Ephraim S. Ayil

Jump to Content

ChapterÂ 18 â®×¦Ö¹×¨â¬â á¹¢År & â®×Ö·ï¬¼Ö¸×Ö´×ï¬ªâ¬â á¸¤allÄmÄ«Å¡âFlint/Obsidian

In: Identifying the Stones of Classical Hebrew

Author:

Ephraim S. Ayil

Ephraim S. Ayil
Search for other papers by Ephraim S. Ayil in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed

Type:: Chapter

Pages:: 163â173

DOI:: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004678002_019

Access via:

Dar Hadith al Hassania

Download PDF

There are two words generally associated with flint in the Hebrew Bible: â®×Ö·ï¬¼Ö¸×Ö´×ï¬ªâ¬â á¸¥allÄmÄ«Å¡ and â®×¦Ö¹×¨â¬â á¹£År. The meanings of these words are not necessarily limited to flint, as obsidian is also extensively documented in Levantine lithics and overlapping meaning between flint and obsidian is also present in cognates. Flint is a cryptocrystalline quartz (SiO₂) occurring in chalk or limestone. It is endemic in the chalky hills of central Israel, primarily used historically to make stone tools, most notably blades and points, and for starting fires. While chemically identical (also SiO₂), obsidian is a natural volcanic glass which is far more brittle than flint, which is absent from Israelâs geology. To appreciate the meanings of â®×Ö·ï¬¼Ö¸×Ö´×ï¬ªâ¬â á¸¥allÄmÄ«Å¡ and â®×¦Ö¹×¨â¬â á¹£År requires a prehistoric perspective on the use of flint and obsidian.

Flint is endemic in the Levant, and was extensively exploited for arrowheads and blades of Levantine cultures dating back to the Paleolithic.¹ Prior to the mass-exploitation of iron during the Iron Age (first millennium BCE in the Levant), metal was too expensive for widespread use in tools or hunting/war implements. Even during the Bronze Age, stone blades were still being manufactured and used.² Despite the ubiquity and utility of flint, obsidian was also used during the Chalcolithic, imported from Cappadocia in Anatolia and the Lake Van region.³

1 â®×¦Ö¹×¨â¬â á¹¢År

The inherited word for flint in Classical Hebrew is â®×¦Ö¹×¨â¬â á¹£År. â®×¦Ö¹×¨â¬â á¹£År should be considered separately from Classical Hebrew â®×¦ï¬µ×¨â¬â á¹£Å«r ârock, cliff, boulder, support, defense, fortress, place of refugeâ,⁴ best observed by the difference in vowel, which suggests separate proto-forms *á¹±Å«r- > â®×¦ï¬µ×¨â¬â á¹£Ã»r versus *á¹±urr- > â®×¦Ö¹×¨â¬â á¹£År.

TableÂ 4

Comparison of Semitic lemma from *á¹±-r-r

Underlying form	Reflexes
	Hebrew	Akkadian	Aramaic	Arabic	OSA	Ugaritic
*á¹±urr- âflintâ	â®×¦Ö¹×¨â¬â á¹£År âflintâ	ð«ð á¹£urru âflint, obsidian, rock crystalâ	â®×Ö´×ïÖ¸×¨Ö¸×â¬â á¹Ä«nnÄrÄ âpebbleâ â®ÜÜªÜ¢Üâ¬â á¹arrÄnÄ flint, rock	â®Ø¸ÙØ±Ùâ¬â áºirr âflintâ		áºr
*á¹±Å«r- âmountainâ	â®×¦ï¬µ×¨â¬â á¹£Èr ârockâ	á¹£Èru	â®×ï¬µ×¨â¬â á¹Èr âmountainâ		áºr, áºwr ârock, mountainâ	ðð Ä¡r âmountainâ
*á¹±irÄr- âpebbleâ	â®×¦Ö°×¨×Ö¹×¨â¬â á¹£ÉrÅr âpebbleâ			â®Ø¸ÙØ±ÙØ±â¬â áºirÄr âsharp stoneâ

Inter-Semitic borrowings⁵ have been excluded. Also compare Amorite á¹£Ãºru found in personal names, of ambiguous meaning.⁶ âFlintâ would be a strange element for a personal name, whereas âmountainâ is attested in other languages. Compare this element in Amorite names to Hebrew names like â®×Ö±×Ö´××¦ï¬µ×¨â¬â Elitzur âGod is my bedrockâ.

