Jump to content

Talk:Canaanite and Aramaic inscriptions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

DYK

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 19:29, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
The first Phoenician inscription found in Phoenicia
The first Phoenician inscription found in Phoenicia
  • ... that almost half the known words on Phoenician inscriptions are never used again? Source: Rollig, 1983, "The Phoenician-Punic vocabulary attested to date amounts to some 668 words, some of which occur frequently. Among these are 321 hapax legomena and about 15 foreign or loan words. In comparison with Hebrew with around 7000-8000 words and 1500 hapax legomena (8), the number is remarkable."

5x expanded by Onceinawhile (talk). Self-nominated at 20:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]

  • @Onceinawhile: I'm only getting 1104 characters of readable prose, which is lower than the required 1500. Note that bulleted lists generally don't count towards the length criterion. This would still be eligible if expanded to 1500 characters. Also, the hook and article aren't clear about the relationship between Canaanite, Aramaic, Phoenician, and Punic. The article also mentions "Northwest Semitic script" which links to "Northwest Semitic languages", but this is confusing since scripts and languages are distinct. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 07:19, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Antony-22, thanks for the review. I will address these items. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:01, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article has been expanded and now meets length requirements. Here is a review: New enough, long enough, neutrally written, well referenced, no close paraphrasing seen in online sources. Images are freely licensed. Hook is interesting and offline hook ref AGF and cited inline. However, the text in the image caption, while mentioned in the article, is not sourced, and therefore the image shouldn't be used. QPQ still outstanding. Yoninah (talk) 14:08, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Yoninah. The caption undersells it actually - this was the first ancient inscription in "local characters" found anywhere in the Levant - i.e. its discovery preceded all other ancient Hebrew/Aramaic/Phoenician inscriptions. I will find a source which explains it properly. QPQ now done. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:55, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The hook is unclear—the words are only used once within the extant corpus. Presumably they were used other times in works that have been lost. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 06:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Narutolovehinata5, I am working on the image caption one at the moment. Regarding the second point, having "in the extant corpus" in the hook, I think it will feel less "hooky" with those extra words, which I consider to be already implied. If others agree with Antony I don't mind though. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:29, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have added these sources to the article image caption as well:
  • Lehmann, Reinhard G. [in German] (2013). "Wilhelm Gesenius and the Rise of Phoenician Philology" (PDF). Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft. 427. Berlin / Boston: De Gruyter: 209–266. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2016-03-04. Retrieved 2015-04-08. Quote: "Alas, all these were either late or Punic, and came from Cyprus, from the ruins of Kition, from Malta, Sardinia, Athens, and Carthage, but not yet from the Phoenician homeland. The first Phoenician text as such was found as late as 1855, the Eshmunazor sarcophagus inscription from Sidon."
  • William Wadden Turner, 3 July 1855, The Sidon Inscription, p.259: "Its interest is greater both on this account and as being the first inscription properly so-called that has yet been found in Phoenicia proper, which had previously furnished only some coins and an inscribed gem. It is also the longest inscription hitherto discovered, that of Marseilles—which approaches it the nearest in the form of its characters, the purity of its language, and its extent — consisting of but 21 lines and fragments of lines."
Onceinawhile (talk) 21:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. The length and newness check out now, Earwig finds no copyvios, QPQ done. The last two bullet points in the list are missing refs, as is the table. (You don't need a ref for each row, you can place the refs in the column headings, or in the paragraph just before the table.) My point about the hook has not been addressed. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 04:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Antony-22, do you mean the "in the extant corpus" point? How about if we swap the word “used” for “found”? So it would be: “that almost half the known words on Phoenician inscriptions are never found again?” Onceinawhile (talk) 06:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Antony-22, on the question of references in the table, I have added a column labeled "Ref" in which I have added references for the two rows at the bottom which are not part of the published corpuses. All of the others are referenced via the existence of the corpus references. With respect to the two last bullets, they are themselves references, and their relevance to this article is covered in the references prior to the bulleted list. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think writing either "never used again" or "never found again" are just too confusing. You have to explain it a little more.
I see about the links in the two bullet points being references themselves. For the table, are you saying that the "Concordance" block acts as a reference by referring back to the corpora in the bullet list? Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 03:46, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Antony-22, yes exactly – that is what the concordance does. Most of those corpora are online so you can spot check if you like (or I can show you one or two if you wish). On the hook, that’s fine, I don’t feel strongly, Onceinawhile (talk) 05:50, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: This review has been updated in respect of ALT1 ALT2. I am offering another review here, in the hope of moving this DYK nom through the system quickly, as this is a well-written and useful article which has been here maybe too long. I have done the above checks mainly to familiarise myself with the situation. I have read carefully through the above comments. As far as I can see, all is well now, except for the hook. It appears to be settled (and I agree) that all that needs to be done is to substitute "found" for "used" in the hook. So please could you kindly contribute an ALT1 as a copy of ALT0 but with the word "found"? I believe that should resolve things and this nomination should then get a green tick. Storye book (talk) 19:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Onceinawhile:. Please see above review? Thanks. Storye book (talk) 10:00, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Storye book: ALT1 proposed above. Best regards, Onceinawhile (talk) 10:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, I came by to promote this, but I have some questions. I find the ALT1 hook wording confusing. If there are limited instances of ancient writings, how can you say they are never found again? Maybe if you found more examples, you would see those words too? Secondly, the image caption should be changed to what it's actually showing, an inscription on a sarcophagus. Thirdly, what is going on with the referencing in the chart? There are dozens of entries and only two have cites. Yoninah (talk) 19:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Yoninah, thanks for your message. To your points:
  • we could use the term “hapax legomena” per the reference at the top of this page, but it strikes me as too technical – “never found again” is an attempt to put in into more digestible language
  • ok to change the image caption, albeit seems a shame to lose its true notability
  • the sources are the references in the “concordance” in the table – each one can be referred to the sources in the bulleted list at the top of the table
Onceinawhile (talk) 20:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Edit conflict: I had just written this reply). @Yoninah: (1) Re wording of ALT1: we can create an ALT2 and substitute something like, "have never been found again", or "have each only been found once". (2) Re image caption: we could change it to something like, "Phoenician inscription on a sarcophagus". (3) The referencing for the chart is clear to me. It's the whole of the List of notable inscriptions section just above the chart. A sentence between that section and the chart explains to the effect that all the items in the chart are mentioned in the sources above, except for the bottom two which have their own citations (my italics). I think that the italicised bit should be made more clear in that sentence, though. @Onceinawhile: Please could you correct these issues or give us your preferences? Thank you. Storye book (talk) 20:53, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT2... that almost half the known words in Phoenician inscriptions (example pictured) have never been found again?
Thanks @Storye book: see ALT2 above. I have also amended the sentence in the article regarding the concordance per your comment above. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I like ALT2 a lot better. I was also going to suggest the same about adding the sentence clarifying the table references. I think the caption is fine as is, though I'm not sure if there's a rule about having wikilinks there. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 04:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • for ALT2. Thank you, everyone, for spotting and sorting out the remaining issues. ALT2 is OK, the sentence about citations for the chart has been clarified, and the image caption will have to be left up to the gods (in my experience, admins will sometimes have to shorten captions if there is too little space in the DYK box). There is one point which does not affect DYK: @Onceinawhile: you have a typo in the corrected sentence "relate cross-refer" - I think you only intended one of those?). Storye book (talk) 10:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you – typo fixed. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:34, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion

