From: owner-ane To: ane-digest@oi.uchicago.edu Subject: Ancient Near East Digest V3 #159 Reply-To: Errors-To: owner-ane Precedence: bulk Ancient Near East Digest Thursday, 16 May 1996 Volume 03 : Number 159 Ashkelon Web Page era solution Re: More Dilmun dates FWD: A few words about how our calendar works Penn. Post Doctoral Fellowships 1997-98 reveiw of Lefkowitz & Rogers volume era solution Re: FWD: A few words about how our calendar works Year 1 BCE is not 1 CE Tel Dan Re: Parasols: Query HIC's chart SJG's manifold errors To boldly go to 585 B.C. Re: To boldly go to 585 B.C. A Brave New Dilmun [Long] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard Saley Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 22:12:31 PDT Subject: Ashkelon Web Page [ * * * N E W E D I T I O N O F A S H K E L O N H O M E P A G E * * * ] Ashkelon Excavations, The Leon Levy Expedition, is happy to announce an upgraded--'new and improved'--World Wide Web home page at: http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~peabody/ashkelon_dig.html If you can't come see us at Ashkelon (and even if you can), come visit our page. Cheers, Dick Saley Ashkelon Excavations The Semitic Museum Harvard University ------------------------------ From: Peter Daniels Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 22:31:11 -0500 Subject: era solution Liz and Tim have agreed on a solution. Do they agree that Stephen Jay Gould was WRONG??? (It wouldn't be the first time. In his last collection he repeated the old statement tht William Jones was the irst to notice the similarities among the IE languages.) ------------------------------ From: avigdor horovitz Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 07:48:19 +0300 (IDT) Subject: Re: More Dilmun Dear Bernie, Thank you for this succinct analysis of the dilmun =/= paradise problem. I should jsut add to your bibliographical suggestions an article by Piotr Michaeleowski in a recent issue of Aula Orientalis in which he discussed the literary topology of the works which start with negative descriptions- "when there was no.... at that time..." Victor Avigdor Hurowitz Dept of Bible and ANE Ben Gurion University Beer Sheva, Israel On Tue, 14 May 1996, BERNARD F. BATTO wrote: > The identification of Dilmun with biblical paradise is erroneous, IMO, > for several reasons. The notion that Dilmun was the forerunner of the > biblical paradise can be traced back to Stephen Langdon, who in 1915 > first published a Sumerian myth which he entitled the "Sumerian Epic of > Paradise, the Flood, and the Fall of Man." The claims of the English > title were quickly debunked by other scholars. The first reliable > edition of this myth of "Enki and Ninhursag" was published in 1945 by > S. N. Kramer, but he unfortunately perpetuated the the notion that there > were close parallels to Genesis 2-3, as evident from his subtitle "A > Sumerian 'Paradise' Myth." Kramer's views have been popularized through > his translation of this myth in J. Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts. > A new edition of Enki and Ninhursag by P. Attinger (ZA 74, 1984, 1-52) > and new translations, e.g., by T. Jacobsen (The Harps That Once, 1987, > 181-204) have helped to correct the situation, but these have yet to > perculate down to less specialized readers. > > The identification of Dilmun with a biblical paradise is erroneous for > several reasons. (1) The Sumerian phrase "There was no X" (e.g., "The > lion slew not") refers not to imaginary paradisiacal conditions where > lions once were herbivores but to a state of inchoate creation before > the existence of lions. The description of Dilmun in Enki and Ninhursag, > therefore, suggests not some idyllic place but rather the condition of > Dilmun before it was fully formed. (2) Other Mesopotamian myths confirm > that the normal Mesopotamian view was that the "primitive" condition of > humankind was not ideal, that the condition of humankind improved with > the advent of civilization rather than worsening. Indeed, the notion of > an original paradisiacal condition for the world and for humankind seems > to be foreign to Mesopotamian worldviews. (3) Mythic Dilmun, such as > depicted in Gilgamesh, tablet xi, since Dilmun here lies clearly beyond the > boundaries of this world, must be distinguished from historical Dilmun-- > even allowing for some historicization of myth. (4) The development of a > conception of an original "paradise" is an internal biblical development, > not a conception borrowed from Mesopotamia. > > Since I have written on these matters in several of my publications, I > will not go further into detail here. For a full discussion and for > additional literature on this topic, interested persons may consult > especially my article "Paradise Reexamined," in K. L. Younger, W. W. > Hallo, & B. F. Batto, eds., The Biblical Canon in Comparative Perspective > (1991); see also my "Creation Theology in Genesis," in R. J. Clifford & > J. J. Collins, Creation in the Biblical Traditions (1992). > > Bernard F. Batto > Religious Studies Department > DePauw University > Greencastle, IN 46135 > ------------------------------ From: John Steele Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 09:28:02 +0100 (BST) Subject: dates To further add confusion to the dating problem, it is the common use of historians of astronomy to use a system known as Julian Years to give a continuous dating system. In this system, there is a year 0 - it is the year before 1 AD. Hence year 0 = 1 BC, -1 = 2 BC, and so on. For comparing astronomical events in the past, such as the solar eclipse that was total in Babylon on 15 April 136 BC, it is much easier to call this year -135 April 15. For examples of dates of this kind, see the translation of the Babylonian astronomical diaries by Sachs and Hunger, or Sachs' Late Babylonian Astronomical Texts (LBAT). This may seem a strange system of dating to many Ancient Near East scholars, but believe me it is by far the best when dealing with ancient astronomy. John Steele ------------------------------ From: cejo@midway.uchicago.edu (Charles E. Jones) Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 09:44:38 -0500 (CDT) Subject: FWD: A few words about