Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Diogenes the Cynic · 07-10-2013, 01:45 PM

Eliat Mazar has found a pottery fragment which what she claims is a 10th Century BCE "proto-Canaanite" inscription.

Quote:

Hebrew University archaeologists have found the oldest known alphabetical inscription from Jerusalem, dating back to the period of Kings David or Solomon, 250 years before the previously oldest known written text.

The inscription was found near the Temple Mount but is not in Hebrew and was from the pre-Temple period, in the language of one of the peoples who occupied Israel at the time, according to the archaeologists.

Reading from left to right, the text contains a combination of letters approximately 2.5 cm tall, which translate to m, q, p, h, n, (possibly) l, and n. Since this combination of letters has no meaning in known west-Semitic languages, the inscription’s meaning is unknown.

The archaeologists suspect the inscription specifies the jar’s contents or the name of its owner. Because the inscription is not in Hebrew, it is likely to have been written by one of the non-Israeli residents of Jerusalem, perhaps Jebusites, who were part of the city population in the time of Kings David and Solomon.

Mazar's dating, of course, is always tendentious, but it looks to be genuine and old. It's probably Jebusite.

Somebody needs to tell the writer of that article that proto-Canaanite script are read from right to left. not left to right.

outhouse · 07-10-2013, 05:27 PM

Mazar has shown bias anyway, Cananite is obvious. Jebusite is another, since its a biblically fabricated name I dont place any weight when used by people who follow the united Monarchy with historicity.

I posted this in the thread on Judaisms origins

Good catch on the spelling direction

Toto · 07-10-2013, 05:42 PM

There's more information on this blog post, including some video links:

http://withmeagrepowers.wordpress.co...rom-jerusalem/

Quote:

My initial thoughts:

There is some confusion in the media statement (see blue section below) about the dating of this inscription. On the one hand the statement claims the inscription is in a Proto-Canaanite script and dates to the era before Israelite rule, but then it claims the inscription comes from the 10th century BC and dates to Israelite rule. I think what the statement is probably trying to say is that the letters of the inscription appear to be in a script that is known from the era before Israelite rule, but the piece of pottery itself comes from a period during Israelite rule, specifically Iron IIa (10th century BC).

To me the script certainly looks very old. I’m not sure I’d label it ‘Proto-Canaanite’, though. On first glance I would say tenth century BC seems about right, with the script bearing some resemblance to Phoenician. This is, of course, a preliminary estimate, because although there is a hi-res photo of the inscription here, I’d need to see the pottery up close in person to make a more definitive evaluation.

. . .

outhouse · 07-10-2013, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

There's more information on this blog post, including some video links:

http://withmeagrepowers.wordpress.co...rom-jerusalem/

Quote:

My initial thoughts:

There is some confusion in the media statement (see blue section below) about the dating of this inscription. On the one hand the statement claims the inscription is in a Proto-Canaanite script and dates to the era before Israelite rule, but then it claims the inscription comes from the 10th century BC and dates to Israelite rule. I think what the statement is probably trying to say is that the letters of the inscription appear to be in a script that is known from the era before Israelite rule, but the piece of pottery itself comes from a period during Israelite rule, specifically Iron IIa (10th century BC).

To me the script certainly looks very old. I’m not sure I’d label it ‘Proto-Canaanite’, though. On first glance I would say tenth century BC seems about right, with the script bearing some resemblance to Phoenician. This is, of course, a preliminary estimate, because although there is a hi-res photo of the inscription here, I’d need to see the pottery up close in person to make a more definitive evaluation.

. . .

Good catch

Proto Israelite would be a better guess

Tenorikuma · 07-10-2013, 06:54 PM

We keep finding artifacts from the "Israelites" and the "time of king David" that show no evidence of Israel, King David, Hebrew literary development, or a temple to Yahweh. How curious. It's almost like those things didn't exist.

outhouse · 07-10-2013, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tenorikuma

We keep finding artifacts from the "Israelites" and the "time of king David" that show no evidence of Israel, King David, Hebrew literary development, or a temple to Yahweh. How curious. It's almost like those things didn't exist.

At roughly 1000 BC your not going to find anything remotely related to the mythical monarchy, nor a temple from that period.

