Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

BH 'oth and Akkadian awa:tum?

Expand Messages
  • X.Wang
    Dear Colleagues, I am currently trying to publish a review article on the meaning of the sign of Cain. Hopefully another one following up will be on the
    Message 1 of 5 , Mar 30, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Colleagues,

      I am currently trying to publish a review article on the meaning of the sign of Cain. Hopefully another one following up will be on the subject of fratricide. This current one is expected to be a philological foundation-building for the next.

      Moberly's 2008 Harvard Theological Review article and Fox's 1974 Revue Biblique article are my major references for the current paper. I hope to present in a few more supporting points for Moberly's view that the sign of Cain was actually provided in the Biblical text. The sign is a judgement made by YHWH.

      My academic command in Biblical Hebrew and Semitics in general and the availablity of references in Beijing can only allow for such a tiny project. Hope it can bring me back a little bit to the Biblical world.

      During the preparation of the paper, I came up with quite a crazy idea: If in BH, as some have argued, the verbal root aleph-waw-taw is actually derived from the noun aleph-waw-taw, i.e., 'oth, is it imaginable that the noun was related to the Old Babylonian awa:tum? I am wondering if this idea is worthy of a passing note in the paper.

      I believe I have a lot of specilists in this list to learn from for the question. Enlighten me if you happen to know any information related to the etymology of 'oth. Thank all in advance.

      Sincerely yours,
      Xianhua
      Dr. Xianhua Wang, Associate Professor
      School of History, Beijing Normal University
      19# Xinjiekouwai Dajie, Beijing 100875, China



      发件人: Charles Ellwood Jones
      发送时间: 2009-03-17 04:58:57
      收件人: ANE-2
      抄送:
      主题: [ANE-2] New OI Publication Online
      Nomads, Tribes, and the State in the Ancient Near East: Cross-disciplinary Perspectives.
      Edited by Jeffrey Szuchman. 2009.

      Oriental Institute Seminars 5

      For decades, scholars have struggled to understand the complex relationship between pastoral nomadic tribes and sedentary peoples of the Near East. The Oriental Institute's fourth annual post-doc seminar (March 7-8, 2008), Nomads, Tribes, and the State in the Ancient Near East, brought together archaeologists, historians, and anthropologists to discuss new approaches to enduring questions in the study of nomadic peoples, tribes, and states of the past: What social or political bonds link tribes and states? Could nomadic tribes exhibit elements of urbanism or social hierarchies? How can the tools of historical, archaeological, and ethnographic research be integrated to build a dynamic picture of the social landscape of the Near East? This volume presents a range of data and theoretical perspectives from a variety of regions and periods, including prehistoric Iran, ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt, seventh-century Arabia, and nineteenth-century Jordan.

      Table of Contents:

      1. Integrating Approaches to Nomads, Tribes, and the State in the Ancient Near East. Jeffrey Szuchman, University of Chicago

      Section One: Integrating Methods: Historical, Archaeological, and Ethnographic Data
      2. The Archaeology of Pastoral Nomads between the Nile and the Red Sea. Hans Barnard, University of California, Los Angeles
      3. Egypt and the Vanishing Libyan: Institutional Responses to a Nomadic People. Robert Ritner, University of Chicago
      4. History Does Not Repeat Itself: Cyclicity and Particularism in Nomad-Sedentary Relations in the Negev in the Long Term. Steven A. Rosen, Ben-Gurion University
      5. Pitching Camp: Ethnoarchaeological Investigations of Inhabited Tent Camps in the Wadi Hisma, Jordan. Benjamin Adam Saidel, East Carolina University
      6. Tribal Societies in the Nineteenth Century: A Model. Eveline van der Steen, University of Liverpool

      Section Two: Integrating Paradigms of Tribe-State Interaction
      7. Specific Characteristics of Chalcolithic and Bronze Age Pastoralism in the Near East. Anatoly M. Khazanov, University of Wisconsin-Madison
      8. Prehistoric Mobile Pastoralists in South-central and Southwestern Iran. Abbas Alizadeh, University of Chicago
      9. Pastoral Nomads and Iron Age Metal Production in Ancient Edom. Thomas E. Levy, University of California, San Diego
      10. Who Lived in the Third-millennium "Round Cities" of Northern Syria?. Bertille Lyonnet, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris
      11. Beyond Dimorphism: Ideologies and Materialities of Kinship as Time-Space Distanciation. Anne Porter, University of Southern California
      12. Kingship of City and Tribe Conjoined: Zimri-Lim at Mari. Daniel E. Fleming, New York University
      13. From Pastoral Peasantry to Tribal Urbanites: Arab Tribes and the Foundation of the Islamic State in Syria. Donald Whitcomb, University of Chicago

      Section Three: Response
      14. Pastoral Mobility as an Adaptation. Frank Hole, Yale University

      Index

      Available for sale or for free download in PDF.

      For links to this book and to all other online publications of the Oriental Institute Chicago, see:
      http://tinyurl.com/djj8wf

      -Chuck Jones-





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Brian Colless
      If in BH, as some have argued, the verbal root aleph-waw-taw is actually derived from the noun aleph-waw-taw, i.e., oth, is it imaginable that the noun was
      Message 2 of 5 , Mar 31, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        If in BH, as some have argued, the verbal root aleph-waw-taw is
        actually derived from the noun aleph-waw-taw, i.e., 'oth, is it
        imaginable that the noun was related to the Old Babylonian awa:tum?
        Xianhua Wang

        Xianhua
        I do not know whether others have responded to you privately, but I
        will take this opportunity to make a few observations on these two
        words, particularly their occurrences in the early West-Semitic
        epigraphic texts that I work on.

