From: owner-ane@ (ANE Digest) To: ane-digest Subject: ANE Digest V2000 #40 Reply-To: Sender: owner-ane@ Errors-To: owner-ane@ Precedence: bulk ANE Digest Wednesday, February 9 2000 Volume 2000 : Number 040 ane Cumulative Index of JANES ane Akkadian Letter in FM 2 45 ane Crum's Coptic dictionary ane Cumulative Index of JANES again... ane Kebra Nagast ane Philistine/Hyksos PS ane The evolution of ethics, the evidence of ancient history Re: ane Re: Dating the Exodus, The Hyksos Expulsion of 1540 BCE ? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 09:28:14 -0600 From: "Charles E. Jones" Subject: ane Cumulative Index of JANES Forwarded on behalf of the undersigned, to whom responses and inquiries should be directed. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx From "David A. Marcus" I am very pleased to inform colleagues that the Cumulative Index of JANES from volumes one thru twenty-five is available on the JTS Web Site. The link is http://www.jtsa.edu/academic/janes/vol25. It is also avaible directly from the Index on the Web site itself under _Ancient Near Eastern Society, Journal of_ This posting represents the first part of our goal to make back issues (and perhaps later all issues) of JANES available on the Web. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 10:40:19 -0800 From: "morris silver" Subject: ane Akkadian Letter in FM 2 45 Dear List Members: I have a reference to an Akkadian letter published by M. Bonechi and A. Catagnoti in FM 2 45. Is this an OB letter from Mari? What does FM refer to? Thanks for your help. Morris Morris Silver Department of Economics City College of New York ANCIENT ECONOMIES I http://sondmor.tripod.com/index-html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 11:26:48 -0600 From: "Charles E. Jones" Subject: ane Crum's Coptic dictionary We have been informed that W. E. Crum's "A Coptic Dictionary" is now back in print from Sandpiper Books. They are offering this reprint edition for 35 pounds / 59.50 dollars [a steal for this 953 page classic]. In Britain inquire at: Postscript Mail Order, 24 Langroyd Road, London SW17 7PL, phone (+44 20 8767 7421),fax (+44 20 8682 0280), email (sandpiper@sandpiper.co.uk). Sandpiper's rudimentary Web presence is at: http://www.sandpiper.co.uk In North America Sandpiper reprints of OUP books are distributed by Powells Bookstores, Inc. of Chicago, IL , 828 South Wabash Ave. , Chicago , IL , U.S.A., 60605 Fax 312-341-1614 , Email orders@powellschicago.com http://powellschicago.com/ or your favorite bookseller... - -Chuck Jones- ce-jones@uchicago.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 13:11:48 -0600 From: "Charles E. Jones" Subject: ane Cumulative Index of JANES again... Astute observers point out that the JANES Cumulative Index link should be: http://www.jtsa.edu/academic/janes/vol25/cumulative.html rather at the other one posted earlier. The subscription form is at: http://www.jtsa.edu/academic/janes/subform.html With thanks to the astute, and apologies to the rest, - -Chuck Jones- ce-jones@uchicago.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 17:17:51 EST From: Brianscout@aol.com Subject: ane Kebra Nagast Does anyone know where I can find an online text of the Kebra Nagast. Brian ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2000 22:34:00 -0500 From: nyokabi@kingcon.com Subject: ane Philistine/Hyksos PS A PS to the recent discussion(s): I have always been puzzled by the Kasluhim in Genesis 10, from whom the Philistines are said to have come out. We are told this is a mistake, that the phrase should have followed and not preceded Kaphtorim, since Jeremiah calls the Philistines the remnant of the isle of Kaphtor. (If it was a mistake, it was not corrected in the Book of Chronicles.) One of the topics recently discussed was the presence of different ethnic elements within the Philistines, a Mashriqian speaking majority and an intrusive element retreating from the Kaphtor area in the 12th c.(Kerethites?). Perhaps it is actually possible that there is a connection of the Kasluhim with the non-Kaphtorim autochthonous Philistines. I note that in 1 Samuel 30/14 , Ezekiel 25/16, and Zephaniah 2/5 there are grounds for viewing the Kerethim as a subset of the Philistines or as a parallel term referring to a group perhaps especially associated with the SW sea coast, rather than assuming as many have done that the two names were always equivalents. Again in the Deuteron. 