The consensus among Semiticists is that *á¹±Å«r- represents a West Semitic development from *á¹±urr-, but this is developmentally implausible from a semantic perspective. Because the mountains of the Levant are hardly composed of flint or obsidian, flint is not a natural subject to use as the etymon for âmountainâ. Agmon viewed these terms as parallels in Proto-Semitic, his theory is more plausible.⁷ Perhaps *á¹±Å«r- and *á¹±urr- were simply byforms in pre-Proto-Semitic that underwent semantic dissimilation in Proto-Semitic, becoming differentiated to âmountainâ and âflintâ respectively. It would certainly be surprising if *á¹±Å«r- wasnât a particularly ancient word for mountain, given its incredible polyphony in Hebrew.

Regardless of the situation for *á¹±Å«r- and *á¹±urr- in Proto-Semitic, a West Semitic word from the same root, *á¹±irÄr- âpebbleâ, should be reconstructed. While the evidence for this word is limited to Central Semitic (Hebrew â®×¦Ö°×¨×Ö¹×¨â¬â cÌ£ÉrÅr âpebbleâ and the marginal Classical Arabic form â®Ø¸ÙØ±ÙØ§Ø±â¬â áºirÄr âsharp stoneâ⁸), this pattern is not productive in Hebrew,⁹ pointing towards an earlier source. The relationship between PS *á¹±urr- âflintâ and CS *á¹±irÄr- âpebbleâ can be explained by recourse to archeology. The Ghassulian culture of the Chalcolithic Levant, coincides with the geography and time in which Proto-Semitic is hypothesized to have been spoken.¹⁰ Within the Ghassulian culture, flint blades were made by splitting flint pebbles into sections, which would then be worked into individual blades.¹¹ The obsolescence of *á¹±irÄr- in reflex languages may be a consequence of the increasing popularity of bronze and iron implements over time.

1.1 â®×¦Ö¹×¨â¬â á¹¢År as âRock Crystalâ?

Ezekiel 3:9 employs â®×¦Ö¹×¨â¬â á¹£År in a context which is problematic if it is assumed that â®×¦Ö¹×¨â¬â á¹£År is limited to obsidian or flint:

â®ï¬»Ö°ï¬ªÖ¸×Ö´××¨ ×Ö¸×Ö¸×§ ×Ö´ïÖ¹×¨ × Ö¸×ªÖ·ïÖ´× ×Ö´×¦Ö°×Ö¶×Ö¸ ×Ö¹×Ö¾×ªÖ´××¨Ö¸× ××Ö¹×ªÖ¸× ×Ö°×Ö¹×Ö¾×ªÖµ×Ö·×ª ×Ö´ïÖ°× Öµ××Ö¶× ï¬»Ö´× ï¬±Öµ××ªÖ¾×Ö°×¨Ö´× ×Öµï¬¾Ö¸××â¬â

Like corundum, harder than á¹£År, I will make your forehead. Do not fear them, and do not be dismayed by them, though they are a rebellious breed.

Both flint and obsidian are improper to compare to the hardness of corundum, as flint and obsidian are easily chipped. A helpful connection may be made to Akkadian, where the cognate term á¹£urru âflint, obsidianâ included rock crystal. Rock crystal is a confusing term in English, it should probably apply to opaque, colorless quartz (SiO₂) in a massive formation. Rock crystal differs from crystal quartz in its opacity and massivity, whereas crystal quartz forms faceted crystals that are transparent if not obscured by inclusions. A small vessel carved from rock-crystal, auctioned off by Sothebyâs in Monaco in 1987.¹² The object dates from the early second millennium BCE, and bears a Sumerian inscription. This inscription described the vessel it is inscribed on as composed of ^(NA4)zÃº-gi₆, semantically equivalent to Akkadian á¹£urru.¹³ To quote CAD on á¹£urru:

Since flint and obsidian (chemically and geologically quite different) are denoted by the same word (see also á¹£urtu), it is possible that the translucence of the obsidian determined its value and that even rock crystal (on account of its translucence) was called á¹£urru.

Rock crystal is a much better contrast to emery (â®ï¬ªÖ¸×Ö´××¨â¬â Å¡ÄmÄ«r) then flint or obsidian. It must therefore be interpolated that â®×¦Ö¹×¨â¬â á¹£År included ârock crystalâ as a secondary meaning. However, rock crystal is absent from Ghassulian blades or points. The addition of ârock crystalâ to Akkadian á¹£urru appears to be a very particular Akkadian development. Unlike in Canaan, rock crystal was available in Mesopotamia, where it was knapped into arrowheads from the third millennium BCE and used to carve objects like the aforementioned bowl.¹⁴ It is from the utility in making points that rock crystal would be categorized with flint and obsidian under the word á¹£urru. Given the Babylonian context of Ezekiel, and the assortment of Akkadian influences therein,¹⁵ the meaning ârock crystalâ for â®×¦Ö¹×¨â¬â á¹£År is probably due to contact with Akkadian á¹£urru rather than shared inheritance from Proto-Semitic. The regular term for ârock crystalâ in Classical Hebrew was â®ï¬²Ö¸×Ö´×ï¬ªâ¬â gÄá¸Ä«Å¡, refer to ChapterÂ 16 for more detail.

