FW: FW: [XTalk] FW: "James" again
- -----Original Message-----
From: risa3@... [mailto:risa3@...]
Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 1992 8:23 AM
Subject: Re: FW: [XTalk] FW: "James" again
>> ***Two different hands;It wouldn't necessarily, if this were the only point, but it's not.
>IF it is two hands, one person inscribed the first phrase and
>another person, either one close to James or a family member,
>inscribed the second. Alternately, the ossuary may have been
>inscribed by the family sometime in the year preceding the bone
>collection and the second phrase on the occasion of the bone
>collection by whomever performed it. Sometimes this was performed
>by female family members. No matter how it was done, 2 hands does
>not equal forgery.
>> Two different scripts;Jack! The script design in the first half incorporates the cuneiform wedge.
>The second phrase shares only three fonts with the first; yod, waw
>and ayin, all of which (but for the final obvious overstroke on the
>final ayin) are similar to the first phrase. I can't see a
>foundation for 2 different scripts.
The script design of the second half is without the wedge. The shin in a
design that incorporates the wedge has three, count them, three wedges.
Then, in a formal inscriptional cursive, the left hand and central strokes
of the shin would have been rounded as in the samech. The yod in yoseph
has a wedge, and there is a slight remnant of the wedge that would have
been on the yod in ya'akov. BTW, the dalet in formal inscriptional also
has a wedge as does the aleph. These are two different script designs.
>> Two different levels of execution.No, the angle is different on the ayin in the second part. The first part
>The first phrase begins a descent after the resh and descends with
>the feh on line with the alef and the descent continues. The final
>ayin, to me, is identical in stroke and form to the ayin in y(qwb.
is so well executed and so formal, that we cannot use "scribal variants"
as an excuse. Also, that the descent continues would only be natural when
tacking something on.
>Rochelle, I consider you numero uno on the entire planet on writingThank you Jack, but I think I have addressed these concerns above.
>systems and form but there is something here in convention that
>either you or I am missing from a palaeographic viewpoint.
>I don't see how any of those differences equals forgery.See my other post that Dave's sending out. Alone point 1 does not
indicate a forgery -- it only raises the possibility. When coupled with
everything else, the possibility that this was done by another family member
is reduced to nil. This inscription is only one among many such documents
and has all the identifying marks of a later scribe trying to imitate an
unfamiliar and archaic font.
You know, in a way I feel sorry for the chap. While there would have
been documents in business cursive and corrrespondence cursive around
to study as models, there would have been access to precious few in
formal inscriptional cursive. He would not have had any idea that the
shin had three wedges and should curve.
Dr. R.I.S. Altman, co-coordinator, IOUDAIOS-L risa3@...