2/23 ref ,it is the Kaphtorim invaders who destroyed the Avvim who formerly lived in the Gaza area. The name Philistines is not used here. So both Kaphtorim and Kerethim are associated with the SW seacoast. [This of course may have nothing to do with the later use of the term Kerethim among the royal or palace guards in Israel.] As I pointed out in a thread about a year ago, the only clues we have about the Kasluhim are the following: 1) We have a couple of isolated refs in Ugaritic texts to a place named KhasiluHe, which Astour located just east of Aleppo, North of Gebel Hass on his map in OR 38, 1969. We could interpret the -uHe suffix as Hurrian suffix of derivation and figure the Biblical author picked up the name from a Horite source! :-} 2) the implication in Josephus that the Kasluhim were among those tribes of Mizraim who had been wiped out in the time of Moses, when an Ethiopian army overran Egypt as far as the sea. This was presumably before the Exodus, because Moses was sent as a young Egyptian general to deal with the Ethiopians, and is supposed to have given them a good whacking. 3) a N. Af. geneaological tradition recorded by Ibn Khaldun which would suggest that the Kashluhim ancestors were located somewhere in the land of Philistia or Canaan in the time of David. Their harassed descendants then joined the Ifrikiyan hordes migrating from S Arabia to N. Africa, a pre-Islamic migration to which many medieval Berbers still attached themselves as posterity. All of these braided together might suggest that some originally Egyptian (or living in Egypt) Kasluhim might have managed to escape to later Philistia in front of the advancing Ethiopian hordes[!]. They might have been called Peleste by the local Mashriqian speakers, meaning "separated? invaders?". From here some might have continued north at the time of their original flight from Egypt and have left traces of themselves in N Syria. Now we have no attestation I have ever heard suggested from Egypt for the tribal name Kasluhim. Nor do we have any term in the OT which is taken to refer to the Heq Kh3sut or Hyksos. Is there any possibility that the so-called Egyptian term for "foreigners" kh3su/kh3styu (now being suggested to mean "steppe dwellers" - i.e. "shepherds", see Roquet in Melanges Vercoutter, 1985) might have been khlsu, with the ls representing perhaps a lateral fricative [?] such as is now postulated for kasdu/kaldu? i.e. the s with an aigu accent? And that this same sound might have been transcribed in Genesis 10 as sl rather than the ls of the Egyptian? As P. Daniels remarked, metathesis is the last resort of the desperate! Whatever the orthographics and phonetics of the question, what I am suggesting is that this linking of Kasluhim with Philistim in Genesis 10 might be a reference to the Hyksos/ Heq Kh3su, who seem to have settled, at least in part, in Philistia by all accounts. According to Petrie,Hist of Eg. the Hyksos "had settled in the region of the hill country from which they had come," which would suggest that they initially avoided the seacoast in order to avoid the NK Pharoahs use of a coastal route on campaigns into the Levant. Thus the Avvim might have survived in the Gaza area until the later arrivals, the remnant of Kaphtor, blitzed them out of history. (Deut 2/23). Such an arrival date for Hyksos/Philistines would mean that they would have preceded the Israelite Exodus either by centuries if we keep to the mainstream dates for the Exodus; or by a period of years or decades if we consider the newer earlier chronologies a la Rohl, when the children of Israel occupy Avaris after the Hyksos leave; or anything in between. But it could also imply - considering the so-called Philistine "anachronisms" in the time of Abraham and Isaac, that the same people were ruling Philistia during the century of Hyksos rule in Egypt, i.e. during MB IIB-C?, only to be joined by their expelled Mizraite relatives at the end of the SIP. OR, depending on how far back we move Joseph-Jacob-Isaac-Abraham, we could place pre-Hyksos Philistines in Philistia during the late 12th dynasty when all those Apiru Asiatics were in Egypt slaving away. In this case there would be no anachronisms, just pre-Hyksos Canaanites living in Philistia