        (1) 't, plural 'tt
        This word ('tt 'signs') appears on the Izbet Sartah ostracon (Iron
        Age), in the first line of the inscription, and as the bottom line of
        the text is a copy of the West Semitic consonantal alphabet, we could
        assume that it is a reference to those letters as 'signs'. (In
        Mishnaic Hebrew the term for letters of the alphabet is 'otiyyot.) My
        reading of the letters preceding 'tt is 'lmd 'I learn' . (The M has
        also been seen as Sh, but it is not the same as the Shin in the list
        of signs at the bottom, nor is the last sign of the text, in the
        bottom right corner, in the phrase h.ld`lm 'duration(s) of the the
        world'; the writer apparently means that this document he has written
        and stored away in a hole in the ground will keep his memory alive for
        ever.)

        For a (murky) photograph and a drawing go to:

        http://cryptcracker.blogspot.com/2007/01/ancient-abagadary-abecedary-this-is.html

        http://collesseum.googlepages.com/abgadary

        Now, the second T of 'TT is below the first one, but not clear; only
        the horizontal stroke of the + stands out; but we can see what the
        scribe intended, in the first words of the second line: K T T N, with
        two clear examples of T in a ligature (as in Arabic writing). The
        sequence KT in this context might lead us to expect KTB 'write', but
        this is not possible, because of the double T and the N, which matches
        the N in the alphabet on the bottom line; the k could be the
        conjunction kiy, and ttn a verb from ntn 'give'; my interpretation is
        "I see that the eye gives the breath of a sign (' T again, 'letter')
        to the ear".

        Notice that there is no W in the word 't in this document.

        Another possible occurrence is on Byblos tablet D from the Bronze Age,
        written in the WS logo-syllabary (lines 23-24):

        pa ti sa ta ru ni 'u ya ta ta la ki ti ma
        "and (pa) they observe (tisataru) for me (-ni) the sign(s) ('uyatata)
        for truth (la-kiti-ma)"

        This is in a covenant context, and the reading of the signs is
        according to George Mendenhall (The syllabic inscriptions from Byblos,
        1985, 71) and myself (Brian E. Colless, The syllabic inscriptions of
        Byblos: Text D, Abr-Nahrain [Ancient Near Eastern Studies] 31, 1993,
        1-35, 22). The root str is common Semitic for 'cover, protect'.

        Notice the Y in the noun taken as meaning 'sign' or 'signs' (but the -
        a seems to be accusative singular, whereas -ti would be expected for
        the plural form, as in matati 'lands', see below; it could be a
        'misprint' with so many instances of TA and TI in the line).
        Mendenhall invokes Arabic 'ayat (cognate with Hbr 'ôt, 'sign, mark')
        and assumes that the root is 'YT (not 'WT) .

        (2) hawatu, awâtum
        The same Byblos tablet D (Colless 1993, 6-7) )begins thus (1-2a)
        ha wa tu h.u ru ba `i lu 'i 'a tu 'u ni ma ta ti la ki ti
        "The word(s) (hawatu) of H.uru-Ba`ilu: I bring (root 't') the lands
        (matati) to myself (-ni), to truth (la-kit(t)i)"

        For my part this reading immediately gives me confidence that the
        values Mendenhall has assigned to the syllabograms are correct, though
        I altered a few of them on my own table of signs:
        http://collesseum.googlepages.com/westsemiticsyllabary

        Ugaritic has plenty of examples of hwt 'word', and the initial h- may
        have been present in Akkadian (right? but not written?)

        The Akkadian awâtum is said to come from awûm 'speak'.

        In this connection, the Hebrew word hawah has been studied by Meir
        Lubetski (Religion, 20, 1990, 217-232); it is usually given the
        meaning 'desire', and the basic meaning may be aspiration, exhalation,
        but could also be outbreathings, utterances in Psalm 52:4, 9, and 91:3).

        Finally, with regard to your question, there may be a connection
        between everything in this section (roots HW and AWU, breathing out)
        but not with the 'sign, mark' words in part 1.

        Brian Colless
        Massey University, NZ


        On 30/03/2009, at 11:45 PM, X.Wang wrote:

