https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/jun/10/3000-year-old-sculpture-leaves-researchers-scratching-their-heads
With a photo of the royal bust in question.
QuoteWhile scholars are certain the stern-bearded figure wearing a golden crown represents royalty, they are less sure which king it symbolises, or which kingdom he may have ruled.
largely because
QuoteDuring the ninth century BC, the ancient town was situated in a liminal zone between three regional powers: the Aramean kingdom based in Damascus to the east, the Phoenician city of Tyre to the west and the Israelite kingdom, with its capital in Samaria to the south.
And incidentally: "stern-bearded"? Pogonophobic prejudice, or what?
Mispogonic misinterpretation, perhaps. But that is not the only mis- the Grauniad has to offer.
One early misprint may throw readers:
"The 5cm (two-inch) sculpture is an exceedingly rare example of figurative art from the region during the fourth century BC – a period associated with biblical kings."
The remainder of the article places the head squarely in the ninth century BC, not the century of Alexander. The almost identical New York Times article (https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/06/09/world/middleeast/ap-ml-israel-mystery-figurine.html) avoids this particular instance of Guardian tradition.
As the head has been radiocarbon dated to the 9th century BC or thereabouts, there would seem to be no question of the volunteer for the day having planted it for discovery Piltdown-style.
Beard, Head-band = king.
Quote from: evilgong on June 11, 2018, 12:54:42 AM
Beard, Head-band = king.
Maybe, maybe not (https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/351351208409462182/).
Though probably more likely maybe for this region.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on June 10, 2018, 07:51:02 PM
"The 5cm (two-inch) sculpture is an exceedingly rare example of figurative art from the region during the fourth century BC – a period associated with biblical kings."
The
Guardian story now says "ninth century" :)
The art of post-production editing is alive and well! Someone else must have pointed out the error.
One thought: how does one carbon-14-date a stone head?
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on June 11, 2018, 08:04:29 PM
The art of post-production editing is alive and well! Someone else must have pointed out the error.
One thought: how does one carbon-14-date a stone head?
I assume organic matter under it or very closely associated with it?
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on June 11, 2018, 08:04:29 PM
One thought: how does one carbon-14-date a stone head?
It's actually faience, which is a ceramic. However, it still doesn't contain organic datable material, so the question remains. Perhaps it was part of a wooden statue, and parts remained, though I'd expect them to have mentioned that. I'll go with Jim's suggestion that it has been dated by sampling the context.
Here you go:
QuoteRadiocarbon dating of organic material found in the same building as the miniature sculpture suggests that the object was constructed sometime from 902-806 B.C.
from https://www.livescience.com/62758-biblical-king-sculpture.html
Thanks, Duncan.
Ever thought of writing for the Guardian? It would benefit their historical articles no end.