Lingual-PACT: detailed description

A. Axis “Texts in Translation”

Chair: Stephanie Anthonioz

It is well known that literary texts from the ancient Near East and Mediterranean basin have been influenced by or have influenced different scribal cultures. It is not always easy to determine historically what came first because these cultures influenced each other reciprocally. “Texts in Translations” seeks to analyse one aspect of these multivalent cultural transfers: the linguistic data. More specifically, the technical tools and skills of the scribes are to be investigated, especially in cases of clear influences from one culture and language over another. Our aim is to deepen our understanding of the scribal mechanisms when translating and transmitting texts: material, linguistic and literary features are all of interest.

Texts in Translations: How One Suffers in the Ancient Near East

Human suffering in the ancient Near East and Mediterranean basin is often connected with the theological question of theodicy, but not always, and many aspects may be studied from the medical corpora to the daily complaint. The first session of “Texts in Translations” begins with the following questions:

  1. Concerning the so-called Sumerian and Babylonian theodicies, are there signs of mutual dependance or influences? How are these to be analyzed from the historical and literary point of view? In case of contact, what linguistic devices were used by the scribes? How is suffering translated from Sumerian to Akkadian?
  2. How do scribes speak about and write suffering in Old Babylonian letters and what similarities with or differences from the so-called Akkadian theodicies may be analyzed in a linguistic and literary comparative approach?
  3. What are the emotions of suffering? What linguistic and scribal tools may be uncovered to translate human suffering in ancient Mesopotamia? 
  4. How do scribes speak about and write suffering in Aramaic, especially in the Words of Aḥiqar? In a linguistic and literary comparative approach, how should one define the nature and specificity of Aḥiqar’s language over suffering? 
  5. How do scribes speak about and write suffering in the Biblical Hebrew book of Job? How should one define the nature and specificity of Job’s language compared to other biblical books speaking about suffering?
  6. What about suffering in the early translations of the book of Job, the Greek of the Septuagint and the Targumim?
  7. Theodicy in Translation: Does Job have anything to do with the Akkadian theodicies?

Format

Please submit an abstract (250–300 words) and a short biographical note by 15th of March 2026 to info@lingual-pact.com. Subject line: “Texts in Translation”.

 


B. Axis “Validating Local Scribal Traditions through Statistical Syllabary Comparisons”

Chair: Thomas Kämmerer

Guiding questions

  • How do statistical comparisons of syllabaries (e.g. binomial estimation) measure orthographic dependencies between Old Babylonian centers (Babylon, Mari) and western Middle Babylonian centers (Ugarit, Emar), and to what extent do they validate hypotheses on local scribal traditions?
  • Do CVC-syllable frequencies allow us to distinguish between received Mesopotamian compositions (low proportion) and Syrian original productions (high proportion; 7.12 % vs. 3.66 %)?
  • What roles do parallel texts (e.g. RS 22.439 / 25.130) play in interpreting syllabary similarities, and how can corpus gaps (missing OB/MB texts from western Syria) be addressed through digital reconstruction?
  • How do morphosyntactic features (mimation), orthographic variants (-sit vs. -su) or phonetic shifts (-w- to -m-) affect syllabary statistics, and how can they be integrated into follow up analyses (vocabulary, morphosyntax)?
  • Do digitally encoded syllabaries (223 signs, 711 phonemic values) provide a basis for machine learning in cuneiform decipherment, and what extensions to further dialects / syllabaries (e.g. Boğazkoy) are conceivable?
  • How robust are the results of statistical syllabary comparisons with respect to different editorial bases (duplicates, collations, divergent sign lists), and what quality standards are required for the underlying data?
  • To what extent can diachronic developments within a given center (e.g. “early” vs. “late” Emar) be captured statistically, and how clearly can such internal scribal traditions be distinguished from external influences?
  • Can “peripheral texts” that reflect hybrid or mobile scribal traditions be identified through clustering or network analyses of syllable profiles?
  • How can statistical syllabary comparisons be triangulated with other levels (lexeme statistics, formulaic phrases, layout and paratextual features) in order to better identify individual scribal hands or school traditions?
  • What methodological limits arise with small or highly fragmentary corpora, and what minimum sizes or confidence intervals are required for robust statements about local scribal traditions?

