Subject: Re: The Minoan Linear A Language?
From: souris@netcom.com (Henry Hillbrath)
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 17:36:49 GMT
ab292@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Christopher John Camfield) writes:
>Henry Hillbrath (souris@netcom.com) writes:
>[chop]
>> One of their truely astonishing finds was that there were some really
>> remarkable 11 Dynasty cat statues were from silver mined at Laurion in
>> Greece. That is really remarkable, since the Athenians discovered Laurion
>> in Classical Greek times!
>Really? Maybe I'm imagining things, but I thought it was known (by other
>evidence, presumably on site) that the Myceneans had mined there. I'll
>have to dig for this, unless someone here is up on the history of Bronze
>Age mining...
>If you want to be picky about the Classical period (rather than Archaic),
>then wasn't it more that the Athenians struck a very rich seam in the early
>5th century?
If there was any knowledge of mining at Laurion before classical times,
it is news to me, and I think to the classical period Greeks, also.
11th Dynasty would be about 2100 BC, which is early for Myceneans, also.
I guess it is time to check up on Gale and Stos-Gale and see what the
latest is. In checking, the only cite I can find on the cats is from the
discussion at a conference in 1984. I think it was mentioned in an
article in the Scientific American, but I don't have a cite.
If this finding is sustained, I think it is one of the most important
early diffusion examples to be well documumented. In fact, if it were not
more the Gale's reputation, and antidiffusionist ties, I don't think any
one would have thought of accepting it.
Henry Hillbrath
Subject: Re: Ugaritic Musical Notation, oldest?
From: kalie@sn.no (Kaare Albert Lie)
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 16:47:38 GMT
piotrm@umich.edu (Piotr Michalowski) wrote:
>The materials you are thinking of are in Babylonian cuneiform, but found at
>Ugarit, and, to make it more complicated, they are of Hurrian songs. The date
>is around 1300 or so. Ann Kilmer has written extensively about this, as have
>a few other people. Her own reconstruction assumes that the "musical
>notations" refer to pitches. I believe that she may be coming out with a
>different interpretation soon. There are also c. 1800 BC texts from
>Mesopotamia concerning the tuning of harps. From all of this Kilmer has
>reconstructed scales that are, in essence, very much like the modes of our
>major scale (i.e. Dorian, Lydian, etc). These are not Canaanite, however, as
>al the documentation is in Hurrian, Akkadian or Sumerian.
>My own opinion, for whatever it may be worth, is that her scales cannot be
>correct. Our scales, although they have Greek names, do not go back that far,
>and I do not believe it probable that ancient Near Eastern music was based on
>such scales. Pentatonics of some sort, maybe, but not modern tempered scales.
>In any case, the best place to look up, for the most up-to-date bibliography
>and information would be the entry Musik in the Reallexikon der Assyriologie
>(the article is in English). Kilmer and Steve Tinney will be publishing some
>new fragments of Sumerian "musical texts" in a forthcoming volume of the
>Journal of Cuneiform Studies.
This is most interesting, and I would appreciate more
informations about this.
How were the harps tuned?
How does Kilmer deduce her scales? Why do you rather suggest
pentatonics? Are there any indications of five or seven notes -
or whaterver - in the scale? (I agree that they hardly could have
been stupid enough to tune to the modern tempered scale - that
monstrosity was invented only a couple of hundred years ago.
Probably not the middle tone tuning either. But what about some
kind of Pythagorean tuning, based on pure fifths?)
Could ancient Near Eastern music perhaps be similar to modern
Near Eastern music, and/or based on the same scales?
I think I once read about the finding of ancient Chines stone
chimes, giving absolute pitches for early Chinese scales.
Anything like that found in other parts of the world?
Questions and guesses - can you please replace some of them with
a few facts?
______________________________________________________________
Kåre Albert Lie
kalie@sn.no
Subject: Re: Ugaritic Musical Notation, oldest?
From: idoh@cais.com (Ido's )
Date: 10 Sep 1996 20:43:28 GMT
Piotr Michalowski (piotrm@umich.edu) wrote:
: In article <513pj0$kjb@news2.cais.com> idoh@cais.com (Ido's ) writes:
:
: >Does anyone have more information on the supposed Ugaritic Cuneiform
: >tablets that contain musical notations from 3500 BCE? It appears that
: >Pythagrous/Greeks acquired the "western" musical scales from the
: >Canaanites.
