Talk:Gezer calendar

Hebrew, Phoenician, Canaanite

Re edit discussion with Chefallen, the script is unquestionably "Canaanite", as both Hebrew and Phoenician are types of Canaanite (see here Canaanite languages). Scholars who suggest that the inscription is Canaanite are taking a neutral position on the debate, which centers around whether it is specifically Hebrew or Phoenician. Reading all the sources available, it looks to me as if a conclusion cannot be reached as both options are and will remain disputable. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

It being found in Gezer, geographically far outside Phoenicia and not even on the coast, creates a presumption that it's not Phoenician, unless there's some other factor tying it specifically to Phoenician... AnonMoos (talk) 08:32, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gezer calendar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110302090228/http://esr.academia.edu:80/AdamBean/Papers/443200/The_Calendar_Tablet_from_Gezer to http://esr.academia.edu/AdamBean/Papers/443200/The_Calendar_Tablet_from_Gezer
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101225054108/http://www.bib-arch.org/scholars-study/jezebel-seal-06.asp to http://www.bib-arch.org/scholars-study/jezebel-seal-06.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gezer calendar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121101043950/http://www.istanbularkeoloji.gov.tr/web/27-109-1-1/muze_-_en/collections/archaeological_museum_artifacts/gezer_calendar to http://www.istanbularkeoloji.gov.tr/web/27-109-1-1/muze_-_en/collections/archaeological_museum_artifacts/gezer_calendar
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121101043950/http://www.istanbularkeoloji.gov.tr/web/27-109-1-1/muze_-_en/collections/archaeological_museum_artifacts/gezer_calendar to http://www.istanbularkeoloji.gov.tr/web/27-109-1-1/muze_-_en/collections/archaeological_museum_artifacts/gezer_calendar

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Needs to be an article discussing Phoenician versus Paleo Hebrew

Otherwise what's happening here is simply Israeli revisionism and the appropriation of Phoenician contributions. The language is clearly Phoenician. It's only being renamed because of Israeli revisionism. That's wild Lebanesebebe123 (talk) 02:04, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Whatever -- the Phoenician alphabet was the source of the Hebrew alphabet, so the farther you go back toward the point of split, the more closely Hebrew writing resembles Phoenician. There are some grammatical diagnostics which can be used to distinguish the Phoenician language from the Hebrew language (which were also somewhat similar), but they're unlikely to show up in a list of nouns. However, geographically Gezer is far outside Phoenicia. In any case, scholars will decide such matters according to their expertise and what they think is most probable, without bothering with your irrelevant attempted intrusion of modern politics. AnonMoos (talk) 08:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

It is the same exact writing system. Lebanesebebe123 (talk) 15:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

That's nice -- I notice that you didn't even bother to try to reply to the fact that Gezer is over 50 miles from anything that could be called "Phoenicia" before 900 B.C. (the "land of Cabul" extended almost to today's Haifa) and almost 15 miles from the sea, and so is a most unlikely place to find a Phoenician inscription. AnonMoos (talk) 17:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

How do you tell? Temerarius (talk) 04:36, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

If you look at Zellig Harris' "A Grammar of the Phoenician Language", then you can see that Phoenician has a Yiph`il verb conjugation where Hebrew has a Hiph'il conjugation, the separate 3rd person masculine plural pronoun word has a last letter "t", the 3rd person masculine plural object/possessive suffix sometimes has a letter "n" before the final "m" letter (never in Hebrew), the relative particle is spelled aleph-shin (as opposed to either aleph-shin-resh or a prefixed shin in Hebrew), and in some cases in a consonant cluster, "n" assimilates to a following consonant more often than occurs in Hebrew. As I said, nothing that would likely show up in a short list of nouns. AnonMoos (talk) 17:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Of course, the easiest diagnostic is that after the tenth-century B.C. Hebrew developed the use of matres lectionis letters to write vowels, while Phoenician basically had no matres lectionis until a late period in North Africa. Unfortunately, this test simply does not apply to the Gezer calendar and inscriptions of a similar date... AnonMoos (talk) 17:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC)