From: owner-ane@ (ANE Digest) To: ane-digest Subject: ANE Digest V2000 #47 Reply-To: Sender: owner-ane@ Errors-To: owner-ane@ Precedence: bulk ANE Digest Wednesday, February 16 2000 Volume 2000 : Number 047 Re: ane 3 Questions: Elibaal & Abibaal, Dnn, Qarqar Re: ane Fighting the Fringe (1) (long) Re: ane leprosy Re: ane leprosy Re: ane Fighting the Fringe (1) (long) FWD: Re: ane 3 Questions: Elibaal & Abibaal, Dnn, Qarqar Re: ane leprosy Re: ane Fighting the Fringe (1) (long) Re: ane Fighting the Fringe (1) (long) ane Urukagina etc. Re: ane Fighting the Fringe (1) (long) ane Palaeography (Ahiram & Elibaal) ane Nebuchadnezzar II inscriptions Re: ane Fighting the Fringe (1) (long) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 23:45:28 +1300 From: "Don Mills" Subject: Re: ane 3 Questions: Elibaal & Abibaal, Dnn, Qarqar On Sunday, February 13, 2000 (New Zealand date), Ian Hutchesson wrote: | 1) Is there any secure dating around for the reigns of Elibaal and | Abibaal of Byblos using non-Egyptian indications? | | 2) What is the current thought about the Danuna mentioned in the | Amarna letters [EA 151] ... ? - ---------- | | 3) What is the evidence for Osorkon I sending forces to participate | in the battle of Qarqar? I would be quite interested, Ian, in *why* you posed these questions. With regard to the first -- George Athas replied (Monday, February 14, 2000, NZ date): "Not secure, no. On palaeographical grounds (which has an inherent error factor) we can date them to the 10th century BCE." I would be interested in comment on the reportedly very close resemblance between the Elibaal / Abibaal inscriptions and those on the tomb of Ahiram of Byblos. Gardiner, Meyer, and Albright agreed with one another, that "The differences between the [letter] forms of Ahiram and those of Abibaal and Elibaal are exceedingly small" (Gardiner), that "it is unthinkable, and contradicts everything we know about the history of writing, that here the script should have been unchanged for four centuries" (Meyer), and that *on palaeographic grounds* "Ahiram could have lived only shortly before Abibaal, say about 1000" (Meyer again). On palaeographic grounds, Gardiner concluded, "It seems just possible that the true date of Ahiram may be somewhat nearer to the Bubastite age (tenth century)"; and Albright concurred: given the palaeographic data, "The tenth century date [for Ahiram] becomes inevitable". Yet *on synchronistic grounds* -- the occurrence of objects of Ramses III in his tomb -- Ahiram is placed, not in C10/C9 BCE, but in C13 BCE. Is this three- or four-century difference what you had in mind as "an inherent error factor", George? With regard to the second question -- I defer to the treatment given it by Rex McTyeire and Banyai Michael. As for the third question, which seems to have been almost ignored so far: the evidence is not quite non-existent (*pace* Banyai Michael, Monday, February 14, 2000, NZ date): it consists of Shalmaneser's own reference to "1000 troops of Musri" among his antagonists at Qarqar. But even without proposing any chronological revision, this evidence is weak. I dealt with it in a posting I made to this list on Thursday, March 18, 1999 (NZ date), which I will not reproduce here, but the essence is that no king or commander of the Musri troops is named; the force is very small as compared with those supplied by other members of the anti-Assyrian coalition; and geographical and zoological evidence (the specifically Asian animals "of Musri" depicted on the Black Obelisk) indicate that the "Musri" concerned was the small C8 BCE kingdom of that name in the vicinity of Arpad in Northern Syria. Best wishes, Don Mills Wellington, New Zealand (but this week in Brisbane, Australia). ==================================== ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 01:29:19 +1300 From: "Don Mills" Subject: Re: ane Fighting the Fringe (1) (long) Dear list members, Given the outpourings on "fringe-fighting" that occurred here towards the end of last year, I'm amazed at the lack of comment on this list (unless I've missed something) on the "Roman terracotta head", found in Mexico, referred to in David Meadows' recent "Explorator" posting. (For those who missed it: the artefact was reported as found in a secure context, "sealed under three floors. It's as close to archaeological certainty as you can get"; and was dated by thermoluminescence and art historians alike to c. 200 CE, which I believe would place it within the chronological limits of this list.) I want to take this issue of "fighting the fringe" a little further, by presenting a short series of postings in response to what Rick Baudé wrote on 16 December 1999: « The "fringe" is now inextricably woven into Egyptology. So much so that the moment a new discovery is made that contradicts the "fringe" the fringe