[edit]

I saw this article listed at the DYK nominations page and decided to help expand. I hope it is alright, given that Onceinawhile has nominated the page and is working on its improvement. Aside from additional content, I suggest structuring the article so that it has a background and context (e.g. why use Canaanite and Aramaic together) and also include different categories(?) such as Old Aramaic, Imperial Aramaic, Middle Aramaic, etc.. Unfortunately, I do not have sufficient sources presently to write about this. Regards, Darwin Naz (talk) 23:27, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Darwin Naz, thank you for your excellent additions. I would be delighted to collaborate with you here. I have added an image box to the top of the article to explain the intended scope – it is inspired by the scope of the “gold standard” work on this topic, Kanaanäische und Aramäische Inschriften, which covers all inscriptions in what was previously known as the “Phoenician-style” alphabet. As such it does not include Imperial or Middle Aramaic, or any of their descendent scripts. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:56, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Onceinawhile, maybe an expanded intended scope - particularly an exposition of what you referred to as gold standard - should constitute the background section. It is a bit challenging for me to add content since there is no specific time period outlined. Darwin Naz (talk) 01:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kata Biblion blog

[edit]

Some good work has been done at https://grammar.katabiblon.com/?page=ph.

Seems to be building on our work at Wikipedia, as uses many of our photos etc. But contains some good additions. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:52, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ugarit?

[edit]

Is there a point in mentioning the Ugaritic texts? They are not written in the Canaanite alphabet but in a proto-Canaanite language, closely related to Iron Age Canaanite.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 01:09, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

[edit]

@User:Onceinawhile, this is a very very nice article. Thank you. A couple of years ago I tried to learn the topic, the oldest ones in particular, and such a thing was very needed.