:
: The materials you are thinking of are in Babylonian cuneiform, but found at
: Ugarit, and, to make it more complicated, they are of Hurrian songs. The date
: is around 1300 or so. Ann Kilmer has written extensively about this, as have
: a few other people. Her own reconstruction assumes that the "musical
: notations" refer to pitches. I believe that she may be coming out with a
: different interpretation soon. There are also c. 1800 BC texts from
: Mesopotamia concerning the tuning of harps. From all of this Kilmer has
: reconstructed scales that are, in essence, very much like the modes of our
: major scale (i.e. Dorian, Lydian, etc). These are not Canaanite, however, as
: al the documentation is in Hurrian, Akkadian or Sumerian.
Is there an image of the tablet(s) on the internet? Also, what is the
index number of this tablet?
Regards,
Haisam
Subject: Re: Conjectures about cultural contact
From: yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky)
Date: 10 Sep 1996 19:14:32 GMT
George Black (gblack@midland.co.nz) wrote:
[Yuri:]
: >And to Thomas I say that one side (the side of trans-Pacific diffusion)
: >has mountains of solid scientific evidence supporting it. I've presented
: >quite a bit of this in sci.arch. There's been plenty of idiotic sneering
: >but few persuasive rebuttals. Those who tried only betrayed their quite
: >remarkable ignorance of the matter, of the evidence, and of the debates in
: >the field.
: So, where is the evidence?
: The Polynesians have had no connection with South America.
Yes, they had. Sweet potato is the "silver bullet" here.
: Were this so then there would be pottery and metalworking throughout the
: Pacific in Archaeological strata predating European exploration and
: occupation.
Atzecs were in the stone age EVEN THOUGH the Incas were expert
metalworkers. They had contacts. So your point is mute.
: The language (and myths) would indicate such a meeting.
There are some connections between Mayan and Chinese writing systems.
: >All those posts are freely available from DEJANEWS. You have no excuse to
: >plead ignorance, Thomas. So a little bit of humility should be in order.
: Does this include your contention that the Polynesians were the influence
: behind the Olmec??
This has been suggested, yes.
: Apart from the fact that the Olmec were some 800 years before the date
that : Polynesians migrated to N.Z & Easter Island
Irrelevant. Different Polynesians migrated at different times.
: and the civilization
of the Olmec : existed on the other side of the Panama land bridge
Their influence was felt on both sides.
: >The evidence for trans-Pacific diffusion is solid, and, considering the
: >inability of the opposing side to disprove it, the case should be seen as
: >proven.
: No it is not proven but it is posted and has been considered.
Where's the evidence?
Well, realizing how controversial these ideas are, I've just completed a
major addition to my webpage. DEJANEWS is not too easy to use for those
who are not familiar with that service, so now interested persons can go
to my webpage and get informed.
So now I've collected and uploaded to my webpage the most relevant posts
I made in the last month or so re: this matter. Look under "netstuff":
http://www.io.org/~yuku/netstuff.htm
or, directly to:
http://www.io.org/~yuku/dif/diff.htm
Everything should work fine, but if anyone has trouble connecting, let me
know.
I hope you enjoy learning more.
Best wishes,
Yuri.
--
#% Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto %#
-- a webpage like any other... http://www.io.org/~yuku --
Students achieving Oneness will move on to Twoness === W. Allen
Subject: Re: Egyptian junkie pharaohs
From: pmv100@psu.edu (Peter Van Rossum)
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 21:01:47 GMT
In article <32351a3e.516619@pubnews.demon.co.uk> stjg@wpo.nerc.ac.uk (Gonzo) writes:
>pmv100@psu.edu (Peter Van Rossum) wrote:
>
>
>
>>This indicates to me that you are not very familiar with many
>>archaeologists. Most researchers who I know are more than
>>happy to go against the grain since its a major way in which
>>careers can be made. The difference is that you need to have
>>solid evidence before presenting an idea.
>>
>That's true for folks just starting out (i.e. the first 10 years,
>tops) The problem is, of course, that the 'older' archaeologists have
>built careers on certain things and vehemently attack anything that
>contradicts their theories : they are only human after all - and it
>would be a lifetime of belief and work destroyed.
