a gender confusion with the names. It seems that something similar happened in Ebla, with the switch in genders of the solar deity (UTU, male in Sumerian. Shpsh, female in Ugaritic, leading to the masculine Shamash in Akkadian) So the "tar" element is unlikely to be cognate to anything either Sumerian or Indo-European, as it goes back into the Semitic. As for Inanna, can't say as I'm even close to an expert, but I did once have the opportunity to ask Ake Sjoberg about it, and he very much disbelieves that the (N)in-anna (Lady of Heaven) etymology is viable. For what it's worth. Stephanie Budin ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 17:46:30 -0500 From: "Graham Hagens" Subject: Re: ane Shishak Ogden Goelet wrote: > One thing which never seems to come up in these innumerable > discussions of Shishak is that Sheshonq I (and other similarly named kings > of the TIP) sometimes had their names written Shishaq - M8-M8-N29 -- without > the n. In the case of Sheshonq I, this is even the form of his name which > he gives as Great Chief. For details, see J.v. Beckerath, _Handbuch der > Aegyptischen Koenigsnamen_ MAeS 20 (this is the first edition -- I do not > have the latest version at my immediate disposal): p. 257 (Sh. I); p. 260 > (Sh. III); p. 261 (Sh. V); p. 264 (Sh. V). By contrast, I know of no > Ramesside king who writes his name thus. > A. Marx ("De Shishak a Sheshak. A Propos de 1 Rois XIV 25-26", Vetus Testamentum 49 (1999) 188-189) tackles this problem from a biblical point of view. Seeing parrallels between Sheshoq's campaign of 1 Ki 14:25-26 and that of Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings 24: 10-17), he suggests that the odd orthography (ssq) without the expected nun (ssnq) may have been meant to invoke a code word for Babel "sesak" known from Jeremiah. The suggested use would therefore be ironic since both Sheshonq and Nebuchadnezzar triumphed over Jerusalem.. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 17:46:30 -0500 From: "Graham Hagens" Subject: Re: ane Shishak Ogden Goelet wrote: > One thing which never seems to come up in these innumerable > discussions of Shishak is that Sheshonq I (and other similarly named kings > of the TIP) sometimes had their names written Shishaq - M8-M8-N29 -- without > the n. In the case of Sheshonq I, this is even the form of his name which > he gives as Great Chief. For details, see J.v. Beckerath, _Handbuch der > Aegyptischen Koenigsnamen_ MAeS 20 (this is the first edition -- I do not > have the latest version at my immediate disposal): p. 257 (Sh. I); p. 260 > (Sh. III); p. 261 (Sh. V); p. 264 (Sh. V). By contrast, I know of no > Ramesside king who writes his name thus. > A. Marx ("De Shishak a Sheshak. A Propos de 1 Rois XIV 25-26", Vetus Testamentum 49 (1999) 188-189) tackles this problem from a biblical point of view. Seeing parrallels between Sheshoq's campaign of 1 Ki 14:25-26 and that of Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings 24: 10-17), he suggests that the odd orthography (ssq) without the expected nun (ssnq) may have been meant to invoke a code word for Babel "sesak" known from Jeremiah. The suggested use would therefore be ironic since both Sheshonq and Nebuchadnezzar triumphed over Jerusalem.. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 00:44:31 +0200 From: "Rex H. McTyeire" Subject: ane Inanna From: "Dieter Maurer" ...(snip)..... > 3) Can the widely spread goddess names Ina, Hina etc. be associated > with the Sumerian Inanna? I would recommend looking at Hannahanna, most known as a minor Hittite "grandmother" goddess; but I believe this is only resilient of a pre Hittite goddess of stronger position as a mother Goddess in earlier Aegean coastal Anatolia cultures. She apparently also had a birth related application, assumed much later by Artemis. Besides the similarity of the name...the older Anatolian myths refer to Hannahanna using a "bee"..as a confidant and messenger. In one Sumerian myth..Innana used a "fly" for the same purpose. La Revedere; Rex H. McTyeire Bucharest, Romania ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 18:16:10 -0500 From: Doug Frayne Subject: ane Ishtar, etc. Dear Ms. Budin, I would prefer the interpretation that Athtar/Athtart is a basically a Semitic rather than specifically West Semitic deity/deities. The deity/deities find(s) a parallel in Sumerian Ninsiana "Lady/Lord of the Twilight/Dawn" which in its feminine form represents Venus as the Evening Star, and its male form represents Venus as the Morning Star. The two deities were considered to be separate but linked. A connection of the Semitic root Athtar with the Proto-Indo-European word for "star" has been suggested by J, Henniger in "Zum problem der Venussterngod bei den Semiten," Anthropos 71 1/2 pp. 129?68. Although Professor Sjoeberg may dispute this, I think it highly likely that Inanna simply means "Lady of Heaven." Cordially, D. Frayne ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 18:55:57 -0400 From: "Peter T. Daniels" Subject: Re: ane Redating the Qumran scroll deposits Ian Hutchesson wrote: > >If, as at Elephantine, we have documents written by the same person over > >several decades, we don't need a large number of them to see the lack of > >change over his career. > > I'm not up with the full range of texts from