        > Dear Colleagues,
        >
        > I am currently trying to publish a review article on the meaning of
        > the sign of Cain. Hopefully another one following up will be on the
        > subject of fratricide. This current one is expected to be a
        > philological foundation-building for the next.
        >
        > Moberly's 2008 Harvard Theological Review article and Fox's 1974
        > Revue Biblique article are my major references for the current
        > paper. I hope to present in a few more supporting points for
        > Moberly's view that the sign of Cain was actually provided in the
        > Biblical text. The sign is a judgement made by YHWH.
        >
        > My academic command in Biblical Hebrew and Semitics in general and
        > the availablity of references in Beijing can only allow for such a
        > tiny project. Hope it can bring me back a little bit to the Biblical
        > world.
        >
        > During the preparation of the paper, I came up with quite a crazy
        > idea: If in BH, as some have argued, the verbal root aleph-waw-taw
        > is actually derived from the noun aleph-waw-taw, i.e., 'oth, is it
        > imaginable that the noun was related to the Old Babylonian awa:tum?
        > I am wondering if this idea is worthy of a passing note in the paper.
        >
        > I believe I have a lot of specilists in this list to learn from for
        > the question. Enlighten me if you happen to know any information
        > related to the etymology of 'oth. Thank all in advance.
        >
        > Sincerely yours,
        > Xianhua
        > Dr. Xianhua Wang, Associate Professor
        > School of History, Beijing Normal University
        > 19# Xinjiekouwai Dajie, Beijing 100875, China
        >
        >
        >
        > 发件人: Charles Ellwood Jones
        > 发送时间: 2009-03-17 04:58:57
        > 收件人: ANE-2
        > 抄送:
        > 主题: [ANE-2] New OI Publication Online
        > Nomads, Tribes, and the State in the Ancient Near East: Cross-
        > disciplinary Perspectives.
        > Edited by Jeffrey Szuchman. 2009.
        >
        > Oriental Institute Seminars 5
        >
        > For decades, scholars have struggled to understand the complex
        > relationship between pastoral nomadic tribes and sedentary peoples
        > of the Near East. The Oriental Institute's fourth annual post-doc
        > seminar (March 7-8, 2008), Nomads, Tribes, and the State in the
        > Ancient Near East, brought together archaeologists, historians, and
        > anthropologists to discuss new approaches to enduring questions in
        > the study of nomadic peoples, tribes, and states of the past: What
        > social or political bonds link tribes and states? Could nomadic
        > tribes exhibit elements of urbanism or social hierarchies? How can
        > the tools of historical, archaeological, and ethnographic research
        > be integrated to build a dynamic picture of the social landscape of
        > the Near East? This volume presents a range of data and theoretical
        > perspectives from a variety of regions and periods, including
        > prehistoric Iran, ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt, seventh-century
        > Arabia, and nineteenth-century Jordan.
        >
        > Table of Contents:
        >
        > 1. Integrating Approaches to Nomads, Tribes, and the State in the
        > Ancient Near East. Jeffrey Szuchman, University of Chicago
        >
        > Section One: Integrating Methods: Historical, Archaeological, and
        > Ethnographic Data
        > 2. The Archaeology of Pastoral Nomads between the Nile and the Red
        > Sea. Hans Barnard, University of California, Los Angeles
        > 3. Egypt and the Vanishing Libyan: Institutional Responses to a
        > Nomadic People. Robert Ritner, University of Chicago
        > 4. History Does Not Repeat Itself: Cyclicity and Particularism in
        > Nomad-Sedentary Relations in the Negev in the Long Term. Steven A.
        > Rosen, Ben-Gurion University
        > 5. Pitching Camp: Ethnoarchaeological Investigations of Inhabited
        > Tent Camps in the Wadi Hisma, Jordan. Benjamin Adam Saidel, East
        > Carolina University
        > 6. Tribal Societies in the Nineteenth Century: A Model. Eveline van
        > der Steen, University of Liverpool
        >
        > Section Two: Integrating Paradigms of Tribe-State Interaction
        > 7. Specific Characteristics of Chalcolithic and Bronze Age
        > Pastoralism in the Near East. Anatoly M. Khazanov, University of
        > Wisconsin-Madison
        > 8. Prehistoric Mobile Pastoralists in South-central and Southwestern
        > Iran. Abbas Alizadeh, University of Chicago
        > 9. Pastoral Nomads and Iron Age Metal Production in Ancient Edom.
        > Thomas E. Levy, University of California, San Diego
        > 10. Who Lived in the Third-millennium "Round Cities" of Northern
        > Syria?. Bertille Lyonnet, Centre National de la Recherche
        > Scientifique, Paris
        > 11. Beyond Dimorphism: Ideologies and Materialities of Kinship as
        > Time-Space Distanciation. Anne Porter, University of Southern
        > California
        > 12. Kingship of City and Tribe Conjoined: Zimri-Lim at Mari. Daniel
        > E. Fleming, New York University
        > 13. From Pastoral Peasantry to Tribal Urbanites: Arab Tribes and the
        > Foundation of the Islamic State in Syria. Donald Whitcomb,
        > University of Chicago
        >
        > Section Three: Response
        > 14. Pastoral Mobility as an Adaptation. Frank Hole, Yale University
        >
        > Index
        >
        > Available for sale or for free download in PDF.
        >
        > For links to this book and to all other online publications of the
        > Oriental Institute Chicago, see:
        > http://tinyurl.com/djj8wf
        >
        > -Chuck Jones-
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >
        >



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Robert M Whiting
        Brian -- I m not sure why you didn t mention it, but of course the Akkadian word for sign, mark, signal, token is ittu. The second t is a feminine marker
        Message 3 of 5 , Apr 1, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          Brian -- I'm not sure why you didn't mention it, but of course the
          Akkadian word for 'sign, mark, signal, token' is ittu. The second t is a
          feminine marker and the plural is ita:tu. Since it is widely accepted
          that Hebrew 'oth is cognate with ittu, a relationship of 'oth with
          Akkadian awa:tu is impossible because the t of awa:tu is again a feminine
          marker since, as you point out, awa:tu is based on the verbal root awû,
          there is no connection between the two because ittu has a t in the root
          and awa:tu does not.

