فينيقيا: الفرق بين النسختين

[[ملف:Ahiram sarcophag from Biblos XIII-XBC.jpg|تصغير|132x132بك|[[نقش احيروم|نقش أحيروم]]، ملك فينيقيا جبيل، 1000 قبل الميلاد.<ref>The date remains the subject of controversy, according to Glenn E. Markoe, "The Emergence of Phoenician Art" ''Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research'' No. 279 (August 1990):13-26) p. 13. "Most scholars have taken the Ahiram inscription to date from around 1000 B.C.E.", notes Edward M. Cook, "On the Linguistic Dating of the Phoenician Ahiram Inscription (KAI 1)", ''Journal of Near Eastern Studies'' '''53'''.1 (January 1994:33-36) p. 33 [https://www.jstor.org/stable/545356 JSTOR]. Cook analyses and dismisses the date in the thirteenth century adopted by C. Garbini, "Sulla datazione della'inscrizione di Ahiram", ''Annali'' (Istituto Universitario Orientale, Naples) '''37''' (1977:81-89), which was the prime source for early dating urged in Arguments for a mid 9th -8th century B.C.E. date for the sarcophagus reliefs themselves—and hence the inscription, too— were made on the basis of comparative art history and archaeology by Edith Porada, "Notes on the Sarcophagus of Ahiram," ''Journal of the Ancient Near East Society'' 5 (1973:354-72); and on the basis of paleography among other points by Ronald Wallenfels, "Redating the Byblian Inscriptions," ''Journal of the Ancient Near East Society'' 15 (1983:79-118). {{Webarchive|url=http://web.archive.org/web/20190119125653/https://www.jstor.org/stable/545356 |date=19 يناير 2019}}</ref>]]