Elephantine, though I have > noticed -- at least with the Mibtahiah related documents -- that scribes > were consistently used and mentioned because these were local legal > documents, which required it be part of the text. With other documents from > Elephantine such a requirement may not have been necessary. But I would > definitely like to hear more on the subject, so any thoughts you have there > would be greatly appreciated. There are half a dozen or so BMAPs written by Haggai bar Shemaiah over something like 30 years (I don't want to go get my article to check all this ... JNES 1984). That's enough to demonstrate my point; I don't know what you're getting at. > >> same time the various scripts have been given names that place them in a > >> period notwithstanding the fact that such placement is still up for grabs. > > > >The relative sequence of the forms is fairly self-evident, and I don't > >know that the order in which Cross presented them in BANE (1961) has > >been challenged. Is there sufficient time for all the observed changes > >to have happened before "63 BCE"? We probably can't know. > > Agreed. > > >> Does one normally call a palaeographic script by names such as Herodian or > >> Hasmonean? > > > >I don't know about "one," but Cross used those names, so they are the > >labels for what he identified as styles. They seem legitimate for > >labeling generations or even centuries. > > Calling a script Herodian places it -- at least in conceptual space -- > after 37 BCE, even though we don't know when the style first emerged. > Scholars have used the script labels as indications of absolute dating of > the texts. This is unjustified. Sure is. - -- Peter T. Daniels grammatim@worldnet.att.net ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 19:06:13 -0400 From: "Peter T. Daniels" Subject: Re: ane Redating the Qumran scroll deposits David C. Hindley wrote: > >>[U]ntil someone comes up with a stela or something saying something like > "I conquered Qumran in Year x," the assignment of such a specific date > [i.e., 63 BCE] is questionable. Certainly paleography gets you no closer > than a generation (see my very first journal article, in JNES 1984).<< > > But you have made this statement on the assumption that the dating was > based on paleography. Hardly! I simply say that paleography alone can't be so specific; C14, of course, can't be so specific; *nothing* can be so specific except an explicit date in some document/inscription somewhere. > Ian, I know, does not base his dating of 64 BCE > (instead of the more common 62 BCE) The date they've been throwing around this week is 63 ... > on paleography at all, but on the > reference to AEmilius Scaurus in MishC (4Q323-4) in relation to a datable > event earlier in the same document concerning queen Salome Zion. In other > words, it dates the event to Pompey's siege of Jerusalem in 64 BCE, in > which AEmilius took part, rather than to an act of AEmilius after he > became governor of Syria. Martinez's index seems to indicate that's 4Q CalendricalDoc C, which seems not to be translated in his book, so it must be pretty darn fragmentary. But how does that constitute a terminal date? Dont' tell me, I don't care! > Hutchesson's "[E]ssay proposing an early date for the depositation of the > scrolls" is located at: > > http://www.geocities.com/Paris/LeftBank/5210/mismarot.htm > > Personally I think Hutchesson (and by extension, Doudna) makes a prima > facie case for dating this document to circa 64 BCE. However, I think it > is a great leap for them (Doudna and Hutchesson) to propose that ALL (or > the greater part) of the Qumran documents were deposited immediately after > this last datable event. This is where the paleography and c14 evidence > comes into play. If one were to ask me, the dating of 4Q323-4 and the > deposit date for the scrolls are two different issues entirely. > > Regards, > > Dave Hindley > Cleveland, Ohio, USA > A non-academic whose opinion on this matter can safely be ignored, except > when seen as a reflection on what is going on in academia, in which case > it should not be ignored. I dunno, looks like common sense to me! - -- Peter T. Daniels grammatim@worldnet.att.net ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 19:11:52 -0400 From: "Peter T. Daniels" Subject: Re: ane Redating the Qumran scroll deposits Greg Doudna wrote: > > To P. Daniels, the date "63 BCE" refers of course to the accepted > date of the Roman arrival under Pompey, and I use it as a sort of > shorthand for that. In most cases I have a "c." before 63 BCE in > my publication; if I do not, I intend a "c." to be understood. Many > lines appear to point to the political event of the arrival of Pompey > as the pivotal watershed, and "63 BCE" becomes a shorthand way > of referring to this as the chronological terminus or a way of naming > the theory. I would not a priori rule out a 55 BCE theory or a 65 > BCE theory, both of which, to me, would be variants of the "63 > BCE theory" since they are chronologically very close to it and > likely integrally related to the same Roman arrival. But the arrival > of Pompey itself--based on present, imperfect information-- > seems to be the decisive watershed; that at least is the argument > of Ian and myself. Can you suggest a better descriptive shorthand > term? "The