immediately declares it is a fraud, a mistranslation, an intrusive burial, or something that was recycled from a previous dynasty etc. etc. ». And in the discussion that followed, several correspondents wrote disparagingly (and with the utmost condescension) of the "ignorance of the masses". When I first read Rick's comments, I took them seriously, and began to respond accordingly. But, as I wrote at the time, "I now wonder, was Rick using deliberate irony when he wrote that? Precisely the same accusations can be levelled, with great accuracy, at members of the community of professional archaeologists," including historians, palaeoanthropologists, and others in related disciplines. We might say, as a generalisation, that, "the moment a new discovery is made that contradicts 'orthodoxy', orthodoxy immediately declares it is a fraud, a mistranslation, an intrusive burial, or something that was recycled from a previous dynasty etc. etc." Rick wrote with special reference to Egyptology. But I intend to adduce evidence, from the Ancient Near East in general, to support my claim that archaeologists, too, sometimes blurt out the same "knee-jerk" denials as were attributed to the "ignorant masses". In this first posting, I look at: CRIES OF "FRAUD" ================ Starting rather further afield: List members will be aware that, besides the "Roman head", there is other even more controversial "evidence" of pre-Columbian contact between the ANE and the New World, which evidence is generally rejected by archaeologists and historians. An example discussed last year was the "Bat Creek Stone", found in 1889 in an undisturbed burial mound in Eastern Tennessee by the Smithsonian's Mound Survey Project -- ostensibly as good a pedigree as any uncontroversial find, and better than some (Sheshonq's Megiddo stele comes to mind). An acknowledged authority (Gordon) identified the letters inscribed on the stone as Palaeo-Hebrew of approximately the first or second century CE. Wood fragments found with the inscription were C-14 dated to somewhere between 32 CE and 769 CE, dates consistent with the apparent date of the letters. But as a "discovery that apparently contradicts orthodoxy", the find is virtually automatically decried as a fraud, and similar finds as also frauds, or as misinterpretations of natural markings. More directly within the ANE geographical area: I alluded previously to the recent case of the Tell Dan "Beth David" inscription, which was also greeted with cries of "fraud" by archaeologists (I use the term generically) whose preferred interpretations of ancient history it potentially threatened. From a different angle: cries of "fraud", or at least misrepresentation, may sometimes be justified. Many examples of potentially "fraudulent" presentation of information, wilful or unintentional, lie in the field of C-14 dating. Professor Jo Brew's comments in this regard have been widely repeated, or echoed by others: "If a C14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely 'out-of-date', we just drop it." In this way, anomalous data are suppressed, and the "ignorant masses" of professionals in related disciplines are not even told that the discrepant measurements were made. In a notorious example of this (see Peter James, *Centuries of Darkness*, p. 387, n. 137), the British Museum C-14-dated short-lived materials from Tutankhamen's tomb to between 899 and 846 BCE, a date several centuries too "young" even after recalibration. This information was disclosed in a communication from Dr I. E. S. Edwards, then Keeper of the BM Egyptian Antiquities department, to Dr H. N. Michael of the Museum of the University of Pennsylvania, and "leaked" by Mr Bruce Mainwaring of a joint BM / UP project. Subsequently (in an interview), Richard Burleigh, Director of the BM's radiocarbon dating laboratory, confirmed the dates, and promised publication "shortly". But the subsequent official statement from the same laboratory was that "no measurements" had been made "on materials from the tomb of Tutankhamen", and the date was never formally published. It is hardly surprising, as stories of such manipulation of evidence become known, that "the ignorant masses" start to become sceptical of whatever scientists may say. I shall present other examples of the manipulation of C-14 evidence below. Meanwhile, similar doubts may attach to dendrochronological dates. For example, Ian Wilson (*The Bible _Is_ History*, p. 14) confidently asserts that Rohl's chronology is utterly disproved by the Uluburun shipwreck. "The tree rings from its firewood cargo enabled the time of its wreck to be dated almost exactly to the year 1316 BC. On the ship was found a scarab of Pharaoh Akhenaten's wife Nefertiti, who according to [Rohl] would not be born for another three hundred years." But list members will be aware not only