> [deletions]
Even if it could be proven that a couple of intermittent contacts
took place between the Old and New World this would have little,
if any, impact on the vast majority of New World archaeological
theories.
Also, even the most diehard critics would be silenced if whole
settlements of Old World populations could be found in the New
World. So far such evidence has not been forthcoming (at least not
that I've seen).
>
>
>>Mr Strawbridge wote:
>>>Lacking a time machine, the case for no contact can never be
>>>proved. Sufficient evidence will surface to change the minds
>>>of reasonable people. Then we can say -Yes there was some
>>>contact so what? - and move on.
>>
>>Again, good to see you've got such an open mind. Near as I
>>can tell all you're saying is, "I read a book by Heyerdahl decades
>>ago, it changed my mind, therefore it must be true." Wake up.
>>
>>Peter van Rossum
>
>At least Heyrdahl proved it could be done (*and* yes I agree it
>doesn't mean it *was* done in ancient times......) . Most eminent
>archaelologists denied that the technology or sea-worthyness of
>ancient ships existed for such travel and if so why don't they exist
>today....the old 'progress' theory - nothing is every lost - only
>progress occurs..... I just like to think of the Roman Empire and the
>dark ages that followed it - when a helluva lot of knowledge was lost.
>
>I just dislike straight out denials - it smacks of arrogance.
If you read my post a little closer you would see that I never gave
a straight out denial of the possibility of contact. Just so we get
the record straight, I believe contacts were technically possible.
However, I have seen no good evidence of extensive long term contacts
between the Old and New World.
What I do disagree with are people who state that there is good evidence
of major contacts between the Old and New Worlds and that these
contacts were the impetus for cultural developments in the New World.
I have seen no good archaeological evidence to suggest that this happened.
I think if you asked most archaeologists you would get a similar response -
they don't deny that contacts *may*have occurred, but *if* they did occur they
don't seem to have significantly impacted the cultural trajectories of New
World groups.
What smacks of arrogance to me are the vast number of people who, based
on reading a couple of iconoclastic books on the topic, feel they are
in a better position to interpret the prehistory of the New World than
researchers who have spent decades in library and field research.
Peter van Rossum
PMV100@PSU.EDU
Subject: Re: Egyptian Tree Words
From: Troy Sagrillo
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 16:38:47 GMT
Saida wrote:
>
> Troy Sagrillo wrote:
[snip]
> Troy, you are right in that there must be standard, but it is THIS
> standard with the symbols I don't like the looks of. Just a personal
> prejudice and I must learn to read it, I suppose, although this is the
> first time (in this thread) that I have ever discussed ancient Egyptian
> with anybody at any great length.
So it is just basically an aesthetic problem? ;) Seriously, as far as I am
concerned, it doesn't really make a difference as long as we all know what
Egyptian phonemes/lexemes we are discussing. As I said with *some* of your
original renderings were a bid difficult for me to figure out as to the
original. But as long as we communicate in the long run, that is fine! :)
> > > "Wat Ur" certainly is evocative of "water".
> >
> > Except that your "Wat Ur" is /w3D wr/ (normally vocalised today as "wadj
> > wer", but was probably pronounced in Old/Middle Egyptian as *wa:Rij wu:r;
> > the /R/ is the "thick "r" (sort of half way between a normal "r" and "l"
> > (often used in Japanese); Loprieno discusses this issue in detail)).
> It is my suspicion that both "r" and "l" (when needed) were pronounced
> like "w", so I think that pretty much agrees with what you are saying.
> Kind of crazy, isn't it? Also, I would guess that the "r" at the end of
> a word was negligible in BBC English fashion.
Actually this is quite apparent in Late Egyptian. Many words containing
/r/ in the middle or end of their Middle Egyptian predicessors have lost it
in writing (and no doubt in speech as well) in Late Egyptian. (Like the New
England pronunciation of "car" as /caa/, or the loss of the /r/ in standard
British English.) This trend continues into Coptic as well (noufe for M.E.
/nfr/ (nefer); noute for M.E. /nTr/ (netjer), L.E. /ntr/ (neter)). Often in
Coptic though, the Middle Egyptian /r/ has become /l/. *HOWEVER*, please note
that the "thick" /R/ of the reconstruced *wa:Rij is *not* the same kind of
"r"; the "thick" /R/ is written in Egyptian as the so-called alif vulture
(since in Late Egyptian the /R/ had shifted in pronunciation to a glottal stop
like the Semitic alif).
