Talk:Zayit Stone

message: 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)
thread_title:  stone found "in situ" 

message: "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)
thread_title:  The apotropaic powers of inscriptions 

message: What was presented in these lectures has been superseded by BASOR 344, & I'll eventually rewrite this section unless PiCo or someone else with a copy of that journal would like to take the time to do so.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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Lecture paragraphs 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Importance 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. Zerotalk 22:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  As of 2013... 

message: 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) 21:57, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion