The wealthy Egyptian Jacques Mosseri financed excavations in thevicinity of the Ben Ezra Synagogue and in the Basatin Cemetery at theend of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth. Hiscollection remained with the Mosseri family and was unavailable forscholars for many years. In 1970, scholars from the National Library ofIsrael were allowed to microfilm the collection, which resulted in the1990 catalog. In 2006, the Mosseri family loaned its collection toCambridge University for a twenty-year period during which thecollection would be conserved, digitized, and studied and then,conditions permitting, deposited in the National Library of Israel. ForMosseri’s account of how he obtained his collection, see his “A NewHoard of Jewish MSS in Cairo,” Jewish Review 4 (1913): 208–16. Formore information on the subsequent history of the collection, see theintroduction to the 1990 catalog; and http://www.lib.cam.ac.uk/Taylor-Schechter/jmgc.

offers a breakdown of the most useful index cards of the second type.

Many of the topic cards served as the skeleton for Mediterranean Society and can be usedto study how Goitein constructed his magnum opus. To give just one example, in roll 26 wehave the index cards for Mediterranean Society, chap. 3, B, 1, “Friendship” and “InformalCooperation” (slides 375–99, drawer 24 [7D], 431–51), B, 2, “Partnership and Commenda”(slides 400–451, cards 452–83), and so forth.

Goitein’s index cards can be divided into two general types: those thatfocus on a specific topic (children, clothing, family, food, weather, etc.) andthose that serve as research tools for the study of the Geniza. 48

It is, however, important to keep in mind that, reflecting the trajectory ofGoitein’s study of the Geniza, there are often two sets of cards for a givensubject, one general and one related to the India Book.44

About twenty thousand of those cards are 3 × 5 inches and seven thousand 5 × 8 inches.

Before they were sent, however, the contents of itstwenty-six drawers were photographed in Princeton, resulting in thirty mi-crofilm rolls. Recently, digital pdf copies of these microfilm rolls have been

Before they were sent, however, the contents of itstwenty-six drawers were photographed in Princeton, resulting in thirty mi-crofilm rolls.

When Goitein died in 1985, his paperswere sent to the National Library of Israel in Jerusalem, where his laboratorycan be accessed today.

In some cases, not unlike his Geniza subjects, Goitein wrotehis notes on pieces of paper that were lying around. To give but one example, a small noterecords the location of the index cards for “India Book: Names of Persons” from ‘ayn to tav:“in red \\ or Gray \\ box of geographical names etc. second (from above) drawer to the left ofmy desk 1980 in the left right steelcabinet in the small room 1972” is written on the back ofa December 17, 1971, note thanking Goitein for a box of chocolate (roll 11, slide 503, drawer13 [2.1.1], 1191v).

The number is even more impressive when one realizes that both sides of many of the cardshave been written on.

yekke

Until the development of new digital tools, Goitein’s index cards providedthe most extensive database for the study of the documentary Geniza.

Transcriptions taken from Goitein’s publications were corrected according to handwrittennotes on his private offprints. The nature of Goitein’s “typed texts” is as follows. Goitein tran-scribed Geniza documents by hand from the originals or from photostats. These handwrittentranscriptions were later typed by an assistant and usually corrected by Goitein. When Goiteindied in 1985, the transcriptions were photocopied in Princeton before the originals were sentto the National Library of Israel, where they can be consulted today. During the followingdecades, the contents of most of these photocopies were entered into a computer, and period-ically the files had to be converted to newer digital formats. The outcome of these repeatedprocesses of copying and conversion is that transcription errors and format glitches are to beexpected. As the Princeton Geniza Project website states: “Goitein considered his typed texts‘drafts’ and always restudied the manuscripts and made revisions to his transcriptions beforepublishing them.” See also Goitein, “Involvement in Geniza Research,” 143. It is important tokeep in mind that only the transcriptions that were typed were uploaded to the project website.Therefore, e.g., Goitein’s transcriptions of documents in Arabic scripts are usually not foundthere. The National Library of Israel and the Princeton Geniza Lab also hold many of Goitein’sdraft English translations of Geniza documents, many of which were intended for his plannedanthology of Geniza texts in translation, Mediterranean People.

