From: 'Mark E. Shoulson' (mark@kli.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.
~mark
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Sep 25 2007 - 22:03:20 CDT