how our calendar works From: hic@tiac.net (Howard I. Cohen) To: ane@mithra-orinst.uchicago.edu (ANE) Subject: A few words about how our calendar works. On the matter of BCE/CE, etc. I offer the following technology to help us better understand the use of relevant numbers on a calendar. The key concept is the difference between cardinal and ordinal or ordered numbers. Actually our treatment of calendar dates is with ordered numbers, that is first, second, third, not really 0, 1, 2, 3 and so forth. We use the symbols, 1, 2 ,3 etc, but really mean ordinal-first, second, third, etc. For example, today is the 14th day of the 5th month of the 1996th year after some reference point. This is the case because, it at least avoids using 0 as the first number. In mathematics, like inside your computer, the first [non-negative] number is zero. And the base 8 numbers run 0 thru 7. But you know that. Now to illustrate these concepts at we work proceed as follows. Make is simple number line marking the end points of yearly intervals: CE<------|------>BCE End of nth year 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 |_________|_________|_________|__________|__________|__________| Ordered years |--3rd----|---2nd---|---1st---|---1st----|---2nd----|---3rd----| Test: |<---?---->| 1.5CE 1.5BCE Questions: How far apart are 1.5BCE and 1.5CE??? Now would you say that the observation that the first decade had only 9 years was right or wrong??? Liz (Fried): You (or your secret friend) had the right idea about 1bce and 1ce being separate - and BTW - contiguous. I think also my explanation helps unscramble the problem of 1.5ce - (-1.5bce) = ??? Hope the graphics survives the machinations of the net. If yours came through shuffled around (word wrapped or something bad), let me know and I'll be happy to fax you a copy. Simcerely, Howard Howard I. Cohen, Boston Computer Society Director, CAD-Special Interest Group ------------------------------ From: cejo@midway.uchicago.edu (Charles E. Jones) Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 10:08:14 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Penn. Post Doctoral Fellowships 1997-98 >From: ALLENSHE@MAIL.CJS.UPENN.EDU >Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 10:00:54 ET >To: owner-ane@mithra-orinst.uchicago.edu >Cc: ALLENSHE@MAIL.CJS.UPENN.EDU > > CENTER FOR JUDAIC STUDIES > University of Pennsylvania > Post Doctoral Fellowships 1997-98 > Application Deadline November 30, 1996 > >TEXT, ARTIFACT AND IMAGE: REVEALING ANCIENT ISRAELITE RELIGION > >The CJS program for 1997-98 will be devoted to integrating disciplines >and methodologies in the study of Ancient Israelite Religion. The >program will attempt to bring together a diverse community of scholars >in biblical philology, archaeology and art history. Furthermore, >since ancient Israel existed within a broader ancient Near Eastern >cultural context, the participation of those who study Mesopotamian, >Egyptian, Canaanite, Hurrian and Hittite cultures, with interest in >religious traditions, is deemed essential. > >The Center invites applications on projects examining the >methodological principles of the various disciplines relating to the >study of biblical and ancient Near Eastern religions. Issues to be >explored may include: What basic assumptions are made in attempting to >understand a culture's religion by studying its mythology, >iconography, temple architecture or burial practices? What are the >limitations of each approach, based upon the nature of the source >materials for each discipline within each culture? What insights are >gained by scholars, sharing the same disciplinary approach, when >applied cross culturally? How can one determine commonality and >uniqueness in the religious traditions of each of the ancient Near >Eastern cultures? > >Outstanding graduate students in the final stages of writing their >dissertations may also apply. Stipend amounts are based on a Fellow's >academic standing and financial need with a maximum of $30,000 for the >academic year. A contribution may also be made towards travel >expenses. Awards will be announced on January 30, 1997. > > For application material and further information, write to: > > Secretary, Fellowship Program > Center for Judaic Studies > 420 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19106 > telephone: 215-238-1290 > fax: 215-238-1540 email: allenshe@mail.cjs.upenn.edu > >*********************PLEASE NOTE CHANGE OF EMAIL ADDRESS BELOW************** >Sheila Allen 420 Walnut Street >Center for Judaic Studies Philadelphia, PA 19106 >University of Pennsylvania Voice: 215 238-1290 >allenshe@mail.cjs.upenn.edu Fax: 215 238-1540 >----------------------------------------------------------------------------- >*********************PLEASE NOTE CHANGE OF EMAIL ADDRESS BELOW************** >Sheila Allen 420 Walnut Street >Center for Judaic Studies Philadelphia, PA 19106 >University of Pennsylvania Voice: 215 238-1290 >allenshe@mail.cjs.upenn.edu Fax: 215 238-1540 ------------------------------ From: eugene.cruz-uribe@nau.edu (Eugene Cruz-Uribe) Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 08:54:08 -0700 (MST) Subject: reveiw of Lefkowitz & Rogers volume A Short Review of "Black Athena Revisited," edited by Mary Lefkowitz & Guy MacLean Rogers. University of North Carolina Press, 1996. xxi + 522 pages. As I had noted in an earlier e-mail comment, I felt it inappropriate to make substantive comments on the on-going debate concerning the Lefkowitz-Bernal debate airing on a companion list. Rather I decided to wait until I had finished reading and digesting the above named volume. I should begin my review by noting that ever since the publication of Bernal's first volume of "Black Athena," I felt that (1) Bernal has done a disservice to himself as a scholar for his apparently poor job of scholarship in a field he was a self proclaimed neophyte, and (2) that his outrageous theses addressed squarely one area of scholarship that Egyptologists and Classical historians had preferred not to address: the notion of "race" vis =E0 vis the ancient= world. I have noted that for many scholars that the anti-Bernal crusades that have evolved often have faulted Bernal based upon (1) above and have thus downplayed the questions raised in (2). If nothing else has come out of this debate, it is a realization that the notions of race as expressed by modern scholars reflect a modern industrial world and must be understood in that context. Failure to do so produces such a mish-mash of semi-scholarly literature that much ink, paper and e-mail space is wasted (not to mention time). =20 I do not want to suggest by the above comment that I am either impressed by Bernal's work or am in agreement with his theories. On the contrary, I am aghast how he has misinterpreted, over-interpreted and just "got it wrong at times" the substantive body of evidence dealing with ancient Egypt (my area of study). While his volumes may have sold large numbers of copies, the harm he has done to the field of Egyptology by the blatant spreading of misinformation would seem to be unwarranted and the work of a neophyte. Black Athena Revisited apparently serves as a type of companion volume to the Lefkowitz volume published separately dealing with Lefkowitz's argument that Bernal is selling myth as history. In Black Athena Revisited, Lefkowitz and Rogers have analyzed the substantial literature that has been written since 1988 in reaction to Bernal's work and gathered together a number of relevant articles and commissioned several new chapters. These articles by a number of authors attempt to examine a variety of different aspects of the theses suggested by Bernal in his two volumes. This is perhaps one of the weaknesses of this volume. Because many of the chapters (articles) were originally commissioned for other venues and purposes, I found the only connective theme in them was that they were discussing some aspect of Bernal's theses. Consequently, some of the articles do not translate to this format very well. This is especially true of those articles which were originally written for non-scholarly venues and are now here included as "scholarly" work. Their internal format now judges them as inadequate through no fault of the authors. It may have been better for the editors to have been more consistent in their choice of chapters, or requested revisions to allow consistencies of final product. Another observation I have with the general nature of the chapters is the impression I received after reading the volume. In case after case the most positive thing that many of the authors labeled Bernal was "amateur". While their comments were for the most part are justified, I see this as another potential negative aspect of this volume. Was the purpose of the volume to address the issues raised by Bernal, or was it an attempt by the authors and/or editors to get away from the discussion of racial issues (see no. (2) above) by downplaying the messenger of bad news/scholarship. (I note that Bernal raised a related issue in his response to this volume.) Also I was disappointed in the lack of articles dealing with eastern Mediterranean trade patterns during the late Bronze and Iron Ages. For the most part those discussions have dealt with the issues of intercultural contacts in the eastern Mediterranean with a heavy emphasis on the archaeological remains and what they can demonstrate for the variety of interactions that occurred in the second and first millennia B.C. If we address the issues of positive aspects of this volume, they clearly outweigh the negatives. We have here for the first time a series of chapters which address in a systematic manner the numerous theses proposed by Bernal and provide the teachers of Classical, Near Eastern and Egyptian history and culture a handy volume which refutes these theses. In addition, the volume does address a series of issues which are relevant to both the teaching of the ancient world, but also the issues of historiography and the development of our disciplines over the past century and a half. Following an introduction, the volume is separated into the following sections: Egypt, Race, Near East, Linguistics, Science, Greece and Historiography. Personally, I found the article by C. Loring Brace, et al, to be the most well written and comprehensive short discussion on the genetic aspects of "race" as it relates to the Near East and Egypt. In the future, when any author begins to discuss the concept of "race," it now becomes incumbent upon the author to clearly define terminology. Although most historians and linguists have shied away from that debate, this article allows for a clear basis for discussions. Second, I can recommend the linguistic analysis of Jasanoff & Nussbaum. Their article lays out clearly the shortcomings of Bernal's suggested etymologies of loan words from Egyptian into Greek. It does have a shortcoming in that it does not address the issue of what type of language is Egyptian itself. Is it an "African" language, or does it have it roots somewhere else? Some early scholars had suggested that there were significant influences from external parties (mostly from Asia), but more recent studies have suggested that the study of Afro-Asiatic languages cannot be simply stated as a yes-no situation. Loprieno's recent work (Ancient Egyptian, Cambridge Press, 1995) shows for instance that while ancient Egyptian has influences from Berber and Ethiopic and Chadic groups, the term "African" is clearly anachronistic when attempting to label what Egyptian was.=20 Third would be my recommendation of the six articles on historiography. While earlier chapters dealt with specific aspects of Bernal's Aryan Model versus Ancient Model discussion, this last section of the volume addresses origins of our disciplines and how we as scholars must be aware of how different aspects of our disciplines have developed. From a simplistic point of view, Bernal might represent the scholarship of Egypt, the Near East and Greece as an unchanging, aggressive Eurocentric behemoth, where truth lies entirely in the eyes of the beholder. To the authors of these chapters, some scholarship is almost portrayed as the purest form of research possible. What neither group seems to want to admit is that all of us are scholars who bring to their studies a great deal of personal and historic baggage that makes our search for the truth a very difficult task. As a student from the "Chicago School" of Egyptology, I bring a background of heavy emphasis on the importance of the written record with a grudging admittance of the importance of archaeological finds in understanding the culture of Egypt. But does that description also take note of the fact that as an undergraduate I also took courses in medieval art and African-American literature? Thus what we as scholars bring into our studies is a rich area of potential. =20 In the conclusion to the Black Athena Revisited volume, Rogers takes us over a series of questions that Bernal's works have raised and which theoretically can then be answered by the information passed on in this volume. One question addressed is "Were the Egyptians African?". To Rogers that isn't the real question. He states: "In tracing the alleged Afro-Asiatic roots of classical civilization, Bernal has almost nothing to say about the entire continent of Africa ...." On the one hand I would fault Rogers for not answering his original question. At the same time I would fault Bernal for not addressing what he means by "African." To state that because Egypt is located on the continent of African, it is African, is overly simplistic. Does geography hold the only key to this labeling? If we put that same question in a different form we can see how silly of a question it is: "all people who live in North America are American." This version begs the questions, does that mean if I live in Belize I am an American? What does it mean to be an American? Are we to differentiate between Native Americans living in Arizona versus Native Americans living in Canada versus native Americans living in Mexico? What about those individuals who were born in one area but emigrated to another, say born in Honduras and live in Quebec? As you can see from this last scenario, the types of questions being asked and answered are not ones that lend themselves to simple answers. As a fault Bernal has muddied already muddied waters with attempting to ask the wrong questions on the origins of classical civilization and, those who have been "refuting" him, have likewise addressed the wrong concerns. The Lefkowitz volume should not be held up as the masterpiece of rebuttal scholarship, just as Bernal's work should not be held up as the sword that slew the evil racist dragon of classical scholarship. As Rogers himself ends the volume with a plea for pluralistic (a further undefined term) scholarship, we must set down the issue of "African" origin of classical civilization and begin to use terminology more suited to a pluralistic society (even I can use undefined terms when necessary) rather than framing our questions in anachronistic terms. If as scholars we attempt to address issues such as race in the manner that Bernal has, we fool ourselves into thinking that we are doing serious scholarship in the name of "exposing" "amateurs." For myself, I would rather begin asking questions concerning cultural interactions. Does the manner in which we frame those questions reveal more about our own approach to history than about history itself? I welcome comments on this review. 15 May 1996 Flagstaff, AZ Eugene Cruz-Uribe Associate Dean College of Social and Behavioral Sciences Northern Arizona University P.O. Box 15700 Flagstaff, AZ 86001 eugene.cruz-uribe@nau.edu ------------------------------ From: jcook@awod.com (Jesse S. Cook III) Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 13:05:29 -0400 Subject: era solution On 14 May 1996, Peter Daniels wrote: "...Stephen Jay Gould WRONG??? (It wouldn't be the first time. In his last collection he repeated the old statement that William Jones was the first to notice the similarities among the IE languages." No doubt Stephen Jay Gould is not infallible, but I think Peter Daniels has the wrong error. According to Mallory (1989), "...James Parsons could well be credited with having independently discovered what we now call the Indo-European language family. But...the place of honour for the discovery...is *traditionally* assigned to Sir William Jones." (Emphasis added.) The error that Gould has made a number of times is to write that writing was invented 10,000 years ago, just double the correct figure. I will write to point this out to him when I find his e-mail address. Mallory, J.P.; *In Search of the Indo-Europeans: Language, Archaeology and Myth*; Thames and Hudson, London; 1989 Jesse S. Cook III E-Mail: jcook@awod.com Post Office Box 40984 or Charleston, SC 29485 USA 201-9573@mcimail.com "Our attitude toward others is not determined by who *they* are; it is determined by who *we* are." ------------------------------ From: Liz Fried Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 18:03:09 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: FWD: A few words about how our calendar works On Wed, 15 May 1996, Charles E. Jones wrote: > > > From: hic@tiac.net (Howard I. Cohen) > To: ane@mithra-orinst.uchicago.edu (ANE) > Subject: A few words about how our calendar works. > > On the matter of BCE/CE, etc. I offer the following technology to help us > better understand the use of relevant numbers on a calendar. The key concept > is the difference between cardinal and ordinal or ordered numbers. Actually > our treatment of calendar dates is with ordered numbers, that is first, > second, third, not really 0, 1, 2, 3 and so forth. We use the symbols, 1, 2 > ,3 etc, but really mean ordinal-first, second, third, etc. For example, > today is the 14th day of the 5th month of the 1996th year after some > reference point. This is the case because, it at least avoids using 0 as the > first number. In mathematics, like inside your computer, the first > [non-negative] number is zero. And the base 8 numbers run 0 thru 7. But you > know that. > > Now to illustrate these concepts at we work proceed as follows. > Make is simple number line marking the end points of yearly intervals: > > CE<------|------>BCE > > End of > nth year 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 > |_________|_________|_________|__________|__________|__________| > > Ordered > years |--3rd----|---2nd---|---1st---|---1st----|---2nd----|---3rd----| > > Test: |<---?