From: owner-ane To: ane-digest@oi.uchicago.edu Subject: Ancient Near East Digest V3 #175 Reply-To: Errors-To: owner-ane Precedence: bulk Ancient Near East Digest Tuesday, 4 June 1996 Volume 03 : Number 175 Re: vowels in Semitic script SOMA 1997 (Edinburgh) Meroitic Decipherment Re: vowels in Semitic script Ian on long vowels Gelb's uniformitarianism Re: END OF SCIENCE in Israel books on Hurrian Re: Ian on long vowels Re: books on Hurrian Meroitic Decipherment computer generation of phonemes Hawwass & Egyptian Gazette Re: Hathor-columns? Re: Writing Origination Re: Early Egyptian Writing (long) Re: Gelb's uniformitarianism Re: Early Egyptian Writing Cunei-math assistence needed FWD: New book on the history of the Achaemenid Empire Re: Writing Origination ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Robert Whiting; Tel +358-0-191-23289" Date: Mon, 03 Jun 1996 15:34:36 +0300 Subject: Re: vowels in Semitic script Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 23:50:18 -0500 From: Peter Daniels > 15 years ago at least, Bob Whiting and I used to argue about Gelb's > notion that Hebrew et al. scripts were somehow a "syllabary." I think > Bob's adhering to this unworkable notion (see my JAOS 110 [1990]: > 727-31) is partly responsible for Will's difficulty in understanding > him. Pierre Swiggers helped clear it up before I introduced "abjad" by > noting that Semitic scripts do not DENOTE vowels. But I like my way > better. First of all, the idea that West Semitic scripts were syllabaries was not specifically Gelb's. A number of scholars proposed the idea before Gelb took it up. Second, the notion is not unworkable since there is only one system and no matter what you call it, consonantal, semi-alphabetic, reduced syllabic, abjad, or yabbadabbadoo, it still has the same result: it doesn't express the vowels. From the point of view of entropy (the amount of disorder in the system) it makes no difference whether each sign represents a consonant plus any vowel or a consonant plus no vowel. The result is the same: the reader still has to supply all the vocalization. The fact that Gelb's theory of unidirectional development requires that these scripts be syllabaries has always seemed to me to have an element of circular reasoning to it: If Egyptian writing and the West Semitic scripts are syllabic then writing only develops one way; since writing only develops one way, these scripts must be syllabic. But this line of reasoning apart, there has been a good deal of evidence collected by Gelb and others to show the syllabic nature of the West Semitic scripts. If Gelb's unidirectional development theory is correct then they must be syllabic; but the converse is not true. Showing that the theory does not hold together does not prove that these scripts are not syllabic. Will seems to have a problem accepting the idea that there can be a writing system that is alleged to be phonetic that doesn't express vowels, which, as he correctly maintains, are the phonologically most heavily marked of sounds. How the system doesn't express vowels seems to be of considerably less moment and not a source of confusion. Bob Whiting ------------------------------ From: cejo@midway.uchicago.edu (Charles E. Jones) Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 12:33:52 -0500 (CDT) Subject: SOMA 1997 (Edinburgh) >From: "Takis Voilas @ Archaeology" > >SYMPOSIUM ON MEDITERRANEAN ARCHAEOLOGY > First Annual Meeting of Post-Graduate Researchers > Friday 21st - Sunday 23rd February 1997 > UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH > Call for papers > >SOMA will be a gathering of post-graduate and post-doctoral >researchers working on the archaeology of the Mediterranean. Its aims >are to allow students to present their work, to promote discussion >and interaction between fellow researchers and to meet future >colleagues in an informal setting. Presentations will be in the form >of posters, 10 minute deliveries and 20 minute lectures. >(Deadline for applications: 14 November 1996) >For further information, contact: >Fiona Stevens, >Department of Archaeology, >University of Edinburgh, >Old High School, >12 Infirmary Street, >Edinburgh EH1 1LT, >Scotland. >-OR- >e-mail: soma @ed.ac.uk. >- ------------------------------ From: kharyssa rhodes (by way of cejo@midway.uchicago.edu (Charles E. Jones)) Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 14:19:16 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Meroitic Decipherment Dear Aners, Mr. Winters' post regarding his sudden translation of Meroitic certainly took me, as I'm sure many others, by surprise. I have been pursuing Meroitic since I was first introduced to the great mystery by my advisor while an undergraduate freshman. Now, in the thick of my MA thesis proposal, and having conducted five years of comparative language studies in