          On your problem with reading ya ta ta, this may simply be an artifact of
          the writing system. With an open syllabary there will be a vowel
          appearing after every consonant regardless of whether it is there in the
          language or not. Thus ya ta ta may not be meant to write the plural
          yata:ti (as in mata:ti) but rather the accusative singular yatta.

          Bob Whiting
          whiting@...

          On Wed, 1 Apr 2009, Brian Colless wrote:

          > If in BH, as some have argued, the verbal root aleph-waw-taw is
          > actually derived from the noun aleph-waw-taw, i.e., 'oth, is it
          > imaginable that the noun was related to the Old Babylonian awa:tum?
          > Xianhua Wang
          >
          > Xianhua
          > I do not know whether others have responded to you privately, but I
          > will take this opportunity to make a few observations on these two
          > words, particularly their occurrences in the early West-Semitic
          > epigraphic texts that I work on.
          >
          > (1) 't, plural 'tt
          > This word ('tt 'signs') appears on the Izbet Sartah ostracon (Iron
          > Age), in the first line of the inscription, and as the bottom line of
          > the text is a copy of the West Semitic consonantal alphabet, we could
          > assume that it is a reference to those letters as 'signs'. (In
          > Mishnaic Hebrew the term for letters of the alphabet is 'otiyyot.) My
          > reading of the letters preceding 'tt is 'lmd 'I learn' . (The M has
          > also been seen as Sh, but it is not the same as the Shin in the list
          > of signs at the bottom, nor is the last sign of the text, in the
          > bottom right corner, in the phrase h.ld`lm 'duration(s) of the the
          > world'; the writer apparently means that this document he has written
          > and stored away in a hole in the ground will keep his memory alive for
          > ever.)
          >
          > For a (murky) photograph and a drawing go to:
          >
          > http://cryptcracker.blogspot.com/2007/01/ancient-abagadary-abecedary-this-is.html
          >
          > http://collesseum.googlepages.com/abgadary
          >
          > Now, the second T of 'TT is below the first one, but not clear; only
          > the horizontal stroke of the + stands out; but we can see what the
          > scribe intended, in the first words of the second line: K T T N, with
          > two clear examples of T in a ligature (as in Arabic writing). The
          > sequence KT in this context might lead us to expect KTB 'write', but
          > this is not possible, because of the double T and the N, which matches
          > the N in the alphabet on the bottom line; the k could be the
          > conjunction kiy, and ttn a verb from ntn 'give'; my interpretation is
          > "I see that the eye gives the breath of a sign (' T again, 'letter')
          > to the ear".
          >
          > Notice that there is no W in the word 't in this document.
          >
          > Another possible occurrence is on Byblos tablet D from the Bronze Age,
          > written in the WS logo-syllabary (lines 23-24):
          >
          > pa ti sa ta ru ni 'u ya ta ta la ki ti ma
          > "and (pa) they observe (tisataru) for me (-ni) the sign(s) ('uyatata)
          > for truth (la-kiti-ma)"
          >
          > This is in a covenant context, and the reading of the signs is
          > according to George Mendenhall (The syllabic inscriptions from Byblos,
          > 1985, 71) and myself (Brian E. Colless, The syllabic inscriptions of
          > Byblos: Text D, Abr-Nahrain [Ancient Near Eastern Studies] 31, 1993,
          > 1-35, 22). The root str is common Semitic for 'cover, protect'.
          >
          > Notice the Y in the noun taken as meaning 'sign' or 'signs' (but the -
          > a seems to be accusative singular, whereas -ti would be expected for
          > the plural form, as in matati 'lands', see below; it could be a
          > 'misprint' with so many instances of TA and TI in the line).
          > Mendenhall invokes Arabic 'ayat (cognate with Hbr 'ôt, 'sign, mark')
          > and assumes that the root is 'YT (not 'WT) .
          >
          > (2) hawatu, awâtum
          > The same Byblos tablet D (Colless 1993, 6-7) )begins thus (1-2a)
          > ha wa tu h.u ru ba `i lu 'i 'a tu 'u ni ma ta ti la ki ti
          > "The word(s) (hawatu) of H.uru-Ba`ilu: I bring (root 't') the lands
          > (matati) to myself (-ni), to truth (la-kit(t)i)"
          >
          > For my part this reading immediately gives me confidence that the
          > values Mendenhall has assigned to the syllabograms are correct, though
          > I altered a few of them on my own table of signs:
          > http://collesseum.googlepages.com/westsemiticsyllabary
          >
          > Ugaritic has plenty of examples of hwt 'word', and the initial h- may
          > have been present in Akkadian (right? but not written?)
          >
          > The Akkadian awâtum is said to come from awûm 'speak'.
          >
          > In this connection, the Hebrew word hawah has been studied by Meir
          > Lubetski (Religion, 20, 1990, 217-232); it is usually given the
          > meaning 'desire', and the basic meaning may be aspiration, exhalation,
          > but could also be outbreathings, utterances in Psalm 52:4, 9, and 91:3).
          >
          > Finally, with regard to your question, there may be a connection
          > between everything in this section (roots HW and AWU, breathing out)
          > but not with the 'sign, mark' words in part 1.
          >
          > Brian Colless
          > Massey University, NZ
          >
          >
          > On 30/03/2009, at 11:45 PM, X.Wang wrote:
          >
          >> Dear Colleagues,
          >>
          >> I am currently trying to publish a review article on the meaning of
          >> the sign of Cain. Hopefully another one following up will be on the
          >> subject of fratricide. This current one is expected to be a
          >> philological foundation-building for the next.
          >>
          >> Moberly's 2008 Harvard Theological Review article and Fox's 1974
          >> Revue Biblique article are my major references for the current
          >> paper. I hope to present in a few more supporting points for
          >> Moberly's view that the sign of Cain was actually provided in the
          >> Biblical text. The sign is a judgement made by YHWH.
          >>
          >> My academic command in Biblical Hebrew and Semitics in general and