Suggested presentation formats

  • Keynote (45 min): Overview of the p₀ ranking method (Emar–Ugarit: p₀ = 0.162; Emar–Larsa: p₀ = 0.751) and visualization of graph comparisons.
  • Short papers (20 min, 4–8 contributions): On specific syllabaries (new Emar edition, Ugarit CVC, integration of Tell el Amarna), with a focus on data reproducibility.
  • Workshop (90 min): Hands on analysis of participants’ own syllabary datasets using open-source tools for binomial modelling; discussion of corpus limitations (only localized texts).
  • Panel (60 min): “Syllabaries as proxies for cultural transfers?” with Assyriologists, statisticians and digital humanists; moderated discussion of Wolfram von Soden’s Mari hypothesis.

Target audience and expected outcomes

This session addresses cuneiform philologists, linguists and computational Assyriologists. Expected outcomes include a shared database for syllabaries, peer review of the p₀ method, and the preparation of follow up topics (e.g. 2027: morphosyntax).

Format

Please submit an abstract (250–300 words) and a short biographical note by 15th of March 2026 to info@lingual-pact.com Subject line: “Statistical syllabary comparisons”.

 

C. Axis “Anatolia and the Levant in Contact – Technical Epigraphy, Corpus Semantics, and Comparative Evaluation”

Chair: Régine Hunziker-Rodewald

We invite paper proposals that develop a methodologically explicit and technically robust approach to inscriptions from the Syro-Anatolian contact zone of the Early Iron Age. The workshop targets contributions that (1) foreground state-of-the-art documentation and reproducible epigraphic workflows, (2) advance corpus-based, systematic semantic modelling, and (3) propose verifiable frameworks for comparability and interpretability in order to trace how concepts circulate, converge, and diverge in multilingual polities that employ Semitic and Anatolian scripts, languages, and cultural repertoires. Thematic foci include, in particular, the following areas:

1. Technical documentation and methodological transparency

  • 3D acquisition and enhancement pipelines (RTI, photogrammetry, structured-light/laser scanning; virtual relighting; depth/displacement mapping; multispectral integration, where available).
  • Reproducibility and auditability: metadata standards, calibration, versioned processing steps, and open/inspectable deliverables (models, reflectance sets, measurement outputs).
  • Protocols for uncertainty and evidence: explicit confidence/reliability levels for sign identification and segmentation; annotation schemes that link surface features to graphemic readings; criteria for resolving competing readings; inter-annotator agreement and documentation of editorial decisions.

2. Corpus-based, systematic semantics

  • Methods that operationalise meaning through structured annotation (semantic roles, frames, event schemas, institutional actors), enabling cross-text querying instead of isolated interpretation.
  • Knowledge graphs and semantic networks as analytical instruments: modelling ritual actions, legal acts, and divine/royal agencies; strategies for handling polysemy, ellipsis, and formulaic language.
  • Corpus design and governance: sampling principles, normalisation vs. preservation of orthographic variation, alignment of transliteration and translation layers, and guidelines for sustainable datasets.

3. Evaluation, testing, and comparability in multilingual polities

  • Proposals that develop criteria of comparability between Semitic and Anatolian corpora: what counts as an equivalent unit (lexeme, construction, frame, formula, institutional practice), and how is equivalence tested rather than presupposed?
  • Interpretability and validation: evaluation of semantic models and comparative claims (e.g. error analyses, ablation/robustness tests, triangulation with epigraphic uncertainty, sensitivity to editorial choices).
  • Studies of conceptual “encounters” in multilingual administration and ritual practice: how politico-theological language, legal acts, and institutional categories are negotiated across scripts and languages; how borrowing, loan translation, and parallel framing are distinguished from typological coincidence or shared regional conventions.

Format

Please submit an abstract (250–300 words) and a short biographical note by 15 March 2026 to info@lingual-pact.com. Subject line: “Anatolia and the Levant in Contact”.

1 7