Recently, images ofGoitein’s index cards and transcriptions have been attached to existing tran-scriptions or to shelf marks without transcription, thus increasing the numberof records to over eighty-three hundred (as of May 2018).

Fried-berg Judeo-Arabic Project, accessible at http://fjms.genizah.org. This projectmaintains a digital corpus of Judeo-Arabic texts that can be searched and an-alyzed.

More recent ad-ditions to the website include a “jigsaw puzzle” screen that lets users viewseveral items while playing with them to check whether they are “joins.” An-other useful feature permits the user to split the screen into several panelsand, thus, examine several items simultaneously (useful, e.g., when compar-ing handwriting in several documents). Finally, the “join suggestions” screenprovides the results of a technologically groundbreaking computerized anal-ysis of paleographic and codiocological features that suggests possible joinsor items written by the same scribe or belonging to the same codex. 35

The Friedberg Genizah Project makes excellent digital images of Genizadocuments available to scholars around the world.

Since many Geniza studies begin their research with Goitein, the same documents are ex-amined repeatedly (occasionally even receiving several editions), but others that Goitein hadnot cited remain ignored.

The first place to start any search for Geniza documents is A Mediter-ranean Society by S. D. Goitein.

Since we do not have in Geniza studies the equivalent of papyrol-ogy’s Berichtigungsliste der Griechisen Papyruskunden aus ̃gypten, a fewkey review articles that contain lists of suggested emendations and notes arealso noted.22

“In the beginning of my engagement with Geniza studies, I innocently supposed that I didnot need to deal with the original of a document already mentioned by another scholar. To-day, it is clear to me that the Geniza scholar must examine the original even for a docu-ment that has been fully published (even by Goitein), not to mention a document only men-tioned.” See S. D. Goitein, “The Struggle between the Synagogue and the Community” (inHebrew), in Hayyim (Jefim) Schrimann: Jubilee Volume, ed. Shraga Abramson and AaronMirsky (Jerusalem, 1970), 69–77, 71 n. 8 (my translation)

As Goitein is reported to have said: “A good editionis the highest form of interpretation.”

Editorial conventions may differ from publication to publication, but they are usually avariant of the so-called Leiden System. See Schubert, “Editing a Papyrus,” 203

Another problem arises from the very nature of documentary material astexts not written for posterity. When reading Geniza letters, one is often in theposition of an uninvited guest at a social event, that is, someone who is unfa-miliar with the private codes and customs shared by the inner circle. Writersoften do not bother to explain themselves in a complete manner when they

philology’s strongest tools: the ability to compare versions of the sametext.

Most editions of Geniza documents appear in Hebrew-language publications, andthis means that Hebrew documents are usually left untranslated. It is important to recognizethat this is a problem.

Hans Ulrich Gumbrecht, The Powers of Philology: Dynamics of Textual Scholarship(Chicago, 2003), 3

the majority of Geniza documents are found in the Taylor-Schechter (T-S) collection in the Cambridge University Library

Another use-ful work is Shaul Shaked’s Tentative Bibliography of Geniza Documents.

Benjamin Richler’s Guide to Hebrew Manuscript Collections is the basicreference work for navigating the different libraries and collections of He-brew manuscript collections

Since such collections often hold a large amount of material thatcan be described or referred to in various ways, scholars designate a givenitem with a shelf mark or a call number. An item is usually placed with otheritems in a folder, a volume, or a box, and its shelf mark will identify thelibrary, the collection, the folder (or volume, box, etc.), and the number ofthe item within the folder.4

this short piece is meant as a basic practical guidewritten by a historian rather than by a curator or a bibliographer.