---->| > 1.5CE 1.5BCE > There are several difficulties with this formulation as I see it. Year intervals are conventionally labeled at the beginning of the year, 1996 is the whole year starting in Jan and going through Dec. This hold true bce or ce, so that year 2 bce starts at Jan of 2bce and goes to Dec. 31, but in real numbers it goes from -2.0 to 1.99999, through 1.5, to 1.01, that is year 2 bce. Thus, 1.5 bce is in year 2,not year 1. Year 1 bce goes similarly from 1.0 through .5 to .01. That is year 1 bce. The next year is year 1 ce, and that starts not at zero (cuz there is no year zero) but at 1.0 and goes through 1.5 to 1.999. Thus, 1.5 ce is in year 1, whereas 1.5 bce is in year 2. This is easy to remember if we realize simply that the numbers get larger as we go forward in time. Not having a year zero means that there is no year which goes from 0.0 through .5 to 0.999. Thus, the formula which I offered before works for both real and integers. > Questions: How far apart are 1.5BCE and 1.5CE??? 1.5 bce is in year 2bce and 1.5 ce is in year 1 ce, thus 1-(-2)=3 subtract one for the lack of a zero = 2 1.5 - (-1.5) =3.0 and subtract one for the lack of a zero =2.0 > Now would you say that the observation that the first decade had > only 9 years was right or wrong??? the first decade had ten years going from 1 to 10, IMO, so that the second decade didn't start till year 11, and the 3 millenium will start in 2001. > > Liz (Fried): You (or your secret friend) had the right idea about 1bce and > 1ce being separate - and BTW - contiguous. I think also my explanation helps > unscramble the problem of 1.5ce - (-1.5bce) = ??? My "secret" friend is Timothy Pepper, who sent me letters privately so that he wouldn't embarrass me in public. > > > Hope the graphics survives the machinations of the net. If yours came > through shuffled around (word wrapped or something bad), let me know and > I'll be happy to fax you a copy. > > Simcerely, > > Howard > > > Howard I. Cohen, Boston Computer Society > Director, CAD-Special Interest Group > > > ------------------------------ From: MC2499@mclink.it (Ian Hutchesson) Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 01:33:55 +0200 Subject: Year 1 BCE is not 1 CE Gosh Liz, You shouldn't post this sort of thing: >> Questions: How far apart are 1.5BCE and 1.5CE??? > > 1.5 bce is in year 2bce and 1.5 ce is in year 1 ce, thus > 1-(-2)=3 subtract one for the lack of a zero = 2 > 1.5 - (-1.5) =3.0 and subtract one for the lack of a zero =2.0 Measuring from the zero point 1.5 years in both directions the distance is always 3 years. And 1.5 CE is somewhere in year 2 CE. Granted the writer got his terminology a little screwed with 1.5 BCE and 1.5 CE. If he had been consistent he would have written this: Test: |<---?---->| 0.5CE 0.5BCE Halfway through 1 BCE is 0.5 BCE and halfway through 1 CE is 0.5 CE. The plain distance is 1 year. So, getting back to convention, the rule of thumb for the duration from sometime in 1 BCE to sometime in 1 CE would be 1 - (-1) = 2 and subtract one for the change of direction = 1 0.5 is not rule of thumb -- it is exact. You wouldn't apply the rule of thumb for the time from July 1, 1 BCE (0.5 BCE) and July 1, 1 CE (0.5 CE), because, even though logically it's one year, you erroneously subtract the rule-of-thumb year and get 0. I have just dealt off net on this topic, so, if I seem to fume at the edges, don't worry -- I'm just in overdrive. Cheers, Ian Hutchesson ------------------------------ From: Liz Fried Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 21:09:54 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Tel Dan Does anyone know if the cult site on Tel Dan is within the city walls or outside of them during its history, particularly Iron Age? Thanks, Liz (back to what I;'m suposed to be thinking about) :-> ------------------------------ From: reeder@SIRIUS.COM (Greg Reeder) Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 18:26:59 -0700 Subject: Re: Parasols: Query At 12:05 PM 5/10/96 -0500, DR JUDITH LERNER wrote: > >I am now seeking, especially from philologists out there, references >to the parasol in the ANE. The earliest visual appearance I'm aware >of is on a stele of Sargon of Akkad, and, of course, there's its use >among the Assyrians and Achaemenids. Are there any textual mentions >of the king appearing/walking under something that could be a parasol? > Its seems to be an exclusively royal prerogative. A very interesting article "Sunshades of the Market Place", by Henry G. Fischer, in Ancient Egypt in the Metropolitan Museum Journal, vol.1-11 (1968-1976), pages 63-68. Fischer gives a bibliography of 27 sources from ancient Egypt of depictions of the sunshade or parasol. He notes that it was portable and examples from the 5th and 6th Dynasties show it being held beside or over a standing man or a man in a carrying chair. He traces it back to around 2,000 B.C. See also a very good photograph of a wall relief showing the royal manicurist Khnumhotep (5th Dynasty) with a sunshade over his head being carried aloft by a servant walking behind him. From Das Grab des Nianchchnum und Chnumhotep, Moussa and Altenmuller, 1977, Tafel 55. Greg Reeder on the WWW at REEDER'S EGYPT PAGE - ---------------->http://www.sirius.com/~reeder/egypt.html reeder@sirius.com ------------------------------ From: Peter Daniels Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 22:06:41 -0500 Subject: HIC's chart Howard I.Cohen's graphic came through just fine, and the distinction between cardinal and ordijnal needs to be kept in mind; but I don't see how he (and S. J. Gould) can set the points "1.5" in the MIDDLES of the two Year One s. The only reasonable label for those two points is "0.5"! ------------------------------ From: Peter Daniels Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 22:52:02 -0500 Subject: SJG's manifold errors I suspect that SJG's e-address is a very well kept secret, since he would doubtless be flooded by such as us. Just because "tradition" holds X doesn't make X correct; I don't recognize the name of James Parsons (I read Mallory back when it came out), but there are two good sources for such information: Anna Morpurgo Davies in vol. 13/1 of Current Trends