[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: orion papyrus joins?; ostracon locus?; 4Q448 bibl.?
Those interested in the "yahad" ostracon and its date who wish to follow
Prof. Cryer's suggestion to "disregard" the factual information provided by
Prof. Strange are of course free to do so.
On the other hand, those who may wish to know what the experienced
and respected excavation director kindly relayed to orion list in e-mail
form and at the request of some list members can check the orion archives,
especially the posts of 26 August 1997 at
http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il/orion/archives/19970825.txt
and of 2 September 1997 at
http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il/orion/archives/19970901.txt
Unlike some publications which have misunderstood the
archaeological context of this ostracon find, Prof. Strange graciously
provided a reliable account. I, for one, thank him.
best wishes,
Stephen Goranson
goranson@duke.edu
>The "correct" find context of an archaeological find is not sent on second
>or third thought by e-mail to the scholarly community, but recorded in the
>site record on the spot and made available at once. Having failed to do
>this, Strange's remarks are just that--remarks made after the fact, perhaps
>relevant, perhaps not. So scholars are perfectly justified in disregarding
>such "information".
>
>Fred Cryer
>University of Copenhagen
>
>> [S. Goranson wrote:]
>> Three brief items, in case any are worth notice:
[snip]
>> Unfortunately, in the same Qumran Chronicle issue (p. 36) it
>> appears that Callaway again misunderstood the archaeological context of
>> the
>> find locus of the much-discussed "Yachad" ostracon, a matter of
>> significance for, e.g., dating. The correct information was given in
>> forwarded posts by Prof. James Strange, searchable in the orion list
>> archives. [snip]
>> cheers,
>> Stephen Goranson