A Yekke (also Jecke) is a Jew of German-speaking origin.

is zettelkasten gamification of note-taking? .t3_zkguan._2FCtq-QzlfuN-SwVMUZMM3 { --postTitle-VisitedLinkColor: #9b9b9b; --postTitleLink-VisitedLinkColor: #9b9b9b; --postBodyLink-VisitedLinkColor: #989898; }

I agree it’s strange that people use ZK to write so much about ZK.

I couldn’t have written this book without the aid of laying out all of thedifferent sections on my desk. I created a hub of cards that had collectivecardlinks on them. Each card was organized by topic and contained subtopicsthat pointed me to various card addresses in my Antinet. I then moved themaround a large table to create the perfect logical layout for this book. Here’sa picture of it:

picture

As I detail in a later section

Aglavra · 1 day agoNo, but I'm currently reading A place for everything https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/51770484-a-place-for-everything , which seems to be on similar topic - evolution of information management in the past.

Has anyone read this? “Too Much to Know: Managing Scholarly Information Before the Modern Age by Ann Blair”

Gwern’s suggestion for how to design internet communities to allow for conversation on different time scales:

But keeping a notebook with someone else is hard. The few times I’ve tried with people not married to me, the notebooks have degenerated into slums. People will usually build their own corners, afraid to mess with the words others have put in. And so the thoughts are not properly integrated, they just sprawl, and are not tended to with love. And if someone does try to integrate the collective thoughts, if someone edits other people’s notes when they are away—well, there are few things as frustrating as having someone mess up your structure of thought so it becomes less useful to you.

Over time, they have been expanded and organized: it is the scaffolding of our conversation, left behind as a structure to think in. 

Are we really on the main branch here? And all of these things that Torbjörn is screaming—are they more or less generative than usual? If less, in what way can I change the way I probe the conversation to make us more generative?

This priority list, which was added to deal with the mess the notes became after a few weeks, turned out to be important. It was a ratchet—whenever we happened on a good train of thought, the priority list ensured that we would not drift back down to a lower-quality conversation path. 

First, I mixed the conversational notes in with my other thoughts. But I’ve since found that keeping the conversational notes separate from other notes is better—it creates a stronger sense of place. Now, I enter the Torbjörn notes, and all past conversations flow up. Mixed in with the other notes, they were diluted.

Kakeibo was developed by the Japanese journalist Motoko Hani who published the first Kakeibo in a women's magazine in 1904.[2]

Kakeibo (Japanese: 家計 簿, Hepburn: kakei-bo), is a Japanese saving method. The word "kakeibo" can be translated as Household ledger and is literally meant for household financial management. Kakeibos vary in structure, but the basic idea is the same. At the beginning of the month, the kakeibo writes down the income and necessary expenses for the beginning month and decides some kind of savings target. The user then records their own expenses on a daily basis, which are added together first at the end of the week and later at the end of the month. At the end of the month, a summary of the month's spending is written in kakeibo. In addition to expenses and income, thoughts and observations are written in kakeibo with the aim of raising awareness of one's own consumption.[1] Kakeibo can be a finished book or self-made.

