From: owner-ane@ (ANE Digest) To: ane-digest Subject: ANE Digest V2000 #270 Reply-To: Sender: owner-ane@ Errors-To: owner-ane@ Precedence: bulk ANE Digest Friday, September 22 2000 Volume 2000 : Number 270 ane Hamadan inscription discovery? ane Re: Armenian arrival in Urartu/Biainili Re: ane Re: Armenian arrival in Urartu/Biainili Re: ane Origin of Arabian scripts ane Origin of Arabian scripts (Corrected version) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 12:01:12 -0500 From: "Charles E. Jones" Subject: ane Hamadan inscription discovery? On Monday 18th September the Islamic Republic News Agency issued the following press release: Tehran, Sept 18, IRNA -- After 11 years of excavation, archeologists on Sunday unearthed the first stone relic inscribed in cuneiform in the historical Hegmataneh hill of the western city of Hamedan the Cultural Heritage Organization (CHO) announced here on Monday. The relic is believed to be a part of the capital (crown) of an ancient pedestal. Head of the excavation team, Mohammad Rahim Sarraf, said that it is the first of such discovery. The inscription provides illuminating proof of the existence of palaces belonging to Achamenean kings who lived in Hegmataneh. The Achamenid dynasty ruled Iran (ancient Persia) from 553-330 B.C. Archeologists hope the inscription would help bring out the identity of the ancient kings who laid the foundations of early civilization in Hegmataneh. http://www.irna.com/newshtm/eng/28103347.htm The story seems to have been picked up in some Iranian and other Middle Eastern news services, but has not yet - so far as I know - made it into the European or North American press. If anyone has seen further reports, I'd be grateful for information on where they might be found. Thanks - -Chuck- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Charles E. Jones Research Associate - Bibliographer The Oriental Institute - Chicago 1155 E. 58th St. Chicago IL 60637-1569 USA Voice (773) 702-9537 Fax (773) 702-9853 ce-jones@uchicago.edu http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/DEPT/RA/Research_Arch.html ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 00:40:43 +0200 From: "Bjarte Kaldhol" Subject: ane Re: Armenian arrival in Urartu/Biainili Peter T. Daniels wrote about the article about Armenian in Britannica: > Do recall that that was written a good 30 years ago (and may well have > been carried over from the 14th edition, meaning it would take a bit of > digging to discover when it was first published). Do you mean to suggest, Peter, that the Britannica editors have not bothered to update the article about the Armenian language for more than thirty years? And that the readers, during all these years, have been misled by a mere surmise? Bjarte Kaldhol ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 19:59:46 -0400 From: "Peter T. Daniels" Subject: Re: ane Re: Armenian arrival in Urartu/Biainili Bjarte Kaldhol wrote: > > Peter T. Daniels wrote about the article about Armenian in Britannica: > > > Do recall that that was written a good 30 years ago (and may well have > > been carried over from the 14th edition, meaning it would take a bit of > > digging to discover when it was first published). > > Do you mean to suggest, Peter, that the Britannica editors have not > bothered to update the article about the Armenian language for more than > thirty years? And that the readers, during all these years, have been > misled by a mere surmise? Every so often I come across a criticism of the Britannica focusing on how updating is not one of its strengths. They certainly *expanded* the 14th edition (1929-73) many times, but they rarey *revised* existing articles; new topics were accommodated by cutting existing articles and by inserting pages numbered with letters! But even traditional linguists (i.e., modern linguistic-theory types wouldn't care) would probably not be discontent if the descriptive articles on languages remained the same for many decades; after all, the facts of the language (as opposed to the interpretations of those facts) don't change much. And the language articles of the 15th were overseen by Eric