There may have been a David who was a leader, but his biblical portrayal would not remotely describe him.

There are very few artifacts found from this time period, in this place. One would not expect to find much anyway.

All we have from the highlands are pottery shards, where many settlements were. All Israelite finds from thi speriod are very rare.

Tenorikuma · 07-10-2013, 07:51 PM

Yeah, I'm just poking fun at the biblical literalists (the mainstream not too long ago) who think King Solomon ruled an empire stretching from Egypt to the Euphrates from his royal seat in Jerusalem, while marrying Egyptian princesses, worshipping at the Temple to Yahweh, and reading the Hebrew Torah scroll.

In reality, Jerusalem was an unimportant town of a few hundred people on the fringes of the Neo-Assyrian empire. There was no temple (yet), no written Hebrew language or literary tradition, and what little writing existed was scratched out in Phoenician letters or Akkadian cuneiform.

outhouse · 07-10-2013, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tenorikuma

Yeah, I'm just poking fun at the biblical literalists (the mainstream not too long ago) who think King Solomon ruled an empire stretching from Egypt to the Euphrates from his royal seat in Jerusalem, while marrying Egyptian princesses, worshipping at the Temple to Yahweh, and reading the Hebrew Torah scroll.

In reality, Jerusalem was an unimportant town of a few hundred people on the fringes of the Neo-Assyrian empire. There was no temple (yet), no written Hebrew language or literary tradition, and what little writing existed was scratched out in Phoenician letters or Akkadian cuneiform.

Agreed.

The only thing that interest me about Solomon are possibly legends that might have originated from the Timna valley copper mine owners first investigated in 1930s by Nelson Glueck.

I don't place any claim there at all, not even in refracted memories. We know the Egyptians ran it before that.

andrewcriddle · 07-10-2013, 11:32 PM

according to the Biblical accounts Jerusalem only became an Israelite city c 1000 BCE and only had a completed temple to Yahweh c 950 BCE. This inscription is possibly older than the reign of Solomon.

Andrew Criddle

Tenorikuma · 07-11-2013, 12:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

according to the Biblical accounts Jerusalem only became an Israelite city c 1000 BCE…

Which accounts?

We have different stories of Joshua, Caleb, and David conquering Jerusalem. We have competing stories of Jerusalem being both an Israelite city and a non-Israelite city under king Saul. The people writing those stories weren't writing history.

The archaeological record, on the other hand, shows no sign of any kingdom based in Jerusalem during the time of David and Solomon. Judah seems to have been established around the 8th century. Jerusalem was never "Israelite" at all; the name was co-opted by Judeans later on for political and religious reasons.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-10-2013, 05:27 PM	#2
outhouse Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Auburn ca Posts: 4,269	Mazar has shown bias anyway, Cananite is obvious. Jebusite is another, since its a biblically fabricated name I dont place any weight when used by people who follow the united Monarchy with historicity. I posted this in the thread on Judaisms origins Good catch on the spelling direction

07-10-2013, 06:54 PM	#5
Tenorikuma Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Japan Posts: 156	We keep finding artifacts from the "Israelites" and the "time of king David" that show no evidence of Israel, King David, Hebrew literary development, or a temple to Yahweh. How curious. It's almost like those things didn't exist.

07-10-2013, 07:51 PM	#7
Tenorikuma Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Japan Posts: 156	Yeah, I'm just poking fun at the biblical literalists (the mainstream not too long ago) who think King Solomon ruled an empire stretching from Egypt to the Euphrates from his royal seat in Jerusalem, while marrying Egyptian princesses, worshipping at the Temple to Yahweh, and reading the Hebrew Torah scroll. In reality, Jerusalem was an unimportant town of a few hundred people on the fringes of the Neo-Assyrian empire. There was no temple (yet), no written Hebrew language or literary tradition, and what little writing existed was scratched out in Phoenician letters or Akkadian cuneiform.

07-10-2013, 11:32 PM	#9
andrewcriddle Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Birmingham UK Posts: 4,876	according to the Biblical accounts Jerusalem only became an Israelite city c 1000 BCE and only had a completed temple to Yahweh c 950 BCE. This inscription is possibly older than the reign of Solomon. Andrew Criddle

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.