Davidic time Inscription: Practicing text for student?

by koot van wyk (DLitt et Phil; ThD)

Kyungbook National University

Sangju Campus

South Korea

conjoint lecturer of Avondale College

Australia

11 January 2010

An ancient inscription was found near the Elah valley at Khirbet Qeiyafa and dated to the 10th century BCE. We intend here to look at it carefully and make our own conclusions.

"The trapezoid pottery shard discovered at excavations by Prof. Yosef Garfinkel near the Elah valley and deciphered by Prof. Gershon Galil.

The inscription itself, which was written in ink on a 15 cm X 16.5 cm trapezoid pottery shard, was discovered a year and a half ago at excavations that were carried out by Prof. Yosef Garfinkel at Khirbet Qeiyafa near the Elah valley.

The inscription was dated back to the 10th century BCE, which was the period of King David's reign, but the question of the language used in this inscription remained unanswered, making it impossible to prove whether it was in fact Hebrew or another local language.

Prof. Galil's deciphering of the ancient writing testifies to its being Hebrew, based on the use of verbs particular to the Hebrew language, and content specific to Hebrew culture and not adopted by any other cultures in the region" (S. Zohar 8 January 2010).

Orthographical concerns

Anyone that are accustomed to epigraphy and writing styles of early texts, should raise at least one question, if not a few. I am in much anticipation for a text to be discovered in Israel dating from the earliest times of David and even earlier to the times of Moses. But, the orthographical problems with this text needs to be addressed.

Comparing it with the `Izbeth Sartah Ostracon

Many scholars worked on the `Izbeth Sartah Ostracon and an example of it can be seen published by William Shea AUSS 28/1 (1990): 63. What are the problems: a. our text does not have even one he that resembles a capital E in our own writing; b. there is not even one heth in the whole text. Just from the absence of these letters, I can conclude that it is probably not a narrative, or a text with continuous information. Instead, it is a text with interrupted syntax, even blocked, if it was meant to only be a spelling practice of some words dictated to him/her.

Comparing it with the Beth Shemesh Ostracon

William Shea also presented the text AUSS 28/2 (1990): 117 but again, there is a total absence of heth, the square resh and the I form of zayin. This is very peculiar if it was to be a text with normal communication.

Comparing it with Deir `Alla Iron Age I texts

William Shea also presented some of the Deir `Alla texts from this period in a number of publications: AUSS 27/1 (1989): 21-37, but there is not the squarish zayin and the samek so peculiar of this period.

Attempts to solve the problem

1. If one accepts it to be a normal writer who just wants to communicate some event or data necessary for a special genre like a contract, receipt, then one is in for big problems.

a. Why did he communicate with such a scarcity of consonantal usage?

b. Judging from the writing styles available for me from a Japanese publication, ancient Ethiopian writing styles compare better with the inscription than the North-west Semitic ancient inscriptions. Why?

i. resh, heth, beth, ayin, kaph and the stressed d is better represented in this text than in North-west Semitic.  

ii. The second problem is that the samek of the 9th to 7th centuries with one vertical bar and three horizonatal crossbars, are not there in this text. It appears that the text cannot be dated earlier than the 10th century BCE due to the excavation reports, but we are not sure of that.

iii. Sometimes the ayin was presented with and without a dot. In this text both types appear. In Ancient Ethiopic inscriptions [see the Japanese diagram supplied] the one is an ayin but the other one with the dot is the emphasized/stressed daleth [thus the dot underneath].

iv. The aleph experience great rotational fluctuations in this text. Why is it swinging in so many directions?

v. Some letters have no correlate in any known repertoire both your traditional elite schools of Ancient Semitic orthography, but also the Japanese publication of the various ancient repertoires of writing styles. The third letter from the left on the third line (9) cannot be found anywhere but there is a kaph in Ancient Ethiopian that compares distantly to it. 

vi. It is not so much that the letters are used as the variation on the same text of these letters is a reason to be worried about. The erratic variation of letters compares to that of a 5 year old child that was taught to write or received dictation to write the text.

2. If one refuse to accept it as a normal writing exercise but see it as a practicing exercize, the solution is more encouraging.