Hamp, which adds extra confidence. Stray historical details in a language article, though, would probably not attract the attention of any experts in Armenian history who might have been asked to check over the coverage -- as must have happened, because already in 1990 I think it was, the EB included full-scale country treatments of all the former Soviet republics. (Was it here that the discussion of Egyptian boxing in the EB took place, or was that on a different List? The point there was that some silliness was copied from boxing history to boxing history without it ever being checked by someone who knew about Egyptian sport.) - -- Peter T. Daniels grammatim@worldnet.att.net ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 13:07:35 +1300 From: B.E.Colless@massey.ac.nz Subject: Re: ane Origin of Arabian scripts >Surely > > / \ is a more reasonable hypothesis than NWSem > / \ | > / \ | > / \ | >/ \ | >NWSem SSem SSem ? >-- >Peter T. Daniels grammatim@worldnet.att.net That's very clever, Peter, making such a diagram on basic e-mail! But you should realize that my personality type always prompts me, when two options are offered, to accept both choices. But maybe this time I will take neither! But it depends on what you put at the peak of your Fig.A. And whether NW Semitic means the Phoenician alphabet of the Iron Age (in Fig B) or the Proto-Canaanite alphabet of the Bronze Age (in Fig A). Immediately before I opened your message (spooky!) I had been looking at John Healey's table (in The Early Alphabet, Brit Mus, 1990, p.61), the relevant part of which I will reproduce, using the trick you have just taught me. Then my version, theoretical but based on detailed observation. The numerals show the equivalent entities on each table. NOTE: -- genetic link; == link by inspiration or analogy; ||| both factors HEALEY 1 Sumero-Akkadian Cuneiform Relationship between || main scripts || 2 Egyptian Hieroglyphs // ||| 3 West Semitic syllabic // ||| (Byblos, undeciphered[!]) ||| 4 Proto-Sinaitic/Canaanite /// | \\\ /// | \\\ 5 Ugaritic Cuneiform | | 6 South Arabian | 7 Early Phoenician COLLESS Evolution of the Alphabet Egyptian pictographic/ <-====-> Mesopotamian pictographic/ symbolic labelling symbolic labelling | | 2 Egyptian hieroglyphic ===== 1 Sumero-Akkadian cuneiform consonantal logo-syllabary vocalic logo-syllabary ||| | ||| | 3 Canaanite hieroglyphic <==== Eblaic cuneiform vocalic logo-syllabary vocalic logo-syllabary (open syllables, logograms) (open syllables, logograms) | || 4 Canaanite proto-alphabetic ---> 5 Canaanite cuneiform consonantal logo-syllabary consonantal alphabet | | 7 Phoenician 6 Arabian alphabet alphabet | | | Hebrew, Aramaic Greek | | Arabic I hope that you will be able to get them both on your screen, and that it will not collapse into a confused mess, if my tabs fail to work in your system. I just made this table up today, in response to Peter's prod. It is based on Table 2, in B.E. Colless, The Egyptian and Mesopotamian Contributions to the Origins of the Alphabet, in Cultural Interaction in the Ancient Near East (ed. Guy Bunnens), Abr-Nahrain Supplement 5 (1995) 67-76 The pictographs of the Canaanite proto-alphabet (4) became the letters of the Phoenician (7) and Arabian (6) alphabets. So I do have a scheme like Peter's Fig. A. The questions are, however: When and where was the Canaanite proto-alphabet invented? and when and where was it first used in Arabia? And I cannot prove that the Canaanite vocalic syllabary (the so-called "Byblos pseudo-hieroglyphic script") *preceded* the Canaanite consonantal logo-syllabary. The Wadi el-Hol proto-alphabetic inscription allegedly belongs to the Middle Kingdom, so the predecessor should be in the Old Kingdom. But both scripts were used for Canaanite writing in Egypt and Canaan in the Late Bronze Age. So reverting to Alan Kaye in his review of Majeed Khan's book on Arabian scripts (JNES 59.3, 2000, p.213f). He gives two proofs of connection between NW and South Semitic scripts. (a) two Late Bronze Age "abecedaries" (Ugarit, Beth-Shemesh) have much the same order of letters as the Arabian: H L H. M Q... Other Ugaritic examples are real "abecedaries", with the order 'A B G H~ D ... (Here, mirabile dictu, he cites Peter T. Daniels,1997) (b) "The similar shapes of Phoenician and Epigraphic South Arabian , , , , and <'ayn>, for example, [also Q (qaw, string) and S.