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

Re: [ANE-2] Relative Popularity of Egyptology and Assyriology since 1800

Expand Messages
  • Peter T. Daniels
    (It was a trivial matter to turn your pasteup into a table; view with Courier for the full effect.) Note that this search returns only English-language
    Message 1 of 12 , Dec 18, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      (It was a trivial matter to turn your pasteup into a table; view with Courier
      for the full effect.)

      Note that this search returns only English-language materials, which will skew
      the results badly; and surely the vast majority of hits is to Bible-related
      material rather than Egyptology or Assyriology.

      I wonder when the word "cuneiform" entered English, so that both the first lines
      may be spurious in that column, too; common terms were "wedge-writing" and
      "nail-writing."

      Hincks's first publication relating to the decipherment was in 1846.--
      Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...
      Jersey City




      ________________________________
      From: MarcC <marc.cooper@...>
      To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Sat, December 18, 2010 1:41:12 PM
      Subject: [ANE-2] Relative Popularity of Egyptology and Assyriology since 1800

       

      Instead of grading papers this morning, I did some data mining in Google
      Books. Since Google has reduced several million vlumes into searchable
      electronic form, I wondered if it is possble to determine the relative
      popularity of Assyriology and Egyptology over the last 200 years. So I
      ran searches for sets of words that are specific to these fields in
      English, "egyptian hieroglyphic", "babylonian cuneiform", and akkadian.
      Google's date limited search engine turns out to be imperfect. For
      instance, a journal run beginning in 1824 will occasionally produce
      Google references from later periods in earlier period, so the numbers
      below cannot be taken as the true number of instances in any given
      period, but the relative numbers are, I think, meaningful. Here are my
      quickie findings:

                 Egyptian Hieroglyphic Babylonian Cuneiform Akkadian
      1800-1820           5780                   91                0
      1820-1840          21900                  744                7
      1840-1860          32500                 6700               58
      1860-1880          27400                15500              991
      1880-1900          32900                35000            14500
      1900-1920          21200                33100             5190
      1920-1940          14300                13700             6670
      1940-1960          11300                12900            11900
      1960-1980          43100                25200            66600
      1980-2000          45100                33900            89400

      The actual date constraints are more precise than suggested above. I
      used January 1, 1800 to December 31, 1819 for the first period and
      similar date constraints for those which follow. Also note that the
      earliest references to Akkadian are all spurious.

      My first reaction to the table is that the era prior to WW I was a
      golden age for Ancient Near Eastern Studies. The wars nearly destroyed
      the field, but it has returned to prominence since 1960.

      Marc Cooper

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • MarcC
      ... That s good to know. ... True. That s why I use the term relative. Google books is itself skewed to English materials. ... Cuneiform was a bone before it
      Message 2 of 12 , Dec 18, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In ANE-2@yahoogroups.com, "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@...> wrote:
        >
        > (It was a trivial matter to turn your pasteup into a table; view with Courier
        > for the full effect.)

        That's good to know.
        >
        > Note that this search returns only English-language materials, which will skew
        > the results badly; and surely the vast majority of hits is to Bible-related
        > material rather than Egyptology or Assyriology.

        True. That's why I use the term relative. Google books is itself skewed to English materials.

        >
        > I wonder when the word "cuneiform" entered English, so that both the first lines
        > may be spurious in that column, too; common terms were "wedge-writing" and
        > "nail-writing."

        "Cuneiform" was a bone before it was used to describe writing. That's why my search term includes "babylonian." I thought that the cuneiform bone is so named because it reminds anatomists of cuneiform writing, but that can't be correct since the term "cuneiform" to describe bones of the foot was in use from at least 1661 according to Google Books.
        >
        > Hincks's first publication relating to the decipherment was in 1846.--

        But the term "cuneiform inscription" was already in use prior to 1820. Google books offers Hoeck

        http://tinyurl.com/36zgae4

        which uses the term in Latin from 1818. I imagine a better collection of antique books would supply earlier references.

        > Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...
        > Jersey City
        >
        >
        >
        >
      • gtosiris@mpx.com.au
        ... [snip] Hi Marc, I find the tinyurl link does not work. Regards, Gary Thompson Australia (No academic affiliation.)
        Message 3 of 12 , Dec 18, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          On 18 Dec 2010 at 18:51, Marc Cooper wrote:

          > My attempt to insert a file into a Yahoo post failed, so I uploaded
          > a .pdf of the table to our "Files" directory. You can access it
          > here:
          >
          >
          > http://tinyurl.com/2d36td5
          [snip]

          Hi Marc,

          I find the tinyurl link does not work.

          Regards,
          Gary Thompson
          Australia
          (No academic affiliation.)
        • Charles E. Jones
          OED cites: 1818 W. Taylor in Monthly Rev. 85 486 The cuneiform character is so simple in its component parts, that it consists only of two elements, the
          Message 4 of 12 , Dec 18, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            OED cites:

            "1818 W. Taylor in Monthly Rev. 85 486 The cuneiform character is so simple in its component parts, that it consists only of two elements, the wedge and the rectangle."

            as their earliest reference to cuneiform script.

            Are those of you citing Google data using http://ngrams.googlelabs.com/
            which is a very nice new tool?

            -Chuck Jones-
            Harlem, USA
          • MarcC
            If the tinyurl link doesn t work, just go to the ANE-2 Yahoo web site, open the Files directory on the left, and find the table. Marc Cooper Missouri State
            Message 5 of 12 , Dec 18, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              If the tinyurl link doesn't work, just go to the ANE-2 Yahoo web site, open the "Files" directory on the left, and find the table.

              Marc Cooper
              Missouri State

              --- In ANE-2@yahoogroups.com, gtosiris@... wrote:
              >
              > On 18 Dec 2010 at 18:51, Marc Cooper wrote:
              >
              > > My attempt to insert a file into a Yahoo post failed, so I uploaded
              > > a .pdf of the table to our "Files" directory. You can access it
              > > here:
              > >
              > >
              > > http://tinyurl.com/2d36td5
              > [snip]
              >
              > Hi Marc,
              >
              > I find the tinyurl link does not work.
              >
              > Regards,
              > Gary Thompson
              > Australia
              > (No academic affiliation.)
              >
            • Peter T. Daniels
              Click on Messages in this topic near the end of the message and it takes you to the group s page; then click on Files at the left, and Marc s table is the
              Message 6 of 12 , Dec 18, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                Click on "Messages in this topic" near the end of the message and it takes you
                to the group's page; then click on "Files" at the left, and Marc's table is the
                last item. (The first one added since 2006.)
                 --
                Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...




                ________________________________
                From: "gtosiris@..." <gtosiris@...>
                To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Sat, December 18, 2010 8:43:23 PM
                Subject: Re: [ANE-2] Re: Relative Popularity of Egyptology and Assyriology since
                1800

                 
                On 18 Dec 2010 at 18:51, Marc Cooper wrote:

                > My attempt to insert a file into a Yahoo post failed, so I uploaded
                > a .pdf of the table to our "Files" directory. You can access it
                > here:
                >
                >
                > http://tinyurl.com/2d36td5
                [snip]

                Hi Marc,

                I find the tinyurl link does not work.

                Regards,
                Gary Thompson
                Australia
                (No academic affiliation.)


                Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic
                Messages in this topic (6)


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Joan Griffith
                In searching for various items in Google Books, it does not seem that they show everything they claim is there. Some time ago, I was looking for something
                Message 7 of 12 , Dec 18, 2010
                • 0 Attachment
                  In searching for various items in Google Books, it does not seem that they
                  show everything they claim is there. Some time ago, I was looking for
                  something fairly old, so I thought it would show up at the end of the
                  search, which appeared to be latest to oldest. However, the search ran out
                  before the books did. I think Google goes on for 30 pages, at least that one
                  did. But there appeared to be more since the page showed thousands of
                  related books.

                  i was wondering what else I could do to tease out well-hidden items.
                  Usually I can find most things I look for, but this reminds me of the first
                  time I was on Lexus-Nexus and decided to start with "murder" which called up
                  a shocking bazillion search results. Does anyone have particular search
                  strategies?

