tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9396860.post1369632255819342087..comments2024-03-28T08:41:17.341-04:00Comments on <center> Ralph the Sacred River </center>: Olive Pits and Alef-Bets: Notes on the Qeiyafa OstraconEdhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05188482189638751204noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9396860.post-53816694018113116642010-03-20T16:29:23.221-04:002010-03-20T16:29:23.221-04:00Dear Dr. Cook, Hi!!! I was referred to your blog t...Dear Dr. Cook, Hi!!! I was referred to your blog through Dr. Todd Bolen's blog. Great Insight!!!!! I do have a question about the dating of the two objects. I have always thought of the Tel Zayit Stone, with its Abecedary and 'Ezer inscription, as contemporaneous with the Khirbet Qeiyafa Ostracon. Dr. Tappy dated the Tel Zayit Stone, and the construction of the wall it was found in, to most likely no later than the mid-10th century B.C. It is in secondary or even tertiary use, so this pushes it from 950 B.C. towards 1000 B.C. Professor Garfinkel and Drs. Ganor and Misgav dated the Khirbet Qeiyafa Ostracon to the early 10th century B.C. It is a large piece of broken pottery, so I would think that you could look at it as in secondary use, moving its date down from 1000 B.C. So the stone and the ostracon appear to be pretty much contemporaneous. When you add the Gezer Calendar to the mix of inscriptions from the 10th century B.C, you have three different scripts being used to write the Hebrew language. I think your idea of the consolidating to just the use of paleo-Hebrew script like that found on the Tel Zayit Stone, with its Abecedary and 'Ezer inscription, during the united monarchy is a great idea. Perhaps during the reign of King Solomon is the best time for this to have taken place. One problem with this theory may turn out to be the full publication of the twelve thousand pieces of ivory discovered at Samaria. According to the Shelby White and Leon Levy publications website, this huge corpus of ivories is being worked on by Dr. Claudia E. Suter. These ivories came from the area of the Iron Age palace and can be dated to the 9th to 8th centuries B.C. The problem that I see is that some of these ivories contain letters like those found on the Khirbet Qeiyafa Ostracon. In table number 81, the Table of Semitic Alphabets, by Dr. James B. Pritchard in his The Ancient Near East Volume I, you have the Samaria Ivories' letters. The gimel, dalet, and the letter? between the Heth and Yod are all pretty much identical to the corresponding letters found on the Khirbet Qeiyafa Ostracon. Thus, you may be asking why are these early alphabetic letters still being used, or do some of these ivories date to King David's and Solomon's times? One thing does seem clear. The Hebrew language had definitely been around for centuries before the 10th century B.C. I Thank You for your time and your insights. With Much Gratitude and Admiration, Michael WelchMichael Welchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04431336497944828125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9396860.post-69338176008843108362010-03-18T13:41:05.320-04:002010-03-18T13:41:05.320-04:00I don't have anything intelligent to add beyon...I don't have anything intelligent to add beyond what others have already said. This is a very well-thought-out summary/perspective.G.M. Grenahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16715203546886901296noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9396860.post-44964372788624315972010-03-17T19:33:52.340-04:002010-03-17T19:33:52.340-04:00John, I already gave in the first paragraph the li...John, I already gave in the first paragraph the link you provided. The post depends on the reader being familiar with the readings in advance.EMChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02505525490002421093noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9396860.post-30646271649479036312010-03-17T18:54:30.576-04:002010-03-17T18:54:30.576-04:00Thanks for this, Ed.
Lots to agree with here, in ...Thanks for this, Ed.<br /><br />Lots to agree with here, in particular, the part about the ostracon pointing to the opposite of a consolidated scribal tradition in which the author of the text worked. A fact which distinguishes this text from texts of the same time period known to be in Phoenician. A significant detail which points away from understanding this text as a Phoenician text.<br /><br />It is certainly worth considering the possibility that the text is a list of names. One caveat: a PN גרבעל in line 3 seems out of the question. There seems to be a trace of a letter (a vav?) between Yardeni's גר and בעל; in any case, the two sequences cannot be conjoined to make one sequence except on the assumption of a writing error or the like.<br /><br />The key graf in your note from my perspective:<br /><br />"The key sequence of letters is the first five letters: אלתעש. This has plausibly been interpreted as Hebrew אל תעש, "do not do!" Among the NW Semitic languages, the verbal root עשה 'to do' is diagnostic of Hebrew (and its congeners, such as Moabite). Although HALOT gives a few other languages where the root may appear, in this location at this date, only Hebrew is a viable candidate, if the interpretation is correct."<br /><br />And that interpretation, while not the only possible interpretation (note also the lacuna immediately preceding), remains the most plausible one. <br /><br />Your readers, for background, may wish to compare the readings of Misgav and Yardeni in full:<br /><br />http://qeiyafa.huji.ac.il/ostracon2.asp <br /><br />For early Phoenician inscriptions, one might start with Rollston's article:<br /><br />http://www.rollstonepigraphy.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Phoenician-Inscriptions.pdfJohn Hobbinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17011346264727684917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9396860.post-49532141792466216082010-03-15T14:59:19.008-04:002010-03-15T14:59:19.008-04:00Very well reasoned and researched. The cautionary ...Very well reasoned and researched. The cautionary note re Prof. Galil's interpretation is well placed. Thank you for posting this.<br /><br />David Willner<br />Foundation StoneUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01715495424435041335noreply@blogger.com