Talk:Zayit Stone

stone found "in situ"

Stones - and anything else - are always found "in situ" (in place). The question is, what place? This stone was found in a wall, and it was quite clear that this was not the *original* place in which it was, um, placed. To say that it was found in situ suggests that it was, and this is wrong and misleading. PiCo 08:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• I think it's fairly obvious that a stone in a wall buried underground qualifies as being in-situ; whereas a stone currently being kicked around on the surface, or part of a mixed pile of debris, is not in-situ. The Zayit Stone was found in-situ. I'll soon be repairing your edits (as well as a few minor problems with my own, for which I apologize), but don't have time tonight.--Funhistory 05:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The apotropaic powers of inscriptions

"Äpotropaic" means "to turn away": the idea was that a demon could be turned away from a house etc by displaying a holy text (or at least a magical text) near the door. The inscription therefore had to be clearly visible - at head-level, and outside the door (no point in letting your demon come inside before he could read the magic). The Tel Zayit stone doesn't fulfill these criteria: it was being used in an internal wall, inside a dark room, was about 3 feet off the ground, and was very faint. The archaeologists who found it missed it themselves until the last day of excavation, when they just happened to see it early one morning in ideal conditions, in the low raking light of the rising sun. Tho the setting sun would have done just as well. But the point is, in a dark room 3 feet off the ground, no demon is going to see it or read it, and even if he were a midget-demon, he's already inside, so what's the point? So, no apotropaic powers for this stone. PiCo 08:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• You've made some excellent points here, but what you may be misunderstanding is that the magical purpose might have been for an earlier use--not the one in which is what found in-situ (i.e., the wall). If someone were to find an Aramaic incantation bowl in a wall or at the bottom of a well (or some other place where you wouldn't expect to find a bowl carefully placed), it would obviously be a secondary usage not relevant to its original purpose.--Funhistory 05:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite

I've rewritten the article to make it more accurate. Tappy's description of the stone hasn't been supported by the community. My rewrite gives the most recent consensus. Admittedly the full story is still emerging, by Tappy's description is definitely not accepted. PiCo 09:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly which "community" are you referring to? Wikipedia has standards, or didn't you know? Would you care to give us a hint as to where this "most recent consensus" was published, or did you recently travel the world to ask everyone's opinion firsthand? As far as I know, BASOR 344 is the only formal, peer-reviewed opinion published on the subject; & it was authored by 4 credible, well-respected people--not just Prof. Tappy. What you've heard in your own little neck of the woods is not necessarily relevant to the rest of us. As I said to you on the Biblical archaeology page, I appreciate your enthusiasm for editing these Wiki articles, but I would like to ask you to consider submitting your comments on Discussion pages 'first', & then editing the Article after you've given other editors a few days to consider your side of the coin; rather than vice-versa as you did today (i.e., hacking up the article first, then talking about it here).--Funhistory 05:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Answering all you points in one place:

• In situ: the stone, in the sense that it was a building stone, was found in situ - in the wall. The inscription, however, was not in situ - the stone had been re-used, came from some other place, as Tappy in fact makes clear. To say that the inscription was in situ implies that it was meant to be used as placed in the wall, and Tappy says this is not the case.
• Magical purpose: Tappy's suggestion was that it had a magical purpose in the wall. This is not tenable, for the reasons given. Tappy doesn't raise any suggestion of a prior magical purpose - in fact he believes its original use was to teach the alphabet to trainee scribes. Your suggestion that it was originally magical in purpose may be right, but it runs counter to Tappy's claim that the original purpose was to teach the alphabet to trainee scribes.
• Date: (This isn't one of your points, but it's worth discussing). Tappy seems to imply that the dating of the destruction layer to the 10th century dates the inscription to the tenth century. This is not so. It merely dates the last possible date for the inscription. It could have been - in fact it must have been - cut into the stone earlier. How much earlier, no-one can say, but the epigraphers are suggesting an early-mid 11th century date, which places it in a pre-Davidic and possibly Canaanite context (which is why Tappy is so keen to date it to the 10th century - he says that the stone was re-used in the wall soon after the inscription was cut, but there's no evidence to support this).
• Connection with the Davidic kingdom/meaning for biblical archaeology: (Again not a point you raise, but again worth discussing). Tappy's argument is that the stone demonstrates literacy (a scribal school) in a provincial 10th century town. If there was literacy in this small town it's reasonable to assume literacy at a much higher level in the capital (Jerusalem); therefore, 10th-century Jerusalem could have supported the bureaucratic infrastructure necessary for the sort of large and sophisticated kingdom of David/Solomon described in the bible. But the general feeling in the community (to which I'll come in a moment) is that the inscription doesn't support this. First, was it being used to teach trainee scribes? This is highly unlikely: the inscription is very lightly incised, in fact practically illegible - not a good teaching tool. Plus it gets the order of letters wrong. Plus there's the question of the relationship of the inscription to the bowl - to use the bowl would mean placing the inscription face-downwards, which would make it invisible. On the other hand, possibly the depression never was a bowl, and possibly that was the original down-side, with the inscription facing upwards. There's no way to tell.
• The "community" means the community of Syro-Palestinian archaeologists and of biblical scholars who interest themselves in these things, and the discussion is being carried on in blogs and newsgroups. The general feeling is that the find provides important evidence for the development of ancient West Semitic scripts, but that Tappy has badly over-interpreted it.

PiCo 06:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

You (or the anonymous blogs & newsgroups you've referred to) have fabricated a straw-man argument. On p. 22 of BASOR 344, Tappy et. al. wrote: "Just how long before the construction of this tenth-century building someone wrote the alphabet on the stone remains difficult to determine." You need to argue against the academic publication, & not 2nd-hand hearsay.

You've done likewise with your private interpretation of the definition of "abecedary". I don't see anything on the abecedarium & abecediary pages stating that an abecedary absolutely implies a rigorous school exercise. It's merely a writing of the letters of the alphabet rather than writing letters in words or sentences--the depth of the inscription is irrelevant (if anything, a lightly incised letter is easier to erase, & could be used to suggest that it was indeed an exercise rather than a confident message). I'd like to encourage you to edit those 2 pages first--possibly even merge them, & see if you can get a consensus of Wiki authors establish your definition first before you use it as you've done in this Stone article.

Furthermore, your statement about the Stone being touted by Christians as proof of the Bible's accuracy is trite, & does not belong in an encyclopedic article. Any Paleo-Hebrew/Phoenician inscriptions dated to a period when critics say people were illiterate is evidence that supports the Biblical record, but no competent scholar would say it proves it, as you've stated. That's an immature remark that doesn't belong here.