2 â®×Ö·ï¬¼Ö¸×Ö´×ï¬ªâ¬â á¸¤allÄmÄ«Å¡

Given that â®×¦Ö¹×¨â¬â á¹£År is inherited from Proto-Semitic meaning âflint, obsidianâ, â®×Ö·ï¬¼Ö¸×Ö´×ï¬ªâ¬â á¸¥allÄmÄ«Å¡ must somehow differ in source or meaning. And indeed, â®×Ö·ï¬¼Ö¸×Ö´×ï¬ªâ¬â á¸¥allÄmÄ«Å¡ is used a poetic word for âflintâ relative to â®×¦Ö¹×¨â¬â á¹£År, which is more typical for prose. In addition, there are two morphological features that also mark â®×Ö·ï¬¼Ö¸×Ö´×ï¬ªâ¬â á¸¥allÄmÄ«Å¡ as non-Semitic. Semitic nouns are generally triconsonantal or biconsonantally doubled (and perhaps affixed), â®×Ö·ï¬¼Ö¸×Ö´×ï¬ªâ¬â á¸¥allÄmÄ«Å¡ has four consonants. While this is not definitive for marking a loanword, it is still symptomatic. More definitive is that â®×Ö·ï¬¼Ö¸×Ö´×ï¬ªâ¬â á¸¥allÄmÄ«Å¡ possesses a particularly unusual construct form â®×Ö·×Ö°×Ö´×ï¬ªâ¬â á¸¥almÄ«Å¡, which loses gemination in the second radical. Considering â®×Ö·ï¬¼Ö¸×Ö´×ï¬ªâ¬â á¸¥allÄmÄ«Å¡ appears to be borrowed from a non-Semitic language, determining the language of origin may help reveal the history and particular connotations of this word.

Several cognates have been proposed for â®×Ö·ï¬¼Ö¸×Ö´×ï¬ªâ¬â á¸¥allÄmÄ«Å¡, ranging from elmÄÅ¡u in Old Babylonian Akkadian to Greek á¼Î´á½±Î¼Î±Ï adamas, in Homer and beyond.

2.1 Arabic

Perhaps because Arabic â®Ø®ÙÙÙÙÙØ¨ÙØ³â¬â á¸«alnabÅ«s âflintâ is so remarkably obscure, it has been missed in nearly every treatment of â®×Ö·ï¬¼Ö¸×Ö´×ï¬ªâ¬â á¸¥allÄmÄ«Å¡. It is clearly a cognate, preserving the sequence -ln- which assimilated to -ll- in the other Semitic cognates (in accordance with the pattern of n-assimilation in North Semitic¹⁶). The realization of the sibilant as /s/ where Hebrew and Akkadian have /Å¡/ indicates that â®Ø®ÙÙÙÙÙØ¨ÙØ³â¬â á¸«alnabÅ«s is an old form.

2.2 Greek

Greek á¼Î´á½±Î¼Î±Ï adamas covered a range of hard stones over the history of its usage. The first attestation of Greek á¼Î´á½±Î¼Î±Ï adamas is in the poetry of Hesiod, where it is traditionally (mis)interpreted as âsteelâ. Contextually, á¼Î´á½±Î¼Î±Ï adamas is a material for weapons during the era of the Trojan War,¹⁷ and the material of the sickle used by Kronos to castrate his father Uranus.¹⁸ Hesiod describes á¼Î´á½±Î¼Î±Ï adamas as ÏÎ»ÏÏá½¹Ï chloros âyellow-greenâ and ÏÎ¿Î»Î¹á½¹Ï polios âgrayâ; not a description of iron or steel. However, flint comes in a range of possible colors, of which yellow-green and gray would both be suitable descriptors. Thus, it appears that âflintâ is the most plausible translation for the earliest usage of Greek á¼Î´á½±Î¼Î±Ï adamas.

By the time of Theophrastus,¹⁹ Greek á¼Î´á½±Î¼Î±Ï adamas had shifted to refer to a sort of hard and hexagonal mineral. In Pliny, á¼Î´á½±Î¼Î±Ï adamas clearly refers to colorless corundum (white sapphire) and more famously, diamond.²⁰ Although Greek á¼Î´á½±Î¼Î±Ï adamas is often derived from á¼- a- ânotâ + Î´Î±Î¼Î½á½±Ï damnao âconquerâ meaning âindomitableâ, Beekes notes²¹ that this is semantically strange and rather argues that á¼Î´á½±Î¼Î±Ï adamas was a borrowing from Semitic. Which Semitic word á¼Î´á½±Î¼Î±Ï adamas was supposedly borrowed from, he declines to say.

