|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
This is an early effort of mine apparently never cleaned up or developed by anyone. Looks like I will have to do it. This has been a start class for years. There is a contribution from someone who knows Persian. He implies that the form originated with the Persians. Not true. The Athenians may have imitated Persian rhyta but they had their own since the Bronze Age.Dave (talk) 01:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
"It is also likely that in shepherding cultures, the primary material for rhyta was animal horn; this cannot be substantiated, however, because horn deteriorates rapidly once buried in earth. Based on this, Chusid speculates that Biblical Israelites used ram's horn (shofar) for both sounding purposes and for drinking. Noting that the Greeks and other cultures used rhyta for ritual purposes, he surmises that the Israelites used their shofar for ritual drinking as well, and suggests that the original "Cup of Elijah" used at Passover seders was probably a ram's horn rhyton. -- Chusid, Hearing Shofar: The Still Small Voice of the Ram's Horn, 2009, Chapter 3-6 - Ram's Horn of Passover (www.hearingshofar.com) --"
I took this out. I hereby declare that in doing so to the best of my belief I was of sound mind and not under the influence of any stimulant. No, seriously, it looks like a great theory, and at first I went for it hook-line and sinker. It looks good. I was even going to download the book. However, bottom line: I can find no evidence that the theory was not invented ad hoc by the editor, who is obviously Husid or someone close to him. First of all, there is no published book. What he has there is some pdf's of his own views of the spiritual value of the shofar and its use. Quotes from the scripture are frequent. The trouble is, in the section he mentions, Chapter 3-6, which is section 6 of chapter 3, there is no mention of rhyta at all, and no mention of drinking your way to spirituality through a shofar-rhyton. In short, the theory is not there at all. I looked through whatever other material I could find. Not there. He gives a web site. The web site basically asks for contributions and otherwise sells the material that is there. It does not invoke the book or any parts of the book. Now, when you do get to the "book," it is written like a highly personal essay. He wants to tell us all about the joys using, I won't say worshipping, the shofar. I think he has some for sale. Again, no rhyta. R. Chusid, if it is you, and that is what you are, I think you made it up on the spot. I have seen quite a lot of Jewish scholarship, much on the Jewish religion, but I've NEVER seen anything serious-minded like this, unless it was the Catholic sale of relics or the Protestant sale of the tear-stained pieces of sheet on which the radio minister wept as he contemplated the vision of Christ. Please, Mr. Chusid, sell you relics elsewhere. In terms of WP policy, the topic is not covered by the ref, the ref is not encyclopedic. If I err please do correct me and put a proper ref to the theory, making sure the theory is actually there. For myself, I do not think a drinking horn would be a suitable blowing horn. Not everyone in Eurasia raised sheep, you know. The shofar is a twisted affair. The early rhyta were cup-shaped. They wanted fluid, not hot air. When they did evolve it was into a staight cone or a bent cone, not a twisted cone. We can't very well draw conclusions about the missing sheep-horn-shofar-rhyton if it is missing. Moreover, it should not have been, because according to Mr. Chusid one sheep horn has survived from the Bronze Age. Excuse me, but horn and ivory are durable materials. I thought this explantion was necessary to demonstrate to all those people of good faith that I did not take it out for personal, political or religious reasons. Thank you.Dave (talk) 21:06, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
"However, the bull's head rhyton, of which many examples survive, is mentioned as ke-ra-a on tablet KN K 872, an inventory of vessels at Knossos; it is shown with the bull ideogram."
The tablet is a fragment that shows only the bottom half of the sign that has been read as /ke/. The end of the word is clearly readable as /ra-a/, but a reading of /ke/ for the antepenult is only conjecture; its shape also suggests /ti/. Until this fragment is joined with other fragments, the reading of this sign should be withheld. Also contributing to the dubiousness of the interpretation of ke-ra-a as "horn" is a possible translation as χέρηα (kherea) "inferior". This section should be rewritten to reflect the uncertainty of this word. Shinju (talk) 14:00, 15 November 2013 (UTC)