that the date has since been revised downward a couple of times, but that there are substantial doubts about its validity (see Peter James' postings of 12 November 1999 and the preceding couple of days, concluding: "there is no date for the shipwreck. The only thing dated was a piece of scrap wood, and the date for that was not arrived at by the normal objective means that one normally expects for a dendrochronological date. I.e. the sample was so poor that it could not be computer matched against the sequence"). The presentation of evidence that supports one's case, while suppressing evidence that undermines it, may or may not be called "fraud". However, archaeologists' cries of "fraud", or at least, of "deliberate imitation", *in ancient times* have occasionally been raised to discount the value of unexpected finds. At various sites in Palestine, for example, Bliss and Macalister found numerous scarabs of 18th dynasty pharaohs in levels they recognised as belonging to the Israelite Kingdoms period. Macalister concluded that these scarabs, roughly 500 years out of context, were "mere Palestinian imitations of imported specimens, and . therefore of no value in fixing the date of the associated objects" (*Excavations in Palestine*, 1902). In fact, while scarabs (especially when found in quantity) are regularly used as prime dating indicators *outside of Palestine* (see Wilson's remarks above), D18 scarabs found *within Palestine* seem rarely to be so used because they regularly occur in contexts around 500 years too young. This subject of "out-of-place" scarabs will come up again when I deal with archaeological claims of "intrusive burials". Regards, ================================= Don Mills Wellington, New Zealand (but this week in Brisbane, Australia) ================================= ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 07:50:07 -0500 From: Jim West Subject: Re: ane leprosy At 07:55 AM 2/15/00 +0200, you wrote: >before you start bringing in biblical texts with relevance to >"leprosy" you had better discuss, or clarify what the person who asked >means by "leprosy". It is well known that the biblical set of skin >inflamations called zara`at have nothing to do with what is nowadays >called leprosy, the connection going back to a misunderstanding in the >LXX. Have a look at Milgrom's Leviticus for full discussion. >Victor I am not at all interested in the Biblical concept of leprosy- nor am I interested in the least, at this point, in the biblical texts regarding leprosy. My question, again, was- does anyone know what the Syrian texts say about leprosy for the period 10-5th c. BCE. Best, Jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD jwest@highland.net http://web.infoave.net/~jwest ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 14:58:08 +0200 (IST) From: avigdor horovitz Subject: Re: ane leprosy I was responding to the first response to your query which mentioned the biblical text. There is confusion about the term and obviously your question stirred up a confused response. REmember that there are Bible informed people on ANE so when you ask questions you shouild be ready to have people understand them according to their own idiom and respond accordingly. Victor On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Jim West wrote: > At 07:55 AM 2/15/00 +0200, you wrote: > >before you start bringing in biblical texts with relevance to > >"leprosy" you had better discuss, or clarify what the person who asked > >means by "leprosy". It is well known that the biblical set of skin > >inflamations called zara`at have nothing to do with what is nowadays > >called leprosy, the connection going back to a misunderstanding in the > >LXX. Have a look at Milgrom's Leviticus for full discussion. > >Victor > > I am not at all interested in the Biblical concept of leprosy- nor am I > interested in the least, at this point, in the biblical texts regarding > leprosy. My question, again, was- does anyone know what the Syrian texts > say about leprosy for the period 10-5th c. BCE. > > Best, > Jim > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > Jim West, ThD > jwest@highland.net > http://web.infoave.net/~jwest > > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 08:51:00 -0400 From: "Peter T. Daniels" Subject: Re: ane Fighting the Fringe (1) (long) Don Mills wrote: > Starting rather further afield: List members will be aware that, besides the > "Roman head", there is other even more controversial "evidence" of > pre-Columbian contact between the ANE and the New World, which evidence is > generally rejected by archaeologists and historians. An example discussed > last year was the "Bat Creek Stone", found in 1889 in an undisturbed burial > mound in Eastern Tennessee by the Smithsonian's Mound Survey Project -- > ostensibly as good a pedigree as any