Do you think the list in Sass and Finkelstein, 2013 should be added to the list of corpora? It has many modern proposals regarding dating, notes many discredited objects, and has a useful table with drawings throughout. trespassers william (talk) 14:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Danny lost, thank you. Yes you make a good point. That article would be a good addition to the table, particularly with its numbered list at the end. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:44, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:53, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:23, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carthaginian tombstones article

[edit]

I would like to incorporate the Carthaginian tombstones article into this list, but not sure how best to do it, because it covers such a big number. @Hans van Deukeren: what do you think would be best? Onceinawhile (talk) 18:51, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer to add a link Carthaginian tombstones in the "See also" section. The article "Carthaginian tombstones" is a kind of "meta-description" of an entire category (or, in fact, several categories) of inscriptions, and it may overlap with some of the items in the large list of individual inscriptions. Because of this different character, it seems to me less fitting to put "Carthaginian tombstones" in that list. A link in the "See also" section, I think, would be useful. Hans van Deukeren (talk) 11:18, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hans, I have done that. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:56, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To consider adding

[edit]

Kition

[edit]
  • Kition bowl: Coote, Robert B. (1975). "The Kition Bowl". Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research (220). American Schools of Oriental Research: 47–50. ISSN 0003-097X. JSTOR 1356234. Retrieved 2024-09-14.
  • KAI 290 (three lines)

Tyre

[edit]

Carthage

[edit]
Name Image Discovered No. units Est. Date Location found Current Location Concordance
KAI CIS / RÉS NE KI NSI TSSI Oth. ref.
Wetzstein [image] 1 Carthage I 2059 430, 8 Carth 259
Spiro 14 [image] 1 Carthage I 228 81
Delattre [image] 1899 1 Carthage I 2979 or I 2980 86 [1][2]

Sardinia

[edit]

NE 434,2 CIS I 151, Sulci (Sulci Neo-Punic inscriptions)

Egyptian Aramaic

[edit]

Aramaic Papyrus Luparensis: NSI 77 Aramaic Papyrus Luparensis = “from the Louvre”, CIS II 146, TAD C3.12, Louvre; https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k5775081m/f13.item TAD C3.12 Also Drovetti, but published later [1862]* Bargès, J.J.L. (1862). Papyrus égypto-araméen appartenant au Musée égyptien du Louvre (in French). Duprat. Retrieved 2023-04-02.

Greek script

[edit]

Other KI / NE / KAI

[edit]

Wadi Daliyeh Aramaic papyri, 1963

Dead Sea Scrolls, 1946

KI 2 tiny Moabite seal

KI 4 Many Hebrew seals

NE 445 Neirab [CIS II 75] (stamp)

KAI 160,[3][4] Latin bilingual related to the Wilmanns Neopunic inscriptions

KAI 179 Bir Semech Latino-Libyan [in LATIN]

NE 435, C1 Hadrumentum Urn, 1887: page 217 onwards: Berger, Philippe (1889). "INSCRIPTIONS CERAMIQUES DE LA NÉCROPOLE PUNIQUE D'HADRUMÈTE (Suite et fin)". Revue Archéologique. 14. Presses Universitaires de France: 201–228. ISSN 0035-0737. JSTOR 41729255. Retrieved 2024-09-07.

Coins

[edit]

Palmyrene

[edit]
  • See TSSI IV

Nabatean

[edit]
  • See TSSI IV

Hatran

[edit]
  • See TSSI IV

Onceinawhile (talk) 20:51, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Osiris inscription

[edit]

@פעמי-עליון: two years ago you added a few inscriptions in this edit. Regarding the Osiris inscription, you wrote that it is in the Louvre. Do you remember where you got that information from? I have added the early scholarly publicationshere, but I cannot find anything more recent on it - including photographs. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Onceinawhile, sadly, I didn't use to be careful to add sources back then. Happily, in the article כתובות חמון (The Inscriptions of Hammon) I did add the sources: AO 4400 and AO 4404.
What's interesting is that I am not sure how did I find out the statues are in the Louvre 😅 פעמי-עליון (pʿmy-ʿlywn) - talk 13:20, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@פעמי-עליון: thank you. I have found some (slightly blurry) photos of one of the two statues. The other is displayed against a wall and the back is not visible. I have also pulled out the main references, in case you wanted to make an article about them. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:14, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Onceinawhile, that's great!
I think for now, an article about all of the inscriptions from HammonqUmm el-Amad is enough. Maybe I will translate it to English soon. פעמי-עליון (pʿmy-ʿlywn) - talk 10:04, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How to add to the list, and possible inner-split?