2.3 Akkadian

In most previous literature, Akkadian elmÄÅ¡u â(a stone)â is incorrectly connected with Hebrew â®×Ö·ï¬ªÖ°×Ö·×â¬â á¸¥aÅ¡mal. Hebrew â®×Ö·ï¬ªÖ°×Ö·×â¬â á¸¥aÅ¡mal should rather be connected with Egyptian á¸¥zmn âarsenical copperâ, as I will demonstrate in a forthcoming paper.²² Etymologically, Akkadian elmÄÅ¡u and Hebrew â®×Ö·ï¬ªÖ°×Ö·×â¬â á¸¥aÅ¡mal are a poor match because the /l/ ~ /Å¡/ interchange is phonologically unlikely, especially given the proximity of /m/, which is more similar to /l/. The connection between the two words is based on some alleged âquasi-mythicalâ properties of Akkadian elmÄÅ¡u,²³ which supposedly fits the usage of â®×Ö·ï¬ªÖ°×Ö·×â¬â á¸¥aÅ¡mal in Ezekiel. The wondrous qualities of elmÄÅ¡u should actually be explained by the incredible properties of flint; the ease of knapping into a blade, and its utility in starting fire.²⁴ The connection between elmÄÅ¡u and â®×Ö·ï¬ªÖ°×Ö·×â¬â á¸¥aÅ¡mal must be abandoned.

Instead, Akkadian elmÄÅ¡u should be connected with Hebrew â®×Ö·ï¬¼Ö¸×Ö´×ï¬ªâ¬â á¸¥allÄmÄ«Å¡. Akkadian elmÄÅ¡u has several variants, the most notable of which is ellimeÅ¡u, which preserves gemination of the /l/. CAD²⁵ records four forms: elmÄÅ¡u, ellimÄÅ¡u, ilmÄÅ¡u, elmÄÅ¡tu. The feminine form elmeÅ¡tu occurs only in proper names and reflects the usual feminine suffix.

2.4 Ultimate Source

The polymorphisms in Akkadian, Arabic â®Ø®ÙÙÙÙÙØ¨ÙØ³â¬â á¸«alnabÅ«s, and the difference between the absolute and construct form in Hebrew allows the reconstruction of a triconsonantal cluster *-lnm-. Based these cognates, the original word can be reconstructed as *á¸¥alnmÄ«s. The penta-consonantal structure of this word and the triconsonantal structure and phonological non-correspondence makes it clear that this word is a loanword from outside Semitic.

Noonanâs suggestion²⁶ that â®×Ö·ï¬¼Ö¸×Ö´×ï¬ªâ¬â á¸¥allÄmÄ«Å¡ derives from the supposed âSinaiticâ language is strained by the fact that there is no such âSinaiticâ language. He is compelled to propose this source because â®×Ö·ï¬¼Ö¸×Ö´×ï¬ªâ¬â á¸¥allÄmÄ«Å¡ is associated with the Sinai desert (especially the Exodus wanderings) and because â®×Ö·ï¬¼Ö¸×Ö´×ï¬ªâ¬â á¸¥allÄmÄ«Å¡ supposedly lacks cognates outside of Arabic. As I demonstrated above, this term is well attested in Akkadian, so the association with the Sinai does not indicate that the term was exclusive to that area. Noonanâs suggestion does, however, have merit. This word is associated with the Sinai desert. The Sinai was associated with Egypt through the early New Kingdom. Antecedents should be sought in Egyptian.

In the Semitic reflexes of this word, the first phoneme is unusually variable, even for loanwords: Arabic â®Ø®â¬â /x/ and â®Ø£â¬â /Ê/, Hebrew â®×â¬â (/Ä§/ or /Ï/), Akkadian Ã. The next two consonants in this sequence are -ln- as demonstrated by the Arabic reflex â®Ø®ÙÙÙÙÙØ¨ÙØ³â¬â á¸«alnabÅ«s. This odd sequence of consonants suggests the ancient Egyptian word ê¢nr âstoneâ. The phonetic value of Egyptian â¨ê¢â© evolved through the history of the language. In New Kingdom Egyptian, it was a glottal stop, but it is reconstructed by many scholars as [Ê] in the Middle Kingdom. With this understanding, the evolving nature of the â¨ê¢â© phoneme is able to account for the discrepancy in the Semitic forms. The cluster -ln- is a perfectly reasonable reflex of -nr. The grapheme transliterated as â¨râ© was pronounced as /l/ in the standard dialect of Egyptian, and thus enters Hebrew as a lamedh. Furthermore, metathesis of liquid consonants is common in Semitic, so *-nl- > *-ln- is a perfectly reasonable development. Therefore, I believe Ancient Egyptian ê¢nr may be the first element in â®×Ö·ï¬¼Ö¸×Ö´×ï¬ªâ¬â á¸¥allÄmÄ«Å¡, reconstructed as *Ïanl-.

