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 Translation” 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.
Session Theme: 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 dependence 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 or differences with 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 write about 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 about suffering?
  5. How do scribes treat suffering in the Biblical Hebrew book of Job? How should one define Job’s linguistic and literary specificity compared to other biblical texts on suffering?
  6. What about suffering in early translations of Job, such as the Greek Septuagint and the Targumim?
  7. Theodicy in Translation: Does Job have anything to do with the Akkadian theodicies?

    8. Format: Please submit an abstract (250–300 words) and a short biographical note by 15 May 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:

    1. 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?
    2. 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 %)?
    3. 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?
    4. 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)?
    5. Do digitally encoded syllabaries (223 signs, 711 phonemic values) provide a basis for machine learning in cuneiform decipherment, and what extensions to further dialects or syllabaries (e.g. Boğazkoy) are conceivable?
    6. How robust are statistical comparisons in light of different editorial bases (duplicates, collations, divergent sign lists), and what data-quality standards are required?
    7. To what extent can diachronic developments within a given center (e.g. “early” vs. “late” Emar) be captured statistically, and how clearly can internal scribal traditions be distinguished from external influences?
    8. Can peripheral texts reflecting hybrid or mobile scribal traditions be identified through clustering or network analyses?
    9. How can statistical syllabary comparisons be triangulated with other analytical levels (lexeme, formulae, paratextual layout) to identify individual scribal hands or school traditions?
    10. What methodological limits arise with small or fragmentary corpora, and what minimum corpus sizes or confidence intervals are needed for robust conclusions?

      11. Suggested presentation formats:

      • Keynote (45 min): Overview of the p₀ ranking method (Emar–Ugarit: p₀ = 0.162; Emar–Larsa: p₀ = 0.751) and graph visualizations.
      • Short papers (20 min): Focus on specific syllabaries (new Emar edition, Ugarit CVC, Tell el Amarna integration), emphasizing reproducibility.
      • Workshop (90 min): Hands-on analysis using open-source tools for binomial modelling; discussion of corpus limitations.
      • Panel (60 min): “Syllabaries as proxies for cultural transfers?” Discussion with Assyriologists, statisticians, and digital humanists.

        • Target audience and expected outcomes: Cuneiform philologists, linguists, and computational Assyriologists. Expected outcomes include a shared syllabary database, peer review of the p₀ method, and preparation of follow-up topics (e.g. 2027: morphosyntax).

        Format: Please submit an abstract (250–300 words) and a short biographical note by 15 May 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 methodologically explicit and technically robust approaches to inscriptions from the Syro-Anatolian contact zone of the Early Iron Age. The workshop welcomes contributions that (1) use reproducible epigraphic workflows, (2) advance corpus-based semantic modelling, and (3) propose verifiable frameworks for comparability and interpretability.
        1. Technical documentation and methodological transparency
        • 3D acquisition and enhancement workflows (RTI, photogrammetry, structured-light/laser scanning, multispectral integration).
        • Reproducibility and auditability: metadata standards, calibration, open deliverables, versioned workflows.
        • Protocols for uncertainty: confidence levels, annotation schemes linking surface features to readings, inter-annotator agreement documentation.
          • 2. Corpus-based, systematic semantics
          • Semantic annotation (roles, frames, event schemas) enabling cross-text querying and comparison.
          • Knowledge graphs to model ritual actions, legal acts, or divine/royal agency; approaches to polysemy and formulaic language.
          • Corpus design: normalization vs. orthographic variation, dataset sustainability, transliteration–translation alignment.
            • 3. Evaluation, testing, and comparability in multilingual polities
            • Comparability criteria between Semitic and Anatolian corpora, testing equivalence (lexeme, frame, formula).
            • Evaluation of semantic models: error analyses, ablation tests, triangulation with uncertainty data.
            • Studies on conceptual “encounters” in multilingual administration: negotiation of terminology, borrowing, and typological parallels.

              • Format: Please submit an abstract (250–300 words) and a short biographical note by 15 May 2026 to info@lingual-pact.com.
              Subject line: “Anatolia and the Levant in Contact”.
1 7