In 1975 Frank M. Cross published several ostraca found during the excavations of Tall Hisban, Jordan. Virtually all subsequent studies took up the readings and the translation of the great epigraphist almost without change. A notable exception was Emile Puech, who offered a transcription with several different readings, but his article focused on palaeography and he did not provide any analysis nor translation.
 |
| The author with ostracon A1 |
During a visit at the Amman Citadel Museum, I have been able with my friend Michael Weigl (from the University of Vienna) to examine most of these inscriptions, makings photographs and drawings of the originals.
In 2009 we published an article proposing significant new readings, not only confirming some already made by Puech and invalidating others, but also offering several important totally new readings:
M. Richelle and M. Weigl, “Hisban Ostracon A1: New Collation and New Readings”, ADAJ 53 (2009) 127-138.
 |
| Drawing of the ostracon (M.Richelle/M.Weigl) |
Here is our translation:
1) To MLK, grain: 28
2) and small cattle: 9
3) and to NDB’L son of NQM’L sil[ver
4) To Z’-[so]n of ’LTMK, bath: 12, gr[ain
5) To Yʼ[ ] and jars: 2 and [
6) To B‘Š[’ ], silver: 40 and what he gave [
7) wine: 22 and small cattle: 10 and merchandise [
8) wine: 8 and grain: 6
9) To YTB hay, grain: 24
10) and wine: 9-
11) and jars: 3
The new examination of the inscription has led us to several significant corrections of the former studies. The main results are the following:
For more details, read our article.
· Four words were, in our opinion, mistakenly read in this text: as a matter of fact, there is neither reference to the commodities “two-year’s cow”, “gum” and “wheat germ”, nor to the toponym ʼLT.
· On the contrary, we discovered here the presence of:
ü two personal names: NQMʼL (for the first time in Ammonite) and ʼLTMK;
ü a measure of capacity (BT), already known in pre-exilic inscriptions from Judah, in biblical texts and in Ekron but not in Ammon;
ü two designations for commodities: RḤBT (“jars”) and BBT, that were previously merely known in Ugaritic and Akkadian.
Moreover, we are in a position to confirm Puech’s reading of the Ammonite relative pronoun in the form Š; it has been mistakenly read ʼŠ by many, and this inaccuracy has in turn impacted on quite a few grammatical treatises.
For more details, read our article.