in Linguistics; and an article by Giuliano Bonfante in the Journal of World History from the mid 1950s. Where does SJG say that about writing? Obviously I would have noticed that, and I don't recall it at all! ------------------------------ From: geoffrey summers Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 09:02:20 +0400 (MEDT) Subject: To boldly go to 585 B.C. I would be pleased for some advice. As I understand the debate we count backwards from a point 0. This point is the smallest amount of time that can exist, or no time at all. 12 months after this point equals one year B.C. I gather from recent postings that astronomers have a whole year that they refer to as 0, presumably because a year is an irrelevant amount of time to the likes of Dr. Spock who is, after all, light years ahead of us. The date of the Battle of the Eclipse (Herod. I.74.3) is said to have taken place on the 28 May 585 B.C. This date has been calculated (if I understand correctly) from a list of eclipses of the sun calculated by astronomers. Is anyone able to tell me if these calculations are based on an astronomical system of counting, which includes a whole year zero, or on an historical system which does not. I am correct in thinking that if a whole year zero has been included in the calculations of the dates of eclipses, the real date of the battle was in fact 586 B.C.? On a related issue, am I correct in thinking that it was the same use of zero to denote a complete year that has led Prof. Kuniholm to present dendrochronological dates B.C. as +/- 1? Geoff "To boldly go where no man has gone before, boldly" ------------------------------ From: John Younger Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 04:37:35 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: To boldly go to 585 B.C. According to my EclipseComplete 2.0 program (Zephyr Services), a solar eclipse occurred 23 Oct 528, visible from Sparta to Athens, not May. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ John G. Younger TEL: 919-684-2082 Dept of Classical Studies FAX: 919-681-4262 Duke University email: jyounger@acpub.duke.edu Durham, NC 27708-0103 http://www.duke.edu/web/jyounger/ ------------------------------ From: m.levi@ix.netcom.com (M.Levi) Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 01:54:20 -0700 Subject: A Brave New Dilmun [Long] Dear Branwen, Thank you for a most enjoyable and informative post. Let us hope that the unpublished material you describe will be made available in the near future (particularly those 20 texts!)) I've written two replies, one on the archaeology and one on the literary evidence for Dilman. This one concerns the literary evidence. I think we should start with that because it will clarify why I seem to cast a overly-critical eye on the material evidence. ******** A Brave New Dilmun In this post, I will attempt to demonstrate how it might be possible to account for every Dilmun citation without reference to a civilization called Dilmun. I’ll begin with a brief review of the Dilmun sources. Dilmun references begin with the earliest archaic sign lists of the late 4th m. and continue down to the 2nd-1st century B.C., when we find the name Dilmun on a fragment of a school text from Babylon written in the Greek alphabet. Dilmun sources are more problematic than one might conclude from reading discussions of the historical Dilmun. With minor variations, most general discussions on the whereabouts of Dilmun cite the same texts as evidence. One could call this list the Dilmun canon: texts that we all agree are relevant for determining the location of the historical Dilmun. Texts containing anomalous references don't make the list. 1. Dilmun in archaic texts from Uruk The earliest references to Dilmun are found in the economic and lexical lists from the fill of the Eanna, 3200 BC, and in similar texts from slightly later levels and sites. The sign DILMUN occurs in three lists and eleven administrative documents from the Eanna. In the Archaic Metals List, DILMUN occurs in an entry that reads "Dilmun axe." Another list has DILMUN next to the sign for copper, and a third next to the word "garment." DILMUN is also found in a text concerning the distribution of cream to six officials. Nissen has this to say about the use of DILMUN in the Eanna texts: ". . . it is highly interesting that as the title following the one containing the sign for DILMUN we find the composite sign for namesda, the title of the opening line of the Archaic Professions List. It is supposed that this title represents the highest official. Probably without all connotations of the terms "ruler" or "king" it nevertheless should be fairly close. The preceding line contains a number of signs which if translated literally could mean "the prince of the good Dilmun-house (or temple?)." [339] "To sum up, from our texts we do not get an adequate picture of the relations of Babylonia, or the city of Uruk, with Dilmun. One a general level, however, we can conclude that not only did such relations exist already by the end of the fourth millennium B.C., but that these contacts apparently were not restricted to trade. To be sure, the exchange of metal and textiles may represent the main ties, but the existence of titlescontaining Dilmun in their name in normal Babylonian contexts like the Professions List point to much closer mutual contacts than would be sustained by occasional trade. The same is suggested by the existence of DILMUN in generic designations for kinds of textiles or metal tools. We certainly are entitled to assume that these relations had existed long before the emergence of writing." [339] (Nissen, H, J. "The Occurrence of Dilmun in the Oldest Texts of Mesopotamia." Bahrain through the Ages, 325- 339) 2. Economic texts A dozen administrative documents found at Ur list the trade goods of sea-faring merchants. Entries refer to Dilmun gold, Dilmun copper and utensils made of copper, Dilmun lapis lazuli, Dilmun "fish-eyes", Dilmun beads of semiprecious stone, Dilmun ivory and objects made of or inlaid with, ivory, such as combs, pectorals, boxes, figurines, and sundry pieces of furniture." (Kramer, S. N. In the World of Sumer, 197) Lexical lists from Lagash [2500 BC] mention Dilmun dates, and an ED II text [2700-2600 B.C.] refers to a "Dilmun harp." By ED III, the "Dilmun shekel" is the standard weight of Mesopotamia. Economic texts mentioning Dilmun wares continue into the Isin-Larsa and OB periods. Dilmun goods are precious commodities. This general observation holds true wherever we find Dilmun wares listed: If a receipt lists one Dilmun garment among other garments, Dilmun dates alongside other types of dates, or Dilmun copper among other ingots, the price of the Dilmun entry is higher than that of non-Dilmun counterparts. 