« Lowering the Bar
Main
John G. Roberts: Very Smart, Very Inexperienced, Very Conservative »
July 19, 2005
A New Fourth Century Cuneiform Text from Lebanon
The Daily Star from Lebanon reports the discovery of a fourth century BCE clay plate from the fortress in Sidon with cuneiform writing on both sides. This is very late for cuneiform writing.
Archaeologists at the "Freres" excavation site near the fortress in Sidon have unearthed a plate that holds exciting clues to Lebanon's linguistic and commercial past.Archaeology expert and field supervisor Dr. Claude Serhal announced the discovery of a small plate with cuneiform writing dating back to the fourth century B.C. She said it is the first discovery of its kind in Sidon and the third in Lebanon. The writing proves that cuneiform was used in Sidon for trade operations, contracts, and correspondence.
According to preliminary studies by the British experts, the clay plate was made locally. It is five centimeters long and three centimeters wide and has writing on both sides. Deciphering has not yet been completed.
I'd like to see a picture or something. The claim that "the writing proves that cuneiform was used in Sidon for trade operations, contracts, and correspondence," seems very farfetched. First, the fact that cuneiform writing is still in use is evidence, not proof, of something. But it is not so clear what it is evidence for. Second, without an interpretation of the writing, it's hard to know what its function was. If the word "decipher" is used correctly, the excavators don't even know what language is represented, much less what it says. The claim that this is a "plate" rather than an ostracon or shard makes me think it is more likely a decorative or ceremonial object rather than the substrate for an economic text. With only a short look, I was unable to find anything on the other very late cuneiform texts from Lebanon. I'll try to find more.
A small rant if I may: As I indicated above, such discoveries are evidence not proof. Mathematicians and logicians prove things. Scientists, historians, archaeologists and the like only have evidence. Evidence is woven together with logic and sometimes laws into theories that hold the bits and pieces together but evidence never proves the theory; it only supports it or contradicts (falsifies) it. When there is contradicting evidence the theory must be revised or abandoned. New supporting evidence only strengthens the probability that the theory is more rather than less correct. The confusion of proof and evidence is the source of no end of misunderstanding about science and history. It is true that for some theories (and historical reconstructions are within the general meaning of theory as used here) the evidence is overwhelming. Things like "George Washington was the first President of the United States" and "Evolution by random mutation and natural selection with common decent accounts for the biological diversity we see around us" are cases in point. But the exact wording of the Gettysburg address as delivered or the descent of birds from dinosaurs are not so certain even though there is considerable evidence in both cases.
If you don't believe me about the Gettysburg address compare the five known manuscripts of the speech and try to figure out what he said word by word. If we can't be certain about what President Lincoln said in perhaps the most famous speech ever given in America, we can never be absolutely certain about the use of cuneiform in the fourth century BCE for economic records. We only have evidence not proof.
Via PaleoJudaica
Posted by Duane Smith at July 19, 2005 8:04 PM | Read more on Archaeology |
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.telecomtally.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1270