                  I will most gratefully check out the Google Lab.


                  Joan Griffith
                  Independent


                  On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 10:56 PM, Peter T. Daniels <grammatim@...>wrote:

                  >
                  >
                  > Click on "Messages in this topic" near the end of the message and it takes
                  > you
                  > to the group's page; then click on "Files" at the left, and Marc's table is
                  > the
                  > last item. (The first one added since 2006.)
                  >
                  > --
                  > Peter T. Daniels grammatim@... <grammatim%40verizon.net>
                  >
                  > ________________________________
                  > From: "gtosiris@... <gtosiris%40mpx.com.au>" <gtosiris@...<gtosiris%40mpx.com.au>>
                  >
                  >
                  > To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com <ANE-2%40yahoogroups.com>
                  > Sent: Sat, December 18, 2010 8:43:23 PM
                  > Subject: Re: [ANE-2] Re: Relative Popularity of Egyptology and Assyriology
                  > since
                  > 1800
                  >
                  >
                  > On 18 Dec 2010 at 18:51, Marc Cooper wrote:
                  >
                  > > My attempt to insert a file into a Yahoo post failed, so I uploaded
                  > > a .pdf of the table to our "Files" directory. You can access it
                  > > here:
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > http://tinyurl.com/2d36td5
                  > [snip]
                  >
                  > Hi Marc,
                  >
                  > I find the tinyurl link does not work.
                  >
                  > Regards,
                  > Gary Thompson
                  > Australia
                  > (No academic affiliation.)
                  >
                  > Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic
                  > Messages in this topic (6)
                  >
                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  >
                  >
                  >


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Peter T. Daniels
                  Here are some strategies: In the left-hand menu, choose Full view only. This will block everything less than 100 years old (except for a few items that may
                  Message 8 of 12 , Dec 19, 2010
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Here are some strategies:

                    In the left-hand menu, choose "Full view only." This will block everything less
                    than 100 years old (except for a few items that may have special dispensation;
                    some American Philosophical Society items still show up).

                    If you're looking for a journal issue, find any occurrence of that journal and
                    click "other editions." For a while, that brought up complete runs of journals
                    in reverse chronological order. But that no longer happens; they now appear in
                    indeterminate order.

                    Sometimes -- I cannot tell when -- if you search a name, it offers you the
                    options "books by" and "books mentioning" (or something like that).

                    I have the impression that when a commercial publisher reprints an old item,
                    they may pressure google to take it off google books, because some things
                    formerly available appear no longer to be available.

                    If something refuses to appear in books.google.com, then try things like
                    books.google.de and books.google.fr. They seem to access the same copies of
                    things as the American one, but they also seem to be able to get at things the
                    American one can't.--
                    Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...




                    ________________________________
                    From: Joan Griffith <despinne@...>
                    To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                    Sent: Sun, December 19, 2010 2:48:14 AM
                    Subject: Re: [ANE-2] Re: Relative Popularity of Egyptology and Assyriology since
                    1800

                     
                    In searching for various items in Google Books, it does not seem that they
                    show everything they claim is there. Some time ago, I was looking for
                    something fairly old, so I thought it would show up at the end of the
                    search, which appeared to be latest to oldest. However, the search ran out
                    before the books did. I think Google goes on for 30 pages, at least that one
                    did. But there appeared to be more since the page showed thousands of
                    related books.

                    i was wondering what else I could do to tease out well-hidden items.
                    Usually I can find most things I look for, but this reminds me of the first
                    time I was on Lexus-Nexus and decided to start with "murder" which called up
                    a shocking bazillion search results. Does anyone have particular search
                    strategies?

                    I will most gratefully check out the Google Lab.