uncontroversial find, and better than > some (Sheshonq's Megiddo stele comes to mind). An acknowledged authority > (Gordon) identified the letters inscribed on the stone as Palaeo-Hebrew of > approximately the first or second century CE. Wood fragments found with the > inscription were C-14 dated to somewhere between 32 CE and 769 CE, dates > consistent with the apparent date of the letters. But as a "discovery that > apparently contradicts orthodoxy", the find is virtually automatically > decried as a fraud, and similar finds as also frauds, or as > misinterpretations of natural markings. According to Stephen Williams, *Fantastic Archaeology* (1991), the above is not an accurate account of the finding of the Bat Creek Stone. Cyrus Gordon, unfortunately, is not competent to discuss supposed American finds of Near Eastern materials -- he treated them uncritically and credulously. The Paraiba Stone episode is sufficient evidence of that. When confronted personally as to whether these claims are accurate, his response is consistently, "Well, they *might* be so." - -- Peter T. Daniels grammatim@worldnet.att.net ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 08:43:22 -0600 From: "Charles E. Jones" Subject: FWD: Re: ane 3 Questions: Elibaal & Abibaal, Dnn, Qarqar From: "Lafli Erguen" Recently I finished a masters thesis about the Iron Age of Cilicia from an archaeological and historical aspect. Dnnym and Karatepe inscriptions were one of the main focus of my whole masters. In the regards of Dnnym problem I would like to submit a bibliographical list with some recent/main publications (according to the alphabetical order): H. Th. Bossert/U. B. Alkim, Karatepe Kadirli and its Environments. Second Preliminary Report, Istanbul Ðniversitesi Edebiyat Fak¸ltesi, Faculty of Letters of the University of Istanbul. Publications of the Institute for Research in Ancient Oriental Civilisations No. 3, Istanbul. H. Th. Bossert/U. B. Alkim/H. Cambel/N. Ongunsu/I. S¸zen, Die Ausgrabungen auf dem Karatepe (Erster Vorbericht), T¸rk Tarih Kurumu Yayinlarindan, V. Seri, No. 9, Ankara. H. Th. Bossert/H. «ambel, Karatepe. A preliminary report on a new Hittite site,¥Faculty of Letters of the University of Istanbul, Publications of the Institute for Research in Ancient Oriental Civilisations No. 1, Istanbul. F. Bron, Recherches sur les inscriptions phÈniciennes de Karatepe, Centre de recherches d¥histoire et de philologie de la IVe section de l¥Ècole pratique des Hautes »tudes, II: Hautes Ètudes orientales 11, GenËve. H. Cambel, "Das Freilichtmuseum von Karatepe-Aslantas", Istanbuler Mitteilungen 43: 495-509. H. Cambel/W. Rollig/J. D. Hawkins, "Karatepe-Aslantas. The Inscriptions: Facsimile Edition", in: Cambel, H. (Hrsg.), Corpus Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions, II, in: Untersuchungen zur indogermanischen Sprach- und Kulturwissenschaft, Neue Folge, 8, 2, London. P. Desideri/A. M. Jasink, Cilicia: Dall'etý di Kizzuwatna alla conquista macedone, Torino. J. D. Hawkins, "The Neo-Hittites States in Syria and Anatolia", in: Boardman, J., Edwards, I. E. S., Hammond, N. G. L., Sollberger, E. (Hrsg.), The Cambridge Ancient History, Vol. III, Part I: The Prehistory of the Balkans; and the Middle East and the Aegean world, tenth to eighth centuries B.C. (2. Aufl.), Cambridge: 372-441. B. Hrouda, "Vorlaeufiger Bericht ¸ber die Ausgrabungsergebnisse auf dem Sirkeli Hoyuk/Sudturkei von 1992-1996, unter Mitarbeit von Angela von den Driesch, Horst Ehringhaus, Hans Gustav Guterbock, Peter W. Haider, Christian Hofbauer, Stefan Kroll, Ludwig Masch, Kurt Stupp, Ahmet Unal, Cornelie Wolff und Gerfried Ziegelmayer", Istanbuler Mitteilungen 47: 91-150 und Taf. 4-9. F. Starke, "Troia im Kontext des historisch-polithischen und sprachlichen Umfeldes Kleinasiens im 2. Jahrtausend", Studia Troica 7: 447-487. F. Starke, "Kleinasien. Hethitische Nachfolgestaaten A. Geschichte", in: Cancik, H., Schneider, H. (Hrsg.), Der Neue Pauly. Enzyklop”die der Antike-Altertum, Stuttgart (in Print) G. A. Summers, "The Northern Border of Hilakku", Proceedings of the British Academy, London (in Print). I hope this helps. Regards, Erguen Lafli M. A. E-mail: erguen.lafli@student.uni-tuebingen.de WWW-site: http://homepages.uni-tuebingen.de/student/erguen.lafli/ Home address: Egricam Mah., 2246 sok. 10, TR-33160, Mersin, Turkey. Tel.: +90.324.325 68 88 or +90.324.465 62 03 Fax: +90.324.234 23 28 E-mail: erguen_lafli@hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 10:12:34 -0500 From: Sarah Melcher Subject: Re: ane leprosy To Jim West: I would recommend to you Hector Avalos' book, _Illness and Health Care In The Ancient Near East_, 1995. He suggests that the archaeological evidence does not support the existence of Hansen's Disease in the ANE during the era you have set out. - -- Regards, Sarah Melcher melcher@xavier.xu.edu