3. Literary sources Commonly cited sources fall into two categories: mythical references and letters/inscriptions. a. Mythical: Sumerian myths featuring Dilmun include the "Sumerian Flood Story," "Enki and Ninhursag," lines 1-30, and "Nudimmud's spell" (NAM. UB) in "Enki and the Lord of Aratta," lines 136-155. The mythical Dilmun is praised as a pure and radiant land, where Ziusudra and his wife were settled by the gods after being granted everlasting life. This Dilmun is clearly not located within the human realm and can only be reached by superheroes able to perform superhuman feats. b. Letters/inscriptions: An oft-cited text is the well-known Early Dynastic IIIb [2520 B.C.] account by Ur-Nanshe of Lagash which reads: The Dilmun ships (ma-Dilmun) from the foreign lands (kur-ta) brought wood (gu gish mu-gal) to King UrNanshe (Ur Nanshe.lugal) An inscription taken from a statue dated ca. 2300 B.C. (Sargon I) but compiled 600 years later in the OB period states: The Meluhha ships (ma Meluhha), the Magan ships (ma Magan), The Dilmun ships (ma Dilmun), he made tie up alongside the quay of Agade (kar Aggede-ka bi-kesh)] A second Sargon of Akkad reference informs us that Sargon reached the Lower Sea and conquered Dilmun. ****** Many later texts could be added to this list of Dilmun references, but those covered thus far suffice to give an overview of the genres from which we draw conclusions about Dilmun. The references we have looked at can be divided into two fundamental categories: mythical and historical. The Dilmun of myth is a land set apart from the human realm. Since harps and dates and ships and conquered territory are real objects, we conclude that other references to Dilmun must pertain to a real place, which the Sumerians also happened to call Dilmun. This fundamental premise has guided all scholarship on the Dilmun question, and indeed it appears self-evident and incontestable. Or is it? This is where the anomalous references enter the picture, the ones that aren't cited in discussions of the whereabouts of Dilmun. Let's look at several examples. 1. The most revealing Dilmun reference occurs in a NeoSumerian balag composition entitled a-ab-ba hu-luh-ha ("Oh Angry Sea") [R Kutscher, 1975], a liturgy chanted at ceremonies marking the demolition and rebuilding of temples. Multiple recensions exist from the Old Babylonian, Neo-Assyrian, Neo-Babylonian, and Seleucid periods. Recension F (OB) rev 11 [dil]-[mu]-un nigin2-u3 uru!-zu u6 ga-e-du11 rev 12 [erasure] IGI.DU ga-e-du11 Recension G (OB) 1 dilmun nigin2-u3 uru2-zu u8 [di]-[du11] Recension Haa (bilingual, Library of Assurbanipal) 5 dilmunki nigin-na uru2-zu u6 ga2-e-de3 6 kab-tum dEnlil na-as2-hi-ram-ma ana URU-ka tu-ur: URU-ka hi-it-ti Kutscher translates these lines as: Sumerian: "Dilmun, turn around and look at your city!" Let me say, Akkadian: "Dignitary (var. Enlil), turn around and return to your city (var. survey your city)! Why is Enlil, the chief Sumerian god, addressed as "Dilmun" in the Sumerian version? The attribute does not appear to have any connection with a foreign land named Dilmun -- Enlil is a Sumerian deity par excellence. Furthermore, the Akkadian translation of the same line renders Dilmun into an Akkadian word meaning "exalted, noble" or "important person, dignitary" and variant Akkadian recensions supply Enlil's name. Kutscher concludes that in this context Dilmun is an attribute unrelated to the historical Dilmun [1975, 45]. Kutscher observes orthographic differences in the different versions of a-ab-ba hu-luh-ha. In the earlier versions, Dilmun is written without the ki determinative used to designate a place name; by the Neo- Assyrian and Seleucid periods the postdeterminative is added. Kutscher states that this difference indicates that "only in the late periods was this attribute ["Dilmun"] identified with the land Dilmun. The origin of this attribute is not clear . . . " [45] 2. The temple of Nininsina (a Sumerian healing goddess) in the city of Ur was called "Dilmun-house." (Spronk, Beatific Afterlife, 1986, 120) This moniker of a temple in Ur demonstrates that we cannot assume that "Dilmun-x" is necessarily equivalent to something in or from Dilmun. 3. Eblaite texts provide a number of examples of mid-3rd m. Dilmun references. The sign for Dilmun appears next to entries of copper and tin, and the shekel used at Ebla is called the "Dilmun-shekel." [Pettinato, 1981, 182] It is odd that Ebla would use a standard presumably established in Arabian Gulf, and Pettinato [1983, 79-80] has proposed that in Eblaite contexts the Dilmun sign is to be read as "noble" rather than "from Dilmun." 4. Following Pettinato, Albert and Pomponio proposed that translating Dilmun as "sublime" also made better sense in evaluating a pre-Sargonic economic text, BM 128877 [1986, 115-116]. The latter concerns the Dilmun sign in a personal name. Instead of seeing this as an indicator that the individual hailed from Dilmun, the authors read the sign as a honorific appended to a name. 5. Three Mari letters (ARM I 21, ARM I 17, ARM V 14) concerned with a caravan bearing valuable commodities refer to individuals designated as Dilmun. Comwall and Reade understood these to be men from Dilmun, but Potts (1986, 389-398) allows that the translation "noble" would not be out of place in these letters. ************ Dilmun exemplars written with or without the postdeterminative and translated "noble" provide us with more indications of the origin of this attribute than were available to Kutscher in 1975 when he was trying to interpret a curious translation in his balag. The mythical Dilmun is a place where everything is pure