whom the locals called Philistim ben Mizraim because of a belief that they had once arrived as immigrants or invaders from Egypt -- perhaps as part of Uni's hordes who invaded 6 times at the end of EB III>EBIV. These then were the Heq Kh3swt, princes of Retenu who invited Sinuhe to come stay with them where he could hear Egyptian spoken. Remember that the Egyptians had already in the 6th dynasty called the various Nubian and Libyan peoples recruited by Uni Heq Kh3swt, long before some of their distant posterity returned to the Nile as the Canaanite or "Phoenician" Hyksos! Now one of the many problems raised by this scenario is, if the 12th century Philistines were the in part the remnant of the Hyksos, why would the Egyptians have called them Peleset in the Ramses texts instead of the cursed Heq Kh3se? One reason might be that Heq Kh3se was primarily a term describing a military ruling caste. The Asiatics who inhabited Egypt were just called A3mu, the usual term used at the time in Egypt for the Hyksos rulers too. Since the hordes who arrived with the Sea peoples seemed to be divided into their separate ethnic groups, the Egyptian scribe who wrote down all those strange names must have been trying to call them what they called themselves. These were hordes, not ruling castes. Perhaps Philistim WAS what they called themselves, though we have no proof of that yet. Such an identity for the earlier Philistines would also mean that the theories of Stubbs et al about the Hyksos becoming the Danaean migrants to Greece and the Agaean and perhaps being connected to the Adana people in Kizzuwatna who take part in the Sea People's return migration, would mean that most of these "sea peoples", as has been suggested, were non-IE speakers who were driven back south and east in the wake of a new expansion of IE speakers at the end of the LBA, driven by the arrival of the Dorians, the Phyrgians, etc. The pre-Hyksos/Danaean/Kadmean/Pelasgian groups among them may have been earlier migrants to the area symbolized by the Kaphtorim ben Mizraim and the suggestions by Frankfort of Eg-Minoan connections going back to 3000 BC or at least the OK era. They may have been included in the Biblical concept of the Kittim of the isles, and may also be those referred to in the tradition preserved by Bar Hebraeus of the Children of Ham later intruding on Japhetic territory by occupying the coastal areas of S & W Anatolia and twenty islands, including Sardinia, Sicily, Rhodes, etc. Other Greek traditions tell of very innovative, civilizing peoples of Crete, such as the TenaHu [Tanis/Danaeus? plus Hurrian suffix?] who later had to flee to Rhodes, Cyprus or the Anatolian mainland. All of these people may have been driven out of this area at this time in a mega population adjustment such as that which cleared the Eastern seaboard of North America of its native population in the 18th century. Those along the seaboard retreated toward Egypt via the Levant. It is no wonder those who ended up in Philistia would not have preserved their language, for they were obviously of very many tongues to begin with. However, if any Hyksos survivors had invaded/colonized Crete (a la the Kadmos traditions) they might perhaps be those whose Mashriqian? Mashriqo-Egyptian patois? may be preserved in Linear A! And they might have been named the Pelas-ge [Peles-te with a Hurrian suffix??] after the name they were already known by on the SW Levantine coast. And if later Greeks made up popular etymologies based on pelas/swarthy, we should not be surprised! Nor should we be surprised at the pseudo-Egyptian suffix on Pelops, a la Cheops and Merops! Oh well, just another PS suggesting that the author of Genesis 10 may not necessarily be quite as dumb as he is often assumed to be!! Or as I put it a year ago, "In Amos 9/7 the Most High claims he brought the Philistines from Kaphtor... With even God on the side of 'Kaphtorim Philistim', commentators have made the unwarranted assumption that 'the Philistines who came out of KasluHim' was a scribal error in Genesis 10. I say unwarranted because a geneaology of a people's ultimate derivation and family tree is quite different than a history which mentions where some of them last lived before they arrived in their current home." E. Adams ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 23:31:59 EST