> The glyph that looks like
> a chick was, I think, pronounced as a "w" at the beginning of a word but
> as a "u" thereafter. "Wat Ur" should, theoretically, have had a "w" in
> the beginning of both words, but, as it really served as one word, I
> think the "Ur is correct.
Sorry, but I really doubt this. While I agree the /w/ in the middle of a word
*may* have been pronouced as /u:/ or /aw/ or /w/, it was almost certainly a
consonantal /w/ at the beinging of a word. As /w3D wr/ is two words, I don't
see how the /wr/ would shift in pronuciation from */wu:r/ to /u:r/ (as no
glottal stop (alif) is written) merely on the basis that another word happens
to proceed it -- Semitic languages don't do this, nor do Berber languages (as
far as I am aware), so I seriously doubt Egyptian would either.
[snip -- Cedar]
> > You are right, it did *used* to be considered "cedar", because /`S/ wood was
> > imported from Lebanon (the whole Cedars of Lebanon business). Unfortunately,
> > as Loret discusses, in paintings /`S/ wood (`ash if you must) is light
> > yellow in colour, not red. In most modern translations the term "conifers"
> > is now used. The question now is, what is the Egyptian term for "cedar"?
>
> I wish I had access to your sources. I would love to read them.
Actually Lucas and Harris's book (Ancient Egyptian Materials & Industries, 4th
ed.) is fairly easy to track down via inter-library loan (if neccessary), and
they discuss this issue and summarise Loret and others. Also I believe Lisa
Manniche's recent "Egyptian Herbal" (?) book discusses this as well.
[snip]
> The difficulty isn't as great as all that. Egyptian didn't use "o"
> much, so that eliminates having to guess about this vowel. There are a
> couple of "a" sounds represented and also "u" "i" and "y". That leaves
> only "e", with which Coptic has been most helpful.
Sorry to be a stickler, but at which stage of the language? The vocalic system
varied quite considerably through out history. Old Egyptian and very likely
Middle Egyptian used the standard Afro-asiatic vocalic inventory of /a, i, u/
but these shifted other vowels (including /e, o/ and the schwa) later in Late
Egytian (as happens in many other Afro-asiatic languages as well). Coptic is *
very* useful in many respects (though even the pronuciation of Coptic itself
is tenative), but it has to be used with care -- no one would suggest
reconstructing the phonology of Old English **solely** on the basis of 20th
Century Mid-Western USA pronuciation of Modern English, or reconstructing the
Arabic of 7th century CE Mecca on the basis of modern Moroccan dialect or
Maltese.
[snip]
> Budge, IMHO, was a great linguist and scholar of ancient Egyptian and I
> see no reason to trust German interpretations over his. Probably, he
> made errors. Even those who "corrected" him were second-guessed by
> somebody else, in turn, on certain things. Sir Alan Gardiner has
> corrected himself in various editions of his grammar. Were he still
> here, he'd still be doing it, no doubt. The Egyptologists who
> specialized in the language had to convince each other that they were
> right in their assertions. Sometimes they did (see Gardiner's notes on
> how he changed his mind because Prof. X made him see the
> light--sometimes grudgingly) just like we are trying to do in this
> thread. But the truth is elusive here.
Budge, IMHO, was dated even in his day, and even more so now (and Gardiner is
getting a bit hoary himself, and even Faulkner) -- the only reason he is
around today is that his books are cheap and widely distributed. I don't think
that Budge is totally useless, but that he needs to be used with a lot of
care. The "Germans" who compiled the Worterbuch (who happened to include
Gardiner, btw) where the very best of their day and the Worterbuch has yet to
be superceeded at a standard recource (and we long for the day when the 2nd
ed. on CD-ROM is **finally** available). But, like Budge, even the Worterbuch
(and Faulkner and Lesko too) needs to be checked -- a lot has been discovered
since it originally appeared. But my point was that /w`r/ was given by Budge
as "juniper ?"; maybe research since has removed the "?", but I don't know off
hand.
> If Budge guessed "war" was
> "juniper" we may as well take his word--especially since you say there
> is not much alternative.
There may be an alternative; *I* just don't know, that's all.