I would prefer that you rewrite this Significance section yourself in a mature tone, rather than waiting for me to populate it with "Citation needed" tags. Just tone it down a bit, & argue against BASOR 344. The fact of the matter is that no scholar has published any critical review of BASOR 344 yet (at least none I'm aware of); when they do, that's when this section would be acceptable as it is (assuming you were quoting actual people rather than an imaginary consensus).--Funhistory 15:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I've done the rewrite. As you'll see, it's very cautious - but also very responsible, which is not something I could say for some newspaper reports I've seen, let alone what's being said on evangelical website. Forgive me, but it annoys me when people construct faith-based mountains out of archaeological molehills. This is, repeat is, an important find - but to attempt to build hypotheses relating to King Solomon on a line of alphabet is ridiculous. PiCo 09:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a few idle thoughts of my own, which of course can't be used in the article, but it's always fun to speculate: McCarter feels the inscription was done as a practice-piece - the letters are shallow (barely scratches), there are errors (unless the alphabet-order hadn't been settled at that stage). Therefore it may not have had any purpose at all, beyond practice. Tappy suggests the bowl may have been a mortar (I don't know why he mentioned herbs, but that suggests a kitchen, although magical or medicinal uses are also possible). Now the point that no-one mentions, or so far as I know: the wall was the third use of the stone, not the second. It had three distinct useages, as abecedary, as mortar (maybe), and as building stone. My guess is that it may have had a fourth, as wall-stone but in a second wall. First as mortar - a stone with a flat bottom, and a bowl on top. There would be no reason to inscribe the alphabet on it at that point. That particular use might be quite ancient, even neolithic, although I think BA more likely, as the flat surface had to be created. Then as building stone, first time: a stone with a flat side, already available, just the thing for putting in a wall. Then comes the abecedary, but as McCarter says, just someone practicing. Then the stone is re-used in a second wall (as Tappy says the inscription was already there when the stone was put in the wall). This still leaves alternatives open, mostly relating to just when the inscription was added - it could really have been at any point in this process, except the very last, when the stone was placed in the wall where it was found. But it does at least explain the three-part history of the stone - abecedary, bowl, and building stone. PiCo 09:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Much better! Thanks! The only qualification I'd make to what you just said above is that its position in the wall may have been (not necesarily was) the "3rd" use; it might also have been its 2nd. I'll be making a few minor changes this weekend after publishing a detailed review of BASOR 344 & my own drawing(s). After publishing it elsewhere first, I'll replace the Hebrew letter-arrangement currently on the Article page with the drawing (I'm planning to donate a hi-res version to Wikipedia).--Funhistory 05:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Lecture paragraphs

What was presented in these lectures has been superseded by BASOR 344, & I'll eventually rewrite this section unless PiCo or someone else with a copy of that journal would like to take the time to do so. It's unlikely that I'll be able to do it until December after the ASOR session on Zayit & SBL lectures next week in San Diego. Thanks for your patience.--Funhistory 03:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I somehow feel that you and I are the only ones watching this page :-). I have to go to China from now till early December (hey, am I trying to one-up your trip to San Diego?) so like you I won't have time for Wiki. I look forward to your report from the conference. PiCo 12:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Importance

Funhistory, I look forward to your report on the SBL conference. In the meantime, I must say that I simply cannot accept the ïmpolrtance"points which you've (re)introduced. Yes, I guess I'm a super-minimalist in these things, but I reallt do feel we have to be carefeul not to over-interpret. Here is my critique of your points:

It is an important artifact for several reasons:

• Its locus was a stratum caused by a fire dated by the excavators to the 10th century BCE.
• Until this discovery, critics could say inhabitants of this region at this period were illiterate and could not have recorded events mentioned in the Bible, though this single instance of writing does not imply anything about the veracity of the Bible.

• • (These two dot-points should be run into one - the logic is that because the destruction layer gives us an LAPD (Last Absolutely Possible Date) for the abecedary, therefore we can date the emergence of literacy in Judahite territory to that same period. But the importance of writing in the 10th century isn't to do with the bible per se, but with the existence of the Davidic state; only indirectly does this concern the "veracity" (accuracy?) of 2 Samuel. Evidence of widespread literacy in 10th century Judah would leave Finkelstein et al discredited. But as you rightly say, a single inscription is not evidence of widespread literacy and a royal bureacracy.)

• It not only preserves writing – simple graffiti – but an ordered list of letters, an educational tool for literate people (although there are 4 pairs of letters swapped from their modern alphabetic order, and possibly 2 other omitted or aborted letters; indications that reflect negatively on the scribe's skill level).

• • (An abcedary is indeed, in principle, an educational tool. But this particular abecedary was clearly not intended as an educational tool - 3 feet off the floor, in a darkened room, and so lightly inscribed ("inscratched" would be a more accurate term) as to be illegible except in the very best conditions. Also, McCarter actually seems to think the scribe had a high skill level - but I can't comment on that aspect.)