DataView Habit Tracker

Some conflicts and misreading of what’s the structure of the metadata. When you create some tag in the content - #tag - it becomes a “real” tag to Obsidian and to dataview (an implicit field - file.tags). When in frontmatter you write tag: [one, two] or tags: [one, two] it happens two things: Obsidian (and dataview) read the values as real tags (#one and #two) and for dataview they’re target by file.tags (or file.etgs - see docs for understand the difference) - and attention: file.tags are always an array, even if only one value… even if you write tags: one, two But for dataview tag: [one, two] it’s also a normal field with the key tag (or tags) - that’s why if you write tags: one, two it’ll be read as an array if targeted as file.tags and a string - “one, two” - if targeted as tags As normal tags they’re metadata at page level, not at task level or lists level (that is another thing). As tags field it’s also a page level metadata. Topics above are intended to explain the difference between targeting tags or file.tags. And as file.tags they’re page level. So, if you ask for tasks to be grouped by a page level (parent level to tasks), there’s no way to you achieve what you want in that way… because the file.tags is a list of tags, not a flattened values (maybe with another query, with the flatten command…) A second point is related with the conflict you create when you’re using a taks query with the key tags. Why? because task query is a little confusing… it works in two levels at same time: at page level and at tasks level (a file.tasks sub-level of page level). And the conflict exists here: inside tasks level there’s an implicit field called “tags”, i.e., a field for tags inside each task text. For example: - [ ] this is a task - [ ] this is another one with a #tag in the text in this case the “#tag” is a page level tag but also a task level tag. It’s possible to filter tasks with a specific tag inside: TASK WHERE contains(tags, "#tag") This to say: when you write in your query GROUP BY tags it try to group by the tags inside the task level, not by the field you create in the frontmatter (a conflict because the same key field). In your case, because they don’t exist the result is: (2) - [ ] Task 2 - [ ] Task 3

IndieWeb citizen IndieAuth support (OAuth2 extension) Microformats everywhere Micropub support Sends and processes Webmentions RSS/Atom/JSON feed

Requesting antinet hivemind assistance: ANALOG ACCOUNTING/BUDGETING/BOOKKEEPING .t3_103r4j0._2FCtq-QzlfuN-SwVMUZMM3 { --postTitle-VisitedLinkColor: #9b9b9b; --postTitleLink-VisitedLinkColor: #9b9b9b; --postBodyLink-VisitedLinkColor: #989898; } Does anyone have any cards or know of any books/chapters/quotes that pertain to analog accounting, budgeting, and/or bookkeeping? For example, In "Paper Machines" Krajewski mentions how Melvil Dewey invented a personal analog bookkeeping system that was... disastrous...and he went bankrupt. That was really good information! Anyone have any leads?

Books and Presentations Are Playlists, so let's create a NeoBook this way.

Hi Chris Aldrich, thank you for sharing your great collection of hypothes.is annotations with the world. This is truly a great source of wisdom and insights. I noticed that you use tags quite a lot there. Are you tagging the notes inside your PKM (Obsidian?) as much as in Hypothes.is or are you more restrictive? Do you have any suggestions or further reading advice on the question of tagging? Thanks a lot in advance! Warmly, Jan

BTW can you please elaborate more on these steps between new source ideas and point ideas? I suppose the source notes are more like bib notes and point notes as main cards.

Facing the Philistine army is King Saul, his general Abner, son of Ner,and the Israelite warriors. They gather between Socoh and Azekah, at theplace referred to as “Ephes-dammim,” or, in another tradition, “Pas-dammim.” Various battles in which David’s heroes were involved (1Chronicles 11:13) occurred at this place. The name Ephes-dammim doesnot appear in the list of the cities of the tribe of Judah, or in traditions laterthan the time of David. Recently, David Adams, who has worked at KhirbetQeiyafa, has proposed understanding the word “Ephes” in this context asthe border, while “dammim” means blood in Hebrew. He therefore explainsthe name as meaning the “border of blood,” in other words, the bloodybattle zone.3

Weread, for example, of Philistine incursions into the hill country, toMichmash in Benjamin (1 Samuel 13:23), and the Rephaim Valley nearJerusalem (2 Samuel 5:17–22). It was in one of these border disputes thatthe city at Khirbet Qeiyafa was conquered and destroyed.

The story includes a detailed description of Goliath’s weaponry: acopper helmet, a coat of mail, a spear, a javelin, and leg guards. Goliath’sequipment has never been found in an archaeological context, and a largenumber of articles have attempted to establish the date of composition ofthe tradition based upon this weaponry. Some date it to Iron Age I (11th–10th centuries BCE), others to the 7th century BCE, and yet others to thePersian period (5th–4th century BCE).4

It is thusclear that the biblical author had access to historical information originatingin the 10th and 9th centuries BCE.