          >> the availablity of references in Beijing can only allow for such a
          >> tiny project. Hope it can bring me back a little bit to the Biblical
          >> world.
          >>
          >> During the preparation of the paper, I came up with quite a crazy
          >> idea: If in BH, as some have argued, the verbal root aleph-waw-taw
          >> is actually derived from the noun aleph-waw-taw, i.e., 'oth, is it
          >> imaginable that the noun was related to the Old Babylonian awa:tum?
          >> I am wondering if this idea is worthy of a passing note in the paper.
          >>
          >> I believe I have a lot of specilists in this list to learn from for
          >> the question. Enlighten me if you happen to know any information
          >> related to the etymology of 'oth. Thank all in advance.
          >>
          >> Sincerely yours,
          >> Xianhua
          >> Dr. Xianhua Wang, Associate Professor
          >> School of History, Beijing Normal University
          >> 19# Xinjiekouwai Dajie, Beijing 100875, China
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >> ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ Charles Ellwood Jones
          >> ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ 2009-03-17 04:58:57
          >> ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ANE-2
          >> ÿÿÿÿÿÿ
          >> ÿÿÿÿÿÿ [ANE-2] New OI Publication Online
          >> Nomads, Tribes, and the State in the Ancient Near East: Cross-
          >> disciplinary Perspectives.
          >> Edited by Jeffrey Szuchman. 2009.
          >>
          >> Oriental Institute Seminars 5
          >>
          >> For decades, scholars have struggled to understand the complex
          >> relationship between pastoral nomadic tribes and sedentary peoples
          >> of the Near East. The Oriental Institute's fourth annual post-doc
          >> seminar (March 7-8, 2008), Nomads, Tribes, and the State in the
          >> Ancient Near East, brought together archaeologists, historians, and
          >> anthropologists to discuss new approaches to enduring questions in
          >> the study of nomadic peoples, tribes, and states of the past: What
          >> social or political bonds link tribes and states? Could nomadic
          >> tribes exhibit elements of urbanism or social hierarchies? How can
          >> the tools of historical, archaeological, and ethnographic research
          >> be integrated to build a dynamic picture of the social landscape of
          >> the Near East? This volume presents a range of data and theoretical
          >> perspectives from a variety of regions and periods, including
          >> prehistoric Iran, ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt, seventh-century
          >> Arabia, and nineteenth-century Jordan.
          >>
          >> Table of Contents:
          >>
          >> 1. Integrating Approaches to Nomads, Tribes, and the State in the
          >> Ancient Near East. Jeffrey Szuchman, University of Chicago
          >>
          >> Section One: Integrating Methods: Historical, Archaeological, and
          >> Ethnographic Data
          >> 2. The Archaeology of Pastoral Nomads between the Nile and the Red
          >> Sea. Hans Barnard, University of California, Los Angeles
          >> 3. Egypt and the Vanishing Libyan: Institutional Responses to a
          >> Nomadic People. Robert Ritner, University of Chicago
          >> 4. History Does Not Repeat Itself: Cyclicity and Particularism in
          >> Nomad-Sedentary Relations in the Negev in the Long Term. Steven A.
          >> Rosen, Ben-Gurion University
          >> 5. Pitching Camp: Ethnoarchaeological Investigations of Inhabited
          >> Tent Camps in the Wadi Hisma, Jordan. Benjamin Adam Saidel, East
          >> Carolina University
          >> 6. Tribal Societies in the Nineteenth Century: A Model. Eveline van
          >> der Steen, University of Liverpool
          >>
          >> Section Two: Integrating Paradigms of Tribe-State Interaction
          >> 7. Specific Characteristics of Chalcolithic and Bronze Age
          >> Pastoralism in the Near East. Anatoly M. Khazanov, University of
          >> Wisconsin-Madison
          >> 8. Prehistoric Mobile Pastoralists in South-central and Southwestern
          >> Iran. Abbas Alizadeh, University of Chicago
          >> 9. Pastoral Nomads and Iron Age Metal Production in Ancient Edom.
          >> Thomas E. Levy, University of California, San Diego
          >> 10. Who Lived in the Third-millennium "Round Cities" of Northern
          >> Syria?. Bertille Lyonnet, Centre National de la Recherche
          >> Scientifique, Paris
          >> 11. Beyond Dimorphism: Ideologies and Materialities of Kinship as
          >> Time-Space Distanciation. Anne Porter, University of Southern
          >> California
          >> 12. Kingship of City and Tribe Conjoined: Zimri-Lim at Mari. Daniel
          >> E. Fleming, New York University
          >> 13. From Pastoral Peasantry to Tribal Urbanites: Arab Tribes and the
          >> Foundation of the Islamic State in Syria. Donald Whitcomb,
          >> University of Chicago
          >>
          >> Section Three: Response
          >> 14. Pastoral Mobility as an Adaptation. Frank Hole, Yale University
          >>
          >> Index
          >>
          >> Available for sale or for free download in PDF.
          >>
          >> For links to this book and to all other online publications of the
          >> Oriental Institute Chicago, see:
          >> http://tinyurl.com/djj8wf
          >>
          >> -Chuck Jones-
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >
          >
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
          >
          >
          > ------------------------------------
          >
          > Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
          >
        • Yitzhak Sapir
          Also, keep in mind Arabic ayah (singular), ayat (plural) for signs/miracles, and the Kh. el-Mudeiyineh )wt, alongside Hebrew )tt as found in Lachish 4 (the
          Message 4 of 5 , Apr 1, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            Also, keep in mind Arabic ayah (singular), ayat (plural) for
            signs/miracles, and
            the Kh. el-Mudeiyineh )wt, alongside Hebrew )tt as found in Lachish 4 (the
            "Azeqa" ostracon). The Kh. el-Mudeiyineh form may represent a different
            noun form (mishqal) than what we're used to, especially when compared with
            the word lysp "to add" two words beforehand. The "o" vowel in the Hebrew
            is probably a result of the a: > o shift.