Meroitic, I was shocked to read Mr. Winters' post. My first question is, as one other has posed, "why hasn't this miraculous discovery been published, announced, on the cover of Time Magazine" ???? There *is* a simple reason. First of all, according to Mr.Winters, we are now to believe that Meroitic is Indo-European ? albeit Asiatic ? Especially given that there is no viable proof that contact between these different cultures ever existed ? As an anthropologist, I find the theories of cultural diffusion and the borrowing that goes along with it, would be impossible to apply (unless we postulate anew such old discarded myths as the Indian/Asian influence on Meroitic culture as seen in the multi-headed, many armed, snake-bodied representation of the god Apedemak)! After years of research and publications by such wonderful and gifted scholars as Christopher Ehret, Abdel-Gadir Abdalla, Joseph Greenberg, and of course Fritz Hintze, I am not easily willing to discard with all of the valid works done on Meroitic (and those which *are truly* leading to its decipherment)!! In review of those articles mentioned by Mr. Winters in his post, what I found was quite startling... the authors themselves searched in this *very* area and discarded the few similarities as dead-ends. To quote Dr. Hintze in "Some problems of Meroitic philology" (Studies in Ancient Languages of the Sudan, pp. 73-78): "I feel that it is time to advance a slight warning before this suggestion [that of cross-cultural lexical comparisons] is commonly accepted, because I think that the data presently available are by far too scanty. I will make this warning clear... by using an indirect method. If Meroitic is a member of the Eastern Sudanic family, it is eo ipso related to Nubian. But with much more (and even better) linguistic data it can be shown that Nubian (and Meroitic) is a member of the Ural-Altaic language family ! If this _clear nonsense_ can be shown by using the same method, such results must be taken with some reservation. Let us look at the following list, which also includes the comparisons made by Trigger... " [sorry folks in the effort to save space see pp. 76-78] "...These 'good' correspondences of twenty elements from Eastern Sudanic (mostly Old Nubian) and Uralo-Altaic, which cover the whole field of grammar... are clearly based on chance". So there we have it. According to Dr. Hintze, to undertake a comparison in Uralo-Asiatic languages is fruitless, futile, and based purely on chance. Indeed, if one were to follow Dr. Greenberg's well proven methodology, you could easily find cognates of Meroitic in _any language_ ! Given the subjectiveness of the research, this type of mistake is of the highest potential. I certainly welcome any responses/discussions regarding this post. Unfortunately, as a graduate student, I don't yet have any publications by which to prove myself... but some of you may recall my 1993 presentation at the Sudan Studies Association Conference (Univ of Mich) entitled "Problems in the Decipherment of Meroitic: A Comparison of Area Alphabets and Languages". Thank you, and sincerely, Kharyssa K. Rhodes University of Colorado at Denver Department of Anthropology/Archaeology ****************************************************************** "The deeper we dig for answers, the more we uncover new questions" ****************************************************************** ------------------------------ From: LEHAVY@NSVM.ATLANTIC.EDU Date: 03 Jun 96 17:38:15 EDT Subject: Re: vowels in Semitic script When I was in garde school in Israel the teacher told us that vowels in Hebrew are understood! ------------------------------ From: Peter Daniels Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 21:37:19 -0500 Subject: Ian on long vowels I'm sorry, Ian, but you're doing it again! You already told us you don't know Arabic, and it's showing now. I don't know what the Arabic equivalent of "Canaan" is, but if there's a long vowel in the second syllable, /kanaa`an/ or some such, then the Arabic word will be written with the consonants Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 21:59:37 -0500 Subject: Gelb's uniformitarianism Gelb's theory of unidirectional development is incorrect; even in the book, he couldn't account for Ethiopic (he says something like "special case"). But the indistinct syllabary theory dioesn't wrok either, because of closed syllables. in a word like yiktob, the does not stand for a syllable in any way, shape, or form. (If West Semitic had only open syllables, like Polynesian, for instance, he might possibly have had a case.) ------------------------------ From: Mensanity@aol.com Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 23:31:46 -0400 Subject: Re: END OF SCIENCE in Israel In a message dated 96-06-02 11:23:11 EDT, sam@israntique.org.il writes: >Letters