Roman conquest" would be good, and also a bit explicatory ... or "... arrival," if it wasn't actually a conquest. - -- Peter T. Daniels grammatim@worldnet.att.net ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 10:12:23 +0800 From: JOE.J.BAKER@centrelink.gov.au Subject: ane Shishak the assaulter I pointed out in my last post (21 Jan) that the New Chronologist justify the identification of Ramesses (via the rare nickname Sysw) with $y$q / $w$q by saying the Biblical author added a 'k' (q?) as a pun on (to quote Rohl) "Shashak, meaning 'assaulter' or 'the one who crushes [under foot or under wheel'". I said that my Hebrew dictionary contained no reference to such an explanation. I am by no means an expert in Hebrew so can anyone tell me if there is such a word as $$q (I presume it has this form rather than $$k - most New Chronologist insist on writing 'k' rather than 'q') which means assaulter or the like? Also Graham Hagens on 23 Jan quote from an article by Marx in VT 49 (1999) saying the Biblical writer "may have been meant to invoke a code word for Babel "sesak" known from Jeremiah". Here their is clear confusion between 'k' and 'q'. The well known code Bbl=$$k arises from reversing the alphabet letters, 'b' the second letter become '$' the second last and 'l' the twelfth letter becomes 'k' the twelfth last. However the Biblical name is always written with a 'q' so it cannot derive from Babel - it would have to come from Babed. Regards Joe Baker ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 05:05:20 +0200 (IST) From: avigdor horovitz Subject: Re: ane Urukagina, Ishtar/Inanna and tar(a) Etymologies? Dear John and Dieter, nin-anna as Lady of heaven is the accepted view as the meaning of Inanna. Several months ago I mentioned on ANE, a different view of Jacobsen, that it means Lady of the date storehouse. This view was rejected by B. Alster, a prominent Sumerologist, who maitained the "traditional" interpretation. I should mention that "lady of heaven" which in HEbrew would be malkat hashamayim, is the expression behind the term mele'ket hashamayim mentioned in the book of Jeremiah as the boject of illicit worship. Victor On Sun, 23 Jan 2000, John T. Cunningham wrote: > Dieter > > I am certainly no expert, but in response to 2) below, I have seen an > etymology for Innana of "nin-anna," "Lady of Heaven." But, there seems > to be a strong feeling among the experts that the names of Sumerian gods > are in fact pre-Sumerian, perhaps like the names of the cities, and were > eventually given suitable Sumerian etymologies by priests/scholars. > > Regards > > John > near Stuttgart, Germany > > Dieter Maurer wrote: > > > 1) What is the origin and meaning of the Sumerian king's name > > Urukagina? > > Is there any linguistic evidence for the resemblance with the > > Hebrew word "kohen" (priest), arab. "kahuna" ( to reveal), > > "kâhin" (priest, fortuneteller) and maybe even with the > > name of the Altai "Kachin" Shamans or the Burmese "Kachin" tribe? > > 2) What is the etymology of the Sumerian/Akkadian goddess > > Innana/Ishtar. > > Is tar (e.g in Ishtar, Astara, Namtar) somehow related to the > > Hindu and Buddhist goddesses Tara and other Indo words like > > "Avatara", arab. "tara" (to fly) and numerous tar(a)s in many > > different languages (eg. Ural Altaic Numtara)? > > Tar(a) is often associated with flying or stretching over, > > to descent, to come down and it is found worldwide also in > > traditional names of birds. > > Is there also a linguistic link to english "star" and the word > > "cataract" (a place where water is coming down)? > > 3) Can the widely spread goddess names Ina, Hina etc. be associated > > with the Sumerian Inanna? > > _____________________________ > > > > Dieter E. Maurer > > Nuernberg, Germany > > > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 05:24:19 +0100 From: "Bjarte Kaldhol" Subject: ane Horses in Mesopotamia Dear listmembers, At the following website http://tayproject.org/KalkIng.fm$Retrieve?RecNum=625&html=KalkdetailEng.html &layout=web I found this information about the fauna at Arslantepe in the middle of the 4th millennium: "Cattle, sheep, goats, pigs, and dogs are the domestic animals. It is interesting that horse was also domesticated... According to the analysis on bones, sheep and goats were locally domesticated at the Chalcolithic Age and EBA [Bökönyi 1983:581; 1993:343 tablo 1, 355]..." "Interpretation and Dating: The earliest settlement of Arslantepe, Arslantepe VIII, is dated to the end of Ubaid Period, the end of the 5th Millennium BC (4300- 4000 BC) by 14C results [Frangipane 1997:213]. Arslantepe VII is dated back to the Late Chalcolithic Age (3700-3500 BC) by 6 calibrated 14C results. It is called Local Late Chalcolithic Period of Arslantepe, which is contemporary with the Early Uruk Period in the chronology of Mesopotamia." If the horse (?) was domesticated at Arslantepe during the Early Uruk Period, why is it so surprising that we should find domesticated horses a thousand years later at Tell Beydar and Tell Mozan? Best wishes, Bjarte Kaldhol ------------------------------ End of ANE Digest V2000 #24 *************************** Back issues are available on the Oriental Institute World-Wide Web (WWW) site at: http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/ANE/OI_ANE.html