> How about "Tcha'au en pa war"? This would be
> referring to the berries, which seem to figure in Egyptian medicinal
> recipes.
Late Egyptian /D3`w n p3 w`r/ "seed/grain/berry of the w`r tree/bush/whatever"
(and juniper is being referred to for all I know). BTW, a modern "readable"
transliteration would be "dja`u en pa we`r"
> Unless someone can give me a good idea of how the Romans came
> up with the catchy word "juniper".
> >
> > > This is
> > > speculative, but a better example of Latin from Egyptian might be the
> > > word for "ivory", pronounced variously "ab", "abu" or "yab".
> >
> > Just a point of discussion (not an attack): how do you know this? At what
> > point in the history of the language (Old, Middle, New, &c.;) is /3bw/
> > vocalised in such ways? Unfortunately I don't have either Crumm's or Cerny's
> > Coptic dictionaries here, but that would be a place to start.
>
> Look in Budge. It won't do you irreparable harm. Just don't tell
> anybody.:)
As I said, I don't mind taking a gander at old Budge's dictionary, but he was
treating his transliterations as vocalised (ie., vowelled) words -- after the
practice of Lepsius (and was therefore VERY dated). We have learnt much more
about Egyptian phonology since then. I am not saying that Budge is 100% wrong,
but just that he needs to be varified elsewhere IMHO (he *made up* stuff quite
a bit, as you will quickly learn if you check the original Egyptian sources).
[palm]
> > Ahh, found it in Budge as /imi/ and /im3/; again questioned by Budge, and
> > ought to be checked in the Worterbuch. Lesko's Late Egyptian dict. gives /
> > im3w/ and /i3mw/ (same orthography as Budge's) as "wood, tree". Faulkner
> > gives /im3/ "a tree" and cites p. Wilbour 31 as '*not* date-palm'.
>
> I'll check this one over. Maybe I'll have to rethink it, but there
> should be one most frequently used term for this common item and I'll
> try to determine what it was. Maybe you can help me :) Anyway, "im3w"
> is quite a mouthful, in your transliteration or mine.
Hehehehehe.... yes it is! But then again, I am not trying to *say* it either -
- I just want to know what it spelt like so I can go look it up in whatever
scholarly resource I need. I get the feeling that /im3/ is a generic word for
"tree" rather than a specific variety (based on its usage), but don't really
know for certain.
[snip]
Subject: Re: Conjectures about cultural contact
From: pmv100@psu.edu (Peter van Rossum)
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 23:41:56 GMT
In article I wrote:
>Where did you read that there is good evidence of direct contacts
>between the Aztecs and the Inca? I have seen articles positing
>connections between Western Mexico and South America, but these
>are not the Aztecs.
[deletions...]
Sorry, I hit the post button before I posted some references.
For anyone wishing to explore possible Western Mexico - South
American contacts further:
Hosler, Dorothy.
The sounds and colors of power, the sacred metallurgical technology of
ancient West Mexico. / Dorothy Hosler. Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press, c1994.
p.s. I think this contains some discussion of West Mexico-South American
contact, but I'm not positive. The following definitely do:
- - - - - - - - - - - -The CAT/University Park
Hosler, Dorothy.
Ancient West Mexican metallurgy: South and Central American origins and
West Mexican transformations / Dorothy Hosler.
In: American Anthropologist v. 90, no. 4, 1988. pp. 832-855.
- - - - - - - - - - - -The CAT/University Park
Anawalt, Patricia Rieff.
Ancient cultural contacts between Ecuador, West Mexico and the American
Southwest: clothing similarities / Patricia Rieff Anawalt.
In: Latin American Antiquity v. 3, no. 2, 1992. pp. 114-129.
- - - - - - - - - - - Anthropological Literature
Pollard, Helen
Merchant Colonies, Semi-Mesoamericans, and the study of cultural contact
A comment on Anawalt.
In: Latin American Antiquity v. 4, no. 4, 1993. pp. 383-385.
- - - - - - - - - - - Anthropological Literature
Anawalt, Patricia Rieff.
Reply to Helen Perlstein Pollard
In: Latin American Antiquity v. 4, no. 4, 1993. pp. 386-387.
- - - - - - - - - - - Anthropological Literature
Peter van Rossum
PMV100@PSU.EDU