But if the first element in â®×Ö·ï¬¼Ö¸×Ö´×ï¬ªâ¬â á¸¥allÄmÄ«Å¡ is ê¢nr âstoneâ then the second element must be a word meaning âflintâ. The standard Ancient Egyptian word for flint is ds, which certainly cannot become -mÄ«sÌ. The second element may be the hapax word bÅ¡w, interpreted by Harris²⁷ as a type of flint. The word bÅ¡w occurs only in an 18th Dynasty spell²⁸ which describes a seraph as m ds wbá¸« n bÅ¡w âof sparkling (wbá¸«), sparking (bÅ¡w) flintâ. Previous interpreters attempted to interpret wbá¸« and bÅ¡w in terms of a snakeâs actions.²⁹

As a comparison with this 18th Dynasty spell, I would draw the readerâs attention to an enigmatic verse. Deuteronomy 8:15 makes an association between â®×Ö·ï¬¼Ö¸×Ö´×ï¬ªâ¬â á¸¥allÄmÄ«Å¡ and the seraphim (â®ï¬«Ö°×¨Ö¸×¤Ö´××â¬â ÅÉrÄpÌÄ«m), flying fiery divine serpents. Here, the wilderness is described with its snakes seraphim, scorpions, and flint stone (â®×¦ï¬µ×¨ ×Ö·×Ö·ï¬¼Ö¸×Ö´×ï¬ªâ¬â cÌ£Å«r haá¸¥allÄmÄ«Å¡) from which water was produced:

â®×Ö·ï¬¾×Ö¹×Ö´Ö¨××Ö°×Ö¸Ö ï¬±Ö·ï¬¾Ö´×Ö°ï¬±Ö¸Ö£×¨ × ×Ö·ï¬²Ö¸×Ö¹Ö£× ×Ö°×Ö·ï×Ö¹×¨Ö¸Ö× × Ö¸×Ö¸Ö¤ï¬ª × ï¬«Ö¸×¨Ö¸×£Ö ×Ö°×¢Ö·×§Ö°×¨Ö¸Ö× ×Ö°×¦Ö´ï¬¾Ö¸×Ö×Ö¹× ×Ö²ï¬ªÖ¶Ö£×¨ ×ÖµÖ½××Ö¾×Ö¸Ö×Ö´× ×Ö·ï¬¾×Ö¹×¦Ö´Ö¤×× ×Ö°×Ö¸Ö ×Ö·Ö×Ö´× ×Ö´ïÖï¬µ×¨ ×Ö·Ö½×Ö·ï¬¼Ö¸×Ö´Ö½×ï¬ª×â¬â

Who led you through the great and terrible wilderness, serpent, seraph, and scorpion, a parched land with no water in it, who brought forth water for you from the rock of flint.

This lends credence to association of bÅ¡w with â®×Ö·ï¬¼Ö¸×Ö´×ï¬ªâ¬â á¸¥allÄmÄ«Å¡ by demonstrating familiarity between â®×Ö·ï¬¼Ö¸×Ö´×ï¬ªâ¬â á¸¥allÄmÄ«Å¡ and the seraph cultural motif. I propose a novel interpretation of m ds wbá¸« n bÅ¡w, not in terms of a snakeâs actions, but by the properties of flint and association with the uraeus. When struck to create fire, flint produces bright sparks, which may be used to ignite tinder. Sparking flint may be separated into two phenomenaâthe production of bright sparks and the creation of fire. Thus wbá¸« (which usually means âbright, sparklingâ) should be interpreted as the sparkling appearance of stuck flint, and bÅ¡w the fire-starting ability. As bÅ¡w here is written with the stone determinative, the phrase ê¢nr bÅ¡w may be a poetic epithet of flint, which compliments the poetic usage of â®×Ö·ï¬¼Ö¸×Ö´×ï¬ªâ¬â á¸¥allÄmÄ«Å¡ in Hebrew. Although the specific phrase ê¢nr bÅ¡w is only attested in this text, the concept of flint as fire-starting is present at all stages of written Egyptian.³⁰

The second element bÅ¡w entered Hebrew as -mÄ«Å¡, Akkadian as -meÅ¡u, but Arabic as -bus. In most of these reflexes, Egyptian /b/ is realized as /m/ in Hebrew. This is paralleled in at least one other word,³¹ Hebrew â®×Ö·×¨Ö°×Ö¹×â¬â á¸¥ará¹Åm âmagicianâ from Egyptian á¸¥ry-tp âchief (magician)â. Noonan notes that Egyptian /b/ > /m/ is conditioned by the proximity of a /u/-vowel. This is only true of Egyptian loanwords into Hebrew, and not of native Hebrew vocabulary nor Akkadian loans into Hebrew, which suggests that this is a creature of perception. There is no group-writing sequence for /bu/ in the New Kingdom³² (contrast Middle Kingdom bw for /bu/³³), and may be related to the lenition of /b/ > /Î²/ in Coptic, which Allen reconstructs for the New Kingdom.³⁴ Therefore, New Kingdom /b/ [Î²] was sometimes interpreted as /m/ by Semitic speakers, especially when proximal to /u/.

