Comments on: Stray Thought on Khirbet Qeiyafa Ostracon

By: Alan Lenzi

Alan Lenzi — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 06:18:58 +0000

About half of the witnesses for our new edition of Ludlul come from unpublished school texts, fragments, and other random bits. One never knows what’s sitting in those dusty drawers in the museums.

But I agree with you, Jim, even while nodding at Charles’ comments: there are WAY too many people pontificating about these few lines that have importance, yes, but not THAT much importance. It’s tiresome. As I’ve said in a few places now, the field of biblical studies is incredibly starved for new evidence; anything is a big deal.

By: jimgetz

jimgetz — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 22:42:54 +0000

Of course, the overarching issue is the consumptionist model of education that currently seems to rule the academy.

In these situations, I tend to think of Jean Bottéro’s essay “In Defense of Useless Science” in Mesopotamia: Writing, Reasoning and the Gods. It might not change the funding issues, but it at least helps me make sense of the incongruities.

By: jimgetz

jimgetz — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 22:37:47 +0000

Good point. But while it might not have sizzle, you can’t begin to do historical research without such data. The good historian is the one who can take such quotidian information and use it to construct an image of the past.

By: Charles Halton

Charles Halton — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 18:11:07 +0000

I agree with you. However, 99% of the Sumerian and Akkadian stuff sitting around untranslated is probably has even less sizzle and pop than this inscription–I should know; I translated about 70 Sumerian texts that were sitting around unread in a museum collection and unless you love sheep and goat transfers they weren’t that exciting…

By: John Hobbins

John Hobbins — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 17:51:22 +0000

Yep. And how about presenting the already published Sumerian and Akkadian corpora in bilingual editions, normalized Sumerian and Akkadian on one page, English on the other, commentary following, and qualified interaction with the relevant primary and secondary literatures?

Yes, I know Alan Lenzi and others are trying to make a dent in this sense. If I had anything to say about it, I would give him an annual NEH grant of several million dollars until the job got done.

Part of the problem is that the “hard sciences” are supplanting the humanities in terms of “world-making.” Here’s a relevant recent post:

http://ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad.com/ancient_hebrew_poetry/2010/01/the-humanities-versus-the-hard-sciences-let-the-battle-begin.html