From: Dshelling@aol.com Subject: ane The evolution of ethics, the evidence of ancient history I might call the attention of the Ane List to the fascinating appearance in one year of two works on 'directional evolution' and history, both dealing with ancient history, both citing Kant's work on history Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan View, and both dealing with the issues Isaiah Berlin and Karl Popper raised with respect to macrohistorical arguments, historical determinism and inevitability, and historicism. One claims a sociobiological interpretation of ethical evolution using the theory of games and in a curious contradiction adopts a selectionist foundation for teleology. The other is post-Darwinian, and answers to Kant's Challenge to find the pattern of Universal History. A unique opportunity for a direct comparison or dialectic!! And the testing ground is the archaeology of ancient civilizations. The works are 1. Robert Wright's Non Zero 2. John Landon's World History and the Eonic Effect (announced on this list last early summer) It would be interesting to see a side by side review. As the author of the second work (I review Wright's book at Amazon.com) I am as surprised at Wright's collation of directionality and natural selection (already criticized by some Darwinists) and the naivete of the current pop sociobiology that imagines the complexity of ethics can be reduced to such simplistic thinking, and also amused to see what was probably a vist to my website in the last draft of the work. Whatever the case, the late material on Kant and Popper wrecks his thesis. There are very few ways to apply a directional thesis to world history that isn't historicist, and I consider my 'eonic periodization' to be one of them. It begins at the core of classical history and is strictly empirical. For a Darwinian to cite Kant is dangerous, although on the surface his remarks on asocial sociability seem cogent. But Kant was no Darwinist, and his work is more a question than an answer, asking for nature's hidden plan. This extreme version of the basic sociobiological nonsense attempting to mechanize ethics is patent ideology. The idea is a critical one. Is it true that random social activity irregardless of ethical valuation leads to the evolution of culture.The evidence of world history, and this is the relevance to this list, history shows directly that this is false, as I show in my book. The challenge is, would be, is there evidence of 'ethical redirection' as macrohistorical evolution? Indeed there is. Follow the periodization closely. The point is that the Darwinian generation of ethical behavior (viz. a kin selection, etc,) is absurdly ambitious to claim that purely selfish behavior can lead to the ethical spectrum including altruism. We can see from our own history that this is not the case. Darwinism is essentially irrelevant to understanding history. John Landon nemonemini@eonix.8m.com http://eonix.8m.com Author World History and the Eonic Effect ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 06:52:58 +0100 From: "Walter Mattfeld" Subject: Re: ane Re: Dating the Exodus, The Hyksos Expulsion of 1540 BCE ? Dear Chris, I do not believe that the Pentateuchal portrayal of the Exodus is a real event, it is pure fantasy. I am in full agreement with you that "...the Hyksos expulsion was used as the kernel for the myth of a great triumphal exodus..." I understand Redford to be arguing _not_ that the Pentateuchal Exodus is a "real event," but rather a "historical kernel" behind the biblical account. If I lead you or others to believe otherwise, my apologies for not being clearer on this. In discussing the background of the Exodus from an Egyptian perspective, the British Egyptologist, John Romer, made the following observation: "...the city of Tell el Daba was again burned and its new fortress abandoned at this time. Every one of the Canaanite temples was destroyed; the large cemetery where Canaanites lay buried with their horses, weapons, dogs and jewelry was heartily plundered. The victory inscriptions of these southern pharaohs tell us that they threw these foreigners out of Egypt, then pursued them to Canaan and beyond. And this is THE ONLY foreign mass-migration, an Exodus from ancient Egypt, for which there is any evidence at all in the archaeological