and sublime. By extension, I propose that "Dilmun" is a term that categorizes things that are "Dilmun-like" because they are of exquisite make or exceptional quality/purity or noble lineage: the best of the best. The postdeterminative ki could be appended to "Dilmun" upon occasion because the referent was a place (although not a realm within the everyday world ) but the point was not to indicate provenance, but quality. It is my suspicion that the Dilmun sign used in the archaic lexical lists and economic texts does not have any connection with a real place called Dilmun. The Dilmun garment, the Dilmun copper, the Dilmun axe, the Dilmun cream and dates, the Dilmun harp are not things imported from a land called Dilmun, but garments of exquisite make, metals of exceptional purity, instruments superbly crafted, choice foodstuffs. The ruler mentioned in the Eanna tablet is dilmun because his lineage is most exalted and the prince lives in "a good Dilmun house" because princes live in the best houses available. The problem Nissen notes of the dilmun sign appearing on the Professions List in the fourth m. evaporates along with the Dilmun civilization. The ivory, lapis, pearls, copper, and gold of the Ur merchants are "dilmun" because they are precious and expensive. Dilmun dates -- mentioned in Mesopotamian, Ugaritic, and Hittite texts -- are the best dates to be had, regardless of where they are grown. Dilmun goods in general are more expensive because they are of the highest quality. The Dilmun shekel is a weight that conforms exactly to the agreed-upon standard. The name "Dilmun-House" is a superlative honoring the deity's dwelling. A Kassite cylinder seal (BM 122696) gives the name and ancestry of a man called Ubalisu-Marduk, son of Arad-Ea, great-grandson or possibly a more remote descendant of Usiananuri who bears the title "shakkanakku, viceroy, Dilmun". Ubalisu-Marduk is not the descendant of a Dilmunite emigre, but a scion of noble lineage. The "dilmun ships" that carried wood from foreign lands to King UrNanshe are not ships from the land of Dilmun. They are impressive ships, “noble” ships, not to be mistaken for little dinghies -- evidence for all to behold of UrNanshe's international prestige.. And the ships that docked at Agade? The third civilization paying call on Sargon arises from a misinterpretation of rhetorical parallelism: the Meluhha ships, the Magan ships, the noble ships. In other words, not just any old ships from Meluhha and Magan, but ships sent from distant rulers to pay homage to Sargon. The Dilmun conquered by Sargon? Territory seized as Sargon conquered rebellious nobles or independent chieftains ("dilmun") holding lands extending to the Lower Sea. Let's look at a letter from the house of Ea-nasir at Ur (dated ca. 1800 B.C.): When you came, you said, "I will give good ingots to Gimil-sin.” That is what you said, but you have not done so; you offered bad ingots to my messenger, saying, "Take it or leave it." Who am I that you should treat me so contemptuously? Are we not both gentlemen? . . . Who is there among the Dilmun traders who has acted against me in this way? [trans. Cohen, _Cultic Calendars_, 1993] The telltale line in this text is the rebuke, "Are we not both gentlemen?" In other words, the recipient's behavior deviated from the expected conduct of a gentleman, no other trader of noble birth would have treated him so. In a text from the reign of Sargon II, we learn that Uperi was a dilmun ruler on an island located 30 beru away, and that he sent tribute to Sargon II. Because Bahrain is situated roughly 30 beru away from Mesopotamia, this text has been thought to establish that Bahrain is Dilmun. I agree that Bahrain is the most likely candidate for the island realm of King Uperi. However Uperi is dilmun (“noble”), not Bahrain. Two letters found at Nippur [Ni615 and Ni641], presumably to the governor of Nippur from his brother, open with a formulaic salutation: “May Inzag and Meskilak, the deities of Tilmun, guard your life!” In myth, Inzak and Meskilak are the deities of Dilmun. In royal and palatial inscriptions , Inzak is often named as the personal deity of royalty. Again one observes an analogy at work: Inzak = god of Dilmun (place) / Inzak = god of the dilmun (nobility). Instead of concluding that the governor’s brother was writing from a place called Dilmun, we can understand this salutation with reference to the governor’s status as a dilmun in his society. Dilmun analogies in secular and public contexts such as accounting, commerce, and politics, indicate that knowledge of the mythical Dilmun was commonplace throughout Mesopotamian society. The occasional addition of the place marker “ki” to the superlative can only be explained if Mesopotamian writers were aware of the term’s connection to a place and at times made conscious reference to it. If “dilmun” is accepted as a superlative, we must also accept that Mesopotamians believed in a paradise because it is implicit in the analogy: Dilmun.ki = exalted place/dilmun(.ki) = exalted thing/person. Speaking as a historian of religion, it seems to me that we may look back upon the dilmun problem someday (assuming that my interpretation holds up to scrutiny!) and conclude that we were led astray by preconceptions about Mesopotamian religion. If one starts with the premise that Mesopotamians are too primitive to have the concept of a paradise, one will not see evidence to the contrary even when allusions to paradise are as plentiful as the pearls of Bahrain. This does not exhaust the Dilmun references, but I trust I have provided enough examples to demonstrate that my interpretation of dilmun references is not spun from fantasy but is based on careful consideration of the sources. I expect many of you will find grounds for disagreement! But can you point to references where this translation of dilmun doesn't work? Kate McCaffrey m.levi@ixnetcom.com (but soon to be getting my own account!) ------------------------------ End of Ancient Near East Digest V3 #159 *************************************** Back issues are available by two means: anonymous FTP at oi.uchicago.edu in pub/ane/ OR on the World Wide Web (WWW) at ftp://oi.uchicago.edu/pub/ane/