----- Original Message -----
The Izbet Sartah inscription is assumed to be"Hebrew" because it was found
in the archaeological context of a typical Iron I hill-country village -
typical in pottery, architecture, plan etc. Izbet Sartah is as Iron I
"Israelite" as there is. Now, it is possible to argue just what "Israelite"
means in the 12-11th centuries and would the inhabitants have actually used
that term, but what would have been the linguistic difference between a
Canaanite village and an Israelite one, anyway?
Yigal
From: "Jack Kilmon" <jkilmon AT historian.net>
I am not sure what it is that makes the Izbet Sartah inscription Hebrew.Aramaic
The script is proto-Canaanite. Is it considered Israelite because the
abecedary had..or was supposed to have..22 letters? Hebrew is a language
that used the Canaanite script and some centuries later, adopted the
script...but a script is not a language, is not a culture. This ostracon
could have been the exercise of a Philistine child learning Canaanite.
Maybe there is something I am missing here.
Jack
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.