The disparities in the phonetic realization in the Semitic borrowings are best explained through known sound changes in Ancient Egyptian, and therefore indicate a series of separate borrowing events:

1.	NK [b]	/b/	>	/Î²/
2.	NK	Å«	>	Ä
3.	NK [ê¢]	/Ï/	>	/Ê/
4.	NK [r]	/l/	>	/r/

1.	MK Egy. ê¢nr bÅ¡w */ÏanlbÅ«sÌ/	â	Arabicâ®Ø®ÙÙÙÙÙØ¨ÙØ³â¬â á¸«alnabÅ«s
2.	MK Egy. ê¢nr bÅ¡w */ÏanlÎ²ÄsÌ/	â	Hebrew â®×Ö·ï¬¼Ö¸×Ö´×ï¬ªâ¬â (*/ÏallÄmÄ«sÌ/)
3.	NK Egy. ê¢nr bÅ¡w */ÊanlÎ²ÄsÌ/	â	Akkadian ellimÄÅ¡u > elmÄÅ¡u > Aramaic â®××××¡×â¬â Ê¾lmsÊ¾ > Arabic â®Ø£ÙÙØ§Ø³â¬â Ê¾almÄs
4.	Demotic ê¢nr bÅ¡w */ÊanrÎ²ÄsÌ/	â	Greek á¼Î´á½±Î¼Î±Ï

Ultimately, I suggest that the marginal phrase ê¢nr bÅ¡w is the source of â®×Ö·ï¬¼Ö¸×Ö´×ï¬ªâ¬â á¸¥allÄmÄ«Å¡ and its cognates. This is difficult given that ê¢nr bÅ¡w is quite marginal, in fact, it is exclusive to the aforementioned 18th Dynasty spell. But this difficulty is not as great as it first appears. First, the present corpus of Ancient Egyptian is still quite limited, especially in the realm of magical texts. As a magical term, ê¢nr bÅ¡w may have had the potential to wander between languages, which motivated its spread. On its own, âflintâ is not a likely contender for a cultureword, as the material is abundant around the Levant, and flintknapping several magnitudes older than Bronze Age Levantine cultures. Additional attestations of ê¢nr bÅ¡w would certainly do much to either bolster or undermine my interpretation as âsparking stoneâ, an epithet of flint.

3 Afterword: Implications for the Reconstruction of Ancient Egyptian Phonology

It has not escaped notice that this suggestion has implications for the reconstruction of the phonology of â¨ê¢â©, because it confirms the uvular fricative quality of â¨ê¢â©, while suggesting voicelessness. Many scholars reconstruct the realization of â¨ê¢â© in the Middle Kingdom as [Ê]. This hypothesis is encumbered by the wide claim that Egyptian did not contrast voicing, yet â¨ê¢â© certainly contrasted with â¨á¸«â© and â¨áºâ© in Middle Egyptian. This scenario may be resolved if Middle Kingdom â¨ê¢â© was pronounced /Ï ~ Ê/, contrasting with â¨á¸«â© /Ï^h ~ Ê^h/ or /x ~ É£/ and â¨áºâ© /Ï^j ~ Ê^j/ or /x^j ~ É£^j/.

4 Harmonizing the Data

Akkadian á¹£urru âflint, obsidianâ³⁵ expanded to include rock crystal (massive quartz). On analogy of Akkadian á¹£urru with the foreign borrowing elmÄÅ¡u âflintâ, elmÄÅ¡u may have also expanded to include rock-crystal. This would then explain the more semantically divergent cognate Arabic â®Ø£ÙÙØ§Ø³â¬â Ê¾almÄs âdiamondâ, which may derive from Akkadian through Aramaic (as in Syriac â®ÜÜ Ü¡Ü£Üâ¬â Ê¾lmsÊ¾). The semantic development flint â obsidian â quartz â diamond is a far smoother transition then flint â diamond proposed by other scholars. Perhaps in the same way á¹£urru âflint, obsidianâ was expanded to include ârock crystalâ, as they were all used in points, the category was further expanded to include âcorundum, diamondâ for their use in etching. However, we would then be forced to reconstruct the same semantic development independently for Greek á¼Î´á½±Î¼Î±Ï adamas. Greek á¼Î´á½±Î¼Î±Ï adamas may have come to mean âdiamondâ through âsteelâ as an intermediary, in the sequence flint â steel â diamond.