records." (pp.47-8, John Romer, Testament, The Bible and History, N.Y., Henry Holt & Co.,1988, ISBN 0-8050-0939-6) I know the current thinking is that large numbers were not expelled from Egypt, but I suspect scholars are wrong on this. The wars took place over several years, the reigns of Khamose and Ahmose, Avaris had to be beseiged by naval and land forces and according to Manetho, the Hyksos were so strongly entrenched, an agreement was reached allowing them to return to Canaan. Then a three year siege at Sharuhen (Tell Ajjul ?) followed. All this sounds like big numbers, not a few stragglers returning to Canaan. The Asiatic presence in Wadi Tumilat and Tell el Yehudiyah also suddenly ends with the expulsion. If Asiatics were allowed to stay how to account for their non-presence in these places ? I suspect that the Asiatics for the most part re-grouped at Tell Ajjul (Sharuhen ?), some may have scattered to other points unknown. A defeated peoples are going to be "traveling light, and fast" so I doubt Hyksos Canaan would have been engulfed in a "sudden wave of Egyptian treasures" being brought back by the defeated army. My intent in my postings was to point out to the the scholarly community that "some" of the chronologies preserved in Jewish traditions support the Hyksos expulsion as the "kernel of historicity" behind the Exodus. I have _never seen_ this "chronological aspect" discussed in the scholarly literature, and as far as I can tell, I am _the first_ to call it to attention. Whether scholars choose to accept these Jewish chronologies or not is not my problem. De Vries calculated 554yrs (less Joshua and Elders and Saul's reign) as the interval between the Exodus and the founding of the temple, while Kitchen reckoned 553 yrs. (less Joshua and Elders and Saul's reign). Josephus understood Saul reigned 22 yrs. When Josephus' data is reckoned in we have a new formula: 554 (De Vries) + 966 BCE (Solomon's 4th yr, De Vries) + 22 Saul (Josephus) = 1542 BCE, whereas Kitchen's formula would be 1541 BCE. I note Kitchen posits an "alternate" expulsion date for the Hyksos of 1540 BCE. Acts 13:18-21 in conjunction with 1 Kings 2:10-11 and 6:1, gives 40 (Wandering) + 450 (Joshua, Judges) + 40 Saul + 40 David + 4 Solomon = 574 ys interval +966 BCE = 1540 BCE Exodus. All the best, Walter Walter Reinhold Warttig Mattfeld Walldorf by Heidelberg Baden-Wurttemburg Germany - ----- Original Message ----- From: Chris Spencer To: Walter Mattfeld Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2000 12:16 AM Subject: RE: ane Re: Dating the Exodus, The Hyksos Expulsion of 1540 BCE ? > > The original message on this matter quoted Donald Redford in a way which, it > appears to me, implies that he saw the historical event of the expulsion of > the Hyksos as the actual Exodus. The writer then goes on to produce dates to > tie the two events together. > > What Redford actually says is that the Hyksos expulsion was the source for > the "tradition" or story of the Exodus. In the pages preceding the excerpt > quoted by Walter Mattfield, he destroys the toponymic evidence quoted in the > bible and offers objections to many of the other aspects of the story. > > He also offers evidence that the story of the bondage of the Israelites in > Egypt comes from a legend of Osarsiph, "an etiological tale bearing upon the > Amarna period of Egyptian history." > > If the bondage is under Akhenaton, then the expulsion /exodus cannot have > been under Ahmose. > > Whatever the rights and wrongs of his other arguments, Walter Mattfield > cannot use Donald Redford as support for Exodus = expulsion of the Hyksos. > > Personally, I suspect that the Hyksos expulsion was used as the kernel for > the myth of a great triumphal exodus, whereas reality was a number of small, > possibly regular, migrations into and out of the delta. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ane@asmar.uchicago.edu [mailto:owner-ane@asmar.uchicago.edu]On > Behalf Of Walter Mattfeld > Sent: 30 January 2000 09:52 > To: ane@oi.uchicago.edu > Subject: ane Re: Dating the Exodus, The Hyksos Expulsion of 1540 BCE ? > > > ------------------------------ End of ANE Digest V2000 #40 *************************** Back issues are available on the Oriental Institute World-Wide Web (WWW) site at: http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/ANE/OI_ANE.html