(s.eror, tied bag); see my previous posting BEC], convinces me that these two scripts have evolved from the same prototype, which is, of course, unattested." Bless me! Is no one believing, or even reading my results?! The "prototype" is not "unattested", it is widely attested, from Egypt through Sinai to Palestine (Canaan), and it is what I call the proto-alphabet. This was a pictographic consonantal logo-syllabary (I accept I.J. Gelb's case for seeing it as a syllabary, but it is also an alphabet! Both options are acceptable to me!). The proto-alphabet was a very economical syllabary of less than 30 glyphs, and while ever its signs remained pictographic, so that you could still see what the sign represented (ox, house, boomerang, door, snake), they could function in three separate ways: (1) as a LOGOGRAM (Bayt, house; 'ayn, eye > well-spring, or is this a case forthe next category?), (2) as a COMPLEX PHONOGRAM (Nh.$T/n-kh-sh-t, copper, where all the consonants of the word Nakhash 'snake' are to be read, though not the vowels, imitating Egyptian practice, as argued in my previous message). (3) Also each sign provided a SIMPLE ACROPHONIC PHONOGRAM (G from gaml, boomerang, D from dalt, door, S from Samk, fish). Not many people know that, or even want to know it. It seems that if we want to read the text on the Izbet Sartah Ostrakon (which also has an abecedary at the bottom) we need to invoke all three principles. But those who have seen my reading of it think it is too speculative, and are not willing to publish it. {"I am learning the signs", it begins; and in one place the letter 'ayin is a logogram for "eye", and elsewhere provides the consonants for the verb 'yn "see", and the simple consant for the preposition 'l "on". Anyway, at least I can say that my reading for the Arabah plaque fits into its context; the Arabah was a place of copper-mining and smelting. [Z MS.Q Nh.$T "This is copper-casting" or similar] Shalom Brian ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 13:22:33 +1300 From: B.E.Colless@massey.ac.nz Subject: ane Origin of Arabian scripts (Corrected version) There was an error in the earlier version, regarding which is Fig A and B. I have labelled them; and added a sentence ("Then I can accept both of them!") So sorry Brian >Surely > > / \ is a more reasonable hypothesis than NWSem > / \ | > / \ | > / \ | >/ \ | >NWSem SSem SSem ? >-- >Peter T. Daniels grammatim@worldnet.att.net FIG A FIG B That's very clever, Peter, making such a diagram on basic e-mail! But you should realize that my personality type always prompts me, when two options are offered, to accept both choices. But maybe this time I will take neither! But it depends on what you put at the peak of your Fig.A. And whether NW Semitic means the Phoenician alphabet of the Iron Age (in Fig A) or the Proto-Canaanite alphabet of the Bronze Age (in Fig B). Then I can accept both of them! Immediately before I opened your message (spooky!) I had been looking at John Healey's table (in The Early Alphabet, Brit Mus, 1990, p.61), the relevant part of which I will reproduce, using the trick you have just taught me. Then my version, theoretical but based on detailed observation. The numerals show the equivalent entities on each table. NOTE: -- genetic link; == link by inspiration or analogy; ||| both factors HEALEY 1 Sumero-Akkadian Cuneiform Relationship between || main scripts || 2 Egyptian Hieroglyphs // ||| 3 West Semitic syllabic // ||| (Byblos, undeciphered[!]) ||| 4 Proto-Sinaitic/Canaanite /// | \\\ /// | \\\ 5 Ugaritic Cuneiform | | 6 South Arabian | 7 Early Phoenician COLLESS Evolution of the Alphabet Egyptian pictographic/ <-====-> Mesopotamian pictographic/ symbolic labelling symbolic labelling | | 2 Egyptian hieroglyphic ===== 1 Sumero-Akkadian cuneiform consonantal logo-syllabary vocalic logo-syllabary ||| | ||| | 3 Canaanite hieroglyphic <==== Eblaic cuneiform vocalic logo-syllabary