or petitions to Mr. Netanyahu, to the next Minister of Education >and Culture, when he/she is appointed, and to the Attorney General, Michael >Ben Yair, who made the ruling that human skeletal remains are not to be >regarded as antiquities and therefore are not subject to scientific >analyses, would be in order, but I am not optimistic that they would >help. I don't have addresses available,but will find out if you can't get >them via the nearest Israeli consulate or embassy. > I don't have a bone to pick with the newly elected governent, but I would protest my governments subsidizing of these theocratic ludites. Could the real reason for the protests be that archaeololgy does not agree with the OT myths? For those of us in the good old U.S. of A. a letter to a favorite Congressperson or Senator asking that foreign aid be withheld untill the situation is resolved might have some effect. Terry Moran ------------------------------ From: adler@pulsar.cs.wku.edu (Allen Adler) Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 23:37:42 -0500 (CDT) Subject: books on Hurrian I'm looking for books on Hurrian, preferably cheap and in print, but not necessarily. In the bibliography of Gamkrelidze and Ivanov, I find a few references: (1) I.M.Diakonoff, Hurrisch und Urart\"aisch. Munich: R. Kitzinger, 1971 (2) E. Laroche, Glossaire de la langue hourrite, Revue Hittie et Asianique 34 (1976); 35 (1977) (3 E.A.Speiser, Introduction to Hurrian. New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research Browsing through library catalogues on the internet, I also found some books of Hurrian texts, including one on Hittite-Hurrian bilingual tablets. Also something by Diakonoff on Hurrian as a Caucasian language. Left to my own devices, I am likely to find the wrong stuff to read. So suggestions are welcome. Thanks. Allan Adler adler@pulsar.cs.wku.edu ------------------------------ From: Jose Rubio Pardo Date: Tue, 04 Jun 1996 00:52:46 -0400 Subject: Re: Ian on long vowels On Mon, 3 Jun 1996, Peter Daniels wrote: > know Arabic, and it's showing now. I don't know what the Arabic equivalent > of "Canaan" is, but if there's a long vowel in the second syllable, /kanaa`an/ > or some such, then the Arabic word will be written with the consonants EVERY long vowel IN ARABIC is written with ?, y, or w. (With a handful of > exceptions, as mentioned.) The letter alif in Arabic is not the sign for the You are obviously right, Peter. In fact, it's written /kan`a:n/ = , ka:f-nu:n-`ain-alif-nu:n (in vocalized texts, with fatHa over both the ka:f and the `ain, and suku:n over the first nu:n). One could check Hava (p. 667), Wehr (p. 843), and any Arabic Bible (for instance Gn 10: 15: wakan`a:nu walada Si:du:na; Gn 12: 5; etc.). - --------------------------- Gonzalo Rubio Near Eastern Studies Johns Hopkins University gonzalor@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu - --------------------------- ------------------------------ From: Clemens Daniel Reichel Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 01:01:22 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: books on Hurrian Are you familiar with Wilhelm, Gernot: 1989. The Hurrians. Warminster: Aris & Phillips. ? This is more a state-of-the-art summary than an introduction to the language but you might find it useful. More dated but still worth consulting: Gelb, Ignace J.: 1944 (repr. 1973) Hurrians and Subarians. Chicago: Oriental Institute. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 22. Clemens Reichel NELC / Oriental Institute On Mon, 3 Jun 1996, Allen Adler wrote: > > I'm looking for books on Hurrian, preferably cheap and in print, > but not necessarily. In the bibliography of Gamkrelidze and > Ivanov, I find a few references: > > (1) I.M.Diakonoff, Hurrisch und Urart\"aisch. Munich: R. Kitzinger, 1971 > (2) E. Laroche, Glossaire de la langue hourrite, Revue Hittie et > Asianique 34 (1976); 35 (1977) > (3 E.A.Speiser, Introduction to Hurrian. New Haven: American Schools > of Oriental Research > > Browsing through library catalogues on the internet, I also found > some books of Hurrian texts, including one on Hittite-Hurrian > bilingual tablets. Also something by Diakonoff on Hurrian as a > Caucasian language. > > Left to my own devices, I am likely to find the wrong stuff to read. > So suggestions are welcome. Thanks. > > Allan Adler > adler@pulsar.cs.wku.edu > > > ------------------------------ From: kharyssa rhodes Date: Tue, 04 Jun 1996 01:45:00 -0700 Subject: Meroitic Decipherment Let me start by saying a thank you to those who have posted me directly with their kind words and comments. I am grateful that the flames have been few, and that I have not been summarily dismissed as "just" a grad student. Thanks to all.... I do have some specific questions to answer which were posed in response to my message regarding Meroitic, and I also have a few points to add to my post. 1) please note that in the quote I presented from Dr. Hintze, he specifically used Ural-Altaic as an *example of the kind of mistakes in comparative linguistics to avoid at all costs*. He chose this example because of its true improbablity. To prove a relationship between Meroitic and Uralo-Asiatic languages and their respective cultures would be near impossible; and according to Hintze himself, "nonsense". 