Assistant Professor of Hebrew Scriptures Dept. of Theology Xavier University Cincinnati, OH ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 08:49:09 -0800 (PST) From: Brett Mackellar Subject: Re: ane Fighting the Fringe (1) (long) - --- Don Mills wrote: > I'm amazed at the lack of comment > on this list (unless > I've missed something) on the "Roman terracotta > head", found in Mexico, (text removed) > "the moment a new discovery is made that contradicts > 'orthodoxy', orthodoxy > immediately declares it is a fraud, a > mistranslation, an intrusive burial, > or something that was recycled from a previous > dynasty etc. etc." (text removed) > archaeologists, too, sometimes blurt out the same > "knee-jerk" denials as > were attributed to the "ignorant masses". I, too, have thought about "the fringe" a goodly amount recently, and have come to the conclusion that the arguments between archaeologists and "loonies" are based on two different levels. The fringe, to use Hancock et al as an example, assume that weathering patterns on the Sphinx indicate that the Giza Plateau was in use in 10,500 BC. No room is left for alternate interpretations of geological data. Evidence is used to support a fantastic hypothesis (I balk at using this term here). Atlantians were forerunners of the Egyptian civilization, and rain patterns are the proof of this. Egyptologists dispute this by giving alternate causes as to the nature of the wear patterns themselves, rather than questioning the absurd use to which the evidence has been put. The inherent fallacy here is that science attacks the evidence, not the conclusion. In truth, the terracotta head proves nothing. Monkeys have literally fallen from the sky in the past, and the presence of an artifact where it shouldn't be doesn't prove a single thing. For now, it (the head) should be chalked up as an unusual phenomenon and re-examined *only* when sufficient evidence turns up to merit such a thing. In short, don't attack the evidence, attack the shortsighted pseudo-scientists who decree that the evidence points to one inescapable conclusion: theirs. (While I've boiled down the original text quite a bit, I feel this still does it some justice.) Brett ===== - ---------------------- Brett MacKellar Anthropology Major (BA) Grand Valley State University email: mackellb@river.it.gvsu.edu __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 11:17:07 -0700 From: John Tvedtnes Subject: Re: ane Fighting the Fringe (1) (long) Peter T. Daniels wrote: > >Cyrus Gordon, unfortunately, is not competent to discuss supposed >American finds of Near Eastern materials -- he treated them uncritically >and credulously. The Paraiba Stone episode is sufficient evidence of >that. Au contraire, Peter. It is the best example of Gordon's critical approach. He at questioned the authenticity of a document only known from a paper copy, then believed that he had found, in its linguistic composition, evidence that it was, in fact authentic. Subsequent examination of the issue caused him to rejected it. An uncritical scholar would have opted for or against it without changing his position as he encountered new information. As the old saying goes, "A wise man seldom changes his mind; a fool, never." John A. Tvedtnes Brigham Young University ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 22:08:57 +0100 From: Tomas MARIK Subject: ane Urukagina etc. It seems that no one is any more interested in the discussion on Urukagina - what a pitty. I've almost completely forgotten to thank prof. JACOB KLEIN for his reference to the new article of Gebhard Selz. Which, sad to say, I've overseen. In the meantime I've read it through. Selz has arguments even against Edzard's hypothesis about uru being read /iri/ (or that like) in the earlier periods, however in this point I would like to support Edzard (even if there could have been a spelling /uru/ in the time of URUKAgina) and stress out the evidence of the texts from the Third Dynasty of Ur onwards, where, to the best of my knowledge, uru always is spelled as /eri/ or the like. This is a argument that has not yet been mentioned in the discussion. I've gone through my "Zettelkasten" but didn't find anything else and would be very much indepted to everyone having a betterER "Zettelkasten" than me. Sincerely Tomas Marik tomas.marik@ff.cuni.cz Institute of Ancient Near Eastern Studies Charles University, Prague ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 16:20:02 -0400 From: "Peter T. Daniels" Subject: Re: ane Fighting the Fringe (1) (long) John Tvedtnes wrote: > > Peter T. Daniels wrote: > > > >Cyrus Gordon, unfortunately, is not competent to discuss supposed > >American finds of Near Eastern materials -- he treated them uncritically > >and credulously. The Paraiba Stone episode is sufficient evidence of > >that. > > Au