The words bridging the two lines in the Edwin Smith papyrus are not split arbitrarily. They do, however, follow several rules:
(1) More than one consecutive determinatives are never divided into two lines. The combinations are treated as inseparable single strings. And the determinatives, single or combined, have a tendancy to shift to the head of the next line.
(2) The grammatical morphs (xr, jn, n) are never separated from pronominal suffixes. The combined string forms a indivisible unit. And they are placed at the head of the next line.
(3) The grammatical morphs (xr, jn) written alphabetically are never split, while lexical morphs spelled phonetically can be split freely.
These restrictions and other tendancies of spelling are tested and confirmed by other literary works in hieratic script with limited exceptions.
Considering these split words and words written within lines, and the fact that determinatives of lexemes vary freely, ancient Egyptian scribes must have already identified linguistic units. These correspond nearly to words, grammatical morphemes, and determinatives in contrast to phonogrames in modern linguists' terminology.

View full abstract

The growing corpus of Emar texts has been providing us with new sources for the history of this city. In the field of chronology, several basic points can be updated in the light of these data: (1) Absolute chronology—The period covered by the Emar texts can be estimated at ca. 1290-1180 B. C. at the most, with the reigns of five kings belonging to four generations; (2) Synchronisms—among members of three major families, i. e. the royal family of Emar, the family of Zu-Ba'la the diviner and the royal family of Carchemish.

View full abstract

The “Sacrifice Lists for Deceased Kings” (and related texts) (CTH 660, 661etc.) have been used as sources for the restoration of the genealogy of the Hittite Kings. But some Hittitologists doubt the reliability of the lists. New evidence, however, shows that they are reliable in most cases though there remain some problems. The lists occur in festival texts, which form the largest group of Hittite texts. In the author's opinion the texts of CTH 660 belong to the ritual texts which describe seasonal state festivals like the AN. TAH. ŠUM-Festival in spring or the nuntariyašha-Festival in autumn. On the basis of a new interpretation of Col. ii the author suggests that CTH 661. 5 is one of the day tablets of the autumnal nuntarriyašha-Festival. Some other texts of CTH 661 also may or may not belong to the same text group. The Sacrifice Lists show that the cult of the deceased Old and Middle Hittite Kings and Queens and the members of the Šuppiluliuma-Dynasty was integrated into the framework of the seasonal festivals celebrated by the Court in the course of the New Kingdom.

View full abstract

This article deals with marriage contracts of Old Assyrian merchants and focusses on form analysis. Its contents can be summarized as follows:
1. In his recent discussion of the Old Babylonian marriage, R. Westbrook has suggested that a marriage contract was in fact of “bethrothal contract”. The study of some Old Assyrian marriage contracts in combination with data in some letters and records shows that a similar interpretation is also helpful for the Old Assyrian period. Marriage procedures under the contract by which Old Assyrian traders took a woman as aššatum, “(first and main) wife”, can be distinguished in three stages: betrothal in childhood, engagement, and marriage. The woman in question was called aššatum as each stage.
2. It is a well established fact that the community of Old Assyrian merchants also knew a “polygamous” marriage institution. It knew a formal marriage, sealed by a contract, with a woman designated as amtum who, however, was not a slave-girl owned by her husband or somebody else, as was the case in some Old Babylonian “polygamous” marriage contracts (cf. CH §146). Such amtum wives had a spacial legal status.
3. The recently published marriage contract kt t/k 55=AKT 1 no. 77 which was indeed a contract of engagement since the final payment of šimu “prices” has not been done and “the face (of the bride) is (still) unveiled”, acquaints us with still another type of marriage. The bride most probably was a qadištum, whose contractual status seems to have belonged to some different category from that of an aššatum and an amtum. This contract reveals that the custom of “veiling” a woman in order to fix her status, known from the Middle Assyrian Laws, was already known in the old Assyrian period. The text also acquaints us with the possibility of a marriage with a woman designated as ša'itum, “(travel) companion”, who seems to have enjoyed a status of ‘lover’ different from that of the aššatum, the amtum and the qadištum.

View full abstract

We find many dedicatory inscriptions to these divinities Matronae in the region over which the Roman domination has once reached, specially in Gaul, Germany, northern Italy and Spain. Namely through these divinities we can glimpse one aspect of the indigenous religions of the Celts and Germans. By the way as the word shows, Matrona is pure Latin formally and semantically. It is not a borrowed word from the Celtic. In this sense, these divinities were very romanized. But those of the Ubii, which are the main themes of my paper, are very distinguished by the epithets and epithet's suffix and by the images of the deities, which we cannot find at the cult of these deities in other regions. Therefore in these inscriptions it is highly possible that there remained much Germanic (or, sometimes may be, Celtic) elements. On the other hand, it is proved by history that since the first encounter of the Ubii and the Romans, the former has always been obedient to the latter. Therefore it is not useless to refer to the cult of these goddesses in this region in order to research their real origin, to feel out the religious views of the ancient Germans and Celtics, and to know the relation between the Ubii and the Romans. Therefore, first analyzing the relation between the epithets and the name of dedicators, I'll refer also to the changes of the images of the goddesses and their syncretism with other deities. As a result, it is proved that there remained more indigenous elements in the epithets of the goddesses and their statues than in the names of dedicators. As I said above, the Ubii and the Romans have always kept an intimate friendship since their first encounter. There must have been many Ubii who wanted to become a colony and to be estimated highly by the Romans. But even these fellows could not abandon their native deities in their cult. Thus there remained much long the cult in this region in spite of the rapid syncretism, because it was not the people of the high society who supported the cult, but the people in the street who did not make history.

