Talk:LMLK seal

Content Suggestions

Spacing

Just a suggestion, but the drawings take up a lot of space on the page and push the content below the fold. Might look better if just 2-3 were displayed on this page, and a dedicated page created for the rest. --dahamsta 13:13, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've flipped the sections on "drawings" and "theories", looks a bit better now. -- user:zanimum

Missing

This article is missing:

• what LMLK stands for
• how do we know that they were used "during the reign of King Hezekiah (circa 700 BC)" if "none of the original seals have been found".

— Timwi 15:52, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Lamed Mem Lamed Kaf, and means "belonging to the king", though I don't know which Hebrew language, how to add the proper characters (the Hebrew alphabet page is cryptic), or even if it just refers to the letters. 68.81.231.127 16:24, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Transliterated, it is L'Melech, which (as said above) means to the King. The letter L is a preposition meaning to, as in towards, belonging to, etc. Melech is the word for king. I'm pretty sure the yod (') is between the L & Melech, but it is often omitted, since it functions more as a vowel. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) - Talk 04:06, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the great feedback! I've incorporated these excellent suggestions. Funhistory 21:39, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject Heraldry and Vexillology

LMLK seals have absolutely nothing to do with heraldry & vexillology. Please stop adding banners to include this page in that Wikiproject.--Funhistory 16:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that; we were tagging articles in all relevant categories, which includes Category:Seals since in the US seals are used instead of coats of arms. Unfortunately there are a small number of articles on other types of seals (like this one) which got incorrectly tagged. Dr pda 02:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Moloch

In June 2007 someone at 67.127.185.79 posted content promoting the theory that the "MLK" of "LMLK" is Moloch, which was already listed near the bottom of the theories page. I believe additional content regarding this minority theory should be restricted to the Moloch page, & not be added to this page, which as User:Wrp103 stated, is about the seals, & not about interpretations of the Bible.--Funhistory 14:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Questions

the Wings, the "Beetle"..?

Because of this Stamp seal, "type" I worked on "Stamp seal", and Cylinder seal. So thanks, Funhistory. I have not read every word of the LMLK seal page.

Here are some thoughts. I worked on Egy.Hiero. then the Amarna letters, then the Epic of Gilgamesh, with Akkadian. I know that 'mlk', and the variants are for Akkadian: malāku, with the long a. and that this is the word for "consultation". The gods are always convening and doing their "consultations", or any important Group ( Of People) Abi-Milku in the Amarna letters from Megiddo. his name is "Father=King", (milku, "advice, counsel" and also king for Canaanite ? ) Anyway...(All the family of m-l-k words....)

To get at the symbols of the beetle... Is it the Scarab, just referring to "Transforming", working to Improve ? And are the wings the " Faravahar ", or Ahura Mazda, still just referring to "transforming", and bettering oneself ? Are all these pottery items, just "owned" or authorized by the KING, and there is no implications with the symbols, or is it " Just the Symbol of the King," or one of his "Trustees", "Superintendent of Pots production" ? Are there obvious answers to this ?

Okay, I reread most of the LMLK page. I assume these are just Tithe portions to the "Govt", whatever the government was. I am assuming the "Govt" was the "Religios" one the "Religious/King" govt. End of my thoughts. I'll look at the MMST page again. Michael McAnnis,YumaAZ(USA)

(I know that Scarab rings were a common in the Early Canaanites, in the Lachish book by Bliss, 1898, the Scarab rings were pictured. (Numerous fold-outs in this 1898 book, a lot of artefacts.) ( The Scarab rings were also in varieties, locally produced, or at least Canaanite-produced (I assume) with their specific variations.)

But I am thinking the Egyptian influence, was not in the jewelry, but in the ideas that the Canaanites had in their own minds..... Thus the "wings", and "modified Scarab". ( Am I correct that this 700 BC timeframe is just as the Hebrews were "solidifying" their oral, and written history? Do these symbols somehow fit into the War History happening physically, played against their Religious Aspiration history ? Isnt this when the Old T. Bible was being created ? Mmcannis

Isis (Maat) and the outstretched Wings

Maybe this is closer to the meaning of the wings, instead of Ahura Mazda. Maat stands for "order, justice, truth" probably aspirations of the 'leaders', 'kings', 'princes', of Jerusalem area. M McAnnis

I don't have any answers to your questions, Mmcannis, but they are good ones, & good comments. It's a mysterious subject that's open to speculation.--[User:Funhistory|Funhistory]] 20:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

A 4th theory

Re yr Theories section: I thought there was a 4th theory, which was that Hezekiah was big in the olive oil industry, and these were the jars in which the oil was collected? (Although in that case, why no jars/seals outside his territories?)