In fact, a number of reasons can be supplied:

a. The text is divided into 5 registers.

b. With arrows we have indicated that there was a pre-planned(?) placing of two dots, three dots and one dot.

c. It appears as if the writing of the text was carried out in vertical columns although the text was divided in horizontal registers:

i. Notice for example the repetition of letters before the two dots and after the two dots but before the three dots.

ii. A clear test case of letter repetition on the left side of line two (5) and the right side of line two (before and after the two vertical dots, 8), is evidence of the phenomenon of repetition. Look how the left shin was written with a vertical position and how the middle letter was written upside down in the case of the left example. Someone was practicing with an amount of uncertainty as well.

iii. In register one comparing (1) and (4) the aleph is rotationally different and the cross-strike through the aleph is different in lenghts (the one within, the other one completely through sticking out at both sides). The order fo the letters are not the same but it seems as if the same word was in mind or the same practice. If two people sit next to each other, for example, two soldiers doing watch duty, and they have a potshard like this, and one of them places his hand in a vertical position on the two vertical dots in the center, then each one of them have his own "sheet" to do the exercises of the same words dictated by someone. It will account for the different order of the letters and the rotational variation and also for the repetition that one can see on each half of the total text. 

iv. There seems to be a reverse writing in register three between (9) and (10). The two waws are at the outer left and outer right. Two lameds followed but they are in different form, one of them the reverse from of the later Phoenician shape (second letter from left in [9]).

v. Between (11) and (14) one can also see a reverse order of the letters. Why would two people write the letters in reverse if someone dictates to them the same word unless he dictates not a word but actually letter by letter? Letter by letter dictation would account for the decision of each to utilize the space available in their own style, since it was not meant to be a word.

Dictation as a precursor for writing

We are suggesting that someone was dictating since the interchange of two letters that sounds similar, is evidence of such a phenomenon. It is typical of slips of the ear to happen. A case of a slip of the ear is the goph in (15) that was heard as gimel and then as goph in (16). The last two letters on the right side of (17) are gimel and goph in a left right order. Of course the gimel is reverse but this is what scribal practices are all about. A second example of a slip of the ear that accounts for the difference in hearing by two different hands, is the last letter on the left in (6) and in (7). Whereas the left side "student" heard ayin, the right side "student" heard aleph.

Final conclusions

Despite the learned professors attempts to come to grips with a sensible text, we have to restrain our excitement for it as a historical text and channel it into early evidence of student writing practices in a field classroom context.  All of us are doing our best to make sense of this very important find. If there was one such sherd, others may also turn up giving us a broader understanding. If it is the product of one person only, it can be a modern fake except if it was the ancient writing of a 5 year old who was practicing writing or better still, the product of two students who practices their letter skills from someone dictating to them sitting side by side using his hand or something as division between the two halves.

End item

Sources:

1.http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1262339428603&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

2. "This text is a social statement, relating to slaves, widows and orphans. It uses verbs that were characteristic of Hebrew, such as asah ("did") and avad ("worked"), which were rarely used in other regional languages. Particular words that appear in the text, such as almanah ("widow") are specific to Hebrew and are written differently in other local languages," Prof. Galil explained.

The deciphered text:

1' you shall not do [it], but worship the [Lord].

2' Judge the sla[ve] and the wid[ow] / Judge the orph[an]

3' [and] the stranger. [Pl]ead for the infant / plead for the po[or and]

4' the widow. Rehabilitate [the poor] at the hands of the king.

5' Protect the po[or and] the slave / [supp]ort the stranger.

(Shalhevet Zohar, "Inscription indicates Kingdom of Israel existed in the 10th century BCE", Jerusalem Post [Jan 8, 2010]).

3. Image of the text is at this site.

http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_months.cfm/m/8/y/2009

The text is said by observers to be "similar in its content to biblical scriptures (Isaiah 1:17, Psalms 72:3, Exodus 23:3, and others), but it is clear that it is not copied from any biblical text" (Press release from the University of Haifa, 8 January 2010). In our assessment, however, it appears not to be linked to a proper syntax due to the absence of certain key consonants in North-west Semitic.