View full abstract

Honorific behavior is a phenomenon which is frequently observed in Iranian society. Ta'arof is an element of Iranian honorific system, and is the most common, characteristic concept of interaction in Iran. It is principally expressed by exalting/humbling forms, formulaic utterances and non-verbal behaviors; and, is considered not only as lingustic etiquette but also a criterion for estimating speaker's competency or educational level. Therefore, much attention has been given to ta'arof as such [Jahangiri (1980), Beeman(1986), Moosavi(1986)].
In previous studies, ta'arof is interpreted as an equivalent for the polite form in Persian which reflects the power relation between a speaker and an addressee in a discourse. Beeman claims, “ta'arof is the active, ritualized realization of differential perceptions of superiority and inferiority in interaction”. These works give importance to classifying exalting/humbling expressions of ta'arof by degree of represented status difference.
The framework in these studies, however, is inadequate and fails to grasp and clarify the function and the system of ta'arof. The author has investigated primarily verbal expressions of ta'arof through an interview method, and has so far recorded a considerable sample of ta'arof usages which can not be analyzed in the current framework. The purpose of the present paper is to point out problems of the framework itself and to propose the following viewpoints for studying ta'arof on the basis of the results of our research.
1) To distinguish ta'arof from zaban-e mo'addabane, another part of the Iranian honorific system.
Iranian honorific system consists of two elements, ta'arof and zaban-e mo'addabane. Zaban-e mo'addabdne, “polite language” in literal translation, is a kind of language use which directly reflects the power structure and distance among participants in discourse. Ta'arof and zaban-e mo'addabdne are used properly according to each context and perceived with quite different feelings. For this reason these elements should be differentiated and treated separately and individually.
However, the previous studies have not referred to zaban-e mo'addabane and tend to confuse the usage of ta'arof and zaban-e mo'ddabane. It is because ta'drof and zaban-e mo'addabane are largely similar in appearances.
2) To recognize ‘mutual understanding’ as the main purpose of ta'arof.
As mentioned above, ta'arof and zaban-e mo'addabane are two separate parts of the honorific system. In order to differentiate between the two elements, their purposes and considerations may be suggested as that which distinguishes them apart. That is, while ta'arof chiefly aims at establishing the socio-communicative interaction and often functions as a phatic communion, mutual intelligibility is the most important purpose in zaban-e mo'addabane. This difference is definitely observed in discourse structure, the represented power relationship and several pragmatic points. These can be clarified by a sociolinguistic research on the system of actual usages and speaker's consciousness of ta'arof and zaban-e mo'addabane.

View full abstract

Kemalpasazade (1468-1534) was born in a military family, but afterwards changed over to the Ulema. He served in Bayezid II, Selim I and Süleyman the Magnificent, and was promoted to the Seyhülislâm, the highest rank of the Ulema. His chronicle in the fluent and elegant Ottoman-Turkish style, Tevârîh-i Âl-i Osmân was composed in the form that each volume (defter) was assigned for one of the Ottoman sultans, and 8 volumes for the reigns from Osman I to Bayezid II were dedicated to Bayezid II in 916/1510-11. After that by the request of Süleyman, 2 volumes for Selim and Süleyman were added, and thus the so-called “Kemalpasazade Tarihi” came into existence in 10 volumes. This work, however, was not appreciated in those days and forgotten by the later Ottoman chroniclers. Since in the latter half of this century Prof. Dr. Serafettin Turan published Kemalpasazade Tarihi, vol. 1, 2 and 7, the importance of this work has been gradually appreciated.
This paper deals with Kemalpasazade Tarihi, vol. 4 for the reign of Yildirim Bayezid (1389-1403), which still remains a manuscript. The contents and the order of description of this work is fundamentally based on Nesrî's Kitab-i Cihan-nümâ, and also made use of the chronicles in the early ages of the Ottoman Empire, Oruc b. Âdil's and the anonymous Tevârîh-i Âl-i Osmân, etc. On the other hand, however, Kemalpasazade Tarihi, vol. 4 contains much information of its own, which the above-mentioned works do not, and in this point we can say that this work has the great value as historical source. It fully describes the important events, for example, of the murder of Kadi Burhaneddin, the ruler of Sivas, by Kara Yülük Osman, the founder of the Aqqoyunlu Empire, and of the refuge of Aqtav, the influential amir of the Golden Horde, to the Ottoman Empire. And also there are valuable accounts for the activities of Bayezid's son Ertugrul and the generals of the marches (uc beyi).
From now on, if we make use of these accounts which did not come down to the later historical works, carrying out a further examination of them and confirming their reliableness, it has no doubt that Kemalpasazade Tarihi, vol. 4 is the essential source as well as Aslkpasazade, Nesrî and so on, for the reign of Yildirim Bayezid, the important age for the development of the Ottoman Empire.

View full abstract