vocalic logo-syllabary (open syllables, logograms) (open syllables, logograms) | || 4 Canaanite proto-alphabetic ---> 5 Canaanite cuneiform consonantal logo-syllabary consonantal alphabet | | 7 Phoenician 6 Arabian alphabet alphabet | | | Hebrew, Aramaic Greek | | Arabic I hope that you will be able to get them both on your screen, and that it will not collapse into a confused mess, if my tabs fail to work in your system. I just made this table up today, in response to Peter's prod. It is based on Table 2, in B.E. Colless, The Egyptian and Mesopotamian Contributions to the Origins of the Alphabet, in Cultural Interaction in the Ancient Near East (ed. Guy Bunnens), Abr-Nahrain Supplement 5 (1995) 67-76 The pictographs of the Canaanite proto-alphabet (4) became the letters of the Phoenician (7) and Arabian (6) alphabets. So I do have a scheme like Peter's Fig. A. The questions are, however: When and where was the Canaanite proto-alphabet invented? and when and where was it first used in Arabia? And I cannot prove that the Canaanite vocalic syllabary (the so-called "Byblos pseudo-hieroglyphic script") *preceded* the Canaanite consonantal logo-syllabary. The Wadi el-Hol proto-alphabetic inscription allegedly belongs to the Middle Kingdom, so the predecessor should be in the Old Kingdom. But both scripts were used for Canaanite writing in Egypt and Canaan in the Late Bronze Age. So reverting to Alan Kaye in his review of Majeed Khan's book on Arabian scripts (JNES 59.3, 2000, p.213f). He gives two proofs of connection between NW and South Semitic scripts. (a) two Late Bronze Age "abecedaries" (Ugarit, Beth-Shemesh) have much the same order of letters as the Arabian: H L H. M Q... Other Ugaritic examples are real "abecedaries", with the order 'A B G H~ D ... (Here, mirabile dictu, he cites Peter T. Daniels,1997) (b) "The similar shapes of Phoenician and Epigraphic South Arabian , , , , and <'ayn>, for example, [also Q (qaw, string) and S.(s.eror, tied bag); see my previous posting BEC], convinces me that these two scripts have evolved from the same prototype, which is, of course, unattested." Bless me! Is no one believing, or even reading my results?! The "prototype" is not "unattested", it is widely attested, from Egypt through Sinai to Palestine (Canaan), and it is what I call the proto-alphabet. This was a pictographic consonantal logo-syllabary (I accept I.J. Gelb's case for seeing it as a syllabary, but it is also an alphabet! Both options are acceptable to me!). The proto-alphabet was a very economical syllabary of less than 30 glyphs, and while ever its signs remained pictographic, so that you could still see what the sign represented (ox, house, boomerang, door, snake), they could function in three separate ways: (1) as a LOGOGRAM (Bayt, house; 'ayn, eye > well-spring, or is this a case forthe next category?), (2) as a COMPLEX PHONOGRAM (Nh.$T/n-kh-sh-t, copper, where all the consonants of the word Nakhash 'snake' are to be read, though not the vowels, imitating Egyptian practice, as argued in my previous message). (3) Also each sign provided a SIMPLE ACROPHONIC PHONOGRAM (G from gaml, boomerang, D from dalt, door, S from Samk, fish). Not many people know that, or even want to know it. It seems that if we want to read the text on the Izbet Sartah Ostrakon (which also has an abecedary at the bottom) we need to invoke all three principles. But those who have seen my reading of it think it is too speculative, and are not willing to publish it. {"I am learning the signs", it begins; and in one place the letter 'ayin is a logogram for "eye", and elsewhere provides the consonants for the verb 'yn "see", and the simple consant for the preposition 'l "on". Anyway, at least I can say that my reading for the Arabah plaque fits into its context; the Arabah was a place of copper-mining and smelting. [Z MS.Q Nh.$T "This is copper-casting" or similar] Shalom Brian ------------------------------ End of ANE Digest V2000 #270 **************************** Back issues are available on the Oriental Institute World-Wide Web (WWW) site at: http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/ANE/OI_ANE.html