[edit]

Hey @Onceinawhile:. I wanted to add to the list the Ketef Hinnom scrolls, but I couldn't figure where to add them. It would be great if you could guide me to how the list is sorted, so I'll know where to place it. It made think, wouldn't it be good to split the list within the article in some fashion? Maybe for different languages (Phoenician, Aramaic, Hebrew etc.) or for different centuries? A good idea would also be to divide into regions of origin, though previous expirience has shown that this most likely end with no consensus due to political matters. Bolter21 (talk to me) 08:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Bolter21: thanks for pointing that out. I created the KH scrolls article and had intended to put it here. You are right the order of the list is not as clean as it should be. It roughly follows KAI's ordering at the moment, but a number of exceptions have been made. I don't think language works because a number of the inscriptions sit in the grey zone, as these language buckets are the creations of modern scholarship and are thus open for dispute (and have changed over time). Region of origin could work too, but I agree that is also open to debate in a different way. The dating of the inscriptions is one way, but many have wide ranges applied.
My instinct is the date discovered - that is a rock solid datapoint, and tells an interesting story about the development of the study of Semitic inscriptions. It is also the column I have found myself sorting by most frequently when using the existing sort function in the table.
Onceinawhile (talk) 09:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You did great job on both articles! I am supportive of that arrangement, I think it is very useful. Is it possible that you add the KH to the list? Bolter21 (talk to me) 09:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Bolter. I have added the KH scrolls to the list. Reordering next. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reordering done. Wow, that was hard work. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some points

[edit]

'This article lists the notable inscriptions written in Canaanite (previously known as "Phoenician" and today split into Phoenician-proper, paleo-Hebrew, Punic etc.)'.

It is unclear whether this refers to languages or to alphabets. If alphabets, it is strange to then go on to say that 'these inscriptions share an alphabet'. If languages, it doesn't make sense to list Paleo-Hebrew between Phoenician-proper and its colonial descendant Punic, when Hebrew is not a descendant of Phoenician; also, I believe that Paleo-Hebrew is generally used to refer to a script and possibly the inscriptions written in it, but not to a language (stage).

'The old Aramaic period (850 to 612 BC) saw the production and dispersal of inscriptions due to the rise of the Arameans as a major force in Ancient Near East. '

Describing them as 'a major force' seems rather exaggerated. Even in their prime, they were just a couple of comparatively small kingdoms, not even necessarily operating as a single 'force', and the greatest 'Aramean' political success was the brief installing of a usurper in Babylon. Their language became a lingua franca in spite of the level of their political power, not thanks to it, as they mostly spent their history being defeated and conquered by the real 'major forces' in the region such as Assyria, Babylonia, Persia etc. A source should be provided for that characterisation.

'particularly during the late stages of the Neo-Assyrian Empire as well as the spread of Aramaic speakers from Egypt to Mesopotamia.'

This sounds as if Aramaic speakers started out from inside Egypt in something parallel to the Biblical story of the Exodus of the Hebrews and then reached Mesopotamia. In fact, of course, they started from native Syria (if the claim is that they did start from Egypt, this should be sourced). Perhaps the idea is something like 'spreading in the area between Egypt and Mesopotamia', but if so, it is expressed in an unclear way. And it is still odd to mentioned the two regions at the same level, since Aramaic never became a native language of Egypt, whereas it did become that in Mesopotamia.

'Only 10,000 inscriptions in Phoenician-Punic, a Canaanite language, are known, such that "Phoenician probably remains the worst transmitted and least known of all Semitic languages."'

It would make sense to give such figures for the Aramaic inscriptions as well in order to enable a comparison.

'The Canaanite and Aramaic inscriptions, also known as Northwest Semitic inscriptions, are the primary extra-Biblical source for understanding of the society and history of the ancient Phoenicians, Hebrews and Arameans'.

This makes it sound as if they had one and the same society and history. But these were distinct, albeit related, peoples or groups of peoples, they had different societies and distinct histories. The formulation suggesting a shared society and history should be sourced. 62.73.72.3 (talk) 02:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these constructive and well explained points. I will work through and respond in due course. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:39, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree these are good points. I took the liberty of implementing the last one, simply making societies and histories plural. Andre🚐 21:40, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Canaanite_and_Aramaic_inscriptions&oldid=1253036680"