• The site is located in a region not central to the government of the Israelite monarchy (Jerusalem), which suggests that if people in this agricultural community could write, certainly people in the government were equally capable.

(Here's a real problem. The destruction level of the wall is mid-1oth century; but that doesn't imply that the building of the wall was mid-10th century, in fact quite the opposite - the wall must have been there for a few years before the destruction. How many years is anyone's guess, but McCarter seems to think the letters date from the early to mid-11th century - a dating which makes the abecedary's Judahite provenance extremely problematic. In other words, the inscription suggests nothing at all about literacy in the 10th century Judahite (not Israelite - they were up north) monarchy.)

• Its placement in a wall, and the context of its inscriptions ("help/warrior" and "bowl/throne") may indicate a belief that the letters possessed magical/apotropaic power to ward off evil spirits. Though it was probably plastered over in the wall where it was discovered and could not be read, it may have been ceremonially placed there during the wall's construction.

• • (The stone's placement in the wall (inside the room instead of outside, and at floor level), and its illegibility, suggest that it had no apotropaic powers. The archaeological team explicitly say that no traces of plaster were found (but if it had been plastered over, this also would mean it had no apotropaic function - demons have to be able to read the apotropaic inscription). And the casual nature of the inscription (lightly scratched rather than incised, letter-reversals, apparent errors "crossed out") don't suggest a ceremonial role.

No doubt expert assessments will be forthcoming - but I think we should avoid jumping the gun like this. PiCo (talk) 11:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Would you be more comfortable with "exceptional" or "interesting" rather than "important"? I think it's important to list these points, if for no other reason, the simple fact that they are interesting take-offs for discussions such as the one you & I are having. (By the way, did Aren Maeir send you a check in the mail recently?) Also note that apotropaic bowls are buried in floors--they're not meant to be seen by visitors; this stone's legibility is totally irrelevant to a discussion of whether or not it was apotropaic (before or after being placed in this particular wall). Rather than wholesale deleting all of these points, feel free to take a stab at minimizing them further, though I tried to be fair to both our perspectives.--Funhistory (talk) 03:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy with "important": it's one of the earliest dateable examples of an alphabet (or of writing) from Syria-Palestine, and therefore indisputably important. My questions relate to the inferences to be drawn from it. I suppose you're right about there being a need to list points like the ones you've raised, if only because people will inevitably speculate, and it would be a good idea to have an input into the speculations. But as I've explained above, I think the way these points are presented at the moment goes far beyond what the evidence can support. Did anything come out of San Diego about this? (And no-one ever sends me cheques, unfortunately). PiCo (talk) 06:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not totally done blogging about it, but basically McCarter & Zuckerman completely disagree over the presence of non-ABGD inscriptions, & McCarter & Rollston completely disagree over which culture produced it. See "Part 14" thru "Part 16". I like your suggestion about the inferences, & will reword the article accordingly.--Funhistory (talk) 16:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

As of 2013...

Dear friends,

Is anyone still watching this page? A number of publications have, since 2007, addressed aspects of this text's interpretation and none of these are incorporated in the present page, particularly the rather poorly done "Significance" section. I've updated the bibliography and am attempting a rewrite of the article on the basis of current published discussion.

Most critically, it should be emphasized that evidence for inscribed letters other than the abecedary itself and the two enigmatic zigzags has been definitively rejected. Please see the photographs published in Tappy and McCarter 2008, along with the CD of high-res images provided to accompany that volume. Not being terribly experienced in such technological matters, I don't know how to go about uploading a more accurate photograph, but the one currently attached to this page is badly misleading. 6enoch (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the copyright rules will probably prevent us from using a hires photo. The only chance would be get the copyright owner to release a version under an appropriate licence, see Wikipedia:Copyrights. Zero^talk 22:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

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

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

• Moabite dalet.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:57, 26 January 2023 (UTC)