2) Merowe, as a city in itself, was a tremendous trading portal between the core of Africa and the Mediterranean. There is an abundance of evidence in the form of grafitti and observational writings (ei Herodotus) which support the idea that Merowe was a multi-lingual society. There are examples of writings from the city in Hebrew, Greek, Coptic, Demotic, Amharic (Ge'ez), Aramaic, and Hieroglyphs (of course). Funny that in a city where there is so much linguistic expression, there are no such examples of any Ural-Altaic language. 3) Cultural evidence from Meroitic temple friezes is presented in the sometimes-rigid style of their Egyptian brethren. However "Egyptianized", these friezes show a quite distinct culture from that of Egypt. Meroitic art shows their Kings, Queens, Gods, and Goddesses alike, all represented in their own Meroitic culture. That is, different garb, different crowns, emphasis on the Queens, some different dieties (like Apedemak), and other details (such as representation of facial scarification) which are all *quite African* characteristics. I say this not only as an African Studies major (undergrad) and someone who lived in NW Africa for a year, but also from evidence presented in publications by Haynes, O'Connor, Griffith, Vercoutter, Adams and others. The most startling comparisons can be seen in the cultures of southern Nubian, Dinka and Shilluk peoples. These folks are not of the Ural-Asiatic language family. In regards to several queries regarding the posting of some of my own linguistic research... phew ! I wouldn't know where to start as the work now surpasses 400 pages in data alone. I do promise, however, to look through my initial study and pick out the most relevant points and examples, and post these to the list sometime tomorrow or the next day. Sorry everyone, but that post will likely be even longer than this one.... Salaam - kharyssa rhodes **************************************************************** "No man can be a pure specialist without being a complete idiot" **************************************************************** ------------------------------ From: Allen Adler Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 03:18:58 -0500 Subject: computer generation of phonemes Since I don't know anything, I get snagged on details that are considered too obvious to mention. At the moment, I'm reading Meillet's The Comparative Method in Historical Linguistics and enjoying it quite a bit. I even have the illusion of understanding some of it. However, right now I'm around pages 117ff and trying to follow his discussion of the change from voiceless stops p,t,k in Indo-European to versions of b,d,g in other languages and I realize that I am handicapped by having to imagine what p,t,k mean and what b,d,g mean. Take p, for example. As an American, I think I normally pronounce p with some aspiration, if not some sputter. When I try to suppress it, keeing in mind the way an Indian friend of mind pronounces the word Pali, I find I produce a voiceless p with a kind of a pop, including a high pitched sound like a harmonic. However, this popped p is definitely not the same as the p click, which is more like the sound of a kiss. This shows that the interpretation of the notation p should not be left up to me, since I am too dumb to figure it out. But this is actually typical of the kinds of problems I have when I read anything phonetic in linguistics books. I believe that even the international phonetic alphabet doesn't meet the need for specification of phonemes. So what am I supposed to do? One thing that might h*elp would be to find a compact disk containing audio recordings of every known phoneme. (One correspondent tells me I should be using the word "morpheme" instead.) That at least would tend to pin these phonemes down. But the disk would depend on the humans producing the phonemes. It occurs to me that there might be sufficient progress in computer generation of sound to write programs for each of the known phonemes and use them to produce the compact disk. In effect, the computer program for a given phoneme would be the specification of the phoneme and it would be unequivocal. Although the recent discussion of "information" among Peter Daniels, Will Wagers and Bob Whiting is miles over my head, am I mistaken in thinking that a resolution of the gap between the last two posters