Wednesday, April 20, 2022

11th-century B.C. boundary stone with cuneiform inscriptions. Discovered in 1782. Irving Finkel could probably read it like the morning newspaper.

 


10 comments:

  1. It's obviously the kind of thing one stumbles over, looks at, picks up, carries off and sells a couple of kingdoms away. Never really understood the point of moveable boundaries.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Many (most?) boundary markers even today are movable. However, moving a marker is unethical and unlawful, and bound to attract attention of the unwanted kind.

      Very often in the past a celebration to some degree was held to memorialize the placing of the marker. This was not only to commemorate an agreement between land owners (or, jurisdoctions) but to make it known to all that here is the marker, the marker is on this very place. Moving a marker was a breech of covenant and perhaps the opening gambit of hostilities.

      Delete
    2. Twenty-eight yrs ago this July I discovered an owner of adjacent land had actually dug up the foundation of a marker. Of course he placed it to encroach onto my land. We settled his malfeasance between ourselves. But I found he could have landed in prison.

      Delete
  2. Replies
    1. Yep, Before Christ. Very unmodern way to count time. Before Christ, the centuries count down to zero, then they start counting up, so that's eleven hundred years before the birth of Christ, or 31 hundred ( 3 thousand, 1 hundred, and 22, to be exact) years before now.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  3. I'd like to know what it's about. I suppose it was a case of "it's just what we do" but to sit and scratch into stone, and carve figures into the stone wasn't a short job. It might have taken days instead of hours. Which may mean it was very important, not something mundane like a shopping list.

    ReplyDelete
  4. If it is natural rock, it is a very fine specimin. Highly polished, symmetrical, no apparent vugs or cracks or any surface imperfection.

    Could it not be some sort of clay admixture which has undergone chemical changes over time? Most of the cuneiform I have seen or read about is clay while still malleable.

    ReplyDelete