I'm not aware of any published speculation that only the sealed jars contained oil. If you have a reference, I'd be glad to consider it. Bear in mind that only about 10-20% of the jars were sealed. The site of Miqne/Eqron was a big oil producer, & Jib/Gibeon was a big wine producer. I've never heard anyone attribute the production of oil to Hezekiah specifically.--Funhistory (talk) 15:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

If you're one of those keen souls who read my User page, you'll see that I labour under a possibly unique disadvantage when it comes to consulting sources: I live in Phnom Penh, and PP ain't the world's hottest centre of biblical studies. (If I wanted to devote myself to Buddhist studies it would be quite a =different proposition, but it seems I like to make my life as difficult as possible). Anyway, I'm relying on memory for this. My memory tells me that I read it in Finklestein's Bible Unearthed. If you want to follow up, you'd have to read the chapter abt Hezekiah and find what primary sources F. was working from - assuming my memory is correct. PiCo (talk) 14:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

No, there's a few sentences about the "unprecedented expansion of olive oil in the Iron Age" on p. 207, but the king they link it to is Jeroboam II around Samaria. There's nothing specific about oil in Finkelstein/Silberman's LMLK discussion on pp. 257-9. By the way, I can't resist taking this opportunity to note their statement on p. 259 about 2Chronicles being "hardly historical" with respect to the geographic extent of Hezekiah's kingdom, as they were unaware of the northern LMLK sites.--Funhistory (talk) 16:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Vocalizations

I see that you have the vocalisation of kaf (same in Arabic) as a /kh/ - is this right? Arabic kaf is /k/. (Root in Arabic is /mlk/ - giving malik, king (one who possesses), mumluk, slave (the one possessed, esp. by a malik), etc.) PiCo (talk) 07:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

As for the vocalization, "kh" is a common transliteration/spelling, as is "ch", but nobody knows for certain how the ancients pronounced it. Personally, I prefer to simply write it as "LMLK" without any vocalization to avoid the issue (it's a non-issue). Visit this page for an exhaustive list of all the spellings that have appeared in scholarly publications.--Funhistory (talk) 15:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Minor Editing

This is a good article. It would be nice to see what it takes to get it up to Featured Article status.

• I fixed a few notes in the Theories section, by adding footnotes, to make it easier to read.
• I have also created redirects for the variants "lmlk", "lamelekh", etc. (which you come across often in publications).
• Finally, I've added the DYK info to the top of this talk page (even though it is a year old).
  

Em-jay-es 16:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

A bit dated

This 2012 article (free) and those it cites could be used to bring the debate up to date. Zero^talk 01:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with you that this article, which I originated almost 9 years ago, should be updated to include more citations/references since Wikipedia's standards have undergone tremendous changes in recent years. However, the subject is currently mired by a plagiarism scandal overshadowing the 2012 article you recommended (as well as several others by the same author). Aside from being a work under suspicion of academic fraud (i.e., claiming to have originated "a new chronological scheme", which I [G.M. Grena] had presented in my self-published book 8 years earlier), its author (Oded Lipschits) cites Vaughn's 1999 work, yet fails to distinguish between Vaughn's lengthy "economic build-up" & Ussishkin's upholding of the brief "military build-up" interpretation. Even the main hypothesis Lipschits presents (i.e., that LMLK seals were initiated by/for Assyrians) has already been publicly refuted by Ussishkin, myself, & Jeff Hudon, & is not worth mentioning until Lipschits has published the final report on his Ramat Rahel excavations. I'm hoping to get an article formally published that could be referenced here on Wikipedia, but it's at least a year away; so for now, I believe the current version of this Wikipedia article is accurate on the subject, albeit without the rigorous citations.Funhistory (talk) 03:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Latin Phrases

I have been trying to learn latin so I have a little knowlege, but especially for a reader unfamiliar with these phrases, we may want to change some of the sentences with latin phrases to better accomodate readers.

