Ketef Hinnom: Perbedaan revisi

Loncat ke navigasi Loncat ke pencarian
24 bita ditambahkan ,  4 tahun yang lalu
 
KH1 was found in Square D, the middle of the repository, 7 cm above the floor, while KH2 was found while sifting dirt from the lower half of the deposits in Square A, the innermost portion of the repository. Both amulets were separated from [[Hellenistic]] artifacts by 3 meters of length and 25 cm of depth, and embedded in pottery and other material from the 7th/6th centuries BCE.
 
Barkay initially dated the inscriptions to the late-7th/early-6th centuries BCE, but later revised this date downward to the early 6th century on paleographic grounds (the forms of the delicately incised [[paleo-Hebrew]] lettering) and on the evidence of the pottery found in the immediate vicinity. This dating was subsequently questioned by Johannes Renz and Wolfgang Rollig,<ref>Renz, Johannes and Wolfgang Röllig, ''Handbuch der althebräischen Epigraphik'' (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1995).</ref> who argued that the script was in too poor a condition to be dated with certainty and that a 3rd/2nd century BCE provenance could not be excluded, especially as the repository, which had been used as a kind of "rubbish bin" for the burial chamber over many centuries, also contained material from the fourth century BCE.
 
A major re-examination of the scrolls was therefore undertaken by the [[University of Southern California]]'s West Semitic Research Project, using advanced photographic and computer enhancement techniques which enabled the script to be read more easily and the paleography to be dated more confidently. The results confirmed a date immediately prior to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 586/7 BCE.<ref>Barkay, G., A.G. Vaughn, M.J. Lundberg and B. Zuckerman, "The Amulets from Ketef Hinnom: A New Edition and Evaluation," ''Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research'' 334 (2004): 41-71. (An innovation in the report was the simultaneous publication of an accompanying "digital article," a CD version of the article and the images).</ref>--> Dr. Kyle McCarter dari [[Johns Hopkins University]], seorang spesialis [[:En:Semitic scripts|tulisan Semitik]] kuno, berkata bahwa studi tersebut tentunya "menjelaskan kontroversi apa pun mengenai [penetapan tarikh] inskripsi-inskripsi ini".<ref name=Silver>[http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/28/science/28scro.html?_r=1&8dpc=&pagewanted=all&position=&oref=slogin "Solving a Riddle Written in Silver", New York Times, 2004].</ref>
-->
Barkay initiallyawalnya datedmeberi thetarikh inscriptionsakhir toabad the lateke-7th7/early-6thawal centuriesabad BCE,ke-6 butSM lateruntuk revisedpembuatan thisinskripsi, datetetapi downwardkemudian tomengubahnya themenjadi earlyawal 6thabad centuryke-6 onSM paleographicberdasarkan groundsstudi [[paleografi]] (thebentuk formsirisan ofyang thecermat delicatelypada incisedpenulisan [[paleo-Hebrewabjad Ibrani Kuno]] lettering) anddan onbukti theperangkat evidencekeramik ofdi thesekitar potterytempat found in the immediate vicinitypenemuan.<!-- This dating was subsequently questioned by Johannes Renz and Wolfgang Rollig,<ref>Renz, Johannes and Wolfgang Röllig, ''Handbuch der althebräischen Epigraphik'' (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1995).</ref> who argued that the script was in too poor a condition to be dated with certainty and that a 3rd/2nd century BCE provenance could not be excluded, especially as the repository, which had been used as a kind of "rubbish bin" for the burial chamber over many centuries, also contained material from the fourth century BCE.
-->
APenelitian majorulang regulungan-examinationgulungan ofitu thekemudian scrollsdilakukan was therefore undertaken by theoleh [[University of Southern California]]'s dalam rangka West Semitic Research Project, usingmenggunakan teknik ''advanced photographic and computer enhancement'' techniquesyang whichdapat enabledmembaca thegulungan scriptitu tolebih bemudah readserta morepenentuan easilytarikh andmenurut thepaleografi paleographyyang tolebih be dated more confidentlypasti. TheHasilnya resultsmenegaskan confirmedsuatu atarikh datepembuatan immediatelysesaat priorsebelum tokehancuran theYerusalem destructionoleh oftentara JerusalemBabel bypada the Babylonians intahun 586/7 BCESM.<ref>Barkay, G., A.G. Vaughn, M.J. Lundberg and B. Zuckerman, "The Amulets from Ketef Hinnom: A New Edition and Evaluation," ''Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research'' 334 (2004): 41-71. (An innovation in the report was the simultaneous publication of an accompanying "digital article," a CD version of the article and the images).</ref>--> Dr. Kyle McCarter dari [[Johns Hopkins University]], seorang spesialis [[:En:Semitic scripts|tulisan Semitik]] kuno, berkata bahwa studi tersebut tentunya "menjelaskan kontroversi apa pun mengenai [penetapan tarikh] inskripsi-inskripsi ini".<ref name=Silver>[http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/28/science/28scro.html?_r=1&8dpc=&pagewanted=all&position=&oref=slogin "Solving a Riddle Written in Silver", New York Times, 2004].</ref>
 
== Signifikansi ==

Menu navigasi