[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: orion ostracon

Greg wrote, 

>At the Jerusalem conference Golb showed a photograph in 
>which the letter transcribed by Cross and Eshel as a yod is not 
>the massive inverted arrowhead (too large to be a yod in any case) 
>of Cross and Eshel; instead there is a vertical upright line inside 
>the "arrowhead" which is the actual letter.  This is visible in the IEJ 
>photograph.  The letter is either a gimel or a nun, and cannot 
>be a yod.  Therefore there is no "yachad" reading.  At the end of 
>his talk Golb reported with permission the judgment of Joseph 
>Naveh that the "yachad" reading does not exist. 

I have my questions about the reading along similar lines as
Philip expressed.  However, I am disagree with Golb and you about
the yod.  To begin with, any attempt to dispute the reading
based on the published photograph (or even worse, Golb's slide!)
is misguided.  The quality is just not good enough.  I see enough
of the "massive inverted arrowhead" to justify Cross and Eshel's 
reading.  Moreover, without a good electronic image, access to
actual ostraca, and excellent photograph there is little point
in disputing the reading.  And, yes, given the idiosyncracies of
the ostracon, it could be a yod.  (Even if I am as yet unconvinced
that the HET is a HET, but this has nothing to do with the 
Bill Schniedewind
+  william schniedewind                          +
+  ucla, dept. of near eastern langs & cultures  +
+  los angeles, ca  90095-1511                   +
+  phone: (310) 206-2405; fax:  (310) 206-6456   +