Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2022 November 24

= November 24 =

Ammonites and Moabites
Could the Ammonites and Moabites and the Tyrians(Tyrians of King Hiram's time) have been Habiru? Maybe that's already established? Rich (talk) 05:37, 24 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't think your question is stupid at all (it lacks the vague word-resemblance at a great geographical distance of a past question), but it may not have a simple direct answer. Sometimes Habiru seem to be social malcontents or mercenary soldiers, sometimes distinct ethnic groups.  In Egyptian usage, it sometimes seems to mean anybody in the Levant who was causing problems for the allies of Egypt.  The Ammonites and Moabites don't really emerge into history until around the time that the word was falling out of use in Egypt, or about to fall out of use, apparently... AnonMoos (talk) 21:51, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Why did the word apparently fall out of use? Is it because archaeologists haven't found the letters to the pharoahs that succeeded Akenaten that would be similar to the Amarna letters to Akenaten? Or because possibly new rulers in Canaan wouldn't call themselves Habiru only because it's an exonym?Rich (talk) 00:53, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * From the tone of the Amarna letters, least some of the Habiru attacks on cities in Canaan were probably successful.Rich (talk) 01:00, 1 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Richard_L._Peterson -- I don't know the details, but a major factor was presumably that Egypt lost its predominance over the Canaan area with the invasions of the Sea Peoples. The Amarna letters (Akhetaten diplomatic archive) are unusual as cuneiform writings found in Egypt, but there are many references to foreign lands and peoples in Egyptian writings. AnonMoos (talk) 11:19, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, the Egyptians were not concerned with the feelings of foreigners about terms used to describe them in Egypt. Many of them (such as the word usually translated into English as "Asiatics") were at least vaguely derogatory. AnonMoos (talk) 11:21, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Whose Monogram?


Whose monogram (above) appears below the church porch on this 1872 lithograph from page 386 of The Building News, 15 November 1872?

HT User:Tagishsimon for bringing it to my attention. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:29, 24 November 2022 (UTC)


 * The monogram consists of two intertwined letters: the letter E (styled as 106%) and what looks like an H. (It might be an A with a curiously missing roof: compare the A as lettered in 106% in the caption for the tower. I suspect, though, this was a slip of the calligrapher's pen.) The monogram reappears (with a taller H) in the bottom left corner of the drawing of the tower. --Lambiam 12:37, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * And also embedded in the caption "INSIDE DOORWAY OF PORCH"!
 * I wondered if there might be text that the drawings referred to (as in the case of the following illustration). But the only instance of "Monkwearmouth" in the text of the volume is on p. 447 (December 6) when "The Rev Mr Hodgson communicated a photograph of a Saxon memorial slab from Monkwearmouth church..." Could it be E Hodgson? Probably not - there's no reason why a rev should be a draughtsman. ColinFine (talk) 16:33, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It is not unthinkable, though. While the drawings do have a certain quality, a professional artist might have drawn the two human figures less awkwardly. The reverend may have been an accomplished amateur. --Lambiam 20:32, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Charles Hodgson Fowler has also been suggested. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:04, 25 November 2022 (UTC)