Thanks, Nemoanon (talk) 01:24, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

LMLK Research website as a source for biblical archaeology - run by a Creationist with a B.Sc.

See WP:RSN#LMLK Research website as a source for biblical archaeology - run by a Creationist with a B.Sc.. Doug Weller talk 14:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

A user above states they are Grena, @Funhistory:. cygnis insignis 19:57, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Removal of Grena references by Weller

I am not going to change any of the revisions performed this week by Doug Weller, which was justified in one edit-summary statement, "Grena is fringe and not affiliated to any academic institution" citing a Masters of Arts paper by GAIL AVRIL RÖTHLIN. I'll simply ask future readers to ponder why Grena's work is invalid for Wikipedia if a paper published by an academic institution (University of South Africa) factually cites his "fringe" self-published book 8 times (alongside the works of James B. Pritchard and William F. Albright, and commends him with, "hope I have done justice to his comments. Although George Grena is not affiliated with any academic institution, I would like to express my admiration for his research", and that Grena's book "covers every conceivable aspect pertaining to" LMLK seals.--Funhistory (talk) 23:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Since you are George Grena, this edit is dubious. The lmlk/tithing theory is, to the best of my knowledge, not part of mainstream scholarship. I don't know all Wikipedia policies, but I don't think Wikipedia editors are allowed to cite their own work promulgating theories that are not part of the mainstream. That edit was 15 years ago and people are allowed to make mistakes. But it casts some doubt on your books. ImTheIP (talk) 00:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

True, the LMLK-tithing theory is not accepted by mainstream scholarship, but it's part of it. For example, Pieter Gert van der Veen formally acknowledges it in his recently published (2020 Zaphon, Munster) treatise submitted to the University of Mainz in 2017 (section 3.2.1.4.1 on p. 138; footnote 505 on p. 164). Again, I'm not planning to revert Wikipedia pages where this 2004 book's been removed. Israel Finkelstein permanently established it for the benefit future academicians in Tel Aviv (journal) vol. 39 (2012, p. 79).--Funhistory (talk) 19:00, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Cool! Can you link to those sources or quote them? Then the claims can be added back to Wikipedia. I don't have access so specialized sources. ImTheIP (talk) 15:37, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

@ImTheIP: I'm not interested in making new edits to Wikipedia, other than easy-to-fix typos.--Funhistory (talk) 20:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

@Funhistory: I'm a bit confused. One of the articles here?[1] P. 79 seems wrong. Doug Weller talk 17:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Sorry, my "79" typo s/b 75. Good catch.--Funhistory (talk) 20:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

@Funhistory: thanks. Doug Weller talk 10:16, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

For those interested in the subject, Rothlin's MA 2009 MA paper was formally published in an article co-authored with her prof. (Magdel le Roux) in Verbum et Ecclesia vol. 34, no. 2 (2013).

And it has been agreed at WP:RSN that Le Roux is not a reliable source, eg she relies heavily on Robert Gayre.

References

Erroneous Addition of Qeiyafa Data by PeakAsian

Per the previous discussion regarding the removal of Grena references by Weller, I am not going to change the misleading/misrepresentative revisions performed last week (2020-10-31) by PeakAsian, which added Khirbet Qeiyafa to the top of the Sites and quantities section with a total of 692, & changed the previous total from 1,716 to 2,408 citing a popular-level 2018 book by Garfinkel, Ganor, Hasel ("In the Footsteps of King David"). This quantity represents the primitive depression-mark handles published by Hoo-Goo Kang and Yosef Garfinkel in Levant vol. 47 no. 2 (2015), "Finger-impressed jar handles at Khirbet Qeiyafa: new light on administration in the Kingdom of Judah", p. 188 (actual total of 693 reported). It's unfortunate that this editor would make such a prominent change without knowing the difference between these typologically, stylistically, chronologically distinct artifacts. I'm simply noting the problem here in case anyone cares about the integrity of this Wikipedia entry.--Funhistory (talk) 02:05, 5 November 2020 (UTC)