contraire, Peter. It is the best example of Gordon's critical approach. > He at questioned the authenticity of a document only known from a paper > copy, then believed that he had found, in its linguistic composition, > evidence that it was, in fact authentic. Subsequent examination of the > issue caused him to rejected it. An uncritical scholar would have opted > for or against it without changing his position as he encountered new > information. As the old saying goes, "A wise man seldom changes his mind; > a fool, never." I am not aware that Gordon has changed his position on the Paraiba Stone in the past 30 years. Can you provide references where he admits it is a fraud? - -- Peter T. Daniels grammatim@worldnet.att.net ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 08:29:08 +1100 From: "George Athas" Subject: ane Palaeography (Ahiram & Elibaal) > I would be interested in comment on the reportedly very close resemblance > between the Elibaal / Abibaal inscriptions and those on the tomb of Ahiram > of Byblos. Gardiner, Meyer, and Albright agreed with one another, that "The > differences between the [letter] forms of Ahiram and those of Abibaal and > Elibaal are exceedingly small" (Gardiner), that "it is unthinkable, and > contradicts everything we know about the history of writing, that here the > script should have been unchanged for four centuries" (Meyer), and that *on > palaeographic grounds* "Ahiram could have lived only shortly before Abibaal, > say about 1000" (Meyer again). On palaeographic grounds, Gardiner > concluded, "It seems just possible that the true date of Ahiram may be > somewhat nearer to the Bubastite age (tenth century)"; and Albright > concurred: given the palaeographic data, "The tenth century date [for > Ahiram] becomes inevitable". > > Yet *on synchronistic grounds* -- the occurrence of objects of Ramses III in > his tomb -- Ahiram is placed, not in C10/C9 BCE, but in C13 BCE. Is this > three- or four-century difference what you had in mind as "an inherent error > factor", George? Well, all we can really say, Don, is that Ahriam can be placed at some time *later* than late C13 BCE and that Elibaal is no earlier than Osorkon in C10-9 BCE. The problem with putting Ahiram in C13 BCE is the lack evidence for an advanced linear alphabetic script at that stage. How also does the history and archaeology of Byblos concur with C13? Byblos was just coming out of Egypt's sphere of influence at the end of that century. Would we not expect a cuneiform inscription at this time? The things with Byblian inscriptions, and phoenician inscriptions as a whole, is that the script changes very little over the centuries. When you compare Ahiram with. say, the sarcophagus of Tabnit in C5, the script has developed nowhere near as much as it had in the other regions of Syria and Palestine. Phoenicia seems to have been more conservative or traditionalist in its script. Thus, there will alsways be difficulties in dating Phoenician inscriptions purely on palaeographical grounds. Generally speaking, a later inscription could easily employ an 'older' script for purposes of style and aesthetics. It's virtually impossible that early inscriptions would use a later script (logically!). If, then, we have two scripts which look the same, as in the case of Ahiram and Elibaal, then the safest thing to do is to date them closer to the later inscription. However, you might have the scenario that the younger inscription is copying the older style. Therefore, dating on the grounds of palaeography alone is a quite inexact calculation because you could be wrong at any time. Palaeography is made surer when we have other corroborating evidence, such as archaeological stratigraphy or the naming of other verifiable historical individuals in the content of the inscription. Best 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: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 16:49:16 -0500 From: "Trudy Kawami" Subject: ane Nebuchadnezzar II inscriptions We have in our collections a large light gray limestone slab (53cm x 53cm x 12.5 cm) with an inscription that is a close sibling to the India House (foundation) inscription in the British Museum. Does anyone know of comparably large stone foundation inscriptions from Mesopotamia, or is anyone working on such inscriptions? Assurnasirpal's banquet inscription (104 x 128) is one antecendent, as may be Tikulti-Ninurta I's Dinitu temple inscription (41 x 32 x 8). I would be grateful for any further leads. Trudy Kawami ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 19:11:03 +1300 From: "Don Mills" Subject: Re: ane Fighting the Fringe (1) (long) On Wednesday, February 16, 2000 (New Zealand time), Brett Mackellar wrote: | I, too, have thought about "the fringe" a goodly | amount recently, and have come to the conclusion that | the arguments