Ekron was destroyed in603 BCE by the Babylonians.

Gath was destroyed at the end of the 9th centuryBCE by Hazael, the Aramean king of Damascus

Goliath the Gittite(from the city of Gath)

the city of Khirbet Qeiyafa, radiocarbon dated to the end ofthe 11th and the beginning of the 10th century BCE, existed during theperiod to which the biblical tradition attributes this battle. The question thenarises if and how the excavation at Khirbet Qeiyafa contributes to ourunderstanding of this tradition.

Khirbet Qeiyafa is located at the western edge of the high Shephelah, in theElah Valley, between Socoh and Azekah (see Fig. 3). In ancient geopoliticalterms, it is situated on the border between Judah and Philistia, dominatingthe main road leading from the Coastal Plain to the hill country and thecities of Hebron, Bethlehem, and Jerusalem.

during Iron Age I, in the 12th–11thcenturies BCE, Ekron, which is located very near the Sorek Valley, was thedominant Philistine center, and the biblical tradition accordingly places thenarrative concerning the Philistines in that valley.

duringIron Age IIA, the 10th–9th centuries BCE, Gath in the Elah Valley becamethe dominant Philistine center and the biblical tradition recounting theborder disputes between the Philistines and the Israelites accordingly shiftsfrom the Sorek Valley to the Elah Valley.

Traditions connected to the Elah Valley are preserved in the books ofSamuel and Chronicles, which relate to Iron Age IIA.

The second tradition relating to the Sorek Valley tells of the Ark of theCovenant, which was kept in the Tabernacle at Shiloh in the Samaria Hillsand was sent with the Israelite army into battle against the Philistines.

Samson, last of the Judges, who kills thelion and obtains honey from its corpse, attaches burning torches to the tailsof foxes, and carries the heavy gates of Gaza upon his shoulders

Mastodon Brought a Protocol to a Product Fight

They brought a protocol to a product fight.

More news organizations will realize they are in the business of impact, not eyeballs

toots with replies (https://zirk.us/@bsigmon/with_replies.rss)

TIPOFF was created in 1987 for the express purpose of using biographic information drawn from intelligence products for watchlisting purposes. In 1987 TIPOFF began keeping track of suspected terrorists literally with a shoebox and 3 by 5 cards. Since then the program has evolved into a sophisticated interagency counterterrorism tool specifically designed to enhance the security of our nation's borders.

The first book I’m processing is Descartes’ Meditations on First Philosophy, which seemed appropriate.

Sanke and others seem to try to integrate GTD (Getting Things Done) into the Zettlekasten, thus making a frankenbaby. Having a frankenbaby of my own I shall throw no stones. But GTD is about making this same decision, and being specific about taking in ideas and deciding what to do with it. Without this self-discipline, self-awareness, neither GTD nor Zettlekasten are useful.

creative fields like music and writing live and die based on creativity, not financial statements and branding deals.

“I don’t think books are overpriced.”

“There is no substitute for good decisions at the top—and no remedy for stupid ones.”

In anthropology, Verstehen has come to mean a systematic interpretive process in which an outside observer of a culture attempts to relate to it and understand others.

Verstehen (German pronunciation: [fɛɐˈʃteːən], lit. transl. "to understand"), in the context of German philosophy and social sciences in general, has been used since the late 19th century – in English as in German – with the particular sense of the "interpretive or participatory" examination of social phenomena.[1] The term is closely associated with the work of the German sociologist Max Weber, whose antipositivism established an alternative to prior sociological positivism and economic determinism, rooted in the analysis of social action.[2] In anthropology, Verstehen has come to mean a systematic interpretive process in which an outside observer of a culture attempts to relate to it and understand others.