From: 'Mark E. Shoulson' (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Sep 25 2007 - 22:02:04 CDT
Philippe Verdy wrote:
> Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
>> Well, it's definitely an old Semitic. Though it looks a little more
>> Aramaic than Samaritan/Hebrew. It looks rather like what you see on
>> some old coins, but I'm not expert enough to pin down the exact period.
>> Let me see if I can make out some words, I'll write if I can.
> The presence of the 7-branch candelar and the cup is a string indication
> that it has some Samaritan or Hebrew origin, but it does not necessarily
> means that it is written in those languages.
No, but the presence of Semitic-looking letters does sort of lean one's
opinion in that direction...
> For me the bottom part of the stone (below the horizontal line of dots) is
> not the same script as the part above. There may even be as much as 4
> scripts on this stone, possibly showing the same text translated.
I don't buy it; I'm not convinced they're different scripts.
> So, for me it looks like an ancestral form of Georgian or Armenian (in the
> middle), or a mix of several scripts (like a Rosette stone). The top part
> (around the candelar) is probably more archaic than the bottom part which
> shows more regular glyph forms, and looks like some evolved cuneiform or
> proto-semitic script.
Fascinating. A cuneiform that evolved into ordinary letters like the
YOD, TAV, MEM, etc that I see...
> Not everyting is text, there are decorations on the sides and bottom (a
> olive tree branch?), the top (stars, suns?)... The right side is severely
> altered (I think it contained a tree branch too)
> It's hard to see the letter forms due to the important glares and lack of
> contrast... Is it made of stone or leather?
The picture was introduced to us as "script details of some lead
plates." So they could be made out of anything, really. Even lead.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Sep 25 2007 - 22:03:20 CDT