could perhaps be found in a refined specification of phonemes such as I have suggested above? Just to give a fraction of an idea of what I mean (since that is all I have), in addition to being able to reproduce phonemes precisely, the programs could also produce idealized phonemes such as are represented by syllabaries or other writing systems that are intended to be phonetic in their content. So this would put both kinds of information on the same footing and would provide a precise notation that includes both. On the other hand, maybe the progress in computer generation of sound would not be adequate to include the melodies of spoken French. Anyway, if anyone has done this or if such materials are available, I would be interested in knowing about them. Naively, Allan Adler adler@pulsar.cs.wku.edu ------------------------------ From: Nigel Strudwick Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 11:40:12 +0100 (BST) Subject: Hawwass & Egyptian Gazette Has anyone seen an article by Zahi Hawwass in the above paper which talks about new openings at the Pyramids? If so could someone give me a summary. There are stories coming out of odd associations and I'd like to verify them please. Thanks Nigel Strudwick ------------------------------ From: Robyn Gillam Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 07:22:24 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Hathor-columns? Dear Elin Rand Nielsen, I agree that there is an association with papyrus; after all the column itself represents it, but there is also a link with Lower Egypt and hence the ureaus which was the goddess of this area. Furthermore the ureaus was identified with Hathor as the eye of the sun as well as the papyrus. There is a spell in the pyramid texts that equates hathor, the papyrus and lower Egypt (I forget where exactly) and Hathor and the sun eye are dicussed in Sethe's famous essay in Untersuchungen. An early spin on this is the sistrum of Teti from Dendera in the MMA which has Horus and a Ureaus on top of the box (=house of Horus). It's an interesting if confusing iconography. Best Wishes, Robyn Gillam On Mon, 3 Jun 1996, Elin Rand Nielsen wrote: > Dear colleagues > On Hathor-columns, the female face with cows' ears is crowned with a > square and 1-2 uraei-serpents. > The square is supposed to be the southern national shrine. > But what about the uraei in that context? Is it something with > green/papyrus? > ********************************************************************** > Elin Rand Nielsen, Curator > Egyptian Antiquities, The National Museum, Denmark Keilstruplund 23 > Frederiksholms Kanal 12, DK-1220 Copenhagen K 3460 Birkeroed > phone: +45 3347 3132 fax: +45 3347 3309 +45 4281 2771 > mailto:elin.rand@natmus.min.dk mailto:randkoie@inet.uni-c.dk > http://inet.uni-c.dk/~randkoie/ > ********************************************************************** > ------------------------------ From: "Robert Whiting; Tel +358-0-191-23289" Date: Tue, 04 Jun 1996 15:27:03 +0300 Subject: Re: Writing Origination On Sat, 01 Jun 1996 mike shupp wrote: > I don't know how much feedback you've been getting but I certainly > appreciate the time and effort you've put into informing some of us > non-linguists. Thank you. > A few questions, if you please. Your introductory remarks on writing > systems suggested to me that the progression from limited writing > systems to alphabets was fairly straightforward. Do you think this > transition was inevitable, once writing of some kind was established? > And what factors gave rise to the original limited systems (i.e., > back before the bulla-accounting system that's had so much discussion)? I'm glad the questions are few since each of them would make a suitable topic for a monograph. As I tried to point out in the prologue to my posting on writing systems, it is a theoretical and generalized presentation. In such a presentation one tends to concentrate on the direct lines of development and this of course leads to oversimplification. Therefore I wouldn't say that this apparently striaghtforward development is historical reality. Essentially what we have in the history of writing is a number of finished products (the world's writing systems) and a few signposts along the way to indicate the path of the development. The fact that there has been so much controversy generated by this posting should indicate that the development was anything but straightforward and that there is not general agreement about all of the paths taken. As far as the inevitability of the alphabet given the original invention of writing, I don't see it that way any more than I see the TGV as an inevitable outcome of the invention of the wheel. The Latin-Greek-Semitic alphabet is just one response to an engineering challenge (the wheel is also a response to an engineering challenge). Other