            Yitzhak Sapir
          • Brian Colless
            Bob, at the outset, I want to say how heartening it is for me to see you accepting (tentatively, hypothetically, for argument s sake ) the readings that
            Message 5 of 5 , Apr 2, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              Bob, at the outset, I want to say how heartening it is for me to see
              you accepting (tentatively, hypothetically, "for argument's sake") the
              readings that George Mendenhall and I have proposed for a Gubla/Byblos
              logo-syllabic text. (- ;

              On 1/04/2009, at 11:06 PM, Robert M Whiting wrote:

              > Brian -- I'm not sure why you didn't mention it, but of course the
              Akkadian word for 'sign, mark, signal, token' is ittu.

              *Bob, I simply did not know that.
              Mendenhall did not invoke it, and it is not in the original Köhler-
              Baumgartner Hebrew lexicon as a cognate, but I see now that the new
              one has it with a question mark. WvS AHw has Hbr 'ot with ittu (the
              one that means Zeichen).

              > The second t is a feminine marker and the plural is ita:tu.

              *GM pointed to Arabic 'ayat (as in Ayatollah); but he argued that the
              duplication of the final t in 'uyatata shows that the root was 'yt;
              and that Hbr 'ôt has a long vowel to compensate for the loss of -t-.

              *For the form 'uyatata he tried a 'feminine singular collective', or a
              'broken plural' of the form qutalatu (Classical Arabic), which would
              not explain -ta for -ti (plural), but the singular would be acceptable
              in the context, anyway.

              *Do we just say 'dissimilation' to explain the initial 'u (versus Akd
              i- and Arb a-) with three following -a syllables?

              > Since it is widely accepted
              that Hebrew 'oth is cognate with ittu, a relationship of 'oth with
              Akkadian awa:tu is impossible because the t of awa:tu is again a
              feminine
              marker since, as you point out, awa:tu is based on the verbal root awû,
              there is no connection between the two because ittu has a t in the root
              and awa:tu does not.

              *OK, but I started writing this yesterday and I have now seen
              Xianhua's response.

              > On your problem with reading ya ta ta, this may simply be an
              artifact of
              the writing system. With an open syllabary there will be a vowel
              appearing after every consonant regardless of whether it is there in the
              language or not. Thus ya ta ta may not be meant to write the plural
              yata:ti (as in mata:ti) but rather the accusative singular yatta.

              *Yes, I would be glad to clutch at that straw, but ... the examples I
              have provided raise difficulties. Here they are again, from Tablet D:

              ha wa tu h.u ru ba `i lu 'i 'a tu 'u ni ma ta ti la ki ti
              "The word(s) (hawatu) of H.uru-Ba`ilu: I bring (root 't') the lands
              (matati) to myself (-ni), to truth (la-kit(t)i)"

              pa ti sa ta ru ni 'u ya ta ta la ki ti ma
              "and (pa) they observe (tisataru) for me (-ni) the sign(s) ('uyatata)
              for truth (la-kiti-ma)"

              (1) No indication of vowel length (assuming there were long vowels in
              the language).
              MATATI (which does not need to be a borrowed word from Akkadian) would
              presumably be mata:ti because of the plural accusative -ti (not
              singular genitive). But is hawatu sg? or pl? And similarly kiti.

              (2) No indication of double consonants. George and I want kiti (only
              in la-kiti, never kitu) to be kitti, as in Akkadian (but it would be
              derived from the verb kawana 'be', which is one of the key words in
              the Mendenhall decipherment).

              But keep in mind that this is a 3rd M language we are looking at, and
              *uyatata is possibly an exact transcription. So, while we are at it,
              consider this sequence:

              (11b-12a)'i li la ha ki mi 'u
              They make binding (cp Akd km' ) the covenant (ilila or illa, Arb. ill
              'pact')

              (12b-14a) pa ti sa ki ru ni li 'i mu hu lu h.i sa ma mu ra `a mu ru `i
              shi li ta ti ya
              And so (pa) his people(s) (li'imuhu) shall deliver up (root skr) the
              whisperer (luh.isa) and (-ma) the doer of evil (rt r`) of my dominion
              (shilitatiya, t. is assimilated to t)

              (26b-27) pa ti sa ta ru [ni] `u ma 'a ka wa na ma `u bu di
              And (pa) they protect (str) [for me] [ni] the people (`uma) I
              establish ('akawana-ma) as obligors (`ubudi).