between archaeologists and "loonies" are | based on two different levels. The fringe, to use | Hancock et al as an example, assume that weathering | patterns on the Sphinx indicate that the Giza Plateau | was in use in 10,500 BC. No room is left for | alternate interpretations of geological data. While not espousing Hancock's ideas, I'd still say that exactly the same criticism applies to many exponents of "orthodox" history: for Egyptologists convinced of a 4500-year age for the Sphinx, "No room is left for alternate interpretations". This doesn't automatically make conventional interpretations wrong, so why should it make unconventional ones wrong? And incidentally, someone else's holding to a theory that one personally sees no need for doesn't mean that the other person is mentally ill ("loony"). Such language indicates a desire to insult rather than to dialogue. | Evidence is used to support a fantastic hypothesis (I | balk at using this term here). Myself, I try to distinguish carefully between "hypothesis" and "speculation"; "fantasy" is a pejorative term which was applied in the 1950's, for example, to the idea that the fixed, stable continents might drift around on the earth's surface. What a ludicrous idea -- much along the lines of that earlier fantasy that stones fall out of the sky, when everyone knows there are none up there! (Monkeys may be a different matter ...) | The inherent fallacy here is that science attacks the | evidence, not the conclusion. In truth, the | terracotta head proves nothing. Monkeys have | literally fallen from the sky in the past, and the | presence of an artifact where it shouldn't be doesn't | prove a single thing. For now, it (the head) should | be chalked up as an unusual phenomenon and re-examined | *only* when sufficient evidence turns up to merit such | a thing. What would you consider "sufficient evidence"? The object was found in 1933 by a professional archaeological expedition; it was found sealed beneath three floors of stone and Amerindian cement in a pre-Columbian burial ground; the burial it lay beneath has been dated to the 12th-13th centuries CE; the features of the head are typically European rather than Amerindian; its style dates it as Roman work of c. 200 CE; thermoluminescence dating indicates an age of c. 1800 years ... ... But of course, such indications, however plentiful, are acceptable *only* where they support current paradigms. As with the plentiful evidence of pre-Clovis humans in the Americas, now finally seeing professional publication after fifty years' condemnation to "fringe" journals, the dominant paradigm insists that contrary evidence remain unexamined, unpublished even, until ... Well, if it remains unexamined and unpublished, how will "sufficient evidence" ever become known? I disagree that the head *proves* nothing, if by "prove" we understand "strenuous testing". The head strenuously tests the prevailing consensus, by providing strong evidence (not confirmation) of pre-13th Century (not necessarily Roman) contact between Europe and the Americas, or between Asians carrying antique European goods, and the Americas. What contrary interpretation would you, Brett (I hope you don't mind) make of the evidence? I guess you're not proposing that it "fell out of the sky" in the 12th century or earlier ... (The New Scientist article is inaccurate, BTW, in that the "independent anthropologist's" name is not Roman Hristov, but Romeo Hristov, see Hristov, Romeo H.; "The Little 'Roman' Head of Calixtlahuaja, Mexico: Some Reflections," NEARA Journal, 28:68, 1994. NEARA = New England Antiquities Research Association.) | | In short, don't attack the evidence ... | Hmmm, seems to me that that's what *you're* doing. Now, *knowing* the evidence is a good place to start, and I have tried to show (and will try to show again, with other examples), that at least some "orthodox" interpretations of some parts of history rest on ignorance of some parts of the evidence. "Ignorance" may be taken to mean "lack of knowledge" or "refusal to consider", whichever one finds appropriate; but lack of knowledge is inevitable in situations when there has been deliberate suppression of information, albeit with the best will in the world. | .... attack the | shortsighted pseudo-scientists who decree that the | evidence points to one inescapable conclusion: theirs. The rebuttal is all too obvious ... But I was always taught to "play the ball, not the man". Best wishes, ================================= Don Mills Wellington, New Zealand (this week in Brisbane, Australia) ================================= ------------------------------ End of ANE Digest V2000 #47 *************************** Back issues are available on the Oriental Institute World-Wide Web (WWW) site at: http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/ANE/OI_ANE.html