outcomes were equally possible (and in fact were accomplished). The fact that it has proved overwhelmingly successful does not imply that it was the "natural" solution or that there might not have been a better solution that got lost along the way or has yet to be found. It is only the fact that we learned it as children that makes it seem "natural" to us in the same way as we consider our calendar "natural" (although it obviously isn't). To those who learned a different type of writing system as a child, alphabetic writing probably seems cumbersome and unnatural. To me there seems to be a certain element of inevitability in Gelb's theory of unidirectional development (logographic systems can only develop into syllabaries, syllabaries can only develop into alphabets), which is why I did not incorporate it into my presentation on writing. Since writing is a human invention, its development would not seem to be a natural law. Human inventions may exploit or be limited by natural laws, but they do not create them. For that reason, I have tried to explain the development of writing systems as a series of engineering trade-offs, which, although Peter Daniels does not see anything new in my presentation, I don't think anyone else has used as a basis for explaining this development. These engineering trade-offs are more or less conscious decisions about how we want the system to function. It is rather like deciding whether you want to design a car for high-performance (speed and acceleration) or fuel economy, or any other of the trade-offs that have to be made when you face a design problem. Trade-offs are necessary in reaching the design goals because the system is always limited by some practical factor, usually size, but sometimes complexity (if these two factors aren't just different aspects of the same thing). To me, the trade-offs in writing systems are between the reduction of ambiguity and the economy of writing; the limiting factor is the allowable size of the system (which includes two interrelated factors, the total number of signs and the average complexity of each sign, both of which are limited by the processing capabilities of the brain). As for the factors that gave rise to limited writing, that seems to me much too complex a subject to give even a brief synopsis of without dangerously oversimplifying the matter. Implicit in the idea of writing is the concept that one thing can represent something else. But there are any number of situations that could be proposed as the basis of this, and, as with most other human activities, I doubt that there was a single pathway that led to this realization. > I guess what I'm asking if writing was inevitable and if so, why at > 3500 BC, rather than 13,500 BC, or earlier. I understand I'm asking > for guesses. I take it that the inevibility of writing is a different question from "given the invention of writing was the alphabet inevitable?". This is more of a philosophical question dealing with the nature of inevitability than one actually dealing with writing or writing systems. This I don't feel qualified to deal with. Since you ask for guesses here is mine: If something exists in nature, someone will eventually discover it. This to me is inevitable. If there is a need for something that doesn't exist in nature will someone invent it? Not inevitably. As to when writing was invented and why not sooner, this is related to the need for the particular invention. Empirically speaking, the places where writing appears, e.g., Mesopotamia, Egypt, the Indus Valley, China, Meso-America, are all associated with developing urbanization and complex socio-political systems. The need for writing seems to be based in a need to keep records of a fairly prosaic and everyday kind that are too numerous for someone to memorize and that must be independently verifiable (i.e., not coming down to one person's verbal claim against another's: "I paid my taxes" -- "You didn't pay your taxes"). Apparently, only a society above a certain level of complexity has a need for such records. Bob Whiting ------------------------------ From: Ann Macy Roth Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 09:49:23 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Early Egyptian Writing (long) [I prepared this late last week, but my system crashed for five days, so it may be a bit off the topic by now; however, some may still find it of interest. I'll be off e-mail for a few weeks, now, but I look forward to follow any discussion in retrospect.] Apropos Betsy's posting on the question of the origin of Egyptian writing, I wonder if there has been any further discussion of the hypothesis that Wolfgang Helck suggested in the Melanges Mokhtar I (Cairo, 1985, p. 395 ff.)