              (31b-32) ha bu 'a bi t.a bu du sa nu bi tu ni bi ma nu
              Our sickle (ma[galu] nu, logogram) brings in (habu'a, causative ha,
              'harvests, makes come in') in the good work (bi t.abudu) of
              fructifying fruit (sanubi tunibi, root nwb).
              [Note ha- and sa- causative forms in the same sentence. Never mind, it
              happens in the Bible, too!]

              (33) ya ma sha du da bi 'a h.u sa pa yi (reverse the positions of 'a
              and h.u)
              on the day (yama, adv. accusative?) of harvest (shaduda) in (bi) the
              month (h.u[dsh, logogram) of ingathering ('asapayi).

              Things to note are the use of syllabograms as logograms wherever
              possible (and the same practice is found with the letters of the proto-
              alphabet, functioning as a logo-consonantary): MA(ggalu) 'sickle';
              H.U(dshu) 'month'; ZU(ru`u) malaki, 'the arm of the king' in 34.

              But the question is whether 'uyatata represents 'uyatta, given that
              kiti = kitti.

              The form t.abudu ('goodness') could be t.a:btu or t.a:buttu (if the
              second means 'friendship' it is less likely). But shaduda seems to
              correspond to Akkadian shadduttu, exaction (of payment, Concise Dict
              Akd (shanduntu, rt ndn); it is about income (including produce) and
              taxation; it occurs as shadut- 4 times in Text A, which is a king's
              decree about produce in stores and granaries, and also fish (dagati).

              So -tt- (and -dd-) could, apparently, be represented by a single t or d.
              Thus 'uyatata may well be how the word was pronounced, with no 'dead'
              vowels (as in t.ab(u)du, possibly

              Note that these are my interpretations (my translation differs from
              George's considerably in lines 31-34, but I hope it is now evident
              that these transcriptions do yield credible West Semitic texts.

              Accordingly I would urge anyone who wants to know what Proto-Hebrew
              looked like in the Bronze Age (before it became Hebrew, Phoenician,
              and Aramaic) to study these West Semitic logo-syllabic and logo-
              consonantal inscriptions, especially if you have a working knowledge
              of East Semitic (Akkadian). I have found in the task of interpreting
              the Sinai and Byblos texts that words occur which are found in the
              Akkadian lexicon, but not Ugaritic or Hebrew (notably on the bi-
              lingual sphinx statuette from the Sinai turquoise mines: Dh N Q Y L B
              ` L T, "This is my offering (niqaya) to Ba`alat").

              Brian Colless
              Massey U, NZ



              Bob Whiting
              whiting@...

              > Brian -- I'm not sure why you didn't mention it, but of course the
              > Akkadian word for 'sign, mark, signal, token' is ittu.
              >
              >

