Thanks to Joe Lauer for bringing this recent Haaretz article to my attention. Since I perceived the person who photographed the LMLK wasn't sure which type it was, I thought this would be a nice occasion to make a video showing how I've been doing this identification work since about 2003. Amazing how time flies...
G.M. Grena
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Thanks!
Greetings,
I am requesting your help in confirming the relationship between the well known Proto-Aeolic capital found by Kathleen Kenyon (J1) and the Proto-Aeolic capital fragment found by Doron Ben-Ami in the Givati Parking Lot excavations (J2). The excavators of J2 initially thought that it could have been a missing piece from J1, but concluded that their fragment was "definitely not part of it" (Tel Aviv 42 (2015) pp. 67-71). I can demonstrate that their decision was based on bad information regarding the innermost ridge of the central triangle. A published photograph by Shiloh (1979: Pl. 15:1)clearly shows that a small sliver of the innermost triangle is missing from J1 at the time the photo was taken. By comparison a photograph provided by Kenyon shows that the area in question had been restored at that time (Kenyon 1967: Pl 20). The Givati Parking Lot fragment presents a very small section of the innermost ridge - consistent with Shiloh's photo but not with Kenyon's. The excavators of J2 must have used Kenyon's photo for reference and exclaimed that "the innermost ridge is complete and therefore our fragment could not fit into the existing space." Also, Eran Arie of the Israel Museum sent them "precise measurements" of the band that forms the triangle on J1 which seemed to indicate that the J2 fragment was from a capital that was much smaller in scale. Can you work your magic and see if there really is a match or not?The coincidence seems too great - the extraordinary convergence of design, composition, and the close proximity of the finds make this a likely fit.
Yours, Arthur Chrysler
Thanks for sharing that information & insight, Arthur, but my "magic" is restricted to seal impressions I've spent years studying. I simply don't know much about capitals, nor do I have access to the photos you referenced. Bearing in mind that my LMLK blog is one of the least read on the Internet, I'd recommend you send your concerns to the J2 excavators &/or Israel Museum curator(s). You could also compose an article summarizing your analysis for The Bible and Interpretation.
I appreciate your kind response and sound advice.
I also appreciate your blog because through it, I was able to identify four different types of LMLK impressions in my collection.
Thank you.
Thanks! Can you share with us which 4 types you determined them to be?
1. Lammelek Jar Handle Two-Winged "lmlk mmst" Impression Type m2d ("lmlk" not visible but "mmst" letters are perfect).
2. Lammelek Jar Handle Two-winged "lmlk mmst" Impression Type m2d ("lmlk" visible but only "t" visible at bottom left).
3. Lammelek Jar Handle Four-Winged "lmlk hbrn" Impression Type h4c ("lmlk" not visible but "hbrn" - missing the "b" - clearly read at bottom).
4. Lammelek Jar Handle Two-Winged "lmlk" Impression Type g2t ("lmlk" visible at top and bottom is well stamped with no city name on it).
5. (2)Jar Handles Impressed With Stamp Seal, Rosette Impression Class II-8.
6. (2)Jar Handles Impressed With Stamp Seal, Rosette Impression Class I-12.
All of the above were purchased from Yuri Suhanov - Ashdod, between January 2015 and January 2017.
Thanks for the list--nice collection! Yuri's an excellent dealer (fair prices, legitimate, & knowledgeable).
Solved the mystery of the proto-Aeolic capital fragment. It is not a match. I found a second opinion (Shiloh 1979) which confirmed the measurement of the band that forms the triangle on Kenyon's capital (7 cm). The Givati Parking Lot fragment band measures 4.5 cm. Thanks again for your recommendations and kind attention.
Post a Comment