It appears that â®×¦Ö¹×¨â¬â á¹£År represents an inherited word from Proto-Semitic *á¹±urr- meaning âflint, obsidianâ. Flint would be cheaper and more readily available in the Bronze Age then obsidian, which is not found in the Levant. The secondary meaning ârock crystalâ for â®×¦Ö¹×¨â¬â á¹£År would appear to be an Akkadianism from the middle first millennium BCE. The Egyptian borrowing â®×Ö·ï¬¼Ö¸×Ö´×ï¬ªâ¬â á¸¥allÄmÄ«Å¡ refers strictly to flint in Hebrew, and belongs to a wide family of cognates from around the Mediterranean. These words have a degree of semantic flexibility which remains partially unexplained.

Shea, JohnÂ J. (1988). Spear points from the Middle Paleolithic of the Levant. Journal of Field Archaeology, 15(4), 441â450.

Manclossi,Â F., Rosen,Â S.A., & BoÃ«da,Â E. (2019). From stone to metal: The dynamics of technological change in the decline of chipped stone tool production. A case study from the southern Levant (5thâ1st Millennia BCE). Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 26(4), 1276â1326.

Carter, Tristan, Kathryn Campeau, & Katharina Streit. (2020). Transregional Perspectives: Characterizing Obsidian Consumption at Early Chalcolithic Ein el-Jarba (N.Â Israel). Journal of Field Archaeology, 45(4), 249â269.

Irvine,Â S.A. (2019). The âRockâ of the Kingâs Sword? A Note on â®×¦ï¬µ×¨â¬â in Psalm 89:44. Vetus Testamentum, 69(4â5), 742â747.

Hopkins, Simon. (1995). á¹¢arÄr âpebblesââA Canaanite Substrate Word in Palestinian Arabic. Zeitschrift fÃ¼r arabische Linguistik, (30), 37â49.

Gray, Taylor. (2019). Translating á¹£Ãºru in Amorite Personal Names. N.A.B.U. 2019 náµ 3 (septembre). 108â109.

Agmon,Â N. (2010). Materials and language: Pre-Semitic root structure change concomitant with transition to agriculture. Brillâs Journal of Afroasiatic Languages and Linguistics, 2(1), 23â79.

Lane, Edward William. (1872). Arabic-English Lexicon. Islamic Book Centre.

Fox, Joshua. (2003). Semitic noun patterns. Brill. 229.

Kitchen, Andrew, Ehret, Christopher, Assefa, Shiferaw, & Mulligan, ConnieÂ J. (2009). Bayesian phylogenetic analysis of Semitic languages identifies an Early Bronze Age origin of Semitic in the Near East. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 276(1668), 2703â2710.

Gilead, Isaac, Davidzon, Angla, & Vardi, Jacob. (2006, September). The Ghassulian sickle blades workshop of Beit Eshel, Beer Sheva, Israel. In Lithic Technology in Metal Using Societies. Proceedings of a UISPP Workshop, Lisbon (pp.Â 221â230).

de BÃ©hague, Martine Marie Pol. âAntiquitÃ©s et objets dâart: collection de Martine, Comtesse de BÃ©hague, provenant de la succession du Marquis de Ganay; Sotheby, Monaco: 5.12. 1987.â (1987). 42â43.

Frayne, Douglas. Old Babylonian Period (2003â1595â¯BC). Vol.Â 4. University of Toronto Press, 1990. PagesÂ 305â306. Entry 2004.

Moorey, Peter Roger Stuart. (1999). Ancient Mesopotamian materials and industries: the archaeological evidence. Eisenbrauns. 71.

Bodi, Daniel. (2020). âThe Mesopotamian Context of Ezekielâ. In Ezekiel, ed. Corrine Carvalho. Oxford University Press. Online pre-publication.

Southern, Mark, & Vaughn, AndrewÂ G. (1997). Where have all the nasals gone? nC > CC in North Semitic. Journal of Semitic Studies, 42(2), 263â282.

Hes. Sh. 231.

Hes. Th. 161.

Theophrastus, Caley,Â E.R., & Richards,Â J.F. (1956). Theophrastus on stones: Introduction, Greek text, English translation, and commentary. The Ohio State University Press. Â§â¯19.

Thoresen, Lisbet. (2017). Archaeogemmology and ancient literary sources on gems and their origins. In Gemstones in the First Millennium AD. Mines, trade, workshops and symbolism. Maguncia, Verlag des RÃ¶misch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums. 190â193.

Beekes, Robert. (2009). Etymological dictionary of Greek (2 vols.). Brill. 19.

Forthcoming.

Chicago Assyrian Dictionary. (1956â2011). The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Chicago: Oriental Institute. 4 E. Entry: elmesÌu.

Landsberger, Benno. (1967). Akkadisch-HebrÃ¤ische Wortgleichungen. In HebrÃ¤ische Wortforschung (pp.Â 176â204). Brill.

Chicago Assyrian Dictionary. (1956â2011). The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Chicago: Oriental Institute. 4 E. Entry: elmeÅ¡u.

Noonan, Benjamin. J. (2019). Non-Semitic loanwords in the Hebrew Bible: A lexicon of language contact (Vol.Â 14). Penn State Press. PagesÂ 100â101.

Harris, John Richard. (1958). Lexicographical studies in ancient Egyptian minerals (Doctoral dissertation, University of Oxford). Akademie VerlagâBerlin.

Spell 108 of the 18th Dynasty Papyrus of Nu, British Museum EA10477

Graves-Brown, Carolyn Anne. (2011). The ideological significance of flint in Dynastic Egypt (Doctoral dissertation, University College London). PagesÂ 230â231.

Ibid.

Noonan, BenjaminÂ J. (2019). Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible: A Lexicon of Language Contact (Vol.Â 14). Penn State Press. 241.

Allen, JamesÂ P. (2020). Ancient Egyptian Phonology. Cambridge University Press. 36â37.

Ibid., 51.

Ibid., 47.

Frahm, Ellery Edward. (2010). The Bronze-Age obsidian industry at Tell Mozan (ancient Urkesh), Syria: redeveloping electron microprobe analysis for 21st-century sourcing research and the implications for obsidian use and exchange in northern Mesopotamia after the Neolithic. University of Minnesota. 91.

Citation Info

Save
Cite
Email this content

Share link with colleague or librarian

You can email a link to this page to a colleague or librarian:
Email this content
or copy the link directly:

https://brill.edhh.ma/display/book/9789004678002/BP000018.xml
The link was not copied. Your current browser may not support copying via this button.

Link copied successfully

Collapse
Expand

Identifying the Stones of Classical Hebrew

A Modern Philological Approach

Series:Â Ancient Languages and Civilizations, Volume: 7

Cover Identifying the Stones of Classical Hebrew

E-Book ISBN:: 9789004678002

Publisher:: Brill

Print Publication Date:: 16 Aug 2024

Subjects

Front Matter

Back Matter

Metrics

	All Time	Past 365 days	Past 30 Days
Abstract Views	0	0	0
Full Text Views	270	145	40
PDF Views & Downloads	256	161	34

African Studies	Education	Media Studies
American Studies	History	Middle East and Islamic Studies
Ancient Near East and Egypt	Human Rights and Humanitarian Law	Musicology
Art History	International Law	Philosophy
Asian Studies	International Relations	Religious Studies
Biblical Studies	Jewish Studies	Slavic and Eurasian Studies
Biology	Languages and Linguistics	Social Sciences
Book History and Cartography	Life Sciences	Theology and World Christianity
Classical Studies	Literature and Cultural Studies

Subjects

Authors

Open Access

Product Information

Company

Contact

ChapterÂ 18 â®×¦Ö¹×¨â¬â á¹¢År & â®×Ö·ï¬¼Ö¸×Ö´×ï¬ªâ¬â á¸¤allÄmÄ«Å¡âFlint/Obsidian

1 â®×¦Ö¹×¨â¬â á¹¢År

TableÂ 4

1.1 â®×¦Ö¹×¨â¬â á¹¢År as âRock Crystalâ?

2 â®×Ö·ï¬¼Ö¸×Ö´×ï¬ªâ¬â á¸¤allÄmÄ«Å¡

2.1 Arabic

2.2 Greek

2.3 Akkadian

2.4 Ultimate Source

3 Afterword: Implications for the Reconstruction of Ancient Egyptian Phonology

4 Harmonizing the Data

Citation Info

Share link with colleague or librarian

Identifying the Stones of Classical Hebrew

A Modern Philological Approach

Table of Contents

Metrics

Metrics

ChapterÂ 18 â®×¦Ö¹×¨â¬â á¹¢År & â®×Ö·ï¬¼Ö¸×Ö´×ï¬ªâ¬â á¸¤allÄmÄ«Å¡âFlint/Obsidian

1 â®×¦Ö¹×¨â¬â á¹¢År

1.1 â®×¦Ö¹×¨â¬â á¹¢År as âRock Crystalâ?

2 â®×Ö·ï¬¼Ö¸×Ö´×ï¬ªâ¬â á¸¤allÄmÄ«Å¡