                    Joan Griffith
                    Independent

                    On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 10:56 PM, Peter T. Daniels <grammatim@...>wrote:

                    >
                    >
                    > Click on "Messages in this topic" near the end of the message and it takes
                    > you
                    > to the group's page; then click on "Files" at the left, and Marc's table is
                    > the
                    > last item. (The first one added since 2006.)
                    >
                    > --
                    > Peter T. Daniels grammatim@... <grammatim%40verizon.net>
                    >
                    > ________________________________
                    > From: "gtosiris@... <gtosiris%40mpx.com.au>"
                    ><gtosiris@...<gtosiris%40mpx.com.au>>
                    >
                    >
                    > To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com <ANE-2%40yahoogroups.com>
                    > Sent: Sat, December 18, 2010 8:43:23 PM
                    > Subject: Re: [ANE-2] Re: Relative Popularity of Egyptology and Assyriology
                    > since
                    > 1800
                    >
                    >
                    > On 18 Dec 2010 at 18:51, Marc Cooper wrote:
                    >
                    > > My attempt to insert a file into a Yahoo post failed, so I uploaded
                    > > a .pdf of the table to our "Files" directory. You can access it
                    > > here:
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > http://tinyurl.com/2d36td5
                    > [snip]
                    >
                    > Hi Marc,
                    >
                    > I find the tinyurl link does not work.
                    >
                    > Regards,
                    > Gary Thompson
                    > Australia
                    > (No academic affiliation.)
                    >
                    > Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic
                    > Messages in this topic (6)
                    >
                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    >
                    >
                    >

                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Trudy Kawami
                    Of course we all say that WW I and WW II damaged scholarship, but this is an interesting angle with hard data. Could we take it a step further & say that
                    Message 9 of 12 , Dec 20, 2010
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Of course we all say that WW I and WW II damaged scholarship, but this
                      is an interesting angle with "hard" data. Could we take it a step
                      further & say that Assyriology & Egyptology were seen as "modern" in the
                      19th century, but now have a retro glow? What I have in mind is the
                      success of the Indiana Jones series which relied on much earlier themes
                      & imagery. Even the invasion of Iraq and the looting of the museum has
                      not produced any updating of the themes.

                      Since I lagged badly in keeping up with post this weekend, I'd better
                      read all the rest before tripping over my own feet (or tongue).

                      Trudy



                      ________________________________

                      From: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
                      MarcC
                      Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2010 1:41 PM
                      To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: [ANE-2] Relative Popularity of Egyptology and Assyriology since
                      1800






                      Instead of grading papers this morning, I did some data mining in Google
                      Books. Since Google has reduced several million vlumes into searchable
                      electronic form, I wondered if it is possble to determine the relative
                      popularity of Assyriology and Egyptology over the last 200 years. So I
                      ran searches for sets of words that are specific to these fields in
                      English, "egyptian hieroglyphic", "babylonian cuneiform", and akkadian.
                      Google's date limited search engine turns out to be imperfect. For
                      instance, a journal run beginning in 1824 will occasionally produce
                      Google references from later periods in earlier period, so the numbers
                      below cannot be taken as the true number of instances in any given
                      period, but the relative numbers are, I think, meaningful. Here are my
                      quickie findings:

                      Egyptian Hieroglyphic Babylonian Cuneiform Akkadian 1800-1820 5780 91 0
                      1820-1840 21900 744 7 1840-1860 32500 6700 58 1860-1880 27400 15500
                      991 1880-1900 32900 35000 14500 1900-1920 21200 33100 5190 1920-1940
                      14300 13700 6670 1940-1960 11300 12900 11900 1960-1980 43100 25200
                      66600 1980-2000 45100 33900 89400

                      The actual date constraints are more precise than suggested above. I
                      used January 1, 1800 to December 31, 1819 for the first period and
                      similar date constraints for those which follow. Also note that the
                      earliest references to Akkadian are all spurious.

                      My first reaction to the table is that the era prior to WW I was a
                      golden age for Ancient Near Eastern Studies. The wars nearly destroyed
                      the field, but it has returned to prominence since 1960.