? He argued that the highly developed and predominantly alphabetic character of Egyptian writing of the Thinite period was a result of its having been borrowed--not from the Mesopotamians, but from the Egyptians of the Delta. I thought it was a very interesting idea. This hypothesis worked out rather neatly: the Delta is a far less hospitable environment for the preservation of texts than Upper Egypt, so the disappearance of the earlier stages of development is even less surprising. (He cites the later mythological use of the leaves of the ished tree for inscribing the king's name as a possible reference to a pre-papyrus writing surface--and although he doesn't point it out, papyrus itself is more common in the north.) Writing appears in Upper Egypt at just the time that there is archaeological evidence for increasing trade contacts with the North, and the Maadi people seem to have been more extensively engaged in trade (with both Upper Egypt and Asia), and thus would have been more in need of trade-based record keeping than the embryo states of the South. As evidence for his hypothesis, Helck cited the many weird titles in Archaic Period inscriptions, and pointed out that not only the titles but the signs used to write them disappear in later sources (probably because they have been translated into Egyptian). He also noted that the names of people bearing scribal titles tend to be less readable (on the basis of our knowledge of the later script) than those of people who don't. Alphabetic signs are more common in these early texts than they are later, the reverse of what one would expect if the writing system were in the early stages of development. In later periods alphabetic signs were most common in contexts where they were used to represent foreign speech, which is why the cartouches of Cleopatra and Ptolemy make such good examples of the use of alphabetic signs. This circumstance would fit the hypothesis that the Egyptian of the First and Second Dynasty was a slightly different language than the one that the system was designed for. Moreover, many of the single-sound signs don't seem to correspond to the later words for the thing depicted, which might be because the signs were chosen by people who spoke a different language or dialect. I couldn't agree with all of his suggestions--his analysis of the beginning of cuneiform seemed particularly unlikely. Nonetheless, I thought the general idea fit the emerging archaeological evidence rather well, and I don't know that it has been much discussed. It would be interesting to know whether it is supported by the older written material discovered in the past few years at Abydos. Ann Macy Roth Howard University ------------------------------ From: "Robert Whiting; Tel +358-0-191-23289" Date: Tue, 04 Jun 1996 17:30:02 +0300 Subject: Re: Gelb's uniformitarianism On Mon, 03 Jun 1996 Peter Daniels wrote: > Gelb's theory of unidirectional development is incorrect; even in the book, > he couldn't account for Ethiopic (he says something like "special case"). It may well be, but, as I said, that doesn't prove anything about the nature of the West Semitic scripts one way or the other. > But the indistinct syllabary theory dioesn't wrok either, because of closed > syllables. in a word like yiktob, the does not stand for a syllable in > any way, shape, or form. (If West Semitic had only open syllables, like > Polynesian, for instance, he might possibly have had a case.) Peter, Peter, Peter -- This is the internet you're posting to. The whole world has access to it. You can't just say the first thing that comes to mind to try to make a point without thinking it through. You get exacerbated with those who post things that just aren't so, so stop and think about what you are posting. If you are trying to say that an open syllabary can't be used to write a language that has closed syllables this is patently false. If it were true it would mean that the Aegean syllabaries could not be used to write Greek. Consider then, a-ra-ku-ro, the Cypriot syllabary representation of "arguro:." Now the syllabic sign does not stand for a syllable in any way, shape, or form, but there it is nonetheless. I submit that there is no difference between this usage and the in yiktob. Second, you know quite well that Arabic and Hebrew (Devanagari as well, for that matter) have a sign in the pointing system that indicates that there is no vowel after a consonant. If yiktob were pointed, this sign would have to appear with the . Now what I want to know is why these scripts have a sign to indicate that something isn't there that is alleged never to have been there in the first place. Bob Whiting ------------------------------ From: cejo@midway.uchicago.edu (Charles E. Jones) Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 09:37:59 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: Early Egyptian Writing Those following this thread and wanting to read more on the subject might productively consult the following new book: Hendrickx, Stan. Analytical Bibliography of the Prehistory and the Early Dynastic Period of Egypt and Northern Sudan. Leuven: Leuven University Press; 1995. 