              The second t is a feminine marker and the plural is ita:tu. Since it
              is widely accepted
              > that Hebrew 'oth is cognate with ittu, a relationship of 'oth with
              > Akkadian awa:tu is impossible because the t of awa:tu is again a
              > feminine
              > marker since, as you point out, awa:tu is based on the verbal root
              > awû,
              > there is no connection between the two because ittu has a t in the
              > root
              > and awa:tu does not.
              >
              > On your problem with reading ya ta ta, this may simply be an
              > artifact of
              > the writing system. With an open syllabary there will be a vowel
              > appearing after every consonant regardless of whether it is there in
              > the
              > language or not. Thus ya ta ta may not be meant to write the plural
              > yata:ti (as in mata:ti) but rather the accusative singular yatta.
              >
              > Bob Whiting
              > whiting@...
              >
              > On Wed, 1 Apr 2009, Brian Colless wrote:
              >
              > > If in BH, as some have argued, the verbal root aleph-waw-taw is
              > > actually derived from the noun aleph-waw-taw, i.e., 'oth, is it
              > > imaginable that the noun was related to the Old Babylonian awa:tum?
              > > Xianhua Wang
              > >
              > > Xianhua
              > > I do not know whether others have responded to you privately, but I
              > > will take this opportunity to make a few observations on these two
              > > words, particularly their occurrences in the early West-Semitic
              > > epigraphic texts that I work on.
              > >
              > > (1) 't, plural 'tt
              > > This word ('tt 'signs') appears on the Izbet Sartah ostracon (Iron
              > > Age), in the first line of the inscription, and as the bottom line
              > of
              > > the text is a copy of the West Semitic consonantal alphabet, we
              > could
              > > assume that it is a reference to those letters as 'signs'. (In
              > > Mishnaic Hebrew the term for letters of the alphabet is 'otiyyot.)
              > My
              > > reading of the letters preceding 'tt is 'lmd 'I learn' . (The M has
              > > also been seen as Sh, but it is not the same as the Shin in the list
              > > of signs at the bottom, nor is the last sign of the text, in the
              > > bottom right corner, in the phrase h.ld`lm 'duration(s) of the the
              > > world'; the writer apparently means that this document he has
              > written
              > > and stored away in a hole in the ground will keep his memory alive
              > for
              > > ever.)
              > >
              > > For a (murky) photograph and a drawing go to:
              > >
              > > http://cryptcracker.blogspot.com/2007/01/ancient-abagadary-abecedary-this-is.html
              > >
              > > http://collesseum.googlepages.com/abgadary
              > >
              > > Now, the second T of 'TT is below the first one, but not clear; only
              > > the horizontal stroke of the + stands out; but we can see what the
              > > scribe intended, in the first words of the second line: K T T N,
              > with
              > > two clear examples of T in a ligature (as in Arabic writing). The
              > > sequence KT in this context might lead us to expect KTB 'write', but
              > > this is not possible, because of the double T and the N, which
              > matches
              > > the N in the alphabet on the bottom line; the k could be the
              > > conjunction kiy, and ttn a verb from ntn 'give'; my interpretation
              > is
              > > "I see that the eye gives the breath of a sign (' T again, 'letter')
              > > to the ear".
              > >
              > > Notice that there is no W in the word 't in this document.
              > >
              > > Another possible occurrence is on Byblos tablet D from the Bronze
              > Age,
              > > written in the WS logo-syllabary (lines 23-24):
              > >
              > > pa ti sa ta ru ni 'u ya ta ta la ki ti ma
              > > "and (pa) they observe (tisataru) for me (-ni) the sign(s)
              > ('uyatata)
              > > for truth (la-kiti-ma)"
              > >
              > > This is in a covenant context, and the reading of the signs is
              > > according to George Mendenhall (The syllabic inscriptions from
              > Byblos,
              > > 1985, 71) and myself (Brian E. Colless, The syllabic inscriptions of
              > > Byblos: Text D, Abr-Nahrain [Ancient Near Eastern Studies] 31, 1993,
              > > 1-35, 22). The root str is common Semitic for 'cover, protect'.
              > >
              > > Notice the Y in the noun taken as meaning 'sign' or 'signs' (but
              > the -
              > > a seems to be accusative singular, whereas -ti would be expected for
              > > the plural form, as in matati 'lands', see below; it could be a
              > > 'misprint' with so many instances of TA and TI in the line).
              > > Mendenhall invokes Arabic 'ayat (cognate with Hbr 'ôt, 'sign, mark')
              > > and assumes that the root is 'YT (not 'WT) .
              > >
              > > (2) hawatu, awâtum
              > > The same Byblos tablet D (Colless 1993, 6-7) )begins thus (1-2a)
              > > ha wa tu h.u ru ba `i lu 'i 'a tu 'u ni ma ta ti la ki ti
              > > "The word(s) (hawatu) of H.uru-Ba`ilu: I bring (root 't') the lands
              > > (matati) to myself (-ni), to truth (la-kit(t)i)"
              > >
              > > For my part this reading immediately gives me confidence that the
              > > values Mendenhall has assigned to the syllabograms are correct,
              > though
              > > I altered a few of them on my own table of signs:
              > > http://collesseum.googlepages.com/westsemiticsyllabary
              > >
              > > Ugaritic has plenty of examples of hwt 'word', and the initial h-
              > may
              > > have been present in Akkadian (right? but not written?)
              > >
              > > The Akkadian awâtum is said to come from awûm 'speak'.
              > >
              > > In this connection, the Hebrew word hawah has been studied by Meir
              > > Lubetski (Religion, 20, 1990, 217-232); it is usually given the
              > > meaning 'desire', and the basic meaning may be aspiration,
              > exhalation,
              > > but could also be outbreathings, utterances in Psalm 52:4, 9, and
              > 91:3).
              > >
              > > Finally, with regard to your question, there may be a connection
              > > between everything in this section (roots HW and AWU, breathing out)
              > > but not with the 'sign, mark' words in part 1.
              > >
              > > Brian Colless
              > > Massey University, NZ
              > >
              > >
              > > On 30/03/2009, at 11:45 PM, X.Wang wrote:
              > >
              > >> Dear Colleagues,
              > >>
              > >> I am currently trying to publish a review article on the meaning of
              > >> the sign of Cain. Hopefully another one following up will be on the
              > >> subject of fratricide. This current one is expected to be a
              > >> philological foundation-building for the next.
              > >>
              > >> Moberly's 2008 Harvard Theological Review article and Fox's 1974
              > >> Revue Biblique article are my major references for the current
              > >> paper. I hope to present in a few more supporting points for
              > >> Moberly's view that the sign of Cain was actually provided in the
              > >> Biblical text. The sign is a judgement made by YHWH.
              > >>
              > >> My academic command in Biblical Hebrew and Semitics in general and
              > >> the availablity of references in Beijing can only allow for such a
              > >> tiny project. Hope it can bring me back a little bit to the
              > Biblical
              > >> world.
              > >>
              > >> During the preparation of the paper, I came up with quite a crazy
              > >> idea: If in BH, as some have argued, the verbal root aleph-waw-taw
              > >> is actually derived from the noun aleph-waw-taw, i.e., 'oth, is it
              > >> imaginable that the noun was related to the Old Babylonian awa:tum?
              > >> I am wondering if this idea is worthy of a passing note in the
              > paper.
              > >>
              > >> I believe I have a lot of specilists in this list to learn from for
              > >> the question. Enlighten me if you happen to know any information
              > >> related to the etymology of 'oth. Thank all in advance.
              > >>
              > >> Sincerely yours,
              > >> Xianhua
              > >> Dr. Xianhua Wang, Associate Professor
              > >> School of History, Beijing Normal University
              > >> 19# Xinjiekouwai Dajie, Beijing 100875, China
              >
              >
              >



              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.