                      Marc Cooper

                      Missouri State

                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Raz Kletter
                      What this data reflects depends on varid factors, eg, if the querry retrieves the keywords from titles, or from any content of the books; if the keywords
                      Message 10 of 12 , Dec 20, 2010
                      • 0 Attachment
                        What this data reflects depends on varid factors, eg, if the querry
                        retrieves the keywords from titles, or from any content of the books; if the
                        keywords appeared several times in the same book, does it counts as 1 or
                        n-times, etc. The keywords were linguistic, "Egyptian Hierogliphic" might
                        not fish out "Egyptology" in general. One needs to check other fields, and
                        best to compare to some field, whose popularity can be estimated by other
                        means.
                        I am not sure about a pre WW1 Golden age. Except for WW1-2 as noticed by
                        Trudy, the trend in general is of constant growth. It may reflect mainly
                        growth in academic production of books, not necessarily a "retro glow", or
                        popularity in the sense of a general public.
                        Raz Kletter

                        2010/12/20 Trudy Kawami <tkawami@...>

                        >
                        >
                        > Of course we all say that WW I and WW II damaged scholarship, but this
                        > is an interesting angle with "hard" data. Could we take it a step
                        > further & say that Assyriology & Egyptology were seen as "modern" in the
                        > 19th century, but now have a retro glow? What I have in mind is the
                        > success of the Indiana Jones series which relied on much earlier themes
                        > & imagery. Even the invasion of Iraq and the looting of the museum has
                        > not produced any updating of the themes.
                        >
                        > Since I lagged badly in keeping up with post this weekend, I'd better
                        > read all the rest before tripping over my own feet (or tongue).
                        >
                        > Trudy
                        >
                        > ________________________________
                        >
                        > From: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com <ANE-2%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:
                        > ANE-2@yahoogroups.com <ANE-2%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of
                        > MarcC
                        > Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2010 1:41 PM
                        > To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com <ANE-2%40yahoogroups.com>
                        > Subject: [ANE-2] Relative Popularity of Egyptology and Assyriology since
                        > 1800
                        >
                        > Instead of grading papers this morning, I did some data mining in Google
                        > Books. Since Google has reduced several million vlumes into searchable
                        > electronic form, I wondered if it is possble to determine the relative
                        > popularity of Assyriology and Egyptology over the last 200 years. So I
                        > ran searches for sets of words that are specific to these fields in
                        > English, "egyptian hieroglyphic", "babylonian cuneiform", and akkadian.
                        > Google's date limited search engine turns out to be imperfect. For
                        > instance, a journal run beginning in 1824 will occasionally produce
                        > Google references from later periods in earlier period, so the numbers
                        > below cannot be taken as the true number of instances in any given
                        > period, but the relative numbers are, I think, meaningful. Here are my
                        > quickie findings:
                        >
                        > Egyptian Hieroglyphic Babylonian Cuneiform Akkadian 1800-1820 5780 91 0
                        > 1820-1840 21900 744 7 1840-1860 32500 6700 58 1860-1880 27400 15500
                        > 991 1880-1900 32900 35000 14500 1900-1920 21200 33100 5190 1920-1940
                        > 14300 13700 6670 1940-1960 11300 12900 11900 1960-1980 43100 25200
                        > 66600 1980-2000 45100 33900 89400
                        >
                        > The actual date constraints are more precise than suggested above. I
                        > used January 1, 1800 to December 31, 1819 for the first period and
                        > similar date constraints for those which follow. Also note that the
                        > earliest references to Akkadian are all spurious.
                        >
                        > My first reaction to the table is that the era prior to WW I was a
                        > golden age for Ancient Near Eastern Studies. The wars nearly destroyed
                        > the field, but it has returned to prominence since 1960.
                        >
                        > Marc Cooper
                        >
                        > Missouri State
                        >
                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        >
                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        >
                        >
                        >


                        --
                        Raz Kletter
                        Varsaallika 6a Tallinn 12013 Estonia


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