1 volume (329 pages + 10 [loose] maps). (Egyptian Prehistory Monographs). ISBN: 90-6186-68309. 7407 indexed bibliographical citations. - -Chuck- ------------------------------ From: "N.C. Veldhuis" Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 18:00:02 +0200 Subject: Cunei-math assistence needed I have a 'mathematical' lentil here, which I would like to understand. The numbers are clear enough, but they make no sense to me. Is there someone out there willing to crack the code for me? I guess it's a piece of cake for anyone involved in this kind of thing. But not for me. Please answer me privately and I'll send you the transliteration. Niek Niek Veldhuis nveldhus@let.rug.nl ------------------------------ From: cejo@midway.uchicago.edu (Charles E. Jones) Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 10:59:25 -0500 (CDT) Subject: FWD: New book on the history of the Achaemenid Empire >Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 10:36:43 -0500 (CDT) >To: ane@mithra-orinst.uchicago.edu >From: p-briant@uchicago.edu (Pierre Briant) > >I am pleased to let know to everybody who is interested in the Achaemenid >history that my book has just come out: > >Pierre Briant, Histoire de l'Empire perse. De Cyrus a Alexandre, Paris, >Editions Fayard, 1996 (1250 p, illustrations/drawings, maps, genealogical >charts, bibliography, indices). Price: 280FF (=c.55 USD). > >Here is a summary of the contents: > >Introduction: Sur les traces d'un Empire > >Prologue: Les Perses avant l'Empire > >Premiere partie: Les batisseurs de l'Empire: de Cyrus a Darius > Chap.1:Les rassembleurs de terres, Cyrus et Cambyse (559-522) > Chap.2;La conquete et l'apres-conquete: un bilan intermediaire > Chap.3:Troubles, secessions et reconstructions (522-518) > Chap.4:Darius le conquerant (520-486) > >Deuxieme partie: Le Grand Roi > Chap.5:Les images du monde > Chap.6:Representations royales et ideologie monarchique > Chap.7:Gens et vie de cour > Chap.8:Les hommes du roi > >Troisieme partie: Espaces, populations et economie tributaire > Chap.9:Espaces, communications et echanges > Chap.10:Tribut et prelevements royaux > Chap.11:Perse, Empire et economie tributaire > Chap.12:Le roi des pays > >Quatrieme partie: De Xerxes a Darius II: l'Empire en mouvement > Chap.13: Xerxes le Grand Roi (486-466) > Chap.14: De l'avement d'Artaxerxes I a la mort de Darius II (465/405-4) > Chap.15:Artaxerxes II (405/4-359/8) et Artaxerxes III (359/8-338) > >Cinquieme partie: Le IVe siecle et l'Empire de Darius III dans la longue >duree achemenide: un bilan prospectif > Chap.16:Pays, peuples et satrapies: un inventaire du monde achemenide > Chap.17:Le Grand Roi, ses armees et ses tresors > >Sixieme partie: La chute d'un Empire > Chap.18:Darius et l'Empire face a l'agression macedonienne > >Conclusion: De Nabonide a Seleukos > > >All the best. >Pierre Briant >Oriental Institute >1155 E. 58th Str. >Chicago, Ill. 60637 >USA >Phone: (312) 7029549 >Fax: (312) 7029853 >E-mail: p-briant@uchicago.edu ------------------------------ From: jcook@awod.com (Jesse S. Cook III) Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 17:31:49 -0400 Subject: Re: Writing Origination You wrote: >As to when writing was invented and why not sooner, this is related to >the need for the particular invention. Empirically speaking, the places >where writing appears, e.g., Mesopotamia, Egypt, the Indus Valley, >China, Meso-America, are all associated with developing urbanization and >complex socio-political systems. The need for writing seems to be based >in a need to keep records of a fairly prosaic and everyday kind that are >too numerous for someone to memorize and that must be independently >verifiable (i.e., not coming down to one person's verbal claim against >another's: "I paid my taxes" -- "You didn't pay your taxes"). Apparently, >only a society above a certain level of complexity has a need for such >records. > >Bob Whiting I don't know about Egypt or the Indus Valley, but unlike Mesopotamia, China and Mesoamerica did not seem to "need to keep records of a fairly prosaic and everyday kind..." If I'm not mistaken, the earliest writing in China is found on bones and shells used in divination; it recorded the question and the answer. Also, to my knowledge, the only writing system in precolumbian Mesoamerica is that of the Maya and the only use of it that we have evidence